AR 1 Attachment A - Final ISMND_Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project — Pasadena City Council, August 31, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Online ed.

Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. Accessed March 2025. https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/reg_supp/.

USACE. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. Cold Region Research and Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. August 2008.

USACE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, September 2008. Accessed March 2025. https://www.spk.usace .army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/trel08-28.pdf.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1978. Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California. Issued September 1978. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

DUDEK
TO: COURTNEY SEMLOW
SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT IN

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

16537 14
APRIL 2025
USDA. 2025a. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Accessed March 2025. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

USDA. 2025b. Natural Resources Conservation Service PLANTS Database. Accessed March 2025. https://plants.usda.gov/.

USDA. 2025c. Soil Survey Area Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils Rating by Map Unit. Accessed March 2025. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/Hydric%20Soils%20Rating%20by%20Map%20Unit% 205%20class.html.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025a. Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). Accessed March 2025. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

USFWS. 2025b. Wetlands Mapper. Accessed March 2025. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands- inventory/wetlands-mapper.

USFWS. 2025c. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Accessed March 2025. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.

USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey). 2022. Mt. Wilson, California Quadrangle [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5-minute Series.

Washington D.C.

USGS. 2025. National Hydrography and Watershed Boundary Dataset. USGS National Hydrography Products.

Accessed March 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/national-hydrography/about-national-hydrography- products.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Accessed March 2025. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp.

WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2025. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for “Pasadena, California (046719).” Accessed March 2025. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca4647.

DUDEK

Attachment A
Figures

Project Boundary
0 2,0001,000
Feet
n
Date: 10/24/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\BRA\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture BRA.aprx Map: Project Location Layout: Figure 1 Project Location Portrait Buena
Park Brea
PlacentiaLong Beach
Chino
Hills
Bellflower
South
Gate
La Habra
HeightsMaywood
Diamond Bar
Pico Rivera
Culver City
Montclair
Industry
South El Monte
West
Hollywood CovinaAlhambra
Upland
La VerneAzusa
Arcadia GlendoraDuarte
Pasadena
Glendale
San Fernando
Santa Clarita
Redondo
Beach
Burbank
Santa
Monica
Los
Angeles
£¤101
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ134
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ14
ÄÆ118
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ107
ÄÆ126
ÄÆ159
ÄÆ142
ÄÆ187
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ72
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ90
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ2
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
§¨¦710§¨¦10
§¨¦210
§¨¦105
§¨¦605
L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y
Project Site
!(
^
SOURCE: USGS National Map 2025
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Project Location
FIGURE 1
DUDEK
VS3«d
oa ayo^o
0»
0^

WILSON ST

GROVE ST

WOODWARD BLVD
piNe^
LEONARD .

V
OH axoia

BELLWOOD RD
gvdiag^
aa
tn
s-:
3AV snioi N
on 0^
--■KELLY AVt

S BERKELEY AVE
SAFrMARINO AVE

N OAK AVE

S ROOSEVELT AVE
OH W1"*’
»a 0^«
BO 70SVHIH

BRADBURY RD
^^RE ST

BACKUS AVE

S ROSEMEAD BLVD

N HALSTEAD ST
2 o
8 NS AVE
joP3
jOW31
a
o
E Del Mar Blvd
Margaret Dr
San Pasqual St
Northrup Ave
Madre St
Ramona Pl
LaPresaDr
Thorndale Rd
San Juan Pl
SanPaloPl
Grayburn Rd
Yorkshire Rd
Millicent Way
Oneida Dr
Plumosa DrEl Encanto Dr
S Kinneloa Ave
Oneida St
Milton St
Brandon St
1002
1261
1002
1006
Project Boundary
Biological Study Area - 500ft buffer
USDA Soil Type
1002,Urban land-Palmview-Tujunga
complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
1006,Urban land-Soboba complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes
1261,Urban land, frequently flooded, 0 to 5
percent slopes
0 300150
Feet
n
Date: 10/24/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\BRA\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture BRA.aprx Map: Soils Layout: Figure 2 Soils SOURCE: Vantor 2023; Open Street Maps 2019; USDA
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Soils
FIGURE 2
DUDEK .

Colorado St
Huntington Dr
E Corson St
E Del Mar Blvd
Maple St
SanGabrielBlvd
E Orange Grove Blvd
NewYorkDr
SierraMadreVillaAve
SunsetBlvd
La Tierra St
EWashingtonBlvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
NAltadenaDr
S Sunset Blvd
Temple City Blvd
AltadenaDr
Foothill Blvd
RosemeadBlvd
S Michillinda Ave
Frontage Rd
E California Blvd
Duarte Rd
E Walnut St
SanMarinoAve
N Michillinda Ave
San Pasqual St
W Sierra Madre BlvdE Mountain St
E a t o n W a s h
S a n t a A n i t a
W a s h - R i o
H o n d o
A l h a m b r a
W a s h - R i o
H o n d o
§¨210
R i o H o n d o
Project Boundary
Hydrologic Units
Watershed (HUC 10)
Subwatershed (HUC 12)
Flowlines (NHD)
Stream/River
Connector
Pipeline
NWI Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
0 2,0001,000
Feet
n
Date: 10/24/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\BRA\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture BRA.aprx Map: Hydrologic Setting Layout: Figure 3 Hydrologic Setting SOURCE: Bing Aerial Imagery 2021; OpenStreetMaps 2019; NHD; NWI; FEMA Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Hydrologic Setting
FIGURE 3
DUDEK .

Attachment B
Photo Exhibit

ATTACHMENT B / PHOTO EXHIBIT

16537 B-1
APRIL 2025

Photo 1. View of Del Mar Blvd spanning Eaton Wash
in the northern area of the project site.

Photo 2. Eaton Wash on the eastern dirt access road.

View of vegetation mapped as Coast live oak
association (Quercus agrifolia) on the right.

Photo 3. Facing northwest from the central portion of
the project site. View of large trees, including oaks on both sides of the wash. Del Mar Boulevard overpass is
in the distance.

Photo 4. View of open area in the southeastern
portion of the project site. This area appeared to be
actively maintained/mowed.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT B / PHOTO EXHIBIT

16537 B-2
APRIL 2025

Photo 5. View of the nursery operations adjacent to
the east of the project site.

Photo 6. Facing south; view of the nursery operation
adjacent to the east of the project site.

Photo 7. View of the area between the nursery and
Eaton Wash. This area was mapped as disturbed habitat
Photo 8. View from above of a portion of the area
mapped as Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
association, with Eaton Wash in the distance.

NW N I NE E300 330 0 1 30 60 90
G14°N(T) © 34°8'26"N,118°5'2"W ±13ft A 677ft
DUDEK

Attachment C
Species Compendium

ATTACHMENT C / SPECIES COMPENDIUM

16537 C-1
APRIL 2025
Plant Species
Angiosperms (Dicots)
ANACARDIACEAE – SUMAC FAMILY
Rhus integrifolia – lemondade berry
 Schinus terebinthifolia – Peruvian pepper tree
CACTACEAE – CACTUS FAMILY
Opuntia littoralis – coast prickly pear
EUPHORBIACEAE – SPURGE FAMILY
 Ricinus communis – castor bean
FAGACEAE – OAK FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia – coast live oak
Quercus berberidifolia – Inland scrub oak
Quercus engelmannii – Engelmann oak
LAURACEAE – LAUREL FAMILY
Umbellularia californica – California bay
MYRTACEAE – MYRTLE FAMILY
 Eucalyptus camaldulensis – river redgum
PLATANACEAE – PLANE TREE, SYCAMORE FAMILY
Platanus racemosa – California sycamore
RHAMNACEAE – BUCKTHORN FAMILY
Ceanothus velutinus – tobacco brush or snow bush
ROSACEAE – ROSE FAMILY
Cercocarpus betuloides – birch leaf mountain mahogany
Heteromeles arbutifolia – toyon
SIMAROUBACEAE – QUASSIA OR SIMAROUBA FAMILY
 Ailanthus altissima – tree of heaven
ULMACEAE – ELM FAMILY
 Ulmus parvifolia – Chinese elm
DUDEK

ATTACHMENT C / SPECIES COMPENDIUM

16537 C-2
APRIL 2025
Gymnosperms and Gnetophytes
PINACEAE – PINE FAMILY
 Pinus canariensis – Canary Island pine
Monocots
ARECACEAE – PALM FAMILY
 Pheonix canariensis – Canary Island date palm
 Washingtonia robusta – Washington fan palm
Wildlife Species – Vertebrates
Birds
ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS
Buteo jamaicensis – red-tailed hawk
AEGITHALIDAE – LONG -TAILED TITS AND BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus minimus - bushtit
CATHARTIDAE – NEW WORLD VULTURES
Cathartes aura – turkey vulture
COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES
Zenaida macroura – mourning dove
CORVIDAE – JAYS AND CROWS
Corvus brachyrhynchos – American crow
FRINGILLIDAE – FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus – house finch
PARULIDAE – WOOD -WARBLERS
Setophaga coronata – yellow-rumped warbler
PASSERELLIDAE – NEW WORLD SPARROWS
Melozone crissalis – California towhee
PICIDAE – WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES
Colaptes auratus – northern flicker
Melanerpes formicivorus – acorn woodpecker
DUDEK

ATTACHMENT C / SPECIES COMPENDIUM

16537 C-3
APRIL 2025
STURNIDAE – STARLING S
 Sturnus vulgaris – European starling
TYRANNIDAE – TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis nigricans – black phoebe
TROCHILIDAE – HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna – Anna’s hummingbird
 Signifies introduced (non-native) species.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT C / SPECIES COMPENDIUM

16537 C-4
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

Attachment D
Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-1
APRIL 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR)
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/
Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur 1 Anomobryum
julaceum
slender silver
moss
None/None/4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Lower montane
coniferous forest, North Coast coniferous
forest; Roadsides (usually)/moss/N.A./
330–3,280
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat
Aphyllon validum ssp.
validum
Rock Creek
broomrape
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Pinyon and juniper woodland;
Granitic/perennial herb (parasitic)/
May–Sep/3,380–6,560
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
manzanita
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral (rocky)/perennial evergreen
shrub/Mar/1,950–4,920
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Astragalus brauntonii Braunton’s
milk-vetch
FE/None/1B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Burned areas (sometimes),
Carbonate, Disturbed areas (sometimes),
Sandstone (usually)/perennial herb/
Jan–Aug/15–2,100
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii
Davidson’s
saltscale
None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal scrub;
Alkaline/annual herb/Apr–Oct/35–655
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Berberis nevinii Nevin’s
barberry
FE/SE/1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Riparian scrub; Gravelly (sometimes),
Sandy (sometimes)/perennial evergreen
shrub/(Feb)Mar–June/230–2,705
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Calochortus clavatus
var. gracilis
slender
mariposa-lily
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial bulbiferous herb/
Mar–June (Nov)/1,050–3,280
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Calochortus palmeri
var. palmeri
Palmer’s
mariposa-lily
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps; Mesic/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Apr–July/2,330–7,840
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer’s
mariposa-lily
None/None/4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest,
Valley and foothill grassland; Granitic,
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-2
APRIL 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR)
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/
Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur 1 Rocky/perennial bulbiferous herb/
May–July/330–5,580
Calochortus striatus alkali
mariposa-lily
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Chenopod scrub, Meadows and
seeps, Mojavean desert scrub; Alkaline,
Mesic/perennial bulbiferous herb/
Apr–June/230–5,235
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Rocky/perennial bulbiferous
herb/May–July/345–2,805
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Castilleja gleasoni Mt. Gleason
paintbrush
None/SR/1B.2 Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland;
Granitic/perennial herb (hemiparasitic)/
May–June (Sep)/3,805–7,120
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Centromadia parryi
ssp. australis
southern
tarplant
None/None/1B.1 Marshes and swamps (margins), Valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic), Vernal
pools/annual herb/May–Nov/0–1,575
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth
tarplant
None/None/1B.1 Chenopod scrub, Meadows and seeps, Playas, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland; Alkaline/annual herb/Apr–Sep/
0–2,100
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry’s
spineflower
None/None/1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Openings,
Rocky (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/annual herb/Apr–June/
900–4,005
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Cladium californicum California saw-
grass
None/None/2B.2 Marshes and swamps (alkaline, freshwater), Meadows and seeps/perennial rhizomatous
herb/June–Sep/195–5,250
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Claytonia peirsonii
ssp. peirsonii
Peirson’s
spring beauty
None/None/1B.2 Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest; Granitic, Metamorphic,
Scree, Talus/perennial herb/(Mar)May–
June/4,955–9,005
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Cuscuta obtusiflora
var. glandulosa
Peruvian
dodder
None/None/2B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater)/annual
vine (parasitic)/July–Oct/50–920
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-3
APRIL 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR)
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/
Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur 1 Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-
horned
spineflower
FE/SE/1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub (alluvial fans); Sandy/annual herb/
Apr–June/655–2,495
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Dudleya cymosa ssp.
crebrifolia
San Gabriel
River dudleya
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral (granitic)/perennial herb/
Apr–July/900–1,500
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Dudleya densiflora San Gabriel
Mountains
dudleya
None/None/1B.1 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest,
Riparian woodland; Granitic/perennial
herb/Mar–July/800–2,000
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Dudleya multicaulis many-
stemmed
dudleya
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay (often)/perennial herb/
Apr–July/50–2,590
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Galium grande San Gabriel
bedstraw
None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral,
Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest/perennial deciduous
shrub/Jan–July/1,395–4,920
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Helianthus nuttallii
ssp. parishii
Los Angeles
sunflower
None/None/1A Marshes and swamps (freshwater, coastal
salt)/perennial rhizomatous herb/
Aug–Oct/35–5,005
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Hordeum intercedens vernal barley None/None/3.2 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland (depressions, saline flats),
Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–June/
15–3,280
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia None/None/1B.1 Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/perennial herb/Feb–July
(Sep)/230–2,660
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Imperata brevifolia California
satintail
None/None/2B.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps (often alkali), Mojavean desert scrub, Riparian
scrub; Mesic/perennial rhizomatous
herb/Sep–May/0–3,985
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
Coulter’s
goldfields
None/None/1B.1 Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Feb–June/
5–4,005
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-4
APRIL 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR)
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/
Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur 1 Lepidium virginicum
var. robinsonii
Robinson’s
pepper-grass
None/None/4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub/annual herb/
Jan–July/5–2,905
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Lilium parryi lemon lily None/None/1B.2 Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Riparian forest, Upper montane
coniferous forest; Mesic/perennial
bulbiferous herb/July–Aug/4,005–9,005
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Linanthus concinnus San Gabriel
linanthus
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest; Openings,
Rocky/annual herb/Apr–July/4,985–9,185
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Lupinus peirsonii Peirson’s
lupine
None/None/1B.3 Joshua tree "woodland", Lower montane
coniferous forest, Pinyon and juniper
woodland, Upper montane coniferous forest;
Gravelly, Rocky/perennial herb/
Apr–June/3,280–8,205
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Malacothamnus
davidsonii
Davidson’s
bushmallow
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Riparian woodland/perennial
deciduous shrub/June–Jan/605–3,740
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Monardella australis
ssp. gabrielensis
San Gabriel
Mountains
monardella
None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral
(montane), Lower montane coniferous forest;
Granitic, Openings/shrub/July–Sep/
5,250–7,220
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known
elevation range.

Muhlenbergia
californica
California
muhly
None/None/4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps; Mesic,
Seeps, Streambanks/perennial rhizomatous
herb/June–Sep/330–6,560
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Navarretia prostrata prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
None/None/1B.2 Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), Vernal pools;
Mesic/annual herb/Apr–July/10–3,970
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Nemacladus
secundiflorus var.
robbinsii
Robbins’
nemacladus
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland; Openings/annual herb/Apr–June/
1,150–5,580
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Opuntia basilaris var.
brachyclada
short-joint
beavertail
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Joshua tree "woodland", Mojavean desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-5
APRIL 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR)
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/
Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur 1 woodland/perennial stem/Apr–June
(Aug)/1,395–5,905
Oreonana vestita woolly
mountain-
parsley
None/None/1B.3 Lower montane coniferous forest, Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous
forest; Gravelly (sometimes), Talus
(sometimes)/perennial herb/
Mar–Sep/5,300–11,485
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat, and
the project site is outside of the
species’ known elevation range.

Pelazoneuron
puberulum var.
sonorense
Sonoran
maiden fern
None/None/2B.2 Meadows and seeps (seeps,
streams)/perennial rhizomatous herb/
Jan–Sep/165–2,000
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star
phacelia
None/None/1B.1 Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub/annual
herb/Mar–June/5–1,310
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit-
tobacco
None/None/2B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Riparian woodland; Gravelly,
Sandy/perennial herb/(July)Aug–Nov (Dec)/
0–6,890
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Ribes divaricatum
var. parishii
Parish’s
gooseberry
None/None/1A Riparian woodland/perennial deciduous
shrub/Feb–Apr/215–985
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Scutellaria bolanderi
ssp. austromontana
southern
mountains
skullcap
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower
montane coniferous forest; Mesic/perennial
rhizomatous herb/June–Aug/1,395–6,560
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
None/None/2B.2 Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub,
Playas; Alkaline, Mesic/perennial herb/
Mar–June/50–5,020
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San
Bernardino
aster
None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Marshes and
swamps, Meadows and seeps, Valley and
foothill grassland (vernally mesic);
Streambanks/perennial rhizomatous
herb/July–Nov/5–6,695
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-6
APRIL 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR)
Primary Habitat Associations/ Life Form/
Blooming Period/ Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur 1 Symphyotrichum
greatae
Greata’s aster None/None/1B.3 Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Riparian woodland;
Mesic/perennial rhizomatous herb/
June–Oct/985–6,595
Not expected to occur. The study
area lacks suitable habitat.

Status Legend:

Federal Designations
FE Federally listed as Endangered
FT Federally listed as Threatened
State Designations
SE State listed as Endangered
ST State listed as Threatened
SR State Rare
California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR)
CRPR List 1A Plants presumed extinct in California
CRPR List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR List 2A Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere CRPR List 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR List 3 Plants about which more Information is needed - a review list CRPR List 4 Plants of limited distribution - a watch list .1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20% to 80% of occurrences threatened) .3 Not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) 1 Refers to records within the Mt. Wilson, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles (i.e., Condor Peak, Chilao Flat, Waterman Mtn, Pasadena, Azusa, El Monte, Baldwin Park, and Los Angeles)

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-7
APRIL 2025
References
Calflora. 2025. The Calflora Database: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation [web application]. Berkeley, California. Accessed March 2025. https://www.calflora.org/.

CCH (Consortium of California Herbaria). 2025. CCH2 Data Portal: Specimen data from the Consortium of California Herbaria. Accessed March 2025. https://www.cch2.org/portal/index.php.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

RareFind 5.3.0 (Commercial Subscription). Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch.

Accessed March 2025. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2025. Rare Plant Inventory, online ed. Version 9.5.1. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Accessed March 2025. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. iNaturalist. 2025. iNaturalist (Webpage). Available from https://www.inaturalist.org/. Accessed March 2025.

Jepson Flora Project. 2025. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. Accessed March 2025. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT D / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 D-8
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

Attachment E
Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-1
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
Amphibians
Anaxyrus
californicus
arroyo toad FE/SSC Semi-arid areas near washes, sandy
riverbanks, riparian areas, palm oasis, Joshua
tree, mixed chaparral and sagebrush; stream
channels for breeding (typically third order);
adjacent stream terraces and uplands for
foraging and wintering
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present.

Rana boylii
pop. 6
foothill yellow-
legged frog -
south coast
DPS
FE/SE Rocky streams and rivers with open banks in
forest, chaparral, and woodland
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present.

Rana muscosa mountain
yellow-legged
frog
FE/SE, WL Lakes, ponds, meadow streams, isolated
pools, and open riverbanks; rocky canyons in
narrow canyons and in chaparral
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present.

Spea
hammondii
western
spadefoot
FPT/SSC Primarily grassland and vernal pools, but also
in ephemeral wetlands that persist at least 3
weeks in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley–
foothill woodlands, pastures, and other
agriculture
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present.

Taricha torosa California newt None/SSC Wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grassland
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present.

Reptiles
Actinemys
pallida
southwestern
pond turtle
FPT/SSC Slow-moving permanent or intermittent
streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs
with emergent basking sites; adjacent uplands
used for nesting and during winter
Not expected to occur. Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present.

Anniella
stebbinsi
southern
California
legless lizard
None/SSC Coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry
washes, valley–foothill, chaparral, and scrubs;
pine, oak, and riparian woodlands; associated
Not expected to occur. The surrounding
areas have been significantly disturbed
and highly urbanized for many years.

Sparse amounts of habitat are not
DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-2
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
with sparse vegetation and moist sandy or
loose, loamy soils
expected to sustain a viable population of
this species. There are numerous recent
occurrences of this species throughout the
study area, but none in the immediate
vicinity (CDFW 2025a).

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake
None/SSC Arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands,
chaparral, open areas with loose soil
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present.

Aspidoscelis
tigris stejnegeri
coastal whiptail None/SSC Hot and dry areas with sparse foliage, including chaparral, woodland, and riparian
areas.

Not expected to occur. The surrounding
areas have been significantly disturbed
and highly urbanized for many years.

Sparse amounts of habitat are not
expected to sustain a viable population of
this species. The nearest occurrence is

7.0 miles east in the Santa Fe Dam Open
Space (CDFW 2025a).

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Blainville’s
horned lizard
None/SSC Open areas of sandy soil in valleys, foothills, and semi-arid mountains including coastal
scrub, chaparral, valley–foothill hardwood,
conifer, riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and
annual grassland habitats
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat
with sandy soils are not present. The
nearest occurrence is 2.85 miles in the
foothills of Eaton Canyon (CDFW 2025a).

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
None/SSC Streams, creeks, pools, streams with rocky
beds, ponds, lakes, vernal pools
Not expected to occur. Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present.

Thamnophis
sirtalis ssp.
pop. 1
south coast
gartersnake
None/SSC Marsh and upland habitats near permanent
water and riparian vegetation
Not expected to occur. Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present.

Birds
Accipiter
cooperii
(nesting)
Cooper’s hawk None/WL Nests and forages in dense stands of live oak, riparian woodlands, or other woodland
habitats often near water
Moderate potential to nest. Suitable trees
for nesting occur adjacent to the Eaton
Wash, however, the study area is
extremely developed with an active
commercial nursery adjacent to the
woodland habitat. The nearest occurrence
DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-3
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
is 7.0 miles east of the project site (CDFW
2025a).

Athene
cunicularia
(burrow sites
and some
wintering sites)
burrowing owl BCC/SSC, SC Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and agriculture, particularly with ground
squirrel burrows
Not expected to occur. Suitable burrowing
and foraging habitat is not present.

Buteo
swainsoni
(nesting)
Swainson’s
hawk
None/ST Nests in open woodland and savanna,
riparian, and in isolated large trees; forages in
nearby grasslands and agricultural areas such
as wheat and alfalfa fields and pasture
Not expected to nest. Suitable isolated
trees for nesting and foraging habitat
adjacent to nest site are not present.

There are no recent occurrences on this
species in the 9-quad study area (CDFW
2025a).

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
(nesting)
western yellow-
billed cuckoo
FT/SE Nests in dense, wide riparian woodlands and
forest with well-developed understories
Not expected to nest. This species relies
on dense and continuous native habitat
(RHJV 2004), which is not present in the
study area. There are no recent
occurrences of this species in the 9-quad
study area (CDFW 2025a).

Cypseloides
niger (nesting)
black swift BCC/SSC Nests in moist crevices, caves, and cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep
canyons; forages over a wide range of habitats
Not expected nest. Suitable cliff habitat
adjacent to aquatic resources is not
present in the study area.

Empidonax
traillii extimus
(nesting)
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
FE/SE Nests in dense riparian habitats along
streams, reservoirs, or wetlands; uses variety
of riparian and shrubland habitats during
migration
Not expected to nest. This species relies
on dense and continuous areas of native
vegetation (Sogge and Marshall, 2000),
which is not present in the study area.

There are no recent occurrences of this
species in the 9-quad study area (CDFW
2025a).

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-4
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
Falco
peregrinus
anatum
(nesting)
American
peregrine
falcon
FPD/SCD Nests on cliffs, human-made structures
including buildings, and bridges; forages in
wetlands, riparian, meadows, croplands,
especially where waterfowl are present
Not expected to occur. There are not
sufficient and nearby prey resources to
facilitate nesting. There is a 2005
occurrence of this species at an
undisclosed location to the west of the
project site (CDFW 2025a).

Icteria virens
(nesting)
yellow-breasted
chat
None/SSC Nests and forages in dense, relatively wide
riparian woodlands and thickets of willows,
vine tangles, and dense brush
Not expected to nest. This species relies
on riparian and marsh habitat with a
dense understory, (RHJV 2004), which is
not present in the study area. The nearest
occurrence is 7.0 miles east of the project
site (CDFW 2025a).

Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
FT/SSC Nests and forages in various sage scrub
communities, often dominated by California
sagebrush and buckwheat; generally avoids
nesting in areas with a slope of greater than
40%; majority of nesting at less than 1,000
feet above mean sea level
Not expected to occur. This species
prefers open sage scrub and sage scrub-
chapparal habitat (Mock 2004) which is
not present in the study area. The nearest
recent occurrence for this species is from
2010 and is 7.8 miles east in the San
Gabriel River (CDFW 2025a).

Riparia riparia
(nesting)
bank swallow None/ST Nests in riparian, lacustrine, and coastal areas with vertical banks, bluffs, and cliffs with
sandy soils; open country and water during
migration
Not expected to nest. This species
requires vertical banks with fine soils
(Garrison 1998) for nesting, which are not
present. There are no recent occurrences
of this species (CDFW 2025a).

Setophaga
petechia
(nesting)
yellow warbler None/SSC Nests and forages in riparian and oak woodlands, montane chaparral, open
ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer habitats
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present. The nearest occurrence of
this species is 12 miles northwest of the
project site, in the Angeles National Forest
(CDFW 2025a).

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-5
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
Vireo bellii
pusillus
(nesting)
least Bell’s
vireo
FE/SE Nests and forages in Riparian plant
associations in close proximity to water;
Frequently found nesting and foraging in
willow shrubs and thickets, and in other
riparian plants including cottonwoods,
sycamores, ash, and alders
Not expected to nest. Suitable riparian
habitat with low and dense vegetation is
not present. There are 2013 occurrences

4.8 miles southeast of the project site
(CDFW 2025a)
Fishes
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker
FT/SSC Small, shallow, cool, clear streams less than 7
meters (23 feet) in width and a few
centimeters to more than a meter (1.5 inches
to more than 3 feet) in depth; substrates are
generally coarse gravel, rubble, and boulder
Not expected to occur. Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present and there is no fish
passage from the project site to the upper
reaches of Eaton Canyon.

Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None/SSC Warm, fluctuating streams with slow-moving or backwater sections of warm to cool streams at
depths >40 centimeters (16 inches);
substrates of sand or mud
Not expected to occur. Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present and there is no fish
passage from the project site to the upper
reaches of Eaton Canyon.

Rhinichthys
gabrielino
Santa Ana
speckled dace
FPT/SSC Headwaters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel
Rivers; may be extirpated from the Los
Angeles River system
Not expected to occur. Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present and there is no fish
passage from the project site to the upper
reaches of Eaton Canyon.

Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus
pallid bat None/SSC Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests; most common in open, dry habitats with rocky
outcrops for roosting, but also roosts in man-
made structures and trees
Not expected to occur. Some nesting
habitat is present, however this species is
relatively sensitive to urban disturbance
due to its group nesting habits (WBWG
2017). Therefore, this species is not
expected to use the project site due to the
lack of nesting and foraging habitat. There
are no recent occurrences of this species
in the study area (CDFW 2025a).

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-6
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s
big-eared bat
None/SSC Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous
and deciduous forests and riparian habitat,
but also xeric areas; roosts in limestone caves
and lava tubes, man-made structures, and
tunnels
Not expected to occur. This species is
sensitive to urban disturbance and prefers
moist riparian habitat (Miner and Stokes
2005; WBWG 2017) that is not present in
the study area. The nearest occurrence is

4.8 miles northeast near the Santa Anita
Dam (CDFW 2025a).

Dasypterus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat
None/SSC Valley–foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats; below 2,000
feet above mean sea level; roosts in riparian
and palms
Low potential to occur. There are a
number of palm trees that could support
roosting; however, foraging and overall
habitat is poor. There are no recent
occurrences of this species in the study
area (CDFW 2025a).

Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat
None/SSC Chaparral, coastal and desert scrub,
coniferous and deciduous forest and
woodland; roosts in crevices in rocky canyons
and cliffs where the canyon or cliff is vertical
or nearly vertical, trees, and tunnels
Low potential to occur. The Del Mar Blvd
overpass over Eaton Wash could provide
roosting habitat and Eaton Wash could
provide foraging opportunities. However,
occurrence will likely be in the early
evening and at night. There are no recent
occurrences of this species in the study
area (CDFW 2025a).

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-
tailed bat
None/SSC Pinyon–juniper woodlands, desert scrub,
desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert
wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and
palm oases; roosts in high cliffs or rock
outcrops with drop-offs, caverns, and buildings
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present. There are not recent
occurrences of this species in the study
area (CDFW 2025a).

Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat
None/SSC Rocky areas; roosts in caves, holes in trees,
buildings, and crevices on cliffs and rocky
outcrops; forages over water
Not expected to occur. Suitable roosting
habitat is not present. There are no recent
occurrences of this species in the study
area (CDFW 2025a).

Onychomys
torridus
ramona
southern
grasshopper
mouse
None/SSC Grassland and sparse coastal scrub Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is not present.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-7
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
Ovis
canadensis
nelsoni
Nelson’s
bighorn sheep
None/FP Steep slopes and cliffs, rough and rocky
topography, sparse vegetation; also canyons,
washes, and alluvial fans
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat is
not present in the study area.

Puma concolor mountain lion –
Southern
California/
Central Coast
ESU
None/SC Scrubs, chaparral, riparian, woodland, and
forest; rests in rocky areas and on cliffs and
ledges that provide cover; most abundant in
riparian areas and brushy stages of most
habitats throughout California, except deserts
Not expected to occur. Suitable habitat
and migration corridors do not occur in the
study area.

Taxidea taxus American
badger
None/SSC Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal scrub, agriculture, and pastures, especially
with friable soils
Not expected to occur. Suitable burrowing
and foraging habitat not present in the
study area.

Lasiurus
frantzii
western red bat None/SSC Forest, woodland, riparian, mesquite bosque, and orchards, including fig, apricot, peach,
pear, almond, walnut, and orange; roosts in
tree canopy
Low potential to occur. Larger trees could
support roosting; however, roosting and
foraging habitat is marginal. There is one
recent occurrence of this species 4.8
miles northeast near the Santa Anita Dam
(CDFW 2025a).

Invertebrates
Bombus
crotchii
Crotch’s
bumble bee
None/SCE Open grassland and scrub communities
supporting suitable floral resources.

Low potential to occur as a transient.

Open areas within the project site, that
could support suitable floral resources,
are actively used/maintained and are
unlikely to provide foraging for this
species. The adjacent commercial nursery
appeared to only have potted trees and
other ornamentals, and not native
flowering plants. However, there are
numerous occurrences of this species in
the vicinity with the nearest being 1.6
miles east (CDFW 2025a), and transitory
individuals may occur in the project site
but are not expected to be impacted by
the project.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-8
APRIL 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur 1
Danaus
plexippus
plexippus pop.
1 Monarch
butterfly –
California
overwintering
population
FC/None Wind-protected tree groves with nectar
sources and nearby water sources

Not expected to occur. Tree groves on-site
are not considerable in density and
acreage and will likely not provide
adequate wind-protected refuge. There
are no records of this species in the study
area (CDFW 2025a).

Status Abbreviations
BCC: Bird of Conservation Concern (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
FC: Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) FPD: Federally proposed for delisting
SE: State listed as endangered
ST: State listed as threatened
SCD: State candidate for delisting
CSE: Candidate for State Endangered
CST: Candidate for State Threatened
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
FP: California Fully Protected Species
1 Refers to records within the Mt. Wilson, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles (i.e., Condor Peak, Chilao Flat, Waterman Mtn, Pasadena, Azusa, El Monte, Baldwin Park, and Los Angeles) DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-9
APRIL 2025
References
Allen, L.W., Garrett, K.L. and M.C. Wimer. 2016. Los Angeles County Breeding Bird Atlas. Los Angeles, Calif.: Los Angeles Audubon Society.

Bunnell, S. T., White, C. M., Paul, D., and Bunnell, S. D. (1997). Stick nests on a building and transmission towers used for nesting by large falcons in Utah. The Great Basin Naturalist, 263-267.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025a. RareFind, Version 5.2.14. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Accessed March 2025. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx.

CDFW. 2025b. CWHR Life History Accounts and Range Maps. Website. Updated versions of species information in Zeiner et al. 1988–1990. CDFW, CWHR Program. Accessed March 2025. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range.

Delaney, K., Busteed, G., Fisher, R. and S. Riley. 2021. Reptile and Amphibian Diversity and Abundance in an Urban Landscape: Impacts of Fragmentation and the Conservation Value of Small Patches. Ichthyology & Herpetology. 109. 10.1643/h2019261.
eBird. 2025. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Accessed March 2025. http://www.ebird.org.

Garrison, B.A. 1998. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. https://partnersinflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/riparian_v-2.pdf.

Gruver, J.C., and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed March 2025. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181908.pdf.

Miner, K.L., and D.C. Stokes. 2005. “Bats in the South Coast Ecoregion: Status, Conservation Issues, and Research Needs.” USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195:211-277.

Mock, P.J. 2004. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). In The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coastal scrub and chaparral habitats and associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Accessed March 2025. https://partnersinflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/scrub.v-2.pdf.

Nafis, G. 2025. California Herps - A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Accessed January 2025. http://www.californiaherps.com/
PISCES. 2014. PISCES Range Data. California Fish Data and Management Software. Center for Watershed Sciences. University of California, Davis. Accessed March 2025. https://pisces.ucdavis.edu/fish.

RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2004. Version 2.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Accessed March 2025. https://partnersinflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/riparian_v-2.pdf.

DUDEK

ATTACHMENT E / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR

16537 E-10
APRIL 2025
Sogge, M., and R. Marshall. 2000, Chapter 5: A survey of current breeding habitats, in Finch, D.M., and Stoleson, S.H., eds., Status, ecology, and conservation of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Accessed March 2025. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr060.pdf.

The Xerces Society. 2018. A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini), Suckley cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Submitted by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food Safety. October 2019. Accessed March 2025. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=161902&inline.

WBWG (Western Bat Working Group). 2017. “Species Accounts.”. Accessed March 2025. https://www.sccp.ca/sites/default/files/species-habitat/documents/western%20bat%20working% 20group%20species%20accounts.pdf.

Williams, J., O'Farrell, M., Riddle, B. 2006. Habitat Use by Bats in a Riparian Corridor of the Mojave Desert in Southern Nevada, Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 87, Issue 6, 29 December 2006, Pages 1145–1153.

DUDEK

Appendix C
Aquatic Resources Jurisdictional Delineation Report

DRAFT

Aquatic Resources Jurisdictional
Delineation Report
Eaton Wash Stormwater
Capture Project
APRIL 2025
Prepared for:

CRAFTWATER ENGINEERING INC.

Contact: Courtney Semlow, Director of Civil Design
Prepared by:

225 South Lake Avenue, Suite M210
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Michael Cady

DUDEK
DUDEK.COM
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

16537 i
APRIL 2025
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Disclaimer Statement ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Contact Information ............................................................................................................................... 1 2 Review Area Description and Landscape Setting .............................................................................................. 3

2.1 Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Watershed ............................................................................................................................................... 6 3 Investigation Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................................................................ 7

3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................................................................... 8

3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ........................................................................................... 8 4 Aquatic Resource Narrative ................................................................................................................................. 9

4.1 Potential Waters of the United States (USACE) ................................................................................. 10

4.2 Potential Waters of the United States/State (RWQCB) ..................................................................... 10

4.3 Potential CDFW Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................ 10 5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 6 Reference .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 TABLES
1 Contact Information ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Review Area ............................................................... 4 3 USACE Aquatic Resource Summary for the Review Area ............................................................................... 10 4 RWQCB Aquatic Resource Summary for the Review Area .............................................................................. 10 5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Summary for the Review Area ................................................... 10

APPENDICES
A Figures
B Photo Exhibit
C OHWM Data Forms

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 ii
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 iii
APRIL 2025
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
ARDR Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CWA Clean Water Act
OHWM ordinary high-water mark
project Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 iv
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 1
APRIL 2025
1 Introduction
This Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (ARDR) was prepared in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports ( USACE 2017). This ARDR and supporting appendices provide the 20 items listed in the Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports.

This ARDR presents the results of the jurisdictional aquatic resource delineation conducted by Dudek for the Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project (project) located in Pasadena, California. The delineation was conducted to identify and map existing aquatic resources potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA ) (33 USC 1344), waters of the state potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to CWA Section 401 and the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and stream and riparian habitats potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (collectively defined as jurisdictional aquatic resources).

1.1 Disclaimer Statement
This ARDR presents Dudek’s best effort to quantify the extent of aquatic resources potentially regulated by USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW (i.e., regulatory agencies) within the identified review area using the current regulations, written policies, and guidance from these regulatory agencies. The potential jurisdictional boundaries described in this ARDR are subject to verification by the regulatory agencies. Only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination on whether the features present are subject to USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW regulation. A request for USACE Jurisdictional Determination is not provided at this time; this ARDR is purely informational.1

1.2 Contact Information
Contact information for the project applicant and agent are provided in Table 1.2 The City of Pasadena is the project applicant. Access to portions of the review area are limited, so if a site visit is requested, the project applicant or agent will accompany regulatory staff to the review area.3 Table 1. Contact Information
Project Applicant City of Pasadena Agent Dudek
Contact Name Dawn Petschauer Contact Name Michael Cady
Phone 626.744.3929 Phone 626.314.0101
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

1 Minimum Standards Item 1 (Request for Jurisdictional Determination) 2 Minimum Standards Item 2 (Contact Information)
3 Minimum Standards Item 3 (Site Access Statement)
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 2
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DUDEK

16537 3
APRIL 2025
2 Review Area Description and
Landscape Setting
The review area is defined as the 59-acre area surrounding the Eaton Wash at Del Mar B oulevard. The approximately 4-acre project site is in southeastern Pasadena (Appendix A – Figures: Figure 1, Project Location; all figures are provided in Appendix A ). The review area is bordered by San Pasqual Street to the south and Madre Street to the east, and is bisected by Del Mar Boulevard. The review area is composed of three parcels: Assessor’s Parcel Number 5754-031-901 west of the Eaton Wash within Eaton Blanche Park, Assessor’s Parcel Number 5754- 030-901 covering both sides of Eaton Wash, and Assessor’s Parcel Number 5754-037-900 in the southern extent of the project site (County of Los Angeles 2025). The review area is on the U.S. Geologic Survey’s Mount Wilson, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS 2015).

The review area is within a suburban residential neighborhood typical of Pasadena. Residential development began in the early 1960s and continued steadily until the 1980s, and has remained little changed since (NETR 2025).

Residential housing tracts are prevalent throughout the area surrounding the project site, along with a community park, a middle school, and business tracts to the north. Based on historic aerial imagery (NETR 2025), the review area has remained relatively unchanged since at least 1952, w ith a gradual increase in development of the surrounding residential tracts. The vegetation and landscaping are typical of residential and business areas.

Additionally, a transmission line right-of-way follows alongside Eaton Wash immediately to the east, where the right- of-way is being used as a commercial nursery (Google Earth 2025). The nearest undeveloped space is approximately 3 miles north in the San Gabriel Mountains.

The review area is relatively flat and has been used and maintained for agriculture, flood control, and residential development for more than 75 years (NETR 2025). Eaton Canyon Reservoir and Dam, used for flood and debris control and located upstream of the review area, were constructed in 1936 and are controlled by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DWR 2023). Elevations within the review area range from 656 feet above mean sea level in the northern boundary to 621 above mean sea level on the southern boundary (Google Earth 2025).

2.1 Soils
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025a), three soil map unit types are within the review area: Palmview, 0% to 5% slopes; Tujunga, 0% to 5% slopes; and Soboba, 0% to 5% slopes.4 All soil types occur within the undeveloped portion of the project site (Appendix A – Figures: Figure 2, Soils). None of these soil map units are included in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service hydric soils list (USDA 2025b). Following are the soil descriptions (USDA 1978):
▪ Palmview Series. This soil series is characterized by very deep, well -drained soils that formed in alluvium on alluvial fans and floodplains. These soils consist of coarse -loamy and mixed material.

Typical vegetation includes annual grasses and forbs. This soil series exhibits very low runoff and is used for urban residentia l and commercial development, and, as a result, ornamental plants and turn - grass common ly occur on this soil.

4 Minimum Standards Item 13 (Soil Descriptions)
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 4
APRIL 2025
▪ Tujunga Series. This soil series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium on alluvial fans and floodplains. These soils consist of mixed sources. Vegetation is primarily made up of shrubs, annual grasses, and forbs, but also includes ornamentals and turfgrass in developed areas.

This soil unit exhibits efficient drainage with low runoff and is used for urban and commercial development. ▪ Soboba Series. This soil type is composed of deep and excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium on alluvial fans and floodplains. These soils are comp osed of a sandy-skeletal mixture and exhibit very slow runoff and rapid permeability. Vegetation is primarily made up of annual grasses, forbs, and chapparal shrubs, and is used mostly for pasture.

2.2 Vegetation
The review area is a mixed-use area that supports a storm channel, residential housing, and other structures with their associated roadways , a park, a transmission line and its right -of-way, and a commercial nursery . One vegetation community and three land cover types were identified in the review area during the survey: coast live oak woodland and forest ( Quercus agrifolia association), Urban/Developed Land, Ornamental Plantings, and Disturbed Habitat. These vegetation communities and land cover types are described below. Their acreages are provided in Table 2 and their spatial distributions are presented in Appendix A – Figures: Figure 4, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types. Representative photos of the review area are provided in Appendix B, Photo Exhibit.

Table 2. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in the Review Area Vegetation Community/
Land Cover Type Alliance Association
Acreage
within the
Project Site
Acreage within the
Study Area
(Project Site plus
500-Foot Buffer)
Coast Live Oak Woodland
and Forest
Quercus agrifolia forest
and woodland alliance 1
Quercus
agrifolia

0.46 0.53
Urban/Developed N/A N/A 0.28 45.59
Ornamental Plantings N/A N/A 0.17 7.27
Disturbed Habitat N/A N/A 3.02 5.10
Totals2 3.93 58.50
Notes:

N/A = not applicable.
1 Semi-natural alliances do not have conservation status rankings and are not considered sensitive. 2 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Coast Live Oak Woodland and Forest
Coast live oak woodland and forest ( Quercus agrifolia forest and woodland alliance) includes coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) as the dominant species or co -dominant in the upland tree canopy with bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii ), California black walnut (Juglans californica), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). The shrub layer is sparse to intermittent, and the herbaceous layer is sparse or grassy (CNPS 2025). The coast live oak woodland and forest vegetation community within the review area is dominated by coast live oak and was therefore mapped as the Quercus agrifolia DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 5
APRIL 2025
association. The coast live oak woodland and forest is ranked by CDFW (2025) as S4 and G5, which indicates that there is no threat rank, and this alliance is generally secure in California, although coast live oak does fall under the City of Pasadena’s Tree Protection Ordinance (City of Pasadena 2010).

Urban/Developed Land
Although not recognized by the Manual of California Vegetation (CNPS 2025) or the CDFW California Natural Community List (CDFW 202 5), the urban/developed land cover type is described in Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008). According to Oberbauer et al. (2008), urban/developed land represents areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physic ally altered to an extent that native vegetation communities are not supported. This land cover type generally includes permanent or semi -permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, landscaped areas, and areas with a large accumulation of debris or other materials (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Typically, this land cover type is unvegetated or only supports a variety of ornamental plants and landscaping. Paved rights-of-way, residential properties, the middle school, and the community park were mapped as urban/developed land within the review area.

This land cover type is primarily found on the eastern side of the project site and includes the Eaton Wash channel and the adjacent dirt access road.

Ornamental Plantings
Although not recognized by the Manual of California Vegetation (CNPS 2025) or the CDFW California Natural Community List (CDFW 2025), the parks and ornamental plantings (or ornamental vegetation) land cover type is described in Methods Used to Survey the Vegetation of Orange County Parks and Open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Property (Jones and Stokes 1993). This mapping unit is described as vegetation composed of non-native trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf grass introduced for landscaping purposes. This mapping unit type typically occurs in greenbelts, parks, and horticultural plantings (Jones and Stokes 1993). Ornamental plantings were mapped where non-native ornamental plant species were present at a cover of 75% or higher and did not occur in an assemblage described in the California Natural Community List. This land cover type was found on the west slope adjacent to Eaton Wash and the transmission line right-of-way where the commercial nursery is operating (Appendix A – Figures: Figure 4, Vegetation Communities and Land Covers).

Disturbed Habitat
Although not recognized by the Manual of California Vegetation , Online Edition (CNPS 2025), or the Natural Community List (CDFW 2025), disturbed habitat is described in the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Disturbed habitat is described as areas generally lacking vegetation due to high levels of existing or historical human disturbance and no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association. Areas mapped as disturbed habitat may include unpaved roads, trails, and graded areas. Vegetation in these areas, if present at all, is usually sparse and dominated by non -native weedy herbaceous species (Oberbauer et al. 2008). Disturbed habitat consists of unpaved roads and areas where vehicles have regularly gone off-road.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 6
APRIL 2025

2.3 Watershed
The review area occurs within the Eaton Wash subwatershed (U.S. Geologic Survey Hydrological Unit Code 12:
180701050301) of the Rio Hondo Watershed (Hydrological Unit Code 1807010503) (USGS 2025). In Appendix A – Figures: Figure 4, Hydrologic Setting, depicts the watersheds under review. The review area does not occur within any RWCQB designated Areas of Special Biological Significance , and does not fall under any special plans other than the general policies applying to all waters of the state (RWCQB 1994). The Rio Hondo watershed is approximately 142 square miles and flows into the largest watershed in the region, the Los Angeles River watershed. Several spreading ground areas are used within the Rio Hondo watershed to feed the Raymond Basin Aquifer. The mostly channelized river is impounded and flows over natural ground at Whittier Narrows Recreat ion Area/Flood Control Basin (USACE 2022). Eaton Wash flows for approximately 5.6 miles before entering the Rio Hondo approximately 3.5 miles upstream of Whittier Narrows. Pollutants associated with urban development are found in the Rio Hondo, including trash and metals (RWCQB 1994).

DUDEK

16537 7
APRIL 2025
3 Investigation Methods
The following available resources were reviewed to assess the potential for jurisdictional waters: aerial photographs (Google Earth 2025), the National Hydrography Dataset and Watershed Boundary Dataset (USGS 202 5), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025). A preliminary survey and jurisdictional delineation were conducted by Dudek biologist s Eilleen Salas and Ryan Stanley on February 11, 2025. Wetland delineation methodologies for each agency are summarized in the subsections below.5

3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE wetlands delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008a). A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual ( USACE 2008b) was used to determine the limits of non-wetland waters. Non-wetland waters were delineated with Esri Collector on a mobile device. The widths of each non-wetland water were determined in the field according to the OHWM manual. Wetland Determination Forms were not taken during the delineation because no areas of hydrophytic vegetation were observed. USACE OHWM data forms were completed at representative cross-sections of non-wetland waters to capture their characteristics and widths. All data forms can be found in Appendix C.

The following information provides detail on how USACE implements CWA Section 404. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Under CWA Section 404, USACE has the authority to regulate activities that could discharge fill or dredge material or otherwise adversely modify wetlands or other waters of the United States. USACE implements the federal policy embodied in Executive Order 11990, which, when implemented, is intended to result in no net loss of wetland values or function.

On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) (121 S. Ct. 675) that held that the language of the CWA cannot be interpreted as conferring authority for the federal government to regulate “isolated, intrastate, and non -navigable waters” merely because migratory birds may frequent them. The Court emphasized the states’ responsibility for regulating such waters. In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued joint guidance regarding USACE’s jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the CWA. The guidance summarizes the Supreme Court’s findings and provides how and when USACE should apply the “significant nexus” test in its jurisdictional determinations. This test determines whether a waterway is substantially connected to a traditional navigable wa ter tributary and thus falls within USACE’s jurisdict ion. The guidance provides the factors and summarizes the significant nexus test as an assessment of “the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters.” Flow characteristics include the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow. Additionally, ecological factors should be included, such as th e shared hydrological and biological characteristics between a tributary and an adjacent wetland (USACE and EPA 2008).

5 Minimum Standards Item 8 (Dates of Field Work), Item 5 (Use of 1987 Manual, Regional Supplement, and OHWM guide), Item 12 (Statement Regarding Use of Remote Sensing), Item 18 (Data Forms) and Item 19 (Methods) DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 8
APRIL 2025
The Clean Water Rule was issued in 2015 to clarify water resource management. The regulation defined the scope of federal water protection in a more consistent manner, particularly over streams and wetlands that have a significant hydrological and ecological connection to traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, and territorial seas. It is also referred to as the Waters of the United States Rule, which defines all bodies of water that fall under U.S. federal jurisdiction. The Clean Water Rule was repealed on September 12, 2019. On January 23, 2020, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which establishes a new definition of “waters of the United States” under the CWA. The Environmental Protection Agency and USACE (the agencies) are in receipt of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona’s August 30 , 2021, order vacating and remanding the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the case of Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Considering this order, the agencies have halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule and are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further notice.

3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
Waters of the state regulated by the RWQCB were mapped in accordance with the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021). As described in these procedures, wetland waters of the state are mapped based on the procedures in USACE’s 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and its 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008a). Non-wetland waters are mapped at the OHWM based on the procedures defined in USACE’s 2008 A Field Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b).

3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW jurisdictional areas were mapped to include the bank of the stream/channel and outer dripline of adjacent riparian vegetation, as set forth under California Fish and Game Code Section 1602. Streambeds under the jurisdiction of CDFW were delineated using the Cowardin method of waters classification, which defines waters boundaries by a single parameter (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology) (Cowardin et al. 1979).

DUDEK

16537 9
APRIL 2025
4 Aquatic Resource Narrative
This chapter describes the aquatic resources found in the review area. 6 One feature was identified in the review area: Feature 1. Representative photos of the features are provided as Appendix B.

Feature 1
Feature 1 is a concrete channel, known as Eaton Wash, that runs north to south through the review area. It has been classified as a riverine system with a streambed that supports temporary flooding within an excavated channel (R4SBAx) (USFWS 2025).

Water in Feature 1 enters the review area approximately 470 feet north of Del Mar Boulevard via an entirely cement channel flowing from Eaton Canyon Reservoir, located 1.9 miles upstream of the review area. This channel conveys water from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and specifically Eaton Canyon. Water was present in the feature during the February 11, 2025 , site visit by Dudek biologists. Water is conveyed quickly and efficiently through the channel, and it is assumed that water present duri ng the site visit was a combination of storm runoff (a precipitation event occurred on February 7, 2025, that resulted in 1.80 inches of rain [NOAA 2025]) and runoff from human activities (i.e., irrigation and maintenance) from the non -pervious, urbanized area upstream that provides a persistent influx of water into Feature 1. Water leaves the review area near San Pasqual Street, flowing entirely within a concrete channel approximately 5.6 miles before entering the Rio Hondo from the right. The Rio Hondo is mostly channelized, flowing for approximately 12.5 miles before entering the Los Angeles River (Google Earth 2025).

Feature 1 is an entirely concrete channel that lacks hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. This drainage feature travels for 0.42 miles within the review area. The OHWM was identified as the area consistent with the bottom of the approximately 25-foot-wide channel, and the top of bank was identified as the area consistent with the top of the concrete channel, approximately 12 feet in elevation from the bottom of the channel . OHWM data forms are provided as Appendix C.

A maintained dirt access road is immediately adjacent on both sides of the channel, and the surrounding vegetation primarily consists of ornamental trees that include pines ( Pinus spp.), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), palms (Washingtonia spp.; Pheonix spp.), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), California bay, and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), along with a small area of coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia). The remaining areas are sparsely vegetated , disturbed habitat containing a mixture of native plants —including scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), coast prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), tobacco brush (Ceanothus velutinus), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and birch leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides)—and non-native plants, including tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), and castor bean (Ricinus communis).

6 Minimum Standards Item 6 (Aquatic Resource Narrative) DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 10
APRIL 2025

4.1 Potential Waters of the United States (USACE)
Table 3 summarizes the potential waters of the U nited States in the review area that may be regulated by USACE under CWA Section 404.7 In Appendix A – Figures: Figure 5, Aquatic Resources, depicts the limits of these features.

Table 3. USACE Aquatic Resource Summary for the Review Area Feature Cowardin1 OHWM Indicators Location Acres
1 R4SBAx BBS CVS, CVC, OW 34.82801°, - 118.5404° 1.51
Notes:

USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; OHWM = ordinary high-water mark; BBS = break in bank slope; CVS = change in vegetation species; CVC = change in vegetation cover; OW = open water 1 Pursuant to Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979)

4.2 Potential Waters of the United States/State (RWQCB) Feature 1 has also been identified as a potential wetland and non-wetland water of the United States regulated by the RWQCB under CWA Section 401. Table 4 summarizes the potential waters of the U nited States in the review area that may be regulated by the RWQCB.8 Figure 5, Aquatic Resources depicts the limits of these features.

Table 4. RWQCB Aquatic Resource Summary for the Review Area Feature Cowardin1 OHWM Indicators Location Acres
1 R4SBAx BBS, CVS, CVC, OW 34.82801°, - 118.5404° 1.51
Notes:

RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board ; OHWM = ordinary high-water mark; BBS = break in bank slope; CVS = change in vegetation species; CVC = change in vegetation cover; OW = open water 1 Pursuant to Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979)

4.3 Potential CDFW Jurisdiction
The features described in Table 4 have also been identified as potential streams regulated by CDFW under California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1616. Table 5 summarizes the streams in the review area that may be regulated by CDFW.9 Figure 5, Aquatic Resources depicts the limits of these features.

Table 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Summary for the Review Area Feature Type Total Acres
1 Stream 1.51

7 Minimum Standards Item 9 (Table Listing All Aquatic Resources) 8 Minimum Standards Item 9 (Table Listing All Aquatic Resources) 9 Minimum Standards Item 9 (Table Listing All Aquatic Resources) DUDEK

16537 11
APRIL 2025
5 Conclusions
Feature 1 has a definable OHWM throughout its length within the review area and contains relatively permanent waters. Based on the jurisdictional delineation and review of relevant information provided in this ARDR, 1.51 acres of non-wetland waters are found to be potentially regulated by USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW in the review area.

Impacts to this feature will require permits from all agencies prior to any project activities. However, only the regulatory agencies have authority to determine jurisdiction. Therefore, th is ARDR may be used by the regulatory agencies for the issuance of permits or letters for the project.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 12
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DUDEK

16537 13
APRIL 2025
6 Reference
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025. California Natural Community List. February 27, 2025. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline.

City of Pasadena. 2010. “Municipal Code: Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance.” Accessed March 2025. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/ TPO_2-Pasadena-Tree-Ordinance-Municipal-Code-8.52.pdf.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2025. A Manual of California Vegetation Online. Accessed March 2025. https://vegetation.cnps.org.

County of Los Angeles. 2025. Los Angeles County Assessor Portal. Accessed March 2025. https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979.

Reprinted 1992. Accessed March 2025. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/ classification-of-wetlands-and-deepwater-habitats-of-the-united-states.pdf.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2023. Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California.

Accessed March 2025. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/ Division-of-Safety-of-Dams/Files/Publications/DAMS-WITHIN-JURISDICTION-OF-THE-STATE-OF- CALIFORNIA-LISTED-ALPHABETICALLY-BY-COUNTY-SEPTEMBER-2023.pdf.

Google Earth. 2025. Google Earth, desktop application; centered on the review area. Accessed March 2025. https://www.google.com/earth/.

Jones and Stokes. 1993. Methods Used to Survey the Vegetation of Orange County Parks and Open Space Areas and The Irvine Company Property. Prepared for the County of Orange. February 10, 1993.

NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2025. Historic Aerials, online viewer. Accessed March 2025. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2025. Applied Climate Information System for the Los Angeles 2.6 NW Station [internet application]. Accessed February 2025. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/ ?fips=06037.

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986.

RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region). 1994. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Accessed March 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.html.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 14
APRIL 2025
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019; revised April 6, 2021. Accessed March 2025. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press _room/press_releases/2021/procedures.pdf.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Online ed.

Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. Accessed March 2025. http://www.cpe.rutgers.edu/Wetlands/1987-Army-Corps-Wetlands-Delineation-Manual.pdf.

USACE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008. Accessed March 2025. https://www.nrcs.usda .gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046489.pdf.

USACE. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Prepared by R.W.

Lichvar and S.M. McColley. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. August 2008. Accessed March 2025. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a486603.pdf.

USACE. 2017. Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. March 16, 2017. Accessed March 2025. https://www.spl.ACOE.army.mil/ Portals/17/Users/251/43/2043/Final%20Delin%20report%20standards%203-16-2017.pdf?ver=2017- 03-16-170513-523.

USACE. 2022. “TNWs & Navigable Waters in Los Angeles District.” Accessed March 2025. https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdictional-Determination/ Navigable-Waterways/.

USACE and EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. “Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S.

Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States.” December 2, 2008.

March 2025. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_12_3_wetlands_CWA _Jurisdiction_Following_Rapanos120208.pdf.

USDA. 2025a. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed March 2025. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

USDA. 2025b. State Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List, California [online database]. Accessed March 2025. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 15
APRIL 2025
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed March 2025. http://www.fws.gov/data. https://www.usgs.gov/national-hydrography.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2015. Mount Wilson, California Quadrangle [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5-minute Series.

Washington D.C.

USGS. 2025. National Hydrography Dataset and Watershed Boundary Dataset. Accessed March 2025. https://www.usgs.gov/national-hydrography.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES JURISDICTIONAL

DELINEATION REPORT

16537 16
APRIL 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DUDEK

Appendix A
Figures

Project Boundary
0 2,0001,000
Feet
n
Date: 10/30/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\ARDR\Easton Wash ARDR.aprx Map: Figure 1 Project Location Portrait Layout: Figure 1 Project Location Portrait Buena
Park Brea
PlacentiaLong Beach
Chino
Hills
Bellflower
South
Gate
La Habra
HeightsMaywood
Diamond Bar
Pico Rivera
Culver City
Montclair
Industry
South El Monte
West
Hollywood CovinaAlhambra
Upland
La VerneAzusa
Arcadia GlendoraDuarte
Pasadena
Glendale
San Fernando
Santa Clarita
Redondo
Beach
Burbank
Santa
Monica
Los
Angeles
£¤101
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ134
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ14
ÄÆ118
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ91
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ107
ÄÆ126
ÄÆ159
ÄÆ142
ÄÆ187
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ71
ÄÆ72
ÄÆ2
ÄÆ90
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ2
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
§¨¦710§¨¦10
§¨¦210
§¨¦105
§¨¦605
L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y
Project Site
!(
^
SOURCE: USGS National Map 2025
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Project Location
FIGURE 1
rFWY
[E FOOTHILL BLVD
hapman
RD

GREENHILL RD

MAYFAIR DR

SEARS WAY
^faderd
Ne^ haven rd

CANFIELD RD
^NDFAIR RD
Gr°V£ rd
Sierra Madre Cit
sing/ngwood^

HAMPTON /
^F/VLEAF R°

ESTADO ST

SYCAMORE AVE
San Pasqual

HOMET RD
Y RD
dua^b0 T
lero*sT
E ARCAO'* AVE
g GR -ENWOOD AVE

PORTOLA DR

E SIERRA MADRE BLVD

PRIMAVERA ST

MILTON ST
East Pasadena

ROBLES WE
oOC4/VT£RBURy
°Q SHAKEip^
San
Gabriel

COLORADO ST
o

RIDA ST

ONEIDA ST

E GREEN ST
^A/UTst
>rospero
Tract
Tract of Land
)0 Varas Square
San Marino
Tract of Land
Near San Gabriel
:: . soo^

DORIS AVE
East San Gabriel
1ST
ST
Lamanda Park

NINA ST
cn
Q

ELMA RD
O
O

SOUTHVIEW RD
DUDEK
E Del Mar Blvd
Margaret Dr
San Pasqual St
Northrup Ave
Madre St
Ramona Pl
LaPresaDr
Thorndale Rd
San Juan Pl
SanPaloPl
Grayburn Rd
Yorkshire Rd
Millicent Way
Oneida Dr
Plumosa DrEl Encanto Dr
S Kinneloa Ave
Oneida St
Milton St
Brandon St
1002
1261
1002
1006
Project Boundary
Biological Study Area - 500ft buffer
USDA Soil Type
1002,Urban land-Palmview-Tujunga
complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes
1006,Urban land-Soboba complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes
1261,Urban land, frequently flooded, 0 to 5
percent slopes
0 300150
Feet
n
Date: 10/30/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\ARDR\Easton Wash ARDR.aprx Map: Figure 2 Soils Layout: Figure 2 Soils SOURCE: Vantor 2023; Open Street Maps 2019; USDA
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Soils
FIGURE 2
DUDEK .

E Del Mar Blvd
Margaret Dr
San Pasqual St
Northrup Ave
Madre St
Ramona Pl
LaPresaDr
Thorndale Rd
San Juan Pl
SanPaloPl
Grayburn Rd
Yorkshire Rd
Millicent Way
Oneida Dr
Plumosa DrEl Encanto Dr
S Kinneloa Ave
Oneida St
Milton St
Brandon St
DEV
ORN
Queagr
ORN
ORN
ORN
DH
Project Boundary
Biological Study Area - 500ft buffer
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
DH - Disturbed Habitat
ORN - Ornamental Plantings
DEV - Urban/Developed
Queagr - Quercus agrifolia Association
0 300150
Feet
n
Date: 10/30/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\ARDR\Easton Wash ARDR.aprx Map: Figure 3 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers Layout: Figure 3 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers SOURCE: Vantor 2023; Open Street Maps 2019
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
FIGURE 3
DUDEK
Colorado St
Huntington Dr
E Corson St
E Del Mar Blvd
Maple St
SanGabrielBlvd
E Orange Grove Blvd
NewYorkDr
SierraMadreVillaAve
SunsetBlvd
La Tierra St
EWashingtonBlvd
Sierra Madre Blvd
NAltadenaDr
S Sunset Blvd
Temple City Blvd
AltadenaDr
Foothill Blvd
RosemeadBlvd
S Michillinda Ave
Frontage Rd
E California Blvd
Duarte Rd
E Walnut St
SanMarinoAve
N Michillinda Ave
San Pasqual St
W Sierra Madre BlvdE Mountain St
E a t o n W a s h
S a n t a A n i t a
W a s h - R i o
H o n d o
A l h a m b r a
W a s h - R i o
H o n d o
§¨210
R i o H o n d o
Project Boundary
Hydrologic Units
Watershed (HUC 10)
Subwatershed (HUC 12)
Flowlines (NHD)
Stream/River
Connector
Pipeline
NWI Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
0 2,0001,000
Feet
n
Date: 10/30/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\ARDR\Easton Wash ARDR.aprx Map: Figure 4 Hydrologic Setting Layout: Figure 4 Hydrologic Setting SOURCE: Bing Aerial Imagery 2021; OpenStreetMaps 2019; NHD; NWI; FEMA Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Hydrologic Setting
FIGURE 4
DUDEK .

Appendix B
Photo Exhibit

APPENDIX B / PHOTO EXHIBIT

16537 B-1
APRIL 2025

Photo 1. Del Mar Boulevard spanning Eaton Wash in
the northern area of the project site.

Photo 2. Del Mar Boulevard spanning Eaton Wash in
the northern area of the project site; culvert supplying inflow of water.

Photo 3. Eaton Wash on the eastern dirt access road.

View of vegetation mapped as coast live oak
association (Quercus agrifolia) on the right.

Photo 4. Facing northwest from the central portion of
the project site. View of large trees, including oaks, on both sides of the wash. Del Mar Boulevard overpass is
in the distance.

DUDEK

APPENDIX B / PHOTO EXHIBIT

16537 B-2
APRIL 2025

Photo 5. Facing downstream with view of wetted area
within Eaton Wash.

Photo 6. View of open area in the southeastern
portion of the project site. This area appeared to be
actively maintained/mowed.

Photo 7. View of the area between the nursery and Eaton Wash. This area was mapped as disturbed habitat.

Photo 8. View from nursery operations bordering
eastern edge of the project site. This area was
mapped as ornamental land cover type.

DUDEK

Appendix C
OHWM Data Forms
Coordinates:

Latitude
Longitude
Wet-12 High Water Mark v2 Wet-12 High Water Mark v2
Project Eaton Wash
ID 533952
Survey Date 04/10/2025
User Eilleen Salas
Project: Eaton Wash
Project Number:

Stream: Eaton Wash (Feature 1)
Cross Section ID: T-01
Investigator(s): E.Salas and R. Stanley
Town:

Photo begin file#:

Time:

State:

Photo end file#:

Do normal circumstances
exist on the site?
Y
Is the site significantly
disturbed?
Y
Location Details: Centrally located on Feature 1, concrete channel Projection:

Datum:

Potential anthropogenic
influences on the channel
system:

Concrete channel, run off, homeless encampment up the way Brief site description: Concrete channel with high vertical walls and relatively permanent waters.

Checklist of resources (if
available):

Aerial photography, Vegetation maps, Soils maps, Rainfall/precipitation maps, Existing delineation(s) for site
Dates: 4/10/2025
Stream gage data Stream gage data
Gage number:

DudekDudek Eaton WashEaton Wash
Dudek made with Wildnote Page 1 of 3
OHWM Transect 1
GPS point:

Latitude 34.140967
Longitude -118.085031
GPS point:

Latitude
Longitude
Period of record:

Stream gage data resources:

5. Identify the OHWM and
record the indicators.

Record the OHWM position
via:

Mapping on aerial photograph, Digitized on computer
Cross section drawing:

OHWM OHWM
Indicators: Change in vegetation species, Change in vegetation cover, Break in bank slope Comments:

Floodplain 1 Floodplain 1
Floodplain unit:

Characteristics of the floodplain unit Characteristics of the floodplain unit Average sediment texture:

Total veg cover:

Tree:

Shrub:

Herb:

Community successional
stage:

Indicators:

Comments:

Floodplain Photo(s) None
Upload additional drawings None
Dudek made with Wildnote Page 2 of 3
and/or photos
Dudek made with Wildnote Page 3 of 3

Appendix D
Arborist’s Report

Arborist Report
Eaton Wash Stormwater
Capture Project
City of Pasadena, California
OCTOBER 2025
Prepared for:

CRAFTWATER ENGINEERING, INC.
11026 Caminito Vista Pacifica
San Diego, California 92131
Courtney Semlow
Prepared by:

225 South Lake Avenue, Suite M210
Pasadena, California 91101
Contact: Christopher J. Kallstrand
ISA Certified Arborist We-82081
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ASCA Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualified
DUDEK
DUDEK.COM

16537 i
OCTOBER 2025
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iv 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

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

1.2 Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Individual Tree Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Scope of Work Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 6 3 Observations ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Individual Trees ...................................................................................................................................... 7 4 Regulatory Definitions and Requirements....................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................ 11 5 Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 13

5.1 Direct Tree Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 13 6 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................................... 17

6.1 Tree Replacement ............................................................................................................................... 17

6.2 Tree Protection Measures ................................................................................................................... 17 7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 8 Disclosure .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 9 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 TABLE
Table 1. Summary of Protected Trees .............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2. Summary of Direct Tree Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE
Figure 1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................... 3

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 ii
OCTOBER 2025

APPENDICES
A Tree Information Matrix
B Protected Tree Locations
C Tree Impacts
D Representative Site Photographs
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 iii
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DUDEK

16537 iv
OCTOBER 2025
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
City City of Pasadena
GIS geographic information system
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
PMC Pasadena Municipal Code
project Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
TPZ tree protection zone

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 v
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 1
OCTOBER 2025
1 Introduction
This arborist report provides an inventory and evaluation of the trees located within the study area for the City of Pasadena’s (City) Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project (project). The project site is located in the City of Pasadena, California (Figure 1, Project Location). This arborist report covers the existing conditions for trees located on the project site and discusses the regulations and requirements pertaining to removal of protected trees within the City’s jurisdiction.

Craftwater Engineering, Inc. retained Dudek to conduct a tree inventory and assessment for the project site. A Dudek International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist performed various functions associated with surveying, inventorying, and evaluating the condition of all protected trees located within the project site to meet the requirements of Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 8.52 – City Trees and Tree Protection (City of Pasadena 2010).

The purpose of this arborist report is to present the existing physical conditions, characteristics, and mapped locations of the area’s trees that are to be removed, encroached upon, or protected in place during the proposed grading and construction-related activities on the project site. All 298 trees identified within the survey boundary are considered public trees and, as such, are considered protected by the City municipal code. The municipal code does not prohibit removal of protected trees, but establishes a protocol for City review of requests to remov e regulated trees and for identification of avoidance requirements and/or replacement rates.

1.1 Project Location
The project site is located within the southeastern portion of City of Pasadena within Township 1 North, Ranges 12 and 11 West, of the Pasadena, California, 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle. As shown on Figure 1, the site is south of E Del Mar Boulevard, east of Eaton Blanch Park, north of San Pasqual Street, and west of a Boys and Girls Club and Madre Street. The project site lies within Los Angeles County, just northwest of the community of East Pasadena, and west of the City of Arcadia.

1.2 Site Characteristics
The project site includes a largely undeveloped area on the eastern side, a plant nursery in the southeast, and the Eaton Wash along with its access roads on the western side, extending from northwest to southeast. The sections of the site bordering the wash have denser vegetation, serving as a natural buffer between the wash and a public park to the west, as well as the land to the east.

1.3 Project Description
The project would be implemented by the City to improve water quality and effectively manage stormwater runoff.

The project entails constructing public infrastructure to divert dry weather and stormwater flows from the Eaton Wash channel and send the water for treatment through a series of vegetated treatment ponds and a subsurface storage reservoir. This process helps remove pollutants and trash, enhancing the water quality within Eaton Wash, which ultimately flows to the Los Angeles River and the Pacific Ocean. At the time of the survey, a detailed site plan was unavailable; therefore, the survey was conducted using a conservative study area provided by the project ’s design engineer. The intent of the project is to construct the proposed facilities on property owned by the City and within public right-of-way related to E Del Mar Boulevard and a channelized section of the Eaton Wash channel.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 2
OCTOBER 2025
The project also includes the creation of usable park space with new trees, native plantings, walking paths, and sitting areas, integrating underground stormwater infrastructure with aboveground improvements to maximize community benefits and provide educational opportunities about stormwater management.

DUDEK
Huntington Dr
E Del Mar Blvd
SierraMadreVillaAve
Foothill Blvd
Rosemead Blvd
Frontage Rd
San Gabriel Blvd
E California Blvd
E Walnut St
N Halstead St
San Pasqual St
N
KinneloaAve
Tura Ln
George Cir
Beacon Pl
Diana St
Fulton Ave
WalnutDr
Sears Way
Topsfield St
Donnelly Ave
Avocado Ln
San Juan Pl
SanPaloPl
OakforestLn
Northrup Ave
N Lotus Ave
Sidney Ave
Randolph Ave
LaPresaDr
OneidaDr
Plumosa DrEl Encanto Dr
Mataro St
San Marcos Dr
Sunnyslope Blvd
RaymondDr
Millicent Way
Thorndike Rd
S Vinedo Ave
Cliff Dr
Orlando Rd
Estado St
Vallombros a Dr
Chapea Rd
Devonport Rd
Santa Paula Ave
La Tierra St
Canterbury Rd
Hampton Rd
N Vinedo Ave
Oneida St
S Eastern Ave
Wallingford Rd
S Sunnyslope Ave
MadreSt
SDaisyAve
Backus Ave
Alameda St
S Kinneloa Ave
Locksley Dr
Mountain View Ave
Thorndale Rd
N Daisy Ave
E Green St
ElCampoDr
N GainsboroughDr
PalomarRd
Nina St
E Morningside St
Milton St
Grayburn Rd
Yorkshire Rd
S el Nido Ave
SHalsteadSt
Brandon St
Lombardy Rd SLotusAve
§¨210
Project Boundary
0 1,000500
Feetn
Date: 2/10/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture.aprx Map: Figure 1 Project Location Layout: Figure 1 Project Location WhittierCommerce Pico Rivera
Whittier Walnut
Industry
Industry
South
El Monte
Monterey
Park
El
Monte
CovinaBaldwin ParkAlhambra
Temple City
San Marino
Irwindale
AzusaArcadia
Glendora
Duarte
Pasadena
Glendale
Burbank
Los
Angeles
Los Angeles
£¤101
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ159
ÄÆ72
ÄÆ134
ÄÆ19
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ2
§¨¦5
§¨¦710§¨¦10
§¨¦605
§¨¦210 L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y
Project Site
!(^
SOURCE: Maxar 2024; Open Street Map 2024
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Project Location
FIGURE 1
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 4
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DUDEK

16537 5
OCTOBER 2025
2 Methods
The following sections describe the methods used by Dudek’s ISA Certified Arborist to inventory and evaluate trees in the survey area.

2.1 Individual Tree Evaluation
Dudek’s ISA Certified Arborist Aida Castro ( No. WE -13396A) conducted the tree inventory and evaluation on February 5 and 6 , 2025, to document tree locations and attribute information for all regulated trees within the survey area.

Tree attribute data collected during the field survey included species, trunk diameter, tree height, canopy spread, general health condition, and structural condition. Trunk diameters were measured using a diameter tape, which provides adjusted numbers for diameter measurements when wrapping the tape around the circumference of a tree trunk. Diameter measurements were collected using standard protocol described by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers in its Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition (CTLA 2000), published by the ISA.

Trunk diameter measurements were taken at 4.5 feet above the ground along the trunk axis, with a few common exceptions. In cases where the trunk of a tree split into multiple stems at approximately 4.5 feet above the ground, the measurement was made at the location that best represented the trunk’s diameter. The arborist estimated tree height measurements, and tree canopy diameter measurements were documented by “pacing off” the measurement based on the arborist’s knowledge of their stride lengths or by visually estimating the canopy width.

Pursuant to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition (CTLA 2000), tree health and structure were evaluated with respect to five distinct tree components: roots, trunk, scaffold branches, small branches, and foliage. Health and structure were rated using letter grades A through F. A-rated trees exhibit excellent condition; this rating is typically reserved for model specimen trees with nearly ideal structure and nearly perfect health with little or no twig dieback, discoloration, or defoliation . B-rated trees exhibit normal vigor for the species , healthy foliage, no considerable damage due to disease or pests, and minor if any structural issues. C-rated trees are typical, with few maladies and moderate structural issues, and may exhibit less reduced vigor in foliage and new growth. D-rated trees exhibit an unhealthy or declining appearance and/ or structural problems or damage. E-rated trees exhibit poor vigor and appear to be dying and in the last stages of life. F-rated trees are dead. Individual attributes for each tree found on the project survey site are detailed in Appendix A, Tree Information Matrix.

The location of each individual regulated tree was mapped using the Esri ArcGIS Field Maps application on an iPhone coupled with an Arrow GPS receiver to increase positional accuracy. Collected data were remotely uploaded to Dudek’s servers for post-field processing and analysis. Tree attribute data, collected simultaneously with feature positions, were also linked to tree location information and stored in Esri’s ArcGIS Field Maps application. Following field data collection, raw data files were then diffe rentially corrected, managed, and exported in appropriate geographic information system (GIS) or CAD formats, suitable for further spatial analysis and/or exhibit preparation.

These data were used to create a primary tree inventory data set of all regulated trees within the survey area.

Individual tree attribute data is presented in Appendix A , Tree Information Matrix. P rotected tree locations are presented in Appendix B, Protected Tree Locations. Individual tree locations and impacts are presented in Appendix C, Tree Impacts. Representative site photographs are presented in Appendix D, Representative Site Photographs.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 6
OCTOBER 2025

2.2 Scope of Work Limitations
This report presents tree information as observed in the field. No root crown excavations or investigations, internal probing, or aerial canopy inspections were performed during the tree assessment. Therefore, the presence or absence of internal decay or o ther hidden or inaccessible inferiorities in individual trees could not be confirmed. It is recommended that any large tree proposed for preservation or relocation in an urban setting be thoroughly inspected for internal or subterranean decay by a qualifie d arborist before finalizing preservation or relocation plans.

Data for several trees were visually estimated from a distance due to the following limitations: homeless encampment and/or other access or safety issues.

DUDEK

16537 7
OCTOBER 2025
3 Observations

3.1 Individual Trees
A total of 298 trees were inventoried within the survey area for the project . All trees within the survey area are considered public trees because of their location on City property or right-of-way and therefore would be protected by the City’s tree ordinance (Table 1). As public trees, per the City ordinance, all 298 trees are considered protected trees. Among these, 60 trees meet the City’s criteria as a native tree, 16 of which are mature, and 58 mature non- native trees. However, as stated, all 298 are public trees and are therefore considered protected. No tree in the project area meets the City definition of a “Landmark tree,” “Landmark-eligible tree,” or “Specimen tree.” Appendix B presents the location of the individual trees mapped for the proposed project. Overall, the trees exhibit growth and structural conditions that are typical of their location. The trees include various trunk and branch maladies and health and structural conditions. As presented in Appendix A, 2.35% of the individually mapped trees (7 trees) exhibit good health ; 83.9% (250 trees) are in fair health ; 9.06 % (27 trees) are in poor health ; 1.34% (4 trees) are in critical health ; and 3.36% (10 trees) are dead. Structurally, 0.67% (2 trees) of the individually mapped trees are considered to exhibit good structure; 68.1% (203 trees) exhibit fair structure; 24.8% (74 trees) exhibit poor structure; 3.02% (9 trees) exhibit critical structure; and 3.36% (10 trees) are dead. The trees in good condition exhibit acceptable vigor, healthy foliage, and adequate structure, and lack any major maladies. Trees in fair condition are typical, with few maladies but declining vigor. Trees in poor condition exhibit declini ng vigor, unhealthy foliage, poor branch structure, and excessive lean. No pests or pathogens were observed on site.

Trees surveyed for the project vary in size and stature according to species and available growing space. The site’s trees are composed of single -stemmed and multi -stemmed trees, with single -stemmed trunk diameters that range from 3 to 39 inches, and multi-stemmed trunk diameters that range from 2 to 77 inches. Tree heights vary from 4 to 65 feet. Tree canopy extents range from 0 feet for dead trees to approximately 30 feet across at their widest point.

Table 1. Summary of Protected Trees
Species
Protection Type
Mature,
Public
Native, Mature,
Public Native, Public Public Total
American sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua) 1 0 0 0 1
blue elderberry
(Sambucus mexicana) 1 0 0 1 2
blue palo verde
(Parkinsonia florida) 0 0 0 5 5
Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthifolius) 5 0 0 16 21
California laurel
(Umbellularia californica) 0 0 1 0 1
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 8
OCTOBER 2025

Table 1. Summary of Protected Trees
Species
Protection Type
Mature,
Public
Native, Mature,
Public Native, Public Public Total
California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 4 0 0 2 6
camphor
(Cinnamomum camphora) 0 0 0 1 1
Canary Island date palm
(Phoenix canariensis) 2 0 0 2 4
Canary Island pine
(Pinus canariensis) 5 0 0 2 7
Carolina laurel cherry
(Prunus caroliniana) 0 0 0 1 1
carrotwood
(Cupaniopsis
anacardioides)
0 0 0 7 7
Cherimoya
(Annona cherimola) 0 0 0 1 1
Chinese elm
(Ulmus parvifolia) 1 0 0 7 8
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia) 0 12 36 38 86
crape myrtle
(Lagerstroemia indica) 0 0 0 2 2
evergreen ash
(Fraxinus uhdei) 4 0 0 4 8
guava
(Psidium guajava) 0 0 0 2 2
holly leaf cherry
(Prunus ilicifolia) 0 0 0 4 4
holly oak
(Quercus ilex) 0 3 6 10 19
Italian cypress
(Cupressus sempervirens) 0 0 0 1 1
lemon
(Citrus limon) 1 0 0 3 4
Mexican fan palm
(Washingtonia robusta) 12 0 0 2 14
red shanks
(Adenostoma sparsifolium) 0 0 0 1 1
scrub oak
(Quercus berberidifolia) 0 1 0 1 2
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 9
OCTOBER 2025

Table 1. Summary of Protected Trees
Species
Protection Type
Mature,
Public
Native, Mature,
Public Native, Public Public Total
silver dollar gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 1 0 0 1 2
silver wattle
(Acacia dealbata) 2 0 0 1 3
Torrey pine
(Pinus torreyana) 1 0 0 0 1
toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia) 4 0 0 4 8
tree of Heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) 11 0 0 50 61
unknown dead tree 2 0 0 7 9
valley oak
(Quercus lobata) 0 0 1 0 1
Victorian box
(Pittosporum undulatum) 0 0 0 1 1
weeping fig
(Ficus benjamina) 0 0 0 1 1
windmill palm
(Trachycarpus fortunei) 1 0 0 2 3
Total for All Regulated Trees 58 16 44 180 298

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 10
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 11
OCTOBER 2025
4 Regulatory Definitions
and Requirements
A tree inventory and assessment of the project site was performed pursuant to PMC Chapter 8.52 – City Trees and Tree Protection (City of Pasadena 2010) . The following is an outline of the key aspects of the ordinance.

4.1 Definitions
For this project, trees subject to City permit requirements include those defined by PMC Chapter 8.52.020, as follows:

1. Native tree: “any tree with a trunk more than 8 inches in diameter at a height of 4 ½ feet above natural grade that is one of the following species: Quercus agrifolia (Coast live oak), Quercus engelmannii (Engelmann oak), Quercus chrysolepis (Canyon oak), Platanus racemosa (California sycamore), Juglans californica (California walnut), Quercus berberidifolia (Scrub oak), Quercus lobata (Valley oak), Umbellularia californica (California bay), Populus fremontii (Cottonwood), Alnus rhombifolia (California alder), Populus trichocarpa (Black cottonwood), Salix lasiolepis (Arroyo willow), and Aesculus californica (California buckeye) .”

2. Landmark tree: “a tree designated as a landmark under Chapter 17.62 of [the City’s Municipal Code] as a tree of historic or cultural significance and of importance to the community due to any of the following factors: It is one of the largest or oldest trees of the species located in the city; it has historical significance due to an association with a historic building, site, street, person or event; or it is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood.”

3. Landmark-eligible tree: “a tree which meets the criteria for designation as a landmark tree, as determined by the review authority.”

4. Mature tree: “an otherwise non-protected tree with a diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 19 inches or greater.”

5. Public tree: “a tree located in a place or area under ownership or control of the city including but without limitation streets, parkways, open space, parkland and including city owned property under the operational control of another entity by virtue of a lease, license, operating or other agreement .” All public trees are protected in the City of Pasadena.

6. Specimen tree: “any tree meeting the criteria established by resolution of the city council by species and size of tree which is thereby presumed to possess distinctive form, size or age, and to be an outstanding specimen of a desirable species and to warr ant the protections of [Chapter 8.52 of the City’s Municipal Code].”
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 12
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 13
OCTOBER 2025
5 Impacts
Tree impacts were assessed using GIS software to analyze the spatial relationship between trees and the project’s temporary and permanent impact areas, as shown in the 60% development plans received by Dudek on September 4, 2025 . Should future design revisions result in additional encroachment or removals, those trees would be reclassified accordingly. Impacts were further determined based on Dudek’s experience with native and non-native trees and their typical reactions to root disturbances from construction activities, such as soil compaction, excavation, and grading.

For this project, tree impacts are categorized as either removal or encroachment. A tree is considered impacted if anticipated disturbances occur within its designated tree protection zone (TPZ), which, according to the City of Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines, extends 4 feet beyond the tree’s dripline (City of Pasadena 2019). Trees will be designated for removal if their trunk falls within the permanent impact boundary, while encroachment applies when the tree canopy extends within 4 feet of this boundary. Encroached trees may experience root damage, soil excavation and compaction, grade alterations, canopy loss, trunk wounds, and other potential impacts. The locations and impact determination of individual trees are detailed in Appendix C.

Tree species, age, and condition significantly influence their tolerance to construction -related disturbances.

Different species and ages of trees on the project site exhibit varying levels of sensitivity. Mature trees are generally more vulnerable to root disturbances and grade changes, while healthy trees tend to withstand environmental changes more effectively. Conversely, trees in poor health or under stress may struggle to adapt to direct or indirect construction impacts.

To minimize potential impacts, mitigation measures , detailed in Section 6, will be required and shall be implemented during grading operations.

5.1 Direct Tree Impacts
Of the 298 trees in the survey area, 116 have been classified for removal and seven trees will be encroached upon.

Additionally, 54 trees within temporary impact areas will be retained and 121 will be preserved in place. Appendix C presents the tree locations, categorized by impact type. Measures to minimize the extent of impacts to temporarily impacted and preserved trees are provided in Section 6, Mitigation Measures.

Table 2 provides a summary of the number of trees by species expected to be directly impacted by construction.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 14
OCTOBER 2025

Table 2. Summary of Direct Tree Impacts
Species
Impact Determination
Removal Encroachment Temporary
Impact
No
Impact Total
American sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua) 0 0 0 1 1
blue elderberry
(Sambucus mexicana) 2 0 0 0 2
blue palo verde
(Parkinsonia florida) 1 0 0 4 5
Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebinthifolius) 1 1 0 19 21
California laurel
(Umbellularia californica) 1 0 0 0 1
California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 3 1 0 2 6
camphor
(Cinnamomum camphora) 0 0 0 1 1
Canary Island date palm
(Phoenix canariensis) 1 0 0 3 4
Canary Island pine
(Pinus canariensis) 2 1 0 4 7
Carolina laurel cherry
(Prunus caroliniana) 0 0 0 1 1
carrotwood
(Cupaniopsis
anacardioides)
3 0 0 4 7
Cherimoya
(Annona cherimola) 0 0 0 1 1
Chinese elm
(Ulmus parvifolia) 0 0 0 8 8
coast live oak
(Quercus agrifolia) 27 2 29 28 86
crape myrtle
(Lagerstroemia indica) 0 0 0 2 2
evergreen ash
(Fraxinus uhdei) 0 0 0 8 8
guava
(Psidium guajava) 0 0 0 2 2
holly leaf cherry
(Prunus ilicifolia) 2 0 2 0 4
holly oak
(Quercus ilex) 2 0 1 16 19
DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 15
OCTOBER 2025

Table 2. Summary of Direct Tree Impacts
Species
Impact Determination
Removal Encroachment Temporary
Impact
No
Impact Total
Italian cypress
(Cupressus sempervirens) 0 0 0 1 1
lemon
(Citrus limon) 0 0 0 4 4
Mexican fan palm
(Washingtonia robusta) 2 1 0 3 14
red shanks
(Adenostoma sparsifolium) 0 0 1 0 1
scrub oak
(Quercus berberidifolia) 0 0 2 0 2
silver dollar gum
(Eucalyptus polyanthemos) 0 0 0 2 2
silver wattle
(Acacia dealbata) 1 0 2 0 3
Torrey pine
(Pinus torreyana) 1 0 0 0 1
toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia) 5 0 3 0 8
tree of Heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) 61 0 0 0 61
unknown dead tree 1 1 6 1 9
valley oak
(Quercus lobata) 0 0 0 1 1
Victorian box
(Pittosporum undulatum) 0 0 0 1 1
weeping fig
(Ficus benjamina) 0 0 0 1 1
windmill palm
(Trachycarpus fortunei) 0 0 0 3 3
Total for All Regulated Trees 116 7 54 121 298

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 16
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 17
OCTOBER 2025
6 Mitigation Measures
A total of 298 protected trees are located within the project site, 116 of which will be removed and seven will be encroached upon. Additionally, 54 trees are within temporary impact areas and 121 will be preserved in place.

In accordance with PMC Section 8.52, replacement of protected trees will be required based on the discretion of the City Manager , and tree protection measures must be implemented for encroached trees. Additionally, trees preserved within impacted areas and any other City -protected trees within the project study area that are not designated for removal or encroachment must adhere to the tree protection standards outlined in the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and Tree Protection Guidelines.

Construction-related activities should be overseen by a qualified ISA Certified Arborist to ensure compliance with tree protection measures. The following sections outline the City’s tree replacement and protection requirements.

6.1 Tree Replacement
As previously mentioned, a total of 116 protected trees have been classified for removal. Impacts have been determined using 60% development plans . Should future design revisions result in additional encroachment or removals, those trees would be reclassified accordingly. Any tree requiring removal to accommodate the proposed project must comply with the tree replacement requirements outlined in PMC Section 8.52.076 of the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance. According to PMC Section 8.52.076:

Any person wishing to request special maintenance or removal of a public tree by the city must submit a written request to the city manager and cover the costs of service and replacement at rates established by the city manager, as outlined in the tree pro tection guidelines, if the request is approved. Such requests will be evaluated based on the provisions of this chapter, established criteria for public tree removal, ongoing public tree maintenance projects, and available resources.

As a result, all required tree replacements will be subject to the discretion of the City and will adhere to the replacement rates established by the City Manager.

6.2 Tree Protection Measures
The City requires that the following tree protection measures be implemented during construction to safeguard all 182 protected trees not designated for removal, including 54 trees within temporary impact areas, 121 trees preserved in place, and seven encroached upon trees. Per the City of Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines, Section B, Tree Protection Zone (City of Pasadena 2019):

The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established to the extent of the tree’s dripline plus four (4) radial feet. The guidelines herein shall be applied to the TPZ to safeguard the health of protected trees. Tree roots are generally located in the top 12-24 inches of soil and can extend to a distance exceeding the trees height and/or width.

1. Refer to Standard Plan S-642 ‘Tree Protection Standard’ for full details.

2. Protective ( 6-foot-high minimum) chain -link fencing with an access gate of minimal width should be installed around the TPZ to the extent practicable subject to approval by staff prior to the commencement of any grading, construction, or demolition. Fencing must also include 8 ½″ x 11″ (minimum) signage that DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 18
OCTOBER 2025
includes the following information: Tree Protection Zone; name and contact information of project owner or authorized representative; and “Please contact the Pasadena Citizen Service Center to report any concerns (626) 744-7311.”

3. The TPZ shall be irrigated sufficiently with clean water to keep the tree in good health and vigor before, during, and after construction. This may mean deeply soaking the ground periodically.

4. No construction staging or disposal of construction materials or byproducts including but not limited to paint, plaster, or chemical solutions is allowed in the TPZ.

5. The TPZ should not be subjected to flooding incidental to the construction work.

6. All work conducted in the ground within the TPZ of any protected tree should be accomplished with hand tools unless an air-spade is utilized. Trenches in the TPZ should be tunneled, or completed with an air spade to avoid damage to roots within the TPZ. Information regarding air spades is available from staff.

7. Where structural footings are required and major roots (over 3” in diameter) will be impacted, the engineer of record should submit acceptable footing design alternatives and or location alternatives to staff before proceeding with further plan review.

8. Where more than 50% of the TPZ is impacted or roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are to be removed within the TPZ, the engineer of record should submit acceptable design alternatives to staff for review.

9. Any required trenching should be routed in such a manner as to minimize root damage. Radial trenching (radial to the tree trunk) is preferred as it is less harmful than tangential trenching. Construction activity should be diverted from the TPZ. Cutting of roots should be avoided ( i.e., place pipes and cables below uncut roots). Wherever possible and in accordance with applicable code requirements, the same trench should be used for multiple utilities.

10. “Natural” or pre-construction grade should be maintained in the TPZ. At no time during or after construction should soil be in contact with the trunk of the tree above the basal flair.

11. In areas where the grade around the protected tree will be lowered, some root cutting may be unavoidable. Cuts should be clean and made at right angles to the roots. When practical, cut roots back to a branching lateral root.

12. When removing existing pavement in the TPZ, avoid the use of heavy equipment, which will compact and damage the root system.

13. If staff requires mulch in the TPZ, the mulch materials and location should be shown on the plan. Larger projects will require construction staging plans to indicate where materials will be stored and how the equipment will move in and around the property to minimize damage to the TPZ. Root damage and soil compaction may be mitigated in some cases by using trench covers or mulch in the TPZ.

Additionally, Dudek recommends the following:

1. A qualified arborist shall be present during initial ground-disturbing activities on the project site to ensure that project activities stay within the demarcated limits. This qualified arborist shall identify the number of City-protected trees that are removed as a result of project construction activities, as well as trees that would be encroached upon. This inventory of trees shall be used to determine an appropriate tree replacement program that shall be, at a minimum, consistent with the City’s Tree Ordinance (PMC Chapter 8.52) as it relates to tree replacement of protected trees.

2. All trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) during construction within the TPZ shall be monitored by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction completion. The arborist shall submit an annual report, photograph each tree , and compare tree health and condition to the original, pre-construction baseline. For trees that do not survive the 5-year monitoring period, such trees shall be replaced in accordance with the requirements of this measure.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 19
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 20
OCTOBER 2025
7 Conclusion
The survey area contains 298 protected trees, all of which are considered public trees and, as such, are considered protected. Among these, there are 60 trees that meet the City’s criteria as a native tree, 16 of which are mature, and 58 mature non -native trees. Of the 298 trees in the survey area, 116 have been classified for removal and seven trees will be encroached upon. Additionally, 54 trees will be retained within temporary impact areas and 121 will be preserved in place. Impacts have been determined using 60% development plans. Should future design revisions result in additional encroachment or removals, those trees would be reclassified accordingly. Under the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, tree replacement for removed trees must comply with PMC Section 8.52.076. This section provides for review by the City Manager and allows for discretionary replacement rates, as established by the City Manager and outlined in the Tree Protection Guidelines, if the request is approved. Accordingly, all required replacements will be determined at the City’s discretion based on the replacement rates set by the City Manager.

Per the City, all protected trees not removed should be subject to the tree protection standards of the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and Tree Protection Guidelines. Construction-related activities around all encroached trees should be monitored by a qualified ISA Certified Arborist to ensure tree protection measures are followed and to assess tree impacts that may result in tree decline or death. Temporary protective fencing should be installed along the outside of the TPZ for trees that have driplines within the boundaries of the impact area.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 21
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 22
OCTOBER 2025
8 Disclosure
This arborist report provides conclusions and recommendations based only on a visual examination of the trees within the survey area by ISA Certified Arborists and reasonable reliance on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the arbo rists. The examination did not include subterranean or internal examination of the trees.

Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near them. Although trees provide many bene fits to those who live near them, they also include inherent risks from breakage or failure that can be minimized but not eliminated.

Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms subject to attack by disease, insects, fungi, weather, and other forces of nature, and conditions that lead to failure are often hidden within trees and belowground. There are some inherent risks with trees that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, even by a skilled and experienced arborist. Arborists cannot predict acts of nature, including, without limitation, storms of suffic ient strength, which can cause an apparently healthy tree to fail.

Additionally, arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances or for any specific period. A tree ’s condition could change over a short or prolonged period of time due to climatic, cultural, or environmental conditions. Further, there is no guarantee or certainty that recommendations or efforts to correct unsafe conditions will prevent future breakage or failure of a tree.

To live or work near trees is to accept some degree of risk. Neither the author of this arborist report nor Dudek assume any responsibility for or will be liable for any claims, losses, or damages for damage to any tree, death or injury to any person, or any loss of or damage to any personal or real property.

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 23
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

16537 24
OCTOBER 2025
9 References
City of Pasadena. 2010. “Municipal Code: Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance.” Accessed January 2025. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/ TPO_2-Pasadena-Tree-Ordinance-Municipal-Code-8.52.pdf.

City of Pasadena. 2019. “City of Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines.” Revised May 13, 2019. Accessed January 2025. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/ Tree-Protection-Guidelines-by-City-Manager.pdf.

CTLA (Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers) . 2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal . 9th ed. International Society of Arboriculture .

DUDEK

EATON WASH STORMWATER CAPTURE PROJECT, CITY OF PASADENA, CALIFORNIA / ARBORIST REPORT

16537 25
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DUDEK

Appendix A
Tree Information Matrix

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
1 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 15 1 16 - - - - - 16 34.140533 -118.083964 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 2 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Fair Fair 10 8 9 3 2 2 2 2 2 19 Additional diameters: 2, 2, 2 34.140492 -118.083989 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 3 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Good Fair 15 10 9 4 4 3 3 3 2 25 Additional diameters: 2, 2, 2 34.140475 -118.083959 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 4 Umbellularia californica California Laurel Good Fair 15 8 5 3 3 1 1 1 - 9 34.140491 -118.083948 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 5 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 10 3 5 4 3 - - - 12 34.140438 -118.083948 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 6 Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry Poor Critical 20 20 1 25 - - - - - 25 Trunk split, half fallen. 34.140401 -118.083965 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 7 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Fair Fair 20 15 7 6 6 5 5 5 3 33 Additional diameter: 3 34.140369 -118.084054 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 8 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Critical Critical 5 5 1 14 - - - - - 14 Failed totem with base resprout 34.140349 -118.083957 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 9 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 12 1 15 - - - - - 15 34.140341 -118.083946 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 10 Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry Dead Dead 15 10 2 5 4 - - - - 9 34.140317 -118.08396 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 11 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Good Fair 20 10 2 3 8 - - - - 11 34.140325 -118.083945 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 12 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 8 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140313 -118.083963 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 13 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 5 2 3 2 - - - - 5 34.140293 -118.083955 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 14 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 15 1 9 - - - - - 9 34.140275 -118.083978 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 15 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 8 2 5 2 - - - - 7 34.140282 -118.083984 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 16 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Critical 8 12 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140282 -118.084015 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 17 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 10 1 7 - - - - - 7 34.140304 -118.084012 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 18 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 10 2 5 5 - - - - 10 34.140297 -118.08405 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Encroachment 19 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 12 3 6 3 2 - - - 11 34.14033 -118.084024 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 20 Quercus berberidifolia Scrub Oak Poor Fair 10 12 6 5 5 5 4 3 2 24 34.140354 -118.084111 Native, Mature, Public No Yes Mature Public No Temporary Impact 21 Prunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf Cherry Fair Poor 15 10 5 3 1 1 1 1 - 7 34.140186 -118.083939 Public No Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 22 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 15 0 1 12 - - - - - 12 Dead and fallen. 34.140193 -118.083983 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 23 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 15 0 1 12 - - - - - 12 Dead and fallen. 34.140183 -118.084013 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 24 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 10 4 3 2 2 1 - - 8 34.140214 -118.083998 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 25 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 8 1 3 - - - - - 3 34.140227 -118.084009 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 26 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 10 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140241 -118.084025 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 27 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 10 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140244 -118.08403 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 28 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 8 1 3 - - - - - 3 34.140247 -118.084053 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 29 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 15 2 5 4 - - - - 9 34.140207 -118.084025 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 30 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 8 1 3 - - - - - 3 34.140207 -118.084037 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 31 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 8 1 3 - - - - - 3 34.140224 -118.084048 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 32 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.140236 -118.084051 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 33 Adenostoma sparsifolium Red Shanks Fair Poor 15 15 2 6 5 - - - - 11 34.140205 -118.084063 Public No Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 34 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 8 2 3 2 - - - - 5 34.140201 -118.08407 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 35 Quercus berberidifolia Scrub Oak Fair Fair 10 8 4 3 1 1 1 - - 6 Tagged as 34 34.140237 -118.084135 Public No Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 36 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 15 12 14 3 3 3 2 2 1 22 Additional diameters: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 34.140175 -118.084129 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Temporary Impact 37 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Poor 10 7 3 2 1 1 - - - 4 34.140192 -118.084143 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 38 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 10 7 5 1 1 1 1 1 - 5 34.140184 -118.084165 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 39 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 15 1 14 - - - - - 14 34.140221 -118.084234 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 40 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 15 5 7 6 6 6 5 - 30 34.140299 -118.084228 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Temporary Impact 41 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Poor 12 10 8 3 2 2 1 1 1 12 Additional diameters: 1, 1 34.140305 -118.084253 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 42 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 10 4 4 3 2 2 - - 11 34.140356 -118.084228 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 43 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 10 12 6 5 4 3 3 3 2 20 34.140401 -118.084235 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Temporary Impact 44 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 15 5 7 6 5 4 2 - 24 34.140353 -118.084312 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No No Impact 45 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Critical Critical 15 15 1 16 - - - - - 16 34.140406 -118.084346 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 46 Quercus lobata Valley Oak Poor Fair 20 15 1 13 - - - - - 13 34.140496 -118.084437 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 47 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 22 20 4 12 10 7 3 - - 32 34.140547 -118.084449 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Temporary Impact 48 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Fair Fair 10 15 8 3 2 2 2 2 1 14 Additional diameters: 1, 1 34.140454 -118.0842 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 49 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 8 3 2 1 1 - - - - 2 34.140467 -118.084214 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 50 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Poor Critical 25 20 1 22 - - - - - 22 34.140558 -118.084264 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Encroachment 51 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Poor Poor 14 10 9 5 5 4 3 3 3 30 Additional diameters: 3, 2, 2 34.140669 -118.084374 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 52 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 20 8 1 8 - - - - - 8 34.140684 -118.084465 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 53 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 25 20 2 16 16 - - - - 32 Dead and fallen. 34.140739 -118.084527 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Encroachment 54 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 20 10 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.140693 -118.084533 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 55 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 8 2 3 2 - - - - 5 34.14069 -118.084538 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 56 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 15 4 6 4 4 3 - - 17 34.140693 -118.084567 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 57 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 8 3 3 1 1 - - - 5 34.140654 -118.084571 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 58 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 15 10 2 6 3 - - - - 9 34.14074 -118.084626 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 59 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 12 8 1 3 - - - - - 3 34.140765 -118.084632 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 60 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 10 2 4 1 - - - - 5 34.140769 -118.084624 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 61 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 15 4 7 6 5 5 - - 23 34.140856 -118.084687 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 62 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Critical Critical 20 12 2 18 10 - - - - 28 No tag, homeless encampment. Two additional burnt and fallen trunks. 34.140899 -118.084673 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 63 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 10 7 2 2 1 - - - - 3 34.140951 -118.08467 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal Native
Species Maturity Public Invasive ImpactOn City
List
Individual Stem Diameters (in.)
Appendix A - Tree Information Matrix
Tree
No. Botanical Name Common Name Health Structural
Integrity
Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width (ft.) Stems Cumulative Stem
Diameter (in.) Notes Latitude Longitude Protected Status D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
Native
Species Maturity Public Invasive ImpactOn City
List
Individual Stem Diameters (in.)
Appendix A - Tree Information Matrix
Tree
No. Botanical Name Common Name Health Structural
Integrity
Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width (ft.) Stems Cumulative Stem
Diameter (in.) Notes Latitude Longitude Protected Status 64 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 12 8 3 2 1 1 - - - 4 No tag, homeless encampment. 34.140866 -118.084711 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 65 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 10 2 4 3 - - - - 7 34.14087 -118.084741 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 66 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 10 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.140884 -118.084743 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 67 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 10 1 5 - - - - - 5 No tag, no access. 34.140878 -118.084768 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 68 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 5 5 4 4 3 2 - 18 No tag, no access. 34.14089 -118.084779 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 69 Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle Fair Poor 10 15 9 3 3 3 2 2 2 21 Additional diameters: 2, 2, 2. No tag, no access, estimated data. 34.140876 -118.084787 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact 70 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Critical Fair 12 8 2 6 1 - - - - 7 No tag, homeless encampment. 34.140923 -118.084779 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 71 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 7 5 2 1 1 - - - - 2 No tag, homeless encampment. 34.140921 -118.084787 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 72 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Fair Fair 60 30 1 26 - - - - - 26 34.141402 -118.084844 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes Removal 73 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Fair Fair 60 25 1 24 - - - - - 24 34.141424 -118.084774 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes Removal 74 Pinus torreyana Torrey Pine Fair Fair 65 25 1 39 - - - - - 39 Some stub cuts and broken off branches. 34.141466 -118.084749 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes Removal 75 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 15 8 2 3 1 - - - - 4 34.141268 -118.084536 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 76 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 10 4 6 6 5 4 - - 21 34.141223 -118.084498 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 77 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 10 8 3 3 2 1 - - - 6 34.141207 -118.084476 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 78 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 10 2 3 3 - - - - 6 34.141184 -118.084469 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 79 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 4 3 3 2 2 - - 10 34.141179 -118.084461 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 80 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 15 7 4 4 3 3 3 3 22 Additional diameter: 2 34.141166 -118.084461 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 81 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Fair Poor 30 15 12 25 6 6 6 5 5 77 Additional diameters: 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3 34.141122 -118.084462 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 82 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 7 5 4 1 1 1 1 - - 4 34.141157 -118.084438 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 83 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Fair Poor 15 15 4 5 4 2 2 - - 13 34.141139 -118.084419 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 84 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 12 2 8 5 - - - - 13 34.141135 -118.084425 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 85 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Fair Poor 20 12 5 3 1 1 1 1 - 7 34.141116 -118.084405 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 86 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Poor 25 15 4 9 6 5 3 - - 23 34.141085 -118.084403 Native, Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 87 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 10 8 3 3 3 2 - - - 8 34.140998 -118.084539 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 88 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 15 2 11 3 - - - - 14 34.141222 -118.084489 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 89 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 30 20 2 12 8 - - - - 20 34.141216 -118.084487 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 90 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Critical 4 5 0 - - - - - - 0 Stump resprouts. 34.140676 -118.084078 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 91 Prunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf Cherry Good Fair 10 14 7 4 2 2 2 2 2 16 Additional diameter: 2 34.14075 -118.084132 Public No Yes Immature Public No Removal 92 Prunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf Cherry Good Fair 12 10 3 4 2 2 - - - 8 34.140797 -118.084189 Public No Yes Immature Public No Removal 93 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 10 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140876 -118.084229 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 94 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 15 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 30 34.140887 -118.084236 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 95 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 15 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.140894 -118.084245 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 96 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 30 15 2 17 7 - - - - 24 34.140897 -118.084247 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 97 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 20 12 2 5 4 - - - - 9 34.140903 -118.084258 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 98 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 12 10 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140916 -118.084256 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 99 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 18 12 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140925 -118.084259 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 100 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 12 10 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140912 -118.084284 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 101 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 15 7 2 3 2 - - - - 5 34.140976 -118.084308 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 102 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 12 1 12 - - - - - 12 34.140983 -118.084321 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 103 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 12 6 2 2 2 - - - - 4 34.141015 -118.084336 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 104 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Poor 10 7 3 3 3 1 - - - 7 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140969 -118.084778 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 105 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 8 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.141011 -118.08478 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 106 Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle Fair Poor 20 15 5 7 6 4 2 2 - 21 34.14102 -118.084802 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 107 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 2 5 4 - - - - 9 34.141038 -118.084822 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 108 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 15 3 7 5 5 - - - 17 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141019 -118.084821 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 109 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Fair Fair 12 10 6 2 2 2 2 1 1 10 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141016 -118.084833 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 110 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 12 1 10 - - - - - 10 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141031 -118.084838 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 111 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Good Fair 15 8 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.141073 -118.084864 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 112 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 15 2 8 3 - - - - 11 34.141092 -118.084881 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Encroachment 113 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 15 3 4 3 3 - - - 10 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141081 -118.084902 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 114 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Fair Fair 12 12 5 3 3 2 2 1 - 11 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141098 -118.084935 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 115 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 3 3 2 2 - - - 7 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141101 -118.084959 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 116 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 12 10 3 3 2 1 - - - 6 34.141152 -118.084954 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 117 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 30 10 1 20 - - - - - 20 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140897 -118.084857 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 118 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 8 1 5 - - - - - 5 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140915 -118.084848 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 119 Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Fair Fair 10 7 4 1 1 1 1 - - 4 34.14092 -118.084855 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 120 Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle Fair Poor 15 12 12 3 2 2 2 1 1 17 Additional diameters: 1s. No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140923 -118.084861 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 121 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 40 12 1 17 - - - - - 17 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140934 -118.084884 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 122 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 25 12 1 17 - - - - - 17 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140972 -118.084863 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 123 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 40 15 1 20 - - - - - 20 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140964 -118.084897 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact 124 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 40 15 1 20 - - - - - 20 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140988 -118.084886 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact 125 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 12 9 3 3 1 1 - - - 5 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140972 -118.084903 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 126 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 30 15 1 19 - - - - - 19 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.140988 -118.084915 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
Native
Species Maturity Public Invasive ImpactOn City
List
Individual Stem Diameters (in.)
Appendix A - Tree Information Matrix
Tree
No. Botanical Name Common Name Health Structural
Integrity
Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width (ft.) Stems Cumulative Stem
Diameter (in.) Notes Latitude Longitude Protected Status 127 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 35 15 1 23 - - - - - 23 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141005 -118.084937 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact 128 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 12 10 3 3 3 3 - - - 9 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.14101 -118.084973 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 129 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 20 12 1 20 - - - - - 20 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141039 -118.084966 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact 130 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 35 15 1 20 - - - - - 20 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141044 -118.084989 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact 131 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 40 15 1 20 - - - - - 20 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141056 -118.085017 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Encroachment 132 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 40 15 1 22 - - - - - 22 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.14108 -118.085025 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 133 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 35 15 1 22 - - - - - 22 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141095 -118.085004 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 134 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 12 10 2 4 3 - - - - 7 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141085 -118.085026 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 135 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 12 10 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.141115 -118.085002 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 136 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 15 10 5 2 2 2 2 2 - 10 34.141215 -118.085067 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 137 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 20 20 8 5 5 5 5 4 4 32 Additional diameters: 2, 2 34.14126 -118.085119 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Removal 138 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 25 10 1 12 - - - - - 12 34.141242 -118.085165 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 139 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 20 1 16 - - - - - 16 34.141229 -118.0852 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 140 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 40 15 1 20 - - - - - 20 34.142025 -118.085976 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 141 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 20 1 18 - - - - - 18 34.141504 -118.085346 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 142 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 25 15 1 15 - - - - - 15 34.141463 -118.085325 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 143 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 8 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.141426 -118.085319 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 144 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 20 15 4 5 4 3 3 - - 15 34.141428 -118.085274 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 145 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 20 15 5 5 4 4 4 2 - 19 34.141383 -118.085208 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 146 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 20 15 5 6 4 4 3 3 - 20 34.141365 -118.085179 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 147 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 20 15 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 23 34.141354 -118.085175 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 148 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Poor 20 12 3 4 4 4 - - - 12 34.141332 -118.085151 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 149 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 12 10 2 3 2 - - - - 5 34.141312 -118.085106 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 150 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 30 0 1 18 - - - - - 18 34.140151 -118.083958 Public No No Immature Public Yes Temporary Impact 151 Prunus ilicifolia Holly Leaf Cherry Fair Fair 8 10 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 9 Additional diameter: 1 34.140119 -118.083938 Public No Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 152 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Poor 25 20 1 20 - - - - - 20 34.140127 -118.084013 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No Temporary Impact 153 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 20 1 16 - - - - - 16 34.140037 -118.084105 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 154 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 30 0 1 23 - - - - - 23 34.140088 -118.083937 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact 155 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 10 10 5 3 3 2 2 2 - 12 34.140071 -118.083936 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 156 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 10 10 2 4 2 - - - - 6 34.14005 -118.083964 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 157 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 10 8 2 2 2 - - - - 4 34.140042 -118.083953 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 158 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 2 4 3 - - - - 7 34.14003 -118.084004 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 159 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 20 1 14 - - - - - 14 34.140026 -118.084046 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 160 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 10 10 4 3 2 1 1 - - 7 34.140016 -118.08404 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 161 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 12 6 2 2 2 - - - - 4 34.139977 -118.084036 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 162 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 10 6 3 2 1 1 - - - 4 34.139988 -118.084073 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 163 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Fair Poor 15 15 5 6 3 3 2 2 - 16 34.139949 -118.084068 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 164 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 12 2 6 5 - - - - 11 34.139945 -118.084045 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Temporary Impact 165 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 20 15 7 7 7 6 5 5 5 38 Additional diameter: 3 34.139659 -118.0839 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No No Impact 166 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 12 1 7 - - - - - 7 34.139558 -118.083827 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 167 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 10 8 2 5 5 - - - - 10 34.13956 -118.083794 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 168 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 8 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.139588 -118.083659 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 169 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 12 8 2 4 3 - - - - 7 34.139593 -118.083659 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 170 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 18 14 1 8 - - - - - 8 34.139587 -118.083629 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 171 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Fair Good 10 5 1 3 - - - - - 3 No tag, planted in ground in nursery. 34.139762 -118.083573 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 172 Ficus benjamina Weeping Fig Fair Poor 7 6 3 1 1 1 - - - 3 No tag, planted in ground in nursery. 34.1398 -118.083544 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 173 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Fair Poor 25 20 9 6 5 4 4 3 3 32 Additional diameters: 3, 2, 2. No tag, private property. 34.139563 -118.083578 Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No No Impact 174 Citrus limon Lemon Fair Poor 15 15 5 5 5 4 3 2 - 19 No tag, in yard. 34.139563 -118.083506 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 175 Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Fair Fair 35 20 1 15 - - - - - 15 No tag, in yard. 34.139563 -118.083413 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 176 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 30 30 2 30 18 - - - - 48 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139577 -118.083221 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No No Impact 177 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 30 25 1 26 - - - - - 26 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139598 -118.083107 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No No Impact 178 Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Fair Fair 12 8 1 8 - - - - - 8 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139674 -118.083107 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 179 Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box Fair Fair 8 6 2 3 2 - - - - 5 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.13971 -118.083108 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 180 Trachycarpus fortunei Windmill Palm Fair Fair 12 8 3 8 7 6 - - - 21 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139732 -118.08311 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 181 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Poor Fair 12 10 1 16 - - - - - 16 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139751 -118.083114 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 182 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Fair Fair 15 12 1 12 - - - - - 12 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139905 -118.083141 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 183 Citrus limon Lemon Fair Fair 12 8 3 3 3 2 - - - 8 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139954 -118.083163 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 184 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Fair Fair 15 8 1 6 - - - - - 6 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139935 -118.083202 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 185 Citrus limon Lemon Fair Fair 15 10 1 8 - - - - - 8 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139956 -118.083206 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 186 Annona cherimola Cherimoya Fair Fair 15 10 2 4 3 - - - - 7 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139969 -118.083206 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 187 Psidium guajava Guava Fair Fair 12 10 5 3 2 2 1 1 - 9 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.139985 -118.083205 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 188 Psidium guajava Guava Fair Fair 15 12 2 6 5 - - - - 11 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.140049 -118.08314 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 189 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 25 1 28 - - - - - 28 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.140175 -118.083215 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No No Impact D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
Native
Species Maturity Public Invasive ImpactOn City
List
Individual Stem Diameters (in.)
Appendix A - Tree Information Matrix
Tree
No. Botanical Name Common Name Health Structural
Integrity
Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width (ft.) Stems Cumulative Stem
Diameter (in.) Notes Latitude Longitude Protected Status 190 Citrus limon Lemon Fair Fair 10 8 3 3 2 2 - - - 7 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.14005 -118.083292 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 191 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Fair Fair 10 8 5 3 2 1 1 1 - 8 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.140286 -118.083213 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 192 Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver Dollar Gum Fair Fair 35 20 1 26 - - - - - 26 No tag, in yard, estimated data. 34.140708 -118.083074 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 193 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 18 8 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.141053 -118.083398 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 194 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Poor Fair 12 8 1 5 - - - - - 5 No tag, street tree. 34.142116 -118.086001 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 195 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Fair Fair 15 10 1 8 - - - - - 8 No tag, in yard. 34.141536 -118.085092 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 196 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Fair Fair 15 10 1 4 - - - - - 4 No tag, in yard. 34.141456 -118.085091 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 197 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Good Fair 12 8 3 2 1 1 - - - 4 No tag, in yard. 34.141418 -118.085132 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 198 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Fair Fair 15 12 3 5 4 3 - - - 12 No tag, in yard. 34.14142 -118.085238 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 199 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Fair Fair 20 15 3 6 6 5 - - - 17 No tag, in yard. 34.141472 -118.085301 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 200 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 35 25 1 28 - - - - - 28 No tag, in park. 34.142014 -118.086359 Native, Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 201 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 15 2 2 2 - - - - 4 34.141978 -118.086293 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 202 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 8 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.141959 -118.086273 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 203 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 30 12 10 4 4 4 4 3 2 28 Additional diameters: 2, 2, 2, 1 34.141946 -118.086284 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 204 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 12 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 17 34.141952 -118.086279 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 205 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 25 10 3 4 2 1 - - - 7 34.14192 -118.086275 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 206 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 15 8 4 3 3 2 2 1 17 Additional diameters: 1, 1 34.141923 -118.086258 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 207 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 12 4 4 3 3 3 2 27 Additional diameters: 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 34.141916 -118.086247 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Removal 208 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 4 4 3 3 1 - - 11 34.14187 -118.086209 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 209 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 8 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.141862 -118.086213 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 210 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 4 4 3 3 2 - - 12 34.141852 -118.086204 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 211 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven Fair Fair 20 12 4 4 2 2 2 - - 10 34.141851 -118.086206 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 212 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 12 8 4 2 2 1 1 - - 6 34.141834 -118.086179 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 213 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 14 8 3 3 2 2 - - - 7 34.141842 -118.08614 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 214 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 15 8 2 2 2 - - - - 4 34.141837 -118.08616 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 215 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 15 10 5 5 4 3 2 2 - 16 34.141834 -118.086166 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 216 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 12 7 3 2 1 1 - - - 4 34.141774 -118.086137 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 217 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 20 12 3 7 2 1 - - - 10 34.141722 -118.086042 Native, Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 218 Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver Dollar Gum Poor Poor 20 25 1 18 - - - - - 18 34.141667 -118.085975 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 219 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 30 15 1 16 - - - - - 16 34.141528 -118.08575 Native, Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 220 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 30 15 1 12 - - - - - 12 34.141488 -118.085756 Native, Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 221 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Fair Poor 40 25 4 26 16 15 4 - - 61 34.141185 -118.085553 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 222 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Fair Fair 40 30 1 32 - - - - - 32 34.141109 -118.085465 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 223 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 18 12 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.141125 -118.085467 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 224 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Fair Poor 50 20 1 21 - - - - - 21 34.141235 -118.085456 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes No Impact 225 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 15 10 1 7 - - - - - 7 34.141147 -118.085432 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 226 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Poor 12 10 1 7 - - - - - 7 34.141143 -118.085422 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 227 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Fair Poor 15 15 1 10 - - - - - 10 34.141138 -118.08544 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 228 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 20 20 6 15 6 6 6 6 6 45 34.141103 -118.085444 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 229 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 20 8 3 6 4 2 - - - 12 34.141057 -118.085434 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 230 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 15 8 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.14106 -118.085441 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 231 Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Fair Fair 12 12 1 24 - - - - - 24 34.141039 -118.085397 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes No Impact 232 Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Fair Fair 10 8 1 14 - - - - - 14 34.141044 -118.08539 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 233 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 30 20 1 18 - - - - - 18 34.14101 -118.085372 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 234 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Poor Poor 15 10 2 4 3 - - - - 7 34.14099 -118.085382 Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 235 Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm Fair Fair 30 18 1 24 - - - - - 24 34.140994 -118.085347 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes Removal 236 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Poor Poor 15 12 1 9 - - - - - 9 34.140971 -118.085364 Native, Public No No Immature Public Yes Removal 237 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 20 12 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.141032 -118.08535 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 238 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 15 1 7 - - - - - 7 34.14103 -118.085342 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 239 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 10 8 2 3 3 - - - - 6 34.141044 -118.085323 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 240 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Fair Fair 30 15 1 7 - - - - - 7 34.141085 -118.085354 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 241 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 15 1 10 - - - - - 10 34.141114 -118.085356 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 242 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Fair Fair 45 30 1 23 - - - - - 23 34.140995 -118.08527 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes Encroachment 243 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 20 12 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.141022 -118.08529 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 244 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 20 10 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.140986 -118.085314 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No Removal 245 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 15 1 10 - - - - - 10 34.140954 -118.085232 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 246 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 15 10 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.140967 -118.085284 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 247 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Poor 25 20 4 13 9 5 3 - - 30 34.140935 -118.085323 Native, Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 248 Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress Fair Fair 35 12 1 18 - - - - - 18 34.140929 -118.085278 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 249 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Poor 20 12 3 3 3 3 - - - 9 34.140924 -118.085201 Native, Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 250 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 25 15 2 13 10 - - - - 23 34.140898 -118.085252 Native, Mature, Public Yes Yes Mature Public No No Impact 251 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Poor 20 15 3 5 4 3 - - - 12 34.140887 -118.0852 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 252 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Poor 15 7 2 3 3 - - - - 6 34.140865 -118.085157 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6
Native
Species Maturity Public Invasive ImpactOn City
List
Individual Stem Diameters (in.)
Appendix A - Tree Information Matrix
Tree
No. Botanical Name Common Name Health Structural
Integrity
Height
(ft.)
Crown
Width (ft.) Stems Cumulative Stem
Diameter (in.) Notes Latitude Longitude Protected Status 253 Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Poor Poor 20 15 1 7 - - - - - 7 34.140832 -118.085194 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 254 Trachycarpus fortunei Windmill Palm Fair Good 15 8 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.14086 -118.085139 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 255 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Fair Fair 25 20 1 10 - - - - - 10 34.140933 -118.08519 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 256 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Poor 20 20 2 16 11 - - - - 27 34.140898 -118.085135 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes No Impact 257 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 15 8 5 3 3 2 2 2 - 12 34.14083 -118.085163 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 258 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 15 8 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.140814 -118.085187 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 259 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 15 8 3 3 3 3 - - - 9 34.140809 -118.085163 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 260 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 15 8 3 5 4 2 - - - 11 34.140803 -118.085181 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 261 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 15 8 3 3 2 1 - - - 6 34.140807 -118.085167 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 262 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Poor Fair 30 20 1 17 - - - - - 17 34.140743 -118.085031 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 263 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Poor Fair 25 20 1 11 - - - - - 11 34.140819 -118.085093 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 264 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Poor Poor 25 20 3 8 7 5 - - - 20 34.140817 -118.085127 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 265 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Fair Fair 40 20 1 16 - - - - - 16 34.14085 -118.085107 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 266 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 20 15 1 8 - - - - - 8 34.140848 -118.085075 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 267 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Poor 15 15 1 10 - - - - - 10 34.140767 -118.085037 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 268 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 12 1 8 - - - - - 8 34.140761 -118.085011 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 269 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 20 15 1 10 - - - - - 10 34.140785 -118.084989 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 270 Trachycarpus fortunei Windmill Palm Fair Fair 15 10 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.140776 -118.085012 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 271 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Poor 35 25 1 18 - - - - - 18 34.140744 -118.084958 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 272 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 20 10 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.140691 -118.084894 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 273 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Poor 15 12 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.140686 -118.084909 Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 274 Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Fair Fair 45 20 1 22 - - - - - 22 34.140673 -118.084916 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes No Impact 275 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Poor 15 15 1 10 - - - - - 10 34.140627 -118.084851 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 276 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 20 10 1 6 - - - - - 6 34.140593 -118.084793 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 277 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Poor Critical 20 20 3 11 10 7 - - - 28 34.140539 -118.084758 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 278 Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Fair Fair 25 20 1 14 - - - - - 14 34.140546 -118.084859 Native, Public Yes Yes Immature Public No No Impact 279 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 20 20 2 5 2 - - - - 7 34.140521 -118.084878 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 280 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 20 18 1 8 - - - - - 8 34.14051 -118.084924 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 281 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Poor Critical 18 15 1 13 - - - - - 13 34.140537 -118.084884 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 282 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Fair 20 8 2 5 4 - - - - 9 34.140502 -118.08489 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 283 Unknown Dead Tree Unknown Dead Tree Dead Dead 25 0 1 17 - - - - - 17 34.140577 -118.084927 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 284 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash Fair Fair 20 8 1 5 - - - - - 5 34.140566 -118.084952 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 285 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 15 12 4 4 4 2 1 - - 11 34.140575 -118.084954 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 286 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 15 10 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140574 -118.084936 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 287 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 15 12 9 4 4 3 3 3 3 24 Additional diameters: 2, 2 34.140578 -118.084957 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 288 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 15 8 5 2 2 1 1 1 - 7 34.140605 -118.084923 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 289 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Poor 15 12 12 6 3 3 2 2 2 26 Additional diameters: 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 34.140633 -118.084944 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 290 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Poor 15 8 2 4 2 - - - - 6 34.140654 -118.085015 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 291 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm Fair Poor 25 20 1 13 - - - - - 13 34.140687 -118.085 Public Yes No Immature Public Yes No Impact 292 Quercus ilex Holly Oak Fair Fair 15 8 3 3 3 2 - - - 8 34.140656 -118.084959 Native, Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 293 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry Fair Fair 15 8 1 4 - - - - - 4 34.140669 -118.085049 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 294 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Poor Poor 20 15 1 28 - - - - - 28 No tag, in park. 34.141149 -118.085612 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Encroachment 295 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 20 15 3 11 10 7 - - - 28 No tag, in park. 34.140847 -118.085241 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes No Impact 296 Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Fair Fair 20 15 1 16 - - - - - 16 No tag, in park. 34.140573 -118.085008 Public No No Immature Public Yes No Impact 297 Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweetgum Fair Fair 45 25 1 23 - - - - - 23 No tag, in park. 34.140482 -118.08491 Mature, Public Yes No Mature Public Yes No Impact 298 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Fair Fair 35 15 1 22 - - - - - 22 No tag, estimated data, homeless encampment. 34.141026 -118.084952 Mature, Public No No Mature Public Yes Temporary Impact

Appendix B
Protected Tree Locations

E Del Mar Blvd
Milton St
S Kinneloa Ave
72 73
74 75
76 77
88 89105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
298
129
130
131
132 133134
135
136
137138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147 148
149
194
195
196197
198
199
200
201 202
203204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213 214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238 239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246247
248
249250
251
252
253
254
255 256
257
258
259 260
261
263264
265
266
294
295
Project Boundary
Protected Tree Locations
Native, Mature, Public
Mature, Public
Native, Public
Public
0 5025
Feet
n
Date: 2/10/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture.aprx Map: Appendix B Protected Tree Locations Layout: Appendix B Protected Tree Locations 2 1
SOURCE: Maxar 2024; Open Street Map 2024
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Protected Tree Locations

APPENDIX B
DUDEK
Oneida St
Oneida Dr
Thorndale Rd
Grayburn Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11
12 1314
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 3031
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 6667
68 69
7071
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104 105
117
118
119
120
121
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
262
267
268
269
270
271
272273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280 281
282
283284
285
286
287
288
289
290291
292
293
296
297
Project Boundary
Protected Tree Locations
Native, Mature, Public
Mature, Public
Native, Public
Public
0 5025
Feet
n
Date: 2/10/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture.aprx Map: Appendix B Protected Tree Locations Layout: Appendix B Protected Tree Locations 2 1
SOURCE: Maxar 2024; Open Street Map 2024
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Protected Tree Locations

APPENDIX B
DUDEK

Appendix C
Tree Impacts

E Del Mar Blvd
S Kinneloa Ave
72 73
74 75
76 77
88 89
106107
108
109
110
111112
113
114
115
116
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130131
132
133
134
135
136137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 145
146
147
148 149
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201 202
203
204
205
206
207 208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225 226
227 228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237 238
239
240
241 242243
244
245246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
264265
266
294
295
298
Date: 9/17/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\Arborist\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture.aprx Map: Appendix C Tree Impacts Layout: Appendix C Tree Impacts 0 5025
Feet
n
Project Boundary
Project Impact
Permanent
Temporary
Tree Impact
Removal
Encroachment
Temporary Impact
No Impact
1 2
3 SOURCE: Craftwater 2025; Maxar 2024; Open Street Map 2019 Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Tree Impacts
APPENDIX C1
DUDEK
Oneida St
Oneida Dr
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8 9
10 11
12 13
1415
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
2425
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
444546
47 4849
5051
5253
54 55
56 5758
59 6061
62 63
64 6566
67 68
69 70
71 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90919293
94 95 96
97 9899
100
101
102
103
104
105106107
108109
110
117
118
119
120121
122
123
124
125
126
150 151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158159
160
161
162
163
164
165 166
167
171
172
182
183
184185
186
187190
252
253
254
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275 276 277
278
279
280
281 282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
296 297
Date: 9/17/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\Arborist\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture.aprx Map: Appendix C Tree Impacts Layout: Appendix C Tree Impacts 0 5025
Feet
n
Project Boundary
Project Impact
Permanent
Temporary
Tree Impact
Removal
Encroachment
Temporary Impact
No Impact
1 2
3 SOURCE: Craftwater 2025; Maxar 2024; Open Street Map 2019 Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Tree Impacts
APPENDIX C2

DUDEK L
Thorndale Rd
Grayburn Rd
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 444546
47 4849
5051
9091
92 150 151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158159
160
161
162
163
164
165 166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
Date: 9/17/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\Arborist\Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture.aprx Map: Appendix C Tree Impacts Layout: Appendix C Tree Impacts 0 5025
Feet
n
Project Boundary
Project Impact
Permanent
Temporary
Tree Impact
Removal
Encroachment
Temporary Impact
No Impact
1 2
3 SOURCE: Craftwater 2025; Maxar 2024; Open Street Map 2019 Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Tree Impacts
APPENDIX C3
DUDEK

Appendix D
Representative Site Photographs

Photo #1. Taken on the eastern portion of the site, western portion of the nursery. Facing west.

Photo #2. Taken on the eastern portion of the site, western portion of the nursery. Facing south.

Photographs were taken on February 5 and 6, 2025
Photo #3. Taken on the east side of the wash, west
of the nursery's chain link fence. Facing northwest.

Photo #4. Taken on the east side of the wash, west of the nursery's chain link fence. Facing southeast.

Photographs were taken on February 5 and 6, 2025
Photo #5. Taken near the western border on the east side of the wash. Facing north.

Photo #6. Taken near the southern border. Facing east.

Photographs were taken on February 5 and 6, 2025

Appendix E
Cultural Resources Assessment Report

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025

CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT

for the

Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT .................................................... 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting.................................................... 3

2.2 Project Description .......................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Stormwater Capture System ........................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Park Improvements ......................................................................................... 8

2.2.3 Eaton Wash Channel Pedestrian Bridge ....................................................... 10

2.2.4 Parking and Access ...................................................................................... 10

2.2.5 Temporary Construction Access, Staging, and Closures .............................. 11

3.0 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ...................................................................... 11

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND ....................................... 14

4.1 Natural Setting .............................................................................................. 14

4.2 Prehistoric Setting ......................................................................................... 15

4.2.1 Paleoindian Period (Pre-5500 BC) ................................................................ 15

4.2.2 Archaic Period (8000 BC–AD 500) ................................................................ 16

4.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period (AD 500–1769) ......................................................... 17

4.3 Ethnographic Setting ..................................................................................... 17

4.3.1 Tongva (Gabrielino) ...................................................................................... 18

4.4 Historic Setting .............................................................................................. 20

4.4.1 Spanish Period (1769–1821) ......................................................................... 21

4.4.2 Mexican Period (1821–1848) ........................................................................ 21

4.4.3 American Period (1848–Present) .................................................................. 22

4.4.4 Historical Overview of the City of Pasadena ................................................. 23

4.4.5 Development of Public Parks in Pasadena ................................................... 25

4.4.6 Urgent Care Center Typology ....................................................................... 30

4.4.7 Southern California Edison Company History ............................................... 31 Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
ii

4.4.8 Transmission Lines ....................................................................................... 32

4.4.9 Development of the Subject Properties Within the APE ................................ 33

5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 38

5.1 Federal .......................................................................................................... 38

5.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................. 38

5.1.2 National Register of Historic Places .............................................................. 39

5.2 State .............................................................................................................. 40

5.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................. 40

5.2.2 The California Register of Historical Resources ............................................ 42

5.2.3 Native American Historical Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code Section 5097 ................................................................................................................. 43

5.2.4 California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ............. 43

5.2.5 California State Assembly Bill 52 .................................................................. 43

5.2.6 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 ................................................................................................... 44

5.3 Local ............................................................................................................. 45

5.3.1 City of Pasadena Landmark Criteria ............................................................. 45

6.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .................................................................................... 45

6.1 Records Search ............................................................................................ 45

6.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies ....................................... 45

6.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ...................................................... 46

6.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search ............... 51

6.3 Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs ....................................................... 52

6.3.1 Historical Topographic Maps ......................................................................... 52

6.3.2 Historical Aerial Photographs ........................................................................ 52

7.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY ................................................................ 53

7.1 Survey Methods ............................................................................................ 53

7.1.1 Archaeological Survey Methods .................................................................... 53

7.1.2 Built Environment Survey Methods ............................................................... 53

7.2 Survey Results .............................................................................................. 53 Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
iii

7.2.1 Archaeological Survey Results ...................................................................... 53

7.2.2 Built Environment Survey Results ................................................................. 55

8.0 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION.......................................................................... 55

8.1 Map ID 1: Eaton Wash Channel .................................................................... 55

8.1.1 Description .................................................................................................... 55

8.1.2 Statement of Significance.............................................................................. 57

8.1.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion .......................................................... 59

8.2 Map ID 2: Eaton Blanche Park ...................................................................... 59

8.2.1 Description .................................................................................................... 59

8.2.2 Statement of Significance.............................................................................. 62

8.2.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion .......................................................... 64

8.3 Map ID 3: Earthside Nature Center Site ........................................................ 64

8.3.1 Description .................................................................................................... 64

8.3.2 Statement of Significance.............................................................................. 66

8.3.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion .......................................................... 68

8.4 Map ID 4: Exer Urgent Care .......................................................................... 69

8.4.1 Description .................................................................................................... 69

8.4.2 Statement of Significance.............................................................................. 72

8.4.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion .......................................................... 74

8.5 Map ID 5: SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line ................................... 74

8.5.1 Description .................................................................................................... 74

8.5.2 Statement of Significance.............................................................................. 76

8.5.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion .......................................................... 78

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 78

9.1 Archaeological Resources............................................................................. 78

9.2 Historic Architectural Resources ................................................................... 80

10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 80

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location ........................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2 Project Site ............................................................................................................... 6 Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
iv
Figure 3 Area of Potential Effects for Cultural Resources ......................................................13

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. Students exiting the Earthside Nature Center in 1985. .......................................... 36 Exhibit 2. View of the Earthside Nature Center entrance in 2008. ......................................... 37 Exhibit 3. City of Pasadena’s Site Concept Design for the Earthside Nature Center, 2025. ............. 37

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1. Example of zero ground surface visibility, view facing south. .............................54 Photograph 2. Example of moderate ground surface visibility. View facing west. ......................55 Photograph 3. View of the Eaton Wash Channel, looking north. ...............................................56 Photograph 4. View of the Eaton Wash Channel, looking south. ...............................................56 Photograph 5. View of the sports courts and parking lot, looking northwest. .............................60 Photograph 6. View of the play structure, looking northeast. .....................................................60 Photograph 7. View of the picnic area, looking north. ................................................................61 Photograph 8. View of the softball field, looking southwest. ......................................................61 Photograph 9. The wood post entrance to the Earthside Nature Center site, looking southeast. ....................................................................................................65 Photograph 10. View of the plaque at the Earthside Nature Center site, looking south. ..................65 Photograph 11. View of the Earthside Nature Center site, looking southeast. ...........................66 Photograph 12. The east and primary (north) elevations of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking southwest. ...................................................................................................70 Photograph 13. Primary (north) elevation of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking south. ...............70 Photograph 14. East elevation of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking southwest. ................71 Photograph 15. The primary and west elevations of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking southeast. ....................................................................................................71

LIST OF TABLES
Table1 Previously Conducted Studies Intersecting APE ............................................................ 43 Table 2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the APE ....................... 44

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
v

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Personal Qualifications
Appendix B: Confidential SCCIC Records Search Results
Appendix C: Sacred Lands File Search
Appendix D: DPR 523 Forms
Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Pasadena (City) is proposing the Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project (Project), which would include improvements on City-owned property and within the public right-of-way adjacent to the Eaton Wash Channel to enhance water quality and improve stormwater management. The Project is located within Section 25 of Township 1 North and Range 12 West of the Mount Wilson, California U.S. Geological Survey

7.5-minute series quadrangle, in the City of Pasadena, California (Figure 1, Project Location). The Project entails constructing public infrastructure to divert dry-weather and stormwater flows from the Eaton Wash Channel and send the water for treatment through a series of vegetated treatment ponds and a subsurface storage reservoir. This process helps remove pollutants and trash, enhancing the water quality within the Eaton Wash Channel, which ultimately flows to the Los Angeles River and the Pacific Ocean.

The Project would construct a pedestrian bridge over the Eaton Wash Channel, connecting the proposed facility to Eaton Blanche Park, and construct other improvements intended to create an inclusive, multi-benefit park space that enhances environmental and recreational areas for the community (Figure 2, Project Site).

The City of Pasadena is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and local regulations, Dudek performed a Phase I cultural resources inventory and Phase II evaluation that included a records search, an archival information and literature review, correspondence with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a cultural resources pedestrian survey of the area of potential effects (APE) for cultural resources, and the recordation and evaluation of four newly identified historic-age (over 45 years of age) built environment resources under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database.

The APE was delineated pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. The APE for archaeological resources encompasses the federally permitted, 3.91-acre construction footprint wherein all ground-disturbing activities will occur. The APE for built environment resources additionally includes the full legal parcel boundaries of properties that may be potentially affected by visual, vibratory, auditory, and atmospheric effects caused by the Project (Figure 3, Area of Potential Effects for Cultural Resources).

Dudek conducted a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search of the APE and surrounding 1-mile radius at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC). The records search identified one historic-age built environment resource located within the APE (P-19-190502), and another 61 cultural resources recorded within the 1-mile radius. P-19-190502 is characterized as a historic- age transmission line constructed circa (ca.) 1951 and recommended ineligible for the NRHP and CRHR by Wendy Becker in 2010 (Becker 2010).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
2 A NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was also requested, and results were positive for Native American cultural resources within 1 mile of the APE, though the NAHC did not provide details on what the resource(s) are or where they are located.

An intensive-level cultural resources pedestrian survey of the APE was performed on June 26, 2025, by Dudek archaeologist, Roshanne Bakhtiary, MA, RPA, and Dudek architectural historian Katie Ahmanson, MSC. Overall, no archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey, and Dudek’s archival review indicates that the majority of the APE has been previously disturbed by the channelization of Eaton Wash, building development, demolition, and grading.

Five historic-age built environment resources (Map IDs 1–5) were recorded during the pedestrian survey and evaluated for the NRHP, CRHR, and City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database. All five resources are recommended not eligible due to a lack of significant associations, design distinction, and information potential. Therefore, no historic properties have been identified within the APE, and a finding of No Historic Properties Affected is recommended.

Given the former presence of the Earthside Nature Center within the APE and its location adjacent to the historic course of the Eaton Wash Channel, there is a moderate potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological resources during Project implementation. Dudek recommends archaeological monitoring during initial ground-disturbing activities for the Project. If disturbed sediments (e.g., fill) or other sediments and formations are identified that do not have the potential to contain significant archaeological resources as defined by CEQA, then monitoring may be reduced or terminated. The requirement for tribal monitoring, while recommended, shall be determined by the lead agency in consultation with the traditionally culturally affiliated tribes with geographic ties to the APE. Management recommendations to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological resources and human remains during construction activities are provided in Chapter 9.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, of this report.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The City contracted Dudek to prepare a cultural resources assessment for the Project.

The Project proposes improvements on City-owned property and public right-of-way adjacent to the Eaton Wash Channel to enhance water quality and effectively manage stormwater runoff. The Project entails constructing public infrastructure to divert dry- weather and stormwater flows from the Eaton Wash Channel and send the water for treatment through a series of vegetated treatment ponds and a subsurface storage reservoir.

The City of Pasadena is the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA. The Project also requires a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. The USACE is the lead federal agency responsible for the implementation of Section 106 of the NHPA (Section 106).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
3 In accordance with CEQA, Section 106, and local regulations, Dudek performed a Phase I cultural resources inventory and Phase II evaluation that included a records search, an archival information and literature review, correspondence with the NAHC, a cultural resources pedestrian survey of the APE for cultural resources, and the recordation and evaluation of four newly identified historic-age built environment resources under the NRHP, the CRHR, and the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database.

Dudek personnel involved in the preparation of this report are as follows: archaeologists Roshanne Bakhtiary, MA, RPA, and Ryan J. Glenn, MA, RPA, and architectural historians Katie Ahmanson, MHC, and Monte Kim, PhD. Resumes of key personnel are included in Appendix A.

2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting
The Project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City, near the boundary with unincorporated Los Angeles County and within Section 25 of Township 1 North and Range 12 West of the Mount Wilson, California U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute series quadrangle (Figure 1, Project Location). The site includes a channelized segment of the Eaton Wash Channel, which flows north to south from the San Gabriel Mountains north of the site to the Rio Hondo River approximately 5 miles southeast of the site (Figure 2, Project Site). The primary location of the proposed facilities is a City- owned property east of the channel, which is vacant and disturbed. The property features scattered trees and shrubs, debris from prior vegetation-removal efforts, and remnants of former uses such as wooden railings and planter boxes, a concrete foundation, chain-link perimeter fencing, and a wooden sign. The southeastern portion of the Project site is within Southern California Edison (SCE) overhead electrical transmission right-of-way that features two steel towers. The SCE right-of-way is leased to a commercial nursery and used to grow and store container plants. The Eaton Wash Channel is maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, who has a 100-foot-wide easement around the channel. West of the channel, the Project site includes a portion of the City-owned Eaton Blanche Park, featuring mature trees along the edge of the channel and a grass field that abuts the park’s playground, walking paths and picnic areas to the northwest. Farther northwest in the park are tennis courts, a basketball court, benches and picnic tables, shade structures, and a restroom building. Both sides of the Project site are mostly flat, but slope down toward the concrete channel. The Project site totals approximately 3.91 acres.

The Project site is in a developed part of the City that primarily features single-family residences and institutional uses. Institutional uses include an urgent care clinic abutting the site to the north, and the Boys & Girls Club of Pasadena, Willard Elementary School, CALRegional Pasadena adult education center, and a church, all located northeast of the site. The urgent care clinic facility is within the City-owned parcel and leases the land for their use. Regional access to the park is from Interstate 210, which is approximately 0.4 miles to the north. Direct access to the eastern part of site is from Thorndale Road and Grayburn Road, each of which dead-end at existing gates leading to the City property and the SCE right-of-way, along with a maintenance road along the Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
4 Eaton Wash Channel’s eastern bank that connects to Del Mar Boulevard. Access to the western part of the Project site is from Oneida Street, La Presa Drive, and Millicent Way, with a small parking lot connected to Millicent Way. The Project site is designated as Open Space and Institutional in the City of Pasadena Land Use Diagram (City of Pasadena 2025a) and is zoned as Open Space and Public, Semi-Public in the City of Pasadena Zoning Map (City of Pasadena 2025b).

Poject Site
ÄÆ19
§¨¦210
§¨¦210
Project Boundary
0 2,0001,000
Feet
n
Date: 10/21/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\MND\Easton Wash MND.aprx Map: Figure 1 Project Location (2) Layout: Figure 1 Project LocationDate: 10/21/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\MND\Easton Wash MND.aprx Map: Figure 1 Project Location (2) Layout: Figure 1 Project Location Project Site
Brea
Chino
Hills
BellflowerGardena
Norwalk
La Habra HeightsBell GardensInglewood
Maywood
Commerce Diamond
Bar
Pomona
Pico Rivera
Culver
City WalnutIndustry
South El Monte
West Hollywood
El Monte CovinaAlhambra
Temple City San Dimas
La Verne
Azusa
Arcadia GlendoraDuarte
Pasadena
Glendale
San
Fernando
Santa Clarita
Burbank
Los
Angeles
£¤101
ÄÆ90
ÄÆ57
ÄÆ118
ÄÆ134
ÄÆ39
ÄÆ66
ÄÆ142
ÄÆ187
ÄÆ170
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ90
ÄÆ72 ÄÆ19
ÄÆ60
ÄÆ2
§¨¦5
§¨¦710
§¨¦10
§¨¦605
§¨¦210
§¨¦405
§¨¦105
L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y
SOURCE: USGS National Map 2025
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Project Location
FIGURE 1

PALOMA ST
Pasadena
~ ~
:z
<(
0 "'
0 <Q ~ :z :z
as.adena <.u ~
<.u ~
1tyColl ,. ,.
<( <( <( <(
! ~ >- 0 ....
:z ~ ~ i;j
:z <.u "' ,.
<.u
0 "'
<( .,,
"' "' :t 0 <.u .,, "' :z 0
.,, "" "' .,, .,,

ST ONEIDA ST
San Pasqual

HOMETRD

LOMBARDY RD

ORLANDO RD
CJ
DUDEI<
~
0 :,0
0 "' 0

ROBLES AVE
.,.oNTECtro
C' C),f>
Prospero
Tract
ct of Land
as Square
D
0 Tract of Land
Near San Gabrie l
~ Q
,; "' :,0
C l> >-
"' "' "' 0 g :,
"' 0 0 Q
:,0
"'
<(
Q
"' Q
0 ~
~
Lamanda Park

NINA ST
"'-.,,. z
0 -<
"" "' &
San
Gabriel

RIDA ST

ESTADO ST

E GREEN ST

MILTON ST
.... .,,
Q
~ .,,
<(
:i::
:z

LANDFAIR RD
s~ADOW GROVE RD

GREENHILL RD

NEW HAVEN RD
-z_ .,,
o_,., C'ltrr DJ?
'% MAYFAIR DR
~o SEARS WAY
9lvD
CE FOOTHILL BLVD 119 •
0 ELMA RD

SYCAMORE AVE
East Pasadena
19 SOUTHVIEW RD
I]

DIA AVE
E ARCA

E GR ENWOOD AVE
SINGING WOOD DJ?

HAMPTON RD

COLORADO ST
:,0
0 PORTOLA DR

ANOAKIA LN

FOOTHILL FWY
Baldwin Lttke

HUGO REID DR

ARCADIA AVE
a,
West
Arcadia
I]
LOWEL
Project Boundary
0 15075
Feet
n
Date: 10/21/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\MND\Easton Wash MND.aprx Map: Figure 2 Project Site Layout: Figure 2 Project SiteDate: 10/21/2025 User: jgreenstein Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\MND\Easton Wash MND.aprx Map: Figure 2 Project Site Layout: Figure 2 Project Site SOURCE: Bing Maps 2024; Open Street Map 2024
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Project Site
FIGURE 2
DUDEI<
Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
7 2.2 Project Description
The Project entails constructing and operating a stormwater capture, treatment, and infiltration facility on a vacant property east of the Eaton Wash Channel, developing passive park uses above the proposed facility, and constructing a pedestrian bridge over the channel connecting the passive park to Eaton Blanche Park. The Project is currently in the design phase, and the City has developed certain design and engineering assumptions for purposes of defining the Project for informational purposes and conducting environmental impact review pursuant to CEQA. Actual details of the Project may end up varying from the information provided below.

2.2.1 Stormwater Capture System
The stormwater capture and treatment facility would intercept stormwater and dry- weather flow from the Eaton Wash Channel and divert it into a subterranean concrete basin. The Project’s stormwater capture features are described below.

Stormwater Diversion Infrastructure and Pretreatment Devices A diversion structure would be installed in the bottom of the Eaton Wash Channel to collect flows and send water into a 20-inch-diameter ductile iron diversion pipeline that would be installed via trench. Water would be pumped through the diversion pipeline through a trash trap and pretreatment filter unit to remove debris, sediments, and solids present in the runoff. The pump and pretreatment unit would be installed in underground vaults with hatches for personnel access. The pretreatment device is a hydrodynamic separator, which directs water through a screen to filter out large debris and into a cylindrical separation chamber where water swirls and forces particles out of the runoff, settling them in an isolated sump. Hydrocarbons float to the top of the water surface and are prevented from being transported downstream.

Storage Reservoir and Infiltration Galleries
After pretreatment, water would flow into the underground storage reservoir installed beneath the vacant City property. The underground storage reservoir would have a capacity of 3.4 acre-feet and would have an area of approximately 0.59 acres according to preliminary design information. Existing vegetation and remnant hardscape features would be removed from the reservoir area, and earth material would be excavated, removed, and hauled off site for reuse or disposal. The underground reservoir would be formed as a series of precast cells made of reinforced, high-strength concrete that would be hauled to the site on flatbed trucks, lowered into place by a crane, and grouted together to form a single chamber. The reservoir would feature two personnel access points with stairs leading down from a hatch.

The reservoir will be designed to facilitate infiltration of captured stormwater, allowing water to seep into the underlying aquifer and providing natural filtration through the soil.

To reduce the size of the reservoir and maximize treatment capacity, the system would not be designed to handle all captured storm flows solely through infiltration; during periods of heavy flow, some water would be pumped out of the basin and filtered again for discharge back into the Eaton Wash Channel.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
8 Discharge System and Treatment
During smaller storm events, stormwater collected by the system is anticipated to infiltrate into the soils beneath the storage reservoir and infiltration gallery.

During larger storm events that fill up the reservoir, water would flow into an outlet pipe and flow-control structure with a valve to regulate flow into a post-treatment filter system. The filter would provide additional pollutant removal prior to discharging water back into the outlet pipe flowing into the Eaton Wash Channel. Two manholes would be installed along the outlet pipe. A flap gate would be installed at the outlet point to the channel, preventing water from entering the outlet system.

2.2.2 Park Improvements
The proposed park would feature nature-based recreational and educational elements at a site that once housed similar uses. The elements being considered rely upon site context; history, stakeholder and public input; and overall City needs. The location of this space, adjacent to the Eaton Wash Channel, provides an opportunity to re-create plant communities typically found near waterways, highlight other native plant communities, and create tailored gardens that support education and wildlife.

In addition to the extensive underground stormwater capture and infiltration system, filtered stormwater would be brought to the surface of the proposed park for interpretive water features and further filtration. At the Welcome Plaza, water bubbles would surface in a ring of river rocks resembling a natural spring. Interpretive signage at the Welcome Plaza would explain the stormwater capture system and detail different types of natural riparian ecosystems that can be found currently and historically in the watershed. The natural spring would overflow into a channel that flows under the maintenance road into a vegetated swale. The swale and basin would be surrounded by riparian planting and interpretive signage.

The design team has been and will continue to look towards the community for their input on desired amenities to be added to the proposed site design. From the initial conceptual design, the park sought to incorporate features such as new trees, native plantings, passive recreation features, walking paths, outdoor classrooms, community gardens, a pedestrian bridge to connect to Eaton Blanche Park, and gathering areas with park seating. There has been three community outreach meetings since the initial design was presented and certain design elements have been changed and added as a result of the community’s input. The new Project site’s surface improvement design includes community and pollinator gardens, an above ground water feature, a dog park, riparian garden, gathering areas, an outdoor classroom, and a pedestrian bridge connecting Eaton Blanche Park to the proposed Project site. The surface improvements are further described below.

Welcome Plaza
At the confluence of visitors arriving via pedestrian bridge from Eaton Blanche Park and from on-site parking, a paved pedestrian plaza will be developed. As visitors approach the new park from the bridge, the stormwater spring and an interpretive signage kiosk Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
9 will serve as a focal point. The paving of the plaza will have a pattern of scorelines and materials that represent the concept narrative of watersheds and solar systems, through pattern-making that resembles both planetary orbits and ripples in a body of water.

Shade will be provided by trees and/or a shade structure integrated into the kiosk. The plaza surface will be separated from the adjacent parking and maintenance driveway by a raised curb, except for where the central access road leaves the main parking area via a rolled curb controlled by removable bollards. In-ground mounted site furnishings, a drinking fountain, and bike racks will be provided.

Outdoor Classrooms
Educational features will benefit strongly from involvement with nearby institutions such as Willard Elementary, the Boys & Girls Club, and CIS Academy, where student groups can use the space for outdoor education, and learn about the site’s environmental benefits. A dedicated instruction area will be included next to the surface stormwater storage. This will consist of a DG outdoor “room” shaded by riparian trees or a permanent shade structure. Seating will be provided by a series of stone slabs arranged around a central low slab for instructional materials. Space for wheelchair and companion seating will be provided.

Educational Signage
Interpretive signage will help future visitors understand the history, context, and plant communities present on the site. Educational signage is proposed at the community garden, the entry kiosk, on the bridge, and in each gathering area. Sign materials are expected to be a mix of printed aluminum and laser-etched steel, depending on the location. Additional interpretive elements may be added throughout the Project site in forms other than signage, such as sandblasting into concrete or boulders, or as sculptural elements.

Community Garden
A community garden, which existed on the Project site in the past, is proposed near the entrance to the site. The garden would require strong commitment from a gardening group to keep the site clean and maintained, and to keep an active membership to prevent the garden from falling into disrepair. Should this partnership be achieved, a garden on the site will add to the educational benefits, and the native plants proposed for the site will help pollinate what is grown in the garden. Raised garden beds are more accessible for use by a wider range of abilities than ground-level beds. If beds aren’t allocated for community use, or if the community garden group no longer maintains the space, beds can be converted to native plant and/or wildflower showcases, also maintaining the spirit of Earthside. A lockable storage shed would be provided for the gardening group.

Gathering Spaces
At least two small gathering spaces will be included throughout the park, connected by accessible DG pathways. The spaces will include seating for 10 or fewer visitors, in the form of boulders, site furniture, and/or picnic tables. Shade will be provided by trees and/or shade structures that reference the historic structure of Earthside.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
10 Dog Park
A fenced-in dog park is proposed for the south end of the Project site and would be accessed through a double gate to prevent off-leash dogs from easily escaping the enclosure. Situating the dog park at the far end of the park from the two most commonly used access points is a strategy to get more visitors in the park. Bringing dog-walkers all the way through the park will bring more activity and greater perception of safety for other users who may discover the relatively hidden space. A natural, unirrigated surface is proposed to prevent fruitless future maintenance costs. Existing fallen logs could be retained as climbing features for dogs while preserving a natural aesthetic.

2.2.3 Eaton Wash Channel Pedestrian Bridge
As currently designed, the pedestrian bridge is proposed to be a 160-foot-long, single- span, pre-fabricated steel structure that will span the Eaton Wash Channel and connect the new passive park to Eaton Blanche Park. The bridge is anticipated to feature a 10- foot-wide reinforced concrete deck with vertical picket guardrails and pipe handrails made of weathering steel. Gates will be installed at both ends of the bridge to allow the City to prevent access when the park is not open.

Due to approximately 19 feet of undocumented fill beneath the bridge landings, each abutment will require deep foundations, consisting of four cast-in-place concrete drilled shafts per abutment anticipated to be 30 feet long and 24 inches in diameter.

2.2.4 Parking and Access
A small parking lot would be provided at the north end of the site, accessed through a new, lockable vehicular gate at the southeast corner of Exer Urgent Care parking lot.

Six new parking spaces would be provided, including one that is ADA accessible. The parking lot is laid out to also serve as a maintenance driveway and turnaround for maintenance trucks servicing the access hatches to the underground stormwater capture system. The parking lot would be paved with a combination of permeable pavers and open-cell pavers to allow infiltration of stormwater. Any remaining surface runoff will enter the site’s surface water features, and eventually the subsurface infiltration gallery. Short-term bike parking would be provided on site adjacent to the Welcome Plaza.

On the SCE easement, Thorndale Road would be extended from where it dead-ends to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the eastern portion of the Project site. The extension of Thorndale Road would terminate in a parking lot with three parking spaces, including one that is ADA accessible. The vehicular access road extending from Thorndale Road would be gravel and the parking spaces would be paved with permeable pavers. The pedestrian access extending from Thorndale Road would intersect with the pedestrian path leading to the western portion of the site or continue to amenities in the eastern portion of the site such as a gathering area or community garden. Additionally, the sidewalk along Thorndale Road, adjacent to Willard Elementary School, would be improved and connect to the pedestrian path extending Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
11 from Thorndale Road to allow for pedestrian access from Willard Elementary School and the Boys and Girls Club of Pasadena to the Project site.

A 20-foot-wide road connects the parking lot at the north end of the Project site to a vehicular gate at the south end of the site, providing maintenance access to stormwater capture system hatches and fire truck circulation. A hammerhead is provided for turnaround at the south gate. A 10-foot-wide vehicular DG lane travels down the center of the road with 5-foot shoulders of drivable open-cell pavers on each side. The pavers would be seeded with wildflower seed and planted with durable species that withstand light foot traffic. Gates would be provided at all access points to the future park site, including at the Eaton Blanche side of the pedestrian bridge.

2.2.5 Temporary Construction Access, Staging, and Closures Construction access would be coordinated with either the urgent care facility, SCE for use of their easement, or with LA County Flood Control District to utilize their channel maintenance road for construction access. Construction equipment, vehicles, and material would be staged and stored overnight on the Project site with adequate site security. Construction staging for the underground storage modules would likely be located off site and remain on staged delivery truck beds until they are ready to be installed. Measures to minimize construction noise and isolate construction debris such as dust would be implemented by the construction contractor. Eaton Blanche Park is expected to remain open to the public during construction. The Project site and area surrounding the Project site, east of Eaton Blanche Park across the Eaton Wash Channel, would be closed to the public.

3.0 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
The APE was delineated pursuant to Section 106. According to Section 106, the APE is:

The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800.16[d]).

For the current undertaking, the APE delineated for the consideration of archaeological resources is represented by the area that may be subject to direct physical effects, which is approximately 3.91 acres. This includes the entire construction footprint for the activities requiring a USACE 404 permit for the Eaton Wash Channel. All ground- disturbing and staging activities will occur within the APE for archaeological resources, as represented in Figure 3, Area of Potential Effects
The APE for built environment resources considered the full legal parcel boundaries of Assessor Parcel Numbers 5754-031-901, 5754-030-901, 5754-030-802, Eaton Blanche Park, and a 145-foot segment of the Eaton Wash Channel where the undertaking could directly cause potential physical, visual, vibratory, auditory, or atmospheric effects on historic properties. The APE includes five, historic-age built environment resources, Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
12 including the Eaton Wash Channel (Map ID 1), Eaton Blanche Park (Map ID 2) at 3100 E Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-031-901), the Earthside Nature Center site (Map ID 3) at the rear of the property identified as 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-030- 901), Exer Urgent Care (Map ID 4), which is also located at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-030-901), and the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line (Map ID 5) on APN 5754-030-802. Because of the geographically constrained nature of the Project activities, the APE for built environment resources is confined to the area as represented in Figure 3.

The vertical underground extent of the APE is currently unknown, but it will be limited to the depth required for the underground water storage reservoir, as well as the depth required for the bridge abutment foundations. The vertical above ground extent of the APE is also not known but will likely be limited to the height of the proposed pedestrian bridge.

Finally, since there are no reasonably foreseeable Project activities that would occur later in time or that would be farther removed in distance that could indirectly affect historic properties, the APE contains no geographic areas under consideration for indirect effects.

E Del Mar Blvd
Milton St
Millicent Way LaPresa Dr
S Kinneloa Ave
One
ida D
r
El Encanto Dr Plumosa Dr
Oneida St
1 4
2 3
5 5
Area of Potential Effects for Archaeological Resources
Area of Potential Effects for Built Environment Resources Map ID 1: Eaton Wash
Map ID 2: Eaton Blanche Park (3100 E Del Mar Boulevard; APN 5754-031-901)
Map ID 3: Earthside Nature Center Site (on the rear of the property at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard; APN 5754-030-901)
Map ID 4: Exer Urgent Care (3160 East Del Mar Boulevard; APN 5754-030-901)
Map ID 5: Southern California Edison Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line
0 16080
Feet
n
Date: 11/5/2025 User: nreid Path: Z:\Projects\j1653700\MAPDOC\BE\BE.aprx Map: Area of Potential Effects Layout: Figure 3 Area of Potential Effects for Cultural Resources SOURCE: ESRI Imagery 2025; OpenStreetMaps 2019
Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project
Area of Potential Effects
FIGURE 3
-
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
DUDEI<
Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND
The APE lies in southeastern Pasadena, bordered by San Pasqual Street to the south and Madre Street to the east, and is bisected by Del Mar Boulevard. The APE is within a suburban residential neighborhood typical of Pasadena, is relatively flat and has been used and maintained for agriculture, flood control, and residential development for more than 75 years (NETR 2025a, 2025b). Eaton Canyon Reservoir and Dam, used for flood and debris control and located upstream of the review area, were constructed in 1936 and are controlled by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DWR 2023).

Elevations within the review area range from 656 feet above mean sea level in the northern boundary to 621 above mean sea level on the southern boundary (Google Earth 2025). The Project is located within the Eaton Wash Channel subwatershed of the Rio Hondo Watershed (USGS 2025). The Rio Hondo watershed is approximately 142 square miles and flows into the largest watershed in the region, the Los Angeles River watershed. The Eaton Wash Channel flows for approximately 5.6 miles before entering the Rio Hondo approximately 3.5 miles upstream of Whittier Narrows.

4.1 Natural Setting
The APE is located within the upper reaches of California’s Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, which extends from the Channel Islands inland to the Colorado Desert and south to lower California (Norris and Webb 1990; CGS 2002). The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province includes the Los Angeles Basin, a coastal lowland area bound by the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, the Santa Susana Mountains to the northwest, and the Santa Monica Mountains to the west.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (USDA 2025), three soil types have been identified in the APE: Palmview, 0% to 5% slopes; Tujunga, 0% to 5% slopes; and Soboba, 0% to 5% slopes. The available official USDA soil descriptions for the soil types identified within the APE are provided below.

Palmview Series: The Palmview series consists of very deep, well-drained soils that formed in alluvium on alluvial fans and floodplains Palmview soils are on alluvial fans at elevations of 240 to 1,990 feet (USDA 2025).

Soboba Series: The Soboba series consists of deep and excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium on alluvial fans and floodplains. Soboba soils are on alluvial fans and floodplains at elevations of 310 to 2,080 feet (USDA 2025).

Tujunga Series: The Tujunga series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium on alluvial fans and floodplains. Tujunga soils are on alluvial fans at elevations of 240 to 1,990 feet (USDA 2025).

The APE is underlain by Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits from the Pleistocene to Holocene period and Older Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits from the Pleistocene period (USGS 2025). The terminal Pleistocene-era alluvial formations do have the potential to support the presence of buried archaeological resources. These Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
15 soils are associated with the period of prehistoric human use and represent ongoing processes of development that have potential to preserve cultural material in context, depending on area-specific topographical setting.

4.2 Prehistoric Setting
Evidence for continuous human occupation in Southern California spans the last 10,000 years. Various attempts to parse out variability in archaeological assemblages over this broad period have led to the development of several cultural chronologies; while some of these are based on geologic time, most are based on temporal trends in archaeological assemblages, and others are interpretive reconstructions. To be more inclusive, this research employs a common set of generalized terms used to describe chronological trends in assemblage composition: Paleoindian (pre-5500 BC), Archaic (8000 BC–AD 500), Late Prehistoric (AD 500–1769), and Ethnohistoric (post-AD 1769).

4.2.1 Paleoindian Period (Pre-5500 BC)
Evidence for Paleoindian occupation in the region is tenuous. Our knowledge of associated cultural pattern(s) is informed by a relatively sparse body of data that has been collected from within an area extending from coastal San Diego, through the Mojave Desert, and beyond. One of the earliest dated archaeological assemblages in the region is located in coastal Southern California (though contemporaneous sites are present in the Channel Islands) derives from SDI-4669/W-12 in La Jolla. A human burial from SDI-4669 was radiocarbon dated to 9,590–9,920 years before present (95.4% probability) (Hector 2006). The burial is part of a larger site complex that contained more than 29 human burials associated with an assemblage that fits the Archaic profile (i.e., large amounts of ground stone, battered cobbles, and expedient flake tools). In contrast, typical Paleoindian assemblages include large-stemmed projectile points, high proportions of formal lithic tools, bifacial lithic reduction strategies, and relatively small proportions of ground stone tools. Prime examples of this pattern are sites that were studied by Emma Lou Davis (1978) on Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake near Ridgecrest, California. These sites contained fluted and unfluted stemmed points and large numbers of formal flake tools (e.g., shaped scrapers, blades). Other typical Paleoindian sites include the Komodo site (MNO-679)—a multi-component fluted point site, and MNO-680—a single component Great Basined Stemmed point site (see Basgall et al. 2002). At MNO-679 and MNO-680, ground stone tools were rare while finely made projectile points were common.

Warren et al. (2004) claimed that a biface (prehistoric stone tool that has been flaked on both faces), manufacturing tradition present at the Harris site complex (SDI-149) is representative of typical Paleoindian occupation in the region that possibly dates between 10,365 and 8,200 BC (Warren et al. 2004). Termed San Dieguito (see also Rogers 1945), assemblages at the Harris site are qualitatively distinct from most others in region because the site has large numbers of finely made bifaces (including projectile points), formal flake tools, a biface reduction trajectory, and relatively small amounts of processing tools (see also Warren 1968). Despite the unique assemblage composition, the definition of San Dieguito as a separate cultural tradition is hotly debated. Gallegos (1987) suggested that the San Dieguito pattern is simply an inland manifestation of a Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
16 broader economic pattern. Gallegos’s interpretation of San Dieguito has been widely accepted in recent years, in part because of the difficulty in distinguishing San Dieguito components from other assemblage constituents. In other words, it is easier to ignore San Dieguito as a distinct socioeconomic pattern than it is to draw it out of mixed assemblages.

The large number of finished bifaces (i.e., projectile points and non-projectile blades), along with large numbers of formal flake tools at the Harris site complex, is very different than nearly all other assemblages throughout the region, regardless of age.

Warren et al. (2004) made this point, tabulating basic assemblage constituents for key early Holocene sites. Producing finely made bifaces and formal flake tools implies that relatively large amounts of time were spent for tool manufacture. Such a strategy contrasts with the expedient flake-based tools and cobble-core reduction strategy that typifies non-San Dieguito Archaic sites. It can be inferred from the uniquely high degree of San Dieguito assemblage formality that the Harris site complex represents a distinct economic strategy from non-San Dieguito assemblages.

San Dieguito sites are rare in the inland valleys, with one possible candidate, RIV- 2798/H, located on the shore of Lake Elsinore. Excavations at Locus B at RIV-2798/H produced a toolkit consisting predominantly of flaked stone tools, including crescents, points, and bifaces, and lesser amounts of groundstone tools, among other items (Grenda 1997). A calibrated and reservoir-corrected radiocarbon date from a shell produced a date of 6630 BC. Grenda (1997) suggested this site represents seasonal exploitation of lacustrine resources and small game and resembles coastal San Dieguito assemblages and spatial patterning.

If San Dieguito truly represents a distinct socioeconomic strategy from the non-San Dieguito Archaic processing regime, its rarity implies that it was not only short-lived, but that it was not as economically successful as the Archaic strategy. Such a conclusion would fit with other trends in Southern California deserts, where hunting-related tools were replaced by processing tools during the early Holocene (see Basgall and Hall 1990).

4.2.2 Archaic Period (8000 BC–AD 500)
The more than 2,500-year overlap between the presumed age of Paleoindian occupations and the Archaic period highlights the difficulty in defining a cultural chronology in Southern California. If San Dieguito is the only recognized Paleoindian component in coastal Southern California, then the dominance of hunting tools implies that it derives from Great Basin adaptive strategies and is not necessarily a local adaptation. Warren et al. (2004) admitted as much, citing strong desert connections with San Dieguito. Thus, the Archaic pattern is the earliest local socioeconomic adaptation in the region (see Hale 2001, 2009).

The Archaic pattern, which has also been termed the Millingstone Horizon (among others), is relatively easy to define with assemblages that consist primarily of processing tools, such as millingstones, handstones, battered cobbles, heavy crude scrapers, incipient flake-based tools, and cobble-core reduction. These assemblages occur in all environments across the region with little variability in tool composition. Low assemblage Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
17 variability over time and space among Archaic sites has been equated with cultural conservatism (see Basgall and Hall 1990; Byrd and Reddy 2002; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 2004). Despite enormous amounts of archaeological work at Archaic sites, little change in assemblage composition occurred until the bow and arrow was adopted around AD 500, as well as ceramics at approximately the same time (Griset 1996; Hale 2009). Even then, assemblage formality remained low. After the bow was adopted, small arrow points appear in large quantities and already low amounts of formal flake tools are replaced by increasing amounts of expedient flake tools. Similarly, shaped millingstones and handstones decreased in proportion relative to expedient, unshaped ground stone tools (Hale 2009). Thus, the terminus of the Archaic period is equally as hard to define as its beginning because basic assemblage constituents and patterns of manufacturing investment remain stable, complemented only by the addition of the bow and ceramics.

4.2.3 Late Prehistoric Period (AD 500–1769)
The period of time following the Archaic and before Ethnohistoric times (AD 1769) is commonly referred to as the Late Prehistoric (Rogers 1945; Wallace 1955; Warren et al. 2004); however, several other subdivisions continue to be used to describe various shifts in assemblage composition. In general, this period is defined by the addition of arrow points and ceramics, as well as the widespread use of bedrock mortars. The fundamental Late Prehistoric assemblage is very similar to the Archaic pattern but includes arrow points and large quantities of fine debitage from producing arrow points, ceramics, and cremations. The appearance of mortars and pestles is difficult to place in time because most mortars are on bedrock surfaces. Some argue that the Ethnohistoric intensive acorn economy extends as far back as AD 500 (Bean and Shipek 1978).

However, there is no substantial evidence that reliance on acorns, and the accompanying use of mortars and pestles, occurred before AD 1400. Millingstones and handstones persisted in higher frequencies than mortars and pestles until the last 500 years (Basgall and Hall 1990); even then, weighing the economic significance of millingstone-handstone versus mortar-pestle technology is tenuous due to incomplete information on archaeological assemblages.

4.3 Ethnographic Setting
The history of the Native American communities prior to the mid-1700s has largely been reconstructed through later mission-period and early ethnographic accounts. The first written records of the Native American inhabitants of the region come predominantly from European merchants, missionaries, military personnel, and explorers. These brief, and generally peripheral, accounts were prepared with the intent of furthering respective colonial and economic aims and were combined with observations of the landscape.

They were not intended to be unbiased accounts regarding the cultural structures and community practices of the newly encountered cultural groups. The establishment of the missions in the region brought more extensive documentation of Native American communities, though these groups did not become the focus of formal and in-depth ethnographic study until the early twentieth century (Bean and Shipek 1978; Boscana 1846; Harrington 1934; Laylander 2000; Sparkman 1908; White 1963). The principal intent of these researchers was to record the precontact and culturally specific practices, ideologies, and languages that had survived the destabilizing effects of Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
18 missionization and colonialism. This research, often understood as “salvage ethnography,” was driven by the understanding that traditional knowledge was being lost due to the impacts of modernization and cultural assimilation. Alfred Kroeber applied his “memory culture” approach (Lightfoot 2005: 32) by recording languages and oral histories within the region. Ethnographic research by Dubois, Kroeber, Harrington, Spier, and others during the early twentieth century seemed to indicate that traditional cultural practices and beliefs survived among local Native American communities.

It is important to note that even though there were many informants for these early ethnographies who were able to provide information from personal experiences about native life before the Europeans, a significantly large proportion of these informants were born after 1850 (Heizer and Nissen 1973); therefore, the documentation of precontact, aboriginal culture was being increasingly supplied by individuals born in California after considerable contact with Europeans. As Heizer (1978) stated, this is an important issue to note when examining these ethnographies, since considerable culture change had undoubtedly occurred by 1850 among the Native American survivors of California.

Based on ethnographic information, it is believed that at least 88 different languages were spoken from Baja California Sur to the southern Oregon state border at the time of Spanish contact (Johnson and Lorenz 2006: 34). The distribution of recorded Native American languages has been dispersed as a geographic mosaic across California through six primary language families (Golla 2007).

Golla contended that one can interpret the amount of variability within specific language groups as being associated with the relative “time depth” of the speaking populations (Golla 2007: 80). A large amount of variation within the language of a group represents a greater time depth than a group’s language with less internal diversity. One method that he has employed is by drawing comparisons with historically documented changes in Germanic and Romantic language groups. Golla observed that the “absolute chronology of the internal diversification within a language family” can be correlated with archaeological dates (Golla 2007: 71). This type of interpretation is modeled on concepts of genetic drift and gene flows that are associated with migration and population isolation in the biological sciences.

The tribes of this area have traditionally spoken Takic languages that may be assigned to the larger Uto –Aztecan family (Golla 2007 : 74). These groups include the Gabrielino, Cahuilla, and Serrano. Golla interpreted the amount of internal diversity within these language -speaking communities to reflect a time depth of approximately 2,000 years. Other researchers have contended that Taki c may have diverged from Uto –Aztecan ca. 2600 BC –AD 1, which was later followed by the diversification within the Takic spea king tribes, occurring approximately 1500 BC –AD 1000 (Laylander 2000).

4.3.1 Tongva (Gabrielino)
The ethnohistoric (and to a lesser degree, archaeological) record indicates that the APE was occupied by the Tongva (Gabrielino). Based on evidence presented through past Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
19 archaeological investigations, the Gabrielino appear to have arrived in the Los Angeles Basin around 500 BC. Surrounding native groups included the Chumash and Tataviam to the northwest, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast.

The names by which Native Americans identified themselves have, for the most part, been lost and replaced by those derived by the Spanish people administering the local missions. These names were not necessarily representative of a specific ethnic or tribal group, and traditional tribal names are unknown in the post-Contact period. The name “Gabrielino” or “Gabrieleno” was first established by the Spanish from the San Gabriel Mission and included people from the established Gabrielino area as well as other social groups (Bean and Smith 1978; Kroeber 1925). Many modern Native Americans commonly referred to as Gabrielino/Gabrieleno identify themselves as descendants of the Indigenous people living across the plains of the Los Angeles Basin. While distinct bands of the Indigenous people of Los Angeles Basin have adopted their own unique name, the term Gabrielino is applied here.

The Gabrielino established large, permanent villages along rivers and streams, and lived in sheltered areas along the coast. Gabrielino lands included the greater Los Angeles Basin and three Channel Islands, San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina and stretched from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Tribal population has been estimated to be at least 5,000 (Bean and Smith 1978), but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a much larger population, approaching 10,000 (O’Neil 2002). Archaeological sites composed of villages with variously sized structures have been identified through the Los Angeles Basin. Within the permanent village sites, the Gabrielino constructed large, circular, domed houses made of willow poles thatched with tule, each of which could hold upwards of 50 people (Bean and Smith 1978). Other structures constructed throughout the villages probably served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and communal granaries.

Cleared fields for races and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Gabrielino villages (McCawley 1996).

The largest, and best documented, ethnographic Gabrielino village in the vicinity was that of Yanga (also known as Yaangna, Janga, and Yabit), which was in the vicinity of the downtown Los Angeles (McCawley 1996:56-57; NEA and King 2004). This village was reportedly first encountered by the Portola expedition in 1769. In 1771, Mission San Gabriel was established. Yanga provided a large number of the recruitments to this mission; however, following the founding of the Pueblo of Los Angeles in 1781, opportunities for local paid work became increasingly common, which had the result of reducing the number of Native American neophytes from the immediately surrounding area (NEA and King 2004). Mission records indicate that 179 Gabrielino inhabitants of Yanga were recruited to San Gabriel Mission (King 2000: 65; NEA and King 2004: 104).

Based on this information, Yanga may have been the most populated village in the Western Gabrielino territory. Second in size, and less thoroughly documented, the village of Cahuenga was located slightly closer, just north of the Cahuenga Pass.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
20 The environment surrounding the Gabrielino included mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Like most native Californians, acorns (the processing of which was established by the early Intermediate Period) were the staple food source. Acorns were supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave).

Fresh water and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, and insects, as well as large and small mammals, were also consumed (Bean and Smith 1978:546; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).

Tools and implements used by the Gabrielino to gather and collect food resources included the bow and arrow, traps, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. Trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands Groups was conducted using plank canoes as well as tule balsa canoes. These canoes were also used for general fishing and travel (McCawley 1996).

The collected food resources were processed with hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Blackburn 1963; Kroeber 1925; McCawley 1996).

The Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures, was the basis of religious life at the time of Spanish contact. The Chinigchinich cult not only provided laws and institutions, but it also taught people how to dance, which was the primary religious act for this society. The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the Southern Takic groups even as Christian missions were being built. This cult may be the result of a mixture of native and Christian belief systems and practices (McCawley 1996).

Deceased Tongva were either buried or cremated, with inhumation more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast and cremation predominating on the remainder of the coast and in the interior (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996).

Cremation ashes have been found buried within stone bowls and in shell dishes (Ashby and Winterbourne 1966), as well as scattered among broken ground stone implements (Cleland et al. 2007). Supporting this finding in the archaeological record, ethnographic descriptions have provided an elaborate mourning ceremony.

Offerings varied with the sex and status of the deceased (Johnston 1962; McCawley 1996; Reid 1926). At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased during the post-Contact period (McCawley 1996).

4.4 Historic Setting
The written history of the State of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1821), Mexican Period (1821–1848), and American Period (1848–present). Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers visited the area for brief periods between 1529 and 1769, the Spanish Period in California begins with the establishment in 1769 of a settlement at San Diego and the founding of Mission San Diego de Alcalá, the first of 21 missions constructed between 1769 and 1823.

Independence from Spain in 1821 marks the beginning of the Mexican Period, and the Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
21 signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the Mexican–American War, signals the beginning of the American Period when California became a territory of the United States.

4.4.1 Spanish Period (1769–1821)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of Southern California between the mid-1500s and mid-1700s. In search of the legendary Northwest Passage, Juan Rodríquez Cabríllo stopped in 1542 at present-day San Diego Bay. With his crew, Cabríllo explored the shorelines of present-day Catalina Island and San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays. Much of the present California and Oregon coastline was mapped and recorded in the next half-century by Spanish naval officer Sebastián Vizcaíno. Vizcaíno’s crew also landed on Santa Catalina Island and at San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays, giving each location its long-standing name. The Spanish crown laid claim to California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1884: 1-3).

More than 200 years passed before Spain began the colonization and inland exploration of Alta California. The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspar de Portolá marks the beginning of California’s historic period, occurring just after the King of Spain installed the Franciscan Order to direct religious and colonization matters in assigned territories of the Americas. With a band of 64 soldiers, missionaries, Baja (lower) California Native Americans, and Mexican civilians, Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego, a fortified military outpost, as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California.

In July 1769, while Portolá was exploring Southern California, Franciscan Fr. Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá at Presidio Hill, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823 (Bancroft 1884: 4-31).

Mission San Gabriel Arcángel, in San Gabriel Valley (modern-day Alhambra), was established in 1771 as the fourth mission. Though the original 1771 mission was destroyed in a flash flood, a new mission was built in 1776 and el Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de Los Ángeles, farther west, was established in 1781 to support this mission. The mission, like many other Spanish occupations, used Spanish military forces to compel the local Tongva population into the mission’s service, baptizing them as neophytes and renaming them the Gabrieliños. The San Gabriel Mission lands extended from Los Angeles east as far as San Bernardino de Sena Estancia (1810) and the San Bernardino Valley (Brown and Boyd 1922: 5-9).

4.4.2 Mexican Period (1821–1848)
In the early 1820s, Spanish control over its expansive subjugated territories began unraveling, which greatly affected the political and national identity of the Southern California territory. Mexico established independence from Spain in 1821, secured California as a Mexican territory in 1822, and became a federal republic in 1824. After Mexican independence and the 1833 confiscation of former mission lands, Juan B.

Alvarado became governor of the territory. Secularization of the mission system began in 1834, and in 1836, Alvarado commenced with subdividing the former mission lands into large land grants called ranchos (Brown and Boyd 1922: 15).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
22 Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary Southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico (Brown and Boyd 1922: 26-28).

During this time, however, the subject property location fell outside of the ranchos. In 1841, the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, south of the Project area, was awarded to Antonio Maria Lugo. In 1842, Lugo turned over management to Isaac Williams, who was operating the rancho during the Battle of Chino. West of the Project area, Rancho San Jose, encompassing the adjacent City of Pomona, portions of the City of Claremont, and the Cities of La Verne, San Dimas, Azusa, and Glendora, was awarded to Ygnacio Palomares and Ricardo Vejar. Because the subject property was not part of a rancho, the land was not in dispute when Anglo–American settlers began to settle the region in the American Period, establishing the citrus orchards that the area was known for (Brown and Boyd 1922: 26-30).

4.4.3 American Period (1848–Present)
War in 1846 between Mexico and the United States precipitated the Battle of Chino, a clash between resident Californios and Americans in the San Bernardino area. The Mexican–American War ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ushering California into its American Period. California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as U.S. territories. Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the Southern California economy through 1850s. The Gold Rush began in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but were also desired as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s there was a significant cattle boom in the Los Angeles Basin and Southern California at large, and rancho vaqueros drove large herds from Southern to Northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom. Cattle were at first driven along major trails or roads such as the Old Spanish Trail, then were transported by trains when available.

The cattle boom ended for Southern California as neighbor states and territories drove herds to Northern California at reduced prices. Operation of the huge ranchos became increasingly difficult, and droughts severely reduced their productivity (Brown and Boyd 1922: 30-36).

Meanwhile, Los Angeles County was established on February 18, 1850, as one of 27 counties developed in the months prior to California acquiring official statehood in the United States two years after the Mexican–American War. In 1870, efforts to establish a southern transcontinental railroad, which had been on hold during the Civil War, were revived. The County’s location and topography allowed for efficient railroad routes to the west across the greater United States facilitating the mass distribution of crops and oil.

In the 1870s, railroads became the driving force for selecting town locations throughout Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
23 the County, as many industries would come to rely on railroads for shipping. In 1876, Los Angeles became the southern terminus of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR), linking the region to the global economy. The SPRR continued east to Yuma the following year in 1877. In 1885, a rival railroad company—the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad—chose Los Angeles as the western terminus for their railroad. The SPRR and Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad traveled through the County with two transcontinental railroads that transported products from the Port of Los Angeles.

The two railroads’ competition touched off the land speculation boom of the mid and late 1880s in the area (Dumke 1944: 3–7).

4.4.4 Historical Overview of the City of Pasadena
The City of Pasadena was established in 1886 when it was incorporated into Los Angeles County. Initially, the area was inhabited by the Hahamogna people, who dominated the area until the arrival of the Spanish. During the Spanish period in the 1770s, the area was part of the lands under the jurisdiction of the San Gabriel Mission.

The term “Gabrielino” or “Gabrieliño” was assigned to the local native people by the Spanish settlers who colonized the area and developed the mission. Members of the local tribes were forced to build the mission structure and work on the ranch to cultivate crops. After Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1822, Alta California became part of the Mexican Republic, and the Mexican government opened California to foreign trade. Private land grants were issued in the early 1820s, creating the rancho system of large agricultural estates. The area comprising present-day Pasadena became part of Rancho el Rincon de San Pascual in 1926, before it was acquired by Jose Perez and Enrique Sepulveda in the 1840s. Perez and Sepulveda subdivided a portion of the land for the development of the several single-family residences, and in 1843 Manual Garfias purchased part of the rancho to construct a hacienda. By 1848, the United States had assumed formal control of California with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and introduced Anglo culture and society. Garfias continued to own the ranch until the 1860s, when he sold the property to Dr. John S. Griffin and Benjamin Davis Wilson who subdivided the land and sold off portions. Development in Pasadena continued during the 1860s, and by 1873, Griffin and Wilson divided and developed the last four separate tracts of their land (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 31; O’Connor 1993: 7-10).

The City of Pasadena was incorporated in 1886 during a period of agricultural growth.

The fertile soil in the area lent itself to a successful local citrus industry that encouraged settlers to move to the area. Additionally, the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 aided in the growth of the area as well as the transportation of local produce. The citrus industry continued to dominate the City’s economy throughout the early twentieth century followed by the cultivation of wheat and barley. Completion of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway lie through the area in 1886 spurred a building boom that resulted in increased land prices in the city. Development of early homes reflected the City’s humble beginnings with simple one and two-story wood-frame vernacular farmhouses that were later replaced with more substantial masonry buildings.

Infrastructure such as sewers, paved streets, and electrical street lighting were installed during 1880s and 1890s (O’Connor 1993: 12-19; City of Pasadena 2025a).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
24 By the turn of the century, Pasadena’s economy began to shift to a tourist-based economy due to its picturesque location in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Early hotels, such as the Sierra Madre Villa from 1877, were modest in scale and primarily promoted to tuberculosis patients who traveled to the area to benefit from its temperate climate, known to have a positive effect on health. As the regions curative nature was promoted, it became known as the “Great Orange Belt and Sanitarium” in John Baur’s book, The Health Seekers, in 1880 (O’Connor 1993: 17). Pasadena’s prominence as a tourist destination began when the Pasadena Board of Trade formed in 1888 and began to “promote and encourage everything that will make our beloved city more beautiful, more healthful morally and physically” (O’Connor 1993: 17). The board published Pasadena: Crown of the Valley in 1892 to promote the many recreational opportunities to tourists and residents in hopes of stimulating tourism. The San Gabirel Mountains offered visitors various recreational activities including picnicking, horseback riding, hiking, hunting, and fishing. Developed of grand hotels such as the Hotel Green, in 1894, the Raymond Hotel in 1901, and the Hotel Maryland in 1903, led to a wave of tourists enamored by the local climate and amenities (O’Connor 1993: 17-20).

During the 1910s and 1920s, tourists began to purchase land and construct vacation homes for their winter stays. Mansions replaced many of the early modest residences associated with the agricultural industry, and the street Orange Grove, named after its vicinity to local citrus orchards, became known as “Millionaires’ Row.” The demand for fine housing attracted artisans and architects such as Louis Easton, and Henry and Charles Greene, who spearheaded the Arts and Crafts movement in the area. As Pasadena developed into a modern city, it enticed middle and working-class residents who supported the construction industry with laborers, brick makers, and hospitality workers at the hotels. Residential development patterns at this time reflected socioeconomic and racial boundaries. The southwest portion of the city consisted of wealthy, primarily white residents, while middle-class residents occupied the areas north and east of the city center. Immigrant communities settled in the city center, where over 3,000 immigrants from 24 different nationalities lived by 1910. Most of the immigrant population lived in modest bungalows and multi-family residences within the commercial-industrial district along Fair Oaks Avenue between Colorado Boulevard to the north and Raymond to the south (O’Connor 1993: 20-21).

The Great Depression (1929–1939) impacted industries and communities throughout the city, especially working-class jobs such as domestic workers and retail clerks.

Although the population of Pasadena reached 76,000 residents by 1930, the city’s industrial base decreased from 191 companies in 1920 to 150 companies in 1930.

Many of the large hotels that struggled at this time resulted in the demolition of some, like the Hotel Maryland in 1935, and the conversion of others for different uses (O’Connor 1993: 21-22). Additionally, many of the mansions along Millionaires’ Row were abandoned or converted into boarding houses, leading to the area being rezoned for multi-family development in 1948. Wartime employment during the onset of World War II in 1941 saw a small increase in the population as servicemen passed through Los Angeles on their way to and from the war. However, development largely slowed during the beginning of the war (O’Connor 1993: 33).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
25 After World War II, a massive wave of migration and building boom occurred throughout California. Pasadena experienced a population increase of over 22,000 residents between 1940 and 1950, with new residential tracts developed in the Allendale, Upper Hastings, Kinneloa, San Rafael, and Linda Vista neighborhoods of the city. With the advent of the state and federal highway systems during the 1950s and 1960s, automobiles allowed travelers to take themselves to places that were only previously accessible by railroads. The highway system encouraged tourism that propelled the city’s economy and spurred growth in the surrounding areas. This growth is reflected in the city’s present-day built environment that includes residential development along public transportation lines and commercial development along major commercial routes.

Residential partitioning enforced zoning ordinances with specific building standards and lot controls characterized by concentrations of single-family residences with distinctive planning features such as street alignments, setbacks, curbs, sidewalks, and landscaping (O’Connor 1993: 33-43).

Historical aerial photographs show that Pasadena was primarily developed by the 1980s (NETR 2025a). In recent years, the economy has shifted to support a variety of industries, including health care and social assistance, professional, scientific, and technical services, and educational services. As of 2023, the population in Pasadena included over 136,000 residents (Data USA 2025).

4.4.5 Development of Public Parks in Pasadena
In April 2025, Historic Resources Group completed a citywide historic context for the City of Pasadena as a part of the City’s effort to create a historic preservation program to provide a baseline through which to evaluate historical resources (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025). Chapter 5 of the historic context statement provides an in-depth study of Pasadena’s parks and recreation facilities. The following information was summarized from the City of Pasadena’s Historic Context Statement report. In addition, this overview is organized by the periods of development identified in the historic context statement. A citation with information on accessing the full historic context statement is included in Chapter 10.0, References, of this report.

The geography and topography of the City of Pasadena are defined by its location within the northern portion of the San Gabriel Valley, a large sloping alluvial plain within the Los Angeles Basin. Pasadena is bounded by the Raymond Fault line, the San Rafael Hills, and the San Gabriel Mountains. Water is naturally available via numerous rivers, springs, and artesian wells, including the Arroyo Seco (referred to as the Arroyo) and the Eaton Wash Channel (located within Eaton Canyon). The area’s plant communities include Coastal Sage Scrub and Southern Oak Woodlands (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 10).

Late Nineteenth Century to Early Twentieth Century Development During the late nineteenth century, the Arroyo informally functioned as a public park, having become part of a trail system leading up to a famous retreat in the San Gabriel Mountains above Pasadena. Established by Harvey Walker and Perry Switzer in 1880, Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
26 the retreat was commonly referred to as Switzer’s Camp and was popular with nature enthusiasts who were drawn to the scenery and fresh air. During this period, the Arroyo was used for a variety of activities such as horseback riding, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and picnicking, although it was privately owned (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 357).

The first public parks in Pasadena were modest land acquisitions that had dual purposes. Library Park (1902, now Memorial Park) on N. Raymond Avenue is a 5-acre park that embraced the City's first public library. Central Park (1902) is a 10-acre park that mostly benefited the guests of the Hotel Green, located just to the north. Indeed, in his history of Pasadena, Hiram Reid referred to it as the Hotel Green Park. With the creation of these two parks, the City formed a new Department of Public Parks and Buildings (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 357).

Historically, as streets were developed, property owners planted their favorite trees resulting in a random mixture of trees on any given block. As early as 1904, the Park Department had established rules for watering, pruning, and planting trees. The City, however, did not yet have a street tree planting program due to the cost. In 1907, architect Alfred Heineman (1882-1974) proposed to the City Board of Trustees the creation of a municipal nursery. He argued that trees could be grown on City property for a lower cost than buying them from a commercial nursery. Such trees could be used to expand the street tree system, which would beautify the city and enhance property values. In 1908, a municipal nursery was established near Devil’s Gate Gorge. Soon, another municipal nursery was established at the south end of town on Glenarm Street.

By 1916, the City had planted 17,306 trees but did not always adhere to the plan for uniformity (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 359).

Lower Arroyo Seco Park and Brookside Park
Arguably, the Department’s greatest achievement was the development of the Lower Arroyo Seco Park between 1909 and 1918 and Brookside Park in 1914. By this time, the Department was simply called the Park Department. Although the Arroyo was used for recreational purposes, as the population grew it was also used for dumping and logging. Nevertheless, its value was still recognized. In 1898, journalist Charles Lummis started a campaign for the preservation of the Arroyo and became the first president of the Arroyo Seco Foundation (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 359).

This was the first time a group banded together to promote the preservation of the Arroyo. The Lower Arroyo became the focus of the early plans developed by the Arroyo Park Association, another group that formed in 1906. Dr. Rudolph Schiffmann (1845- 1926), who also sat on the Board of City Commissioners, was elected as the president of the group in 1907. In 1909, he purchased a 2.5-acre wooded lot at the end of Bradford Street and donated it to the City for use as a public park. This was the first step in realizing the dream of creating a large park in the Arroyo. In 1911, a bond issue was passed by voters, authorizing the purchase of private land in the Arroyo. The City bought the first parcel of 30 acres for $4,500. By 1912, the City held or had options on 200 acres. A syndicate of wealthy citizens bought up most of the remaining options and Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
27 held them in a trust until the City could purchase the parcels (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 360).

The 30 acres purchased in 1912 was historically known as Sheep Corral Springs, as sheep from the San Gabriel Mission grazed there. The springs located there were part of Pasadena's early water supply. Throughout the beginning of 1914, the park was referred to as Arroyo Springs Park. However, the name was not used for very long. That same year Anna Jennings Brooks (1847-1917) donated $3,000 for the construction of a municipal plunge in the park. Apparently, the cost of the plunge exceeded the donation as the City contributed another $2,000 towards its construction. The park was named Brookside Park in Brooks’ honor (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 360).

The facilities in Brookside Park reflected the growth of competitive sports and the changing recreational tastes and needs of the population. In recognition of those trends, a committee of the Pasadena Civic Federation hired landscape architect Emanuel Tillman Mische (1870-1934) to prepare a comprehensive plan for the Arroyo. Between 1917 and 1918, Mische developed a plan for the Arroyo that encompassed the entire area from the South Pasadena city limits to the mountains north of Devil’s Gate Gorge.

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

At this time, the Lower Arroyo was still densely wooded in places. As it was so narrow and deep, bridle paths were considered more appropriate than automobile roads. It was recommended that landscaping be confined to the replacement of native plants and that exotics be avoided (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 362-363).

Recreation in the Arroyo Seco and The Rose Bowl Stadium Two practical matters dictated using the Central Arroyo for sports and recreational facilities: Brookside Park already existed, and it was the widest, flattest land in the canyon. The 1918 Plan was implemented to the extent that the Lower and Central Arroyo were developed with passive and active recreational uses, respectively. The present-day circulation system, landscaping, and golf course are also remnants of the 1918 Plan. However, the Rose Bowl Stadium, which dominates the Central Arroyo, was not anticipated. The area occupied by the stadium is shown as an undefined open space in the 1918 Plan (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 363).

Completed in 1922, the Rose Bowl Stadium is the long-term site of the oldest and most renowned post-season college football game, the Rose Bowl. In 1902, a football game was added to the long list of activities that revolved around the Tournament of Roses.

As the game became more popular, the Tournament of Roses Association began looking for a site that would be large enough to accommodate more spectators. In 1897, the City purchased 10 acres of land located in the Arroyo. In 1921, construction commenced, and the structure was completed the following year with the south end open, giving the stadium its original “horseshoe” shape. Architect Myron Hunt, in collaboration with Tournament President William Leishman (1869-1940), designed the original structure, which was intended to accommodate as many patrons as possible, sitting close to the action.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
28 1920s–1930s Park Expansion
By 1930, Pasadena boasted over 1,000 acres of parkland for its 76,086 residents. As the population of the city grew dramatically during the 1920s and 1930s, parks and recreation facilities became less of a luxury and more of a necessity. There were more residents with more leisure time as houses were replaced by apartment buildings and the 40-hour work week was instituted. Skutt also oversaw the redesign and improvement of several of the older parks including Central Park, Memorial Park, La Pintoresca Park, Brookside Park, and Lower Arroyo Seco Park (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 365).

In 1924, the Department conducted a survey and created a plan for each street based upon the zoning (residential, commercial, industrial), width of the street and sidewalk, and consideration of overhead utility wires. The survey concluded that the most effective way to prevent the spread of pests and diseases was through diversity. While the trees on any given street would be uniform, from one street to another they could be different (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 368).

Between 1924 and 1930, on average the Park Department was planting 5,000 trees annually. One of the more dramatic streetscape transformations occurred in 1930 when the City began replacing the old pepper trees on Colorado Boulevard with coco plumosa palms. Beginning in 1940 with the inception of the Official Street Tree List, the City adopted a policy to adhere to a uniform street tree planting program. At this time, 136 of the 392 streets had been planted with California live oaks. Over time, the Park Department (later the Public Works Department) revised the Official Street Tree List based upon horticultural and environmental factors indicating that some species were no longer suitable as street trees (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 368).

The Department’s most ambitious plan was the development of a large scenic public park in Eaton Canyon, similar to the one in the Arroyo. He sought to correct the imbalance in the distribution of park space in Pasadena, which favored the west side of town. During the Great Depression, however, the City could not afford to purchase the land. Slowly, the City obtained approximately 24 acres of land through small donations, while the Water Department separately acquired 200 acres in the upper portion of the canyon. In 1932, the City began working in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the Los Angeles County Planning Commission for the development of the Eaton Canyon Regional Park. Eventually the entire project was taken over by the County of Los Angeles and now includes a natural park and a golf course (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 369).

Post-World War II Expansion
After World War II, numerous new parks were created in Pasadena to keep pace with the growing population. Most post-war parks were 2 to 3 acres in size and their design emphasized recreation for the body over restoration of the spirit. Most include picnic areas, play areas with equipment for children, and restroom buildings at a minimum.

Depending on the neighborhood which increasingly included northern and eastern Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
29 Pasadena, sports and recreation facilities might include basketball, tennis, and volleyball courts; baseball and softball diamonds; and multi-purpose athletic fields. The first two parks created during the post-war period involved land purchased from the Board of Education. Jefferson Park in 1945 and Grant Park in 1948 were created on land that was previously occupied by public schools with the same names. Created in 1951, Allendale Park is like La Pintoresca Park in that it includes a public library branch building (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 370).

Three other parks are associated with City reservoirs as opposed to libraries. Hamilton Park was created in 1952 and was originally called Hastings Ranch Park. It was renamed in 1958 in honor of Arthur L. Hamilton (1859-1953) who was the principal of the Garfield School (1888-1893), the superintendent of schools (1906-1911), and a member of the Board of City Commissions (1913-1921). The park sits on top of the Morris Jones Reservoir that was constructed to supply water to the new subdivision.

McDonald Park was dedicated in 1920 in honor of Judge Robert W. McDonald (1868- 1918), who succumbed to the 1918 influenza pandemic. Originally the park was only a narrow strip on the south side of the Wilson Reservoir. The abandonment of the reservoir in 1977 led to the idea of creating a park on the rest of the block (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 370).

The Villa Parke Community Center has a somewhat similar origin story. The land includes what was originally the Villa Reservoir, which was constructed in 1925. With changes in the City’s water distribution system, the structure was abandoned in 1947 and the property was sold to the Pasadena Boys Club, but the City retained an easement. The City reactivated the well in 1962. In the early 1970s, the City created a public park on the property, which still includes the Garfield Well on the west, and a community center on the south that was designed by architect Frank Sata in 1973. This community center served an increasingly diverse population including African, Mexican, and Japanese Americans in northwestern Pasadena (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 370-371).

The largest park in Pasadena created during the post-war era is Victory Park. It was conceived in 1945 by the Pasadena War Memorial Committee as a tribute to those in the community who served in World War II; however, as soon as planning began, the program included an exhibition area for the display of Rose Parade floats in addition to a multi-purpose building for veteran’s activities. Prior to the development of Victory Park, there were proposals for other memorials such as planting a grove of redwood trees in Eaton Canyon Park and renaming Eaton Canyon Park to Victory Park or Unconditional Surrender Park. By 1946, a 45-acre site near Eaton Canyon had been identified. The City had attempted to buy a 50-acre site in the area owned by Los Angeles County; however, the offer was rejected. By this time, the Pasadena Citizen’s Council for Planning was also advocating for more parks and recreation facilities in eastern Pasadena. The park was dedicated in 1952, but in 1961 it was redesigned after the Pasadena High School campus moved from Pasadena City College to Sierra Madre Boulevard. To the chagrin of many members of the community, the north 15 acres of Victory Park were sold to the Pasadena Unified School District for Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
30 sports facilities for Pasadena High School (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 371-372).

In December 1967, Ronald B. Townsend (1913-1997), the City’s director of parks since 1954, attempted to revive the 1932 plan for Eaton Canyon. He approved a plan entitled the Eaton Canyon Area Development. This plan also proposed an interconnected system of parks and open space areas along the Eaton Canyon drainage. The proposed improvements were laid out in great detail and connections with the City’s existing parks, such as Victory Park and Eaton Blanche Park, were included. The City’s current Green Space, Recreation and Parks Master Plan revisits this concept and offers recommendations for implementation measures that would fulfill a portion of the vision that was expressed in the 1932 and 1967 plans (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 372).

4.4.6 Urgent Care Center Typology
Although urgent care centers first emerged in the 1970s, it was decades before they were integrated with the broader national healthcare system. Growth in the development of urgent care centers during the last two decades has been a result of consumer demand for convenient healthcare and a lack of access to primary care. The number of urgent care centers in the United States almost doubled between 2014 and 2023, from 7,220 centers to 14,382. The development of urgent care centers varies by state, depending on the per capita concentration of an area. During the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2023, consumers disregarded initial guidance from regulators advising patients not to pursue COVID-19 testing at urgent care centers, leading to an exponential increase in urgent care visits. Continued growth of urgent care centers resulting in further development of centers in the 2020s (Trilliant Health 2024). More recent urgent care centers adapt existing buildings such as strip malls, office buildings, or existing medical facilities for efficient development. Centers must meet local health department regulations and comply with the Stark Laws’ provisions against special favors, special compensation, or givebacks to doctors, particularly if a building is leased space from a hospital (Manley 2013). The Cedars-Sinai Urgent Care building in Culver City was completed in 2015 by Abramson Architects and won the 2015 AIA-San Fernando Valley Design Award as well as recognition from Healthcare Design's 2015 Remodel/Renovation Competition. Additionally, the Cedars-Sinai Los Feliz Urgent Care & OB/GYN, designed by Abramson Architects, won both the 2022 AIA LA Design Award and the 2022 SCDF Design Award. Both designs were noted for their use of floor-to- ceiling windows to provide light and space within the interiors (AA 2025a; AA 2025b).

Characteristics of the department store typology (Manley 2013):
• High visibility
• Ease of access
• Parking lot
• Exterior signage
• Building lobby
Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
31 4.4.7 Southern California Edison Company History
The SCE Company is a subsidiary company of Edison International and is the largest electrical supply company in Southern California. Edison International was formed by the merger and acquisition of smaller electrical companies in 1886. At the time, Thomas Edison only allowed electrical utilities to use his patent if his name was used in the title of the company (EI 2023; SCE 2023).

As the population of the city of Los Angeles steadily increased during the late 1890s, the need for power grew. Several businessmen in Los Angeles formed the Westside Lighting Company, later known as the SCE, as a subsidiary of Edison International to address residents’ needs. By 1897, Los Angeles adopted an undergrounding ordinance to reduce the overhead clutter of power infrastructure. To create underground lines throughout the city of Los Angeles, Westside Lighting used Thomas Edison’s patented three-wire conduit technology. However, because of the use of Edison’s patent, the company was required to change its name and chose the Edison Electric Company. By 1907, Edison Electric completed construction of the Kern River Hydro Powerhouse and began producing power to the Los Angeles Basin with a 75kV transmission line, the highest voltage in the nation at the time and the first line to be built on steel towers. In 1909, Edison Electric merged with several smaller electrical companies throughout the southern California region to form the SCE Company (EI 2023; SCE 2023).

In 1912, the Los Angeles Water Department extended its operations to include hydroelectric generation and local electricity distribution after the Los Angeles City Council voted to begin negotiations to purchase local electrical facilities. Between 1922 and 1937, SCE sold its hydroelectric facilities to the city. However, its loss of business was offset by the suburban growth of Los Angeles County. With more energy generation needed throughout the area, SCE created a transmission line with the capacity to retain 220kV by 1922. As a result of their innovative achievement, SCE became the first recipient of the Charles A. Coffin Medal, known today as the Thomas A. Edison Award. In 1926, SCE completed construction of the largest multiple-arch dam in the world at the time, the Florence Lake Dam. The groundbreaking design reduced the amount of concrete needed to be carried up the mountains. By 1929, construction began on the SCE’s headquarters in downtown Los Angeles, completed in 1931. In 1939, the SCE received its share of power from the Hoover Dam after completing a 220kV transmission to the dam (EI 2023).

During the outbreak of World War II, Edison International collected scraps of materials from their plants, such as rubber, copper, iron, steel, and brass to donate to the war effort. Additionally, SCE engineers helped design the electrical system for a plutonium extraction facility to develop nuclear weapons for the war. Because of their efforts, SCE was awarded the Charles A. Coffin Award and the National Security Award. By 1946, the country established a standard for electricity that required a currently alternating at 60 cycles per second. To accommodate the new standard, SCE changed its 50-cycle system to a 60-cycle system, requiring a massive rewiring program taking nearly three years to complete. In addition, the company completed construction of 10 gas and oil- fired steal plants between 1945 and 1970 (EI 2023).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
32 By 1957, SCE completed construction of the 7.5MW nuclear power plant, the Santa Susana Experimental Nuclear Station, in the Santa Susanna Mountains. The company became the first investor in the country to generate electricity commercially from a nuclear reactor. During the 1960s, SCE continued to expand its facilities. In 1962, SCE purchased the electric, gas, and water systems on Catalina Island and installed modern facility as well as a seawater desalination plant to support the production of freshwater on the island. The company further expanded in 1964 when they acquired the California Electric Power Company. By 1968, SCE completed construction of the 450MW San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station Unit 1, and between 1967 and 1970, they built the Pacific AC–DC (alternating current–direct current) Intertie, the first major high-voltage DC line in the country capable of transporting 8,000MW of power. In 1972, Units 2 and 3 of the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Stations were completed (EI 2023).

The rising cost of fossil fuel during the 1970s led to SCE’s interest in producing renewable energy technologies to generate alternative power. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, SCE’s research, development, and demonstration department researched cutting-edge power development. By 1978, they established the Wind Energy Research Center in Palm Springs, California, and the construction of a 10MW geothermal power plant in Brawley, California. In 1980, the SCE Chief Executive Officer William R. Gould, announced the company’s initiative to develop 2,000MW of alternative and renewable energy. Along with the department of energy and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, SCE developed a solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert during the 1980s that began operating by 1996 (EI 2023).

The California energy crisis of the early 2000s saw the price of independent power rise.

As a result, SCE purchased abandoned plants throughout Southern California to relieve power shortages. To alleviate power costs, SCE began construction of the first transmission line to only carry renewable power with the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission line in 2007. Likewise, in 2008, SCE launched their solar photovoltaic rooftop program to promote the addition of solar panels to buildings. Today SCE owns over 104,000 miles of circuits across its service territory. SCE maintains its infrastructure with individually constructed substations that distribute electricity throughout the area through transmission lines. The SCE service territory includes portions of Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Mono, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura counties (Tinsley-Becker and Chiang 2015:
13; SCE 2023; EI 2023).

4.4.8 Transmission Lines
Transmission lines are a series of vertical poles or towers that hold electric conductors to power plants and substations to serve individual customers in cities, towns, industrial plants, and utility districts. Transmission line structures include three main architectural design components: the tower structure, the conductors, and the insulators. The tower is the structure that holds the insulators, and the insulators hold the conductors, which come in the form of a transmission line. The electricity transmission includes anything above the electrical voltages of 60kV or more. Transmission lines with a voltage of 500kV are the highest voltage connected to energy grids throughout the western United Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
33 States. Lines with higher voltages (230kV and above) are primarily carried on metal towers, while lines below 230kV are usually on wooden pole structures. Extra-high voltage lines (500kV and above) usually have steel lattice towers, which are larger than the those constructed for lower voltage lines, that feature a cinched waist, massing with a wide base, narrow mid-point, and extended horizontal cross arms. With technological advances in insulator and conductor design, components are replaced and repaired regularly. Transmission lines and systems are generally categorized by their conductor positioning, construction materials, and voltage (NVE 2017; Tinsley-Becker 2017: 51).

Key character-defining features of transmission lines often include the following:
▪ Alignment of transmission line from the date of original construction ▪ Intact primary tower structures
▪ Connectivity and association to power -generating plants and substations and transmission lines
In addition to possessing the character-defining features outlined above, the Southern California Edison Historic-Era Electrical Infrastructure Management Program identified periods of historic significance for SCE transmission line systems according to their voltage. For systems transmitting electrical power at 66kV or below, the period of significance is limited to 1907 to 1930. For systems transmitting electrical power between 67kV to 230kV, the period of significance is limited to 1912 to 1941. For systems transmitting electrical power at 500kV, the period of significance is limited to 1965 to 1970 (Tinsley-Becker 2017: 64).

4.4.9 Development of the Subject Properties Within the APE Eaton Wash Channel
The Eaton Wash Channel is a stormwater channel in Pasadena, California, that drains into the Rio Hondo River and then into the Los Angeles River. The wash lies along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and collects water from the steep ridges of the surrounding Eaton Canyon. Historically, the wash was a natural creek that provided water to the area since before Spanish settlement and flowed into the San Gabriel River. Native American villages were located along the creek, and subsequent European and American settlers used it for drinking water. Initially, the surrounding canyon was called “El Precipicio” by the Spanish because of its steep cliffs, but it was later named Eaton Canyon after the first American rancher to use the creek for irrigation, Judge Benjamin Eaton. In 1865, Eaton built the Fair Oaks Ranch House along Eaton Creek and used the water to grow grapes on the cliffs of the canyon. As more people continued to settle in the canyon, the need for water began to grow. By 1887, the Precipice Canyon Water Company was established to mine Eaton Canyon for water. The company mined a total of 50 tunnels that allowed access to underground water that was used for drinking water and to irrigate the area (ECNCA 2025; HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 10, 34).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
34 From its earliest years as a predominantly agrarian community, Eaton Canyon experienced intense flooding that destroyed crops and property. By 1894, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors proposed the development of the wash to drain stormwater through the canyon (PDES 1894: 3). The Eaton Wash is visible in historical topographic maps from 1894 (NETR 2025b). Heavy rains in 1914 led to a need for repairs to the wash (PS 1914: 9). As a result, the County Board of Supervisors proposed the formation of the Eaton Canyon Wash Protection District to develop drainage ditches in the canyon to carry stormwater into the Eaton Wash in 1914 (PS 1915: 6). This allowed the surrounding canyon area to be subdivided and developed with residential properties during the late 1910s followed by the development of infrastructure such as bridges and roadways across the wash during the 1920s (PS 1911: 14; PSN 1925a: 10; PSN 1925b: 1).

However, heavy rains and increased development led to greater loss of property as flooding continued. The Eaton Wash Association was organized in 1938 to find a solution to the flood control problem. The association sought to obtain federal aid to channelize the wash and divert flood water (PSN 1938: 13). In 1939, the Los Angeles County Flood Control Department included the development of the Eaton Wash diversion channel in the United States District Engineer’s comprehensive flood control plan for Los Angeles County (PSN 1939: 10). The bill was approved in 1940, and plans were approved by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1943 with $3,462,000 allocated to flood control improvements throughout Pasadena and Altadena (PSN 1940:
13; PP 1943: 5). Improvements and repairs were made to the wash in 1952 and 1954 after torrential storms (PI 1952: 4; PI 1954: 31). Historical aerial photographs indicate that the Eaton Wash Channel has remained in the same alignment and has been relatively unchanged since 1952. The wash was channelized with concrete between 1953 and 1964 (NETR 2025a).

Eaton Blanche Park
Eaton Blanche Park is a 5.5-acre public park located at 3100 E Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-031-901) in the southeast section of the City of Pasadena, California.

Facilities include two tennis courts, a softball field, a basketball court, play structures, picnic tables, open green space, restrooms, and two parking lots (City of Pasadena 2025b). The park was developed ca. 1960 in conjunction with the County Parks and Recreation Department as part of their planned program to equalize park facilities (LAT 1961a: 210). Historical aerial photographs show that the softball field was present on the property as early as 1952. Eaton Blanche Park was developed with two tennis courts, a basketball court, a restroom, and a covered picnic area ca. 1960 (NETR 2025a). In 1967, the Eaton Canyon Area Development plan proposed improvements to the park that would connect it to the other existing parks along the Eaton Canyon Wash (HRG and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation 2025: 372). The Mount Wilson hiking trail was developed by 1968 to connect the parks from Eaton Canyon to Eaton Blanche Park to the south (LAT 1968: 108). Another covered picnic area was added by 1980; however, it was demolished by 1992 for the construction of a play area with play structures. The restroom was demolished in 2016, and a new restroom was constructed Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
35 by 2018. The park appears to remain primarily unaltered since then and appears to have continued to function as a public park to the present (NETR 2025a).

Earthside Nature Center
The Earthside Nature Center, located on the rear of the property at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-030-901) in Pasadena, California, was established on about 2 acres in 1971. Before the development of the nature center, SCE purchased the property and used it for a transmission line corridor beginning in 1951. The property originally contained 66 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines, and by ca. 2005, SCE had also installed 220kV lines supported by steel lattice towers within the utility corridor, which was also used as a dumping site (NETR 2025a). The Pasadena Girls Club acquired use of the property from SCE ca. 1955 and constructed a clubhouse on the northern portion along East Del Mar Boulevard. The girls helped to plant a garden on the property and used the site for activities before the Earthside Nature Center was founded by naturalist Elna Bakker, and Kevin Connelly in 1971. Volunteers helped to develop a garden on the property with donated plants of a variety of native species (Gilmore et al. 2009; Barber 1985). By 1987, the nature center was reported to be a “microcosm of the California plant work” with a flourishing garden tended to by the volunteers. During the 1980s, the nature center provided tours to the public and held annual Wildflower Walkabouts that encouraged visitors to picnic and explore the property (Exhibit 1) (LAT 1987: 76). In 1989, the Earthside Nature Center was awarded the American Horticultural Society’s (AHS) Award for Urban Beautification for its grassroots efforts to create an equitable community space using plants and nature. The AHS Awards Program was established in 1953 with four awards: the Horticultural Writing, Professional, Teaching, and Scientific awards. It was expanded in 1985 to include the Urban Beautification Award, now known as the Community Greening Award, to honor community beautification efforts across the nation. During the mid-1990s, the AHS Awards Program evolved to the Great American Gardeners Awards program and was expanded to include diverse categories of awards that “celebrate those who exemplify dedication to the art, science, and environmental stewardship of horticulture across the United States” (AHS 2025).

Volunteers continued to maintain the gardens and conduct tours of the nature center in the early 1990s. However, it was abandoned in 1995 after the deaths of Bakker and Connelly (Gilmore et al. 2009).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
36 Exhibit 1. Students exiting the Earthside Nature Center in 1985.

Source: Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1985.

In 2008, local open space activist Michael Coppess discovered the abandoned Earthside Nature Center site and began efforts to revitalize the property. Coppess documented the remains of the nature center in his blog, East of Allen, which highlighted the history of the site and garnered community attention (Exhibit 2). In 2009, a group of graduate students from California Polytechnic University, Pomona, conducted a study of the site and inventoried the remnants of the center, including the wood post entrance, a kiosk, benches, tables, a potting shed, a storage shed, signage, trails, and plaques. However, the study concluded that most of the plantings, such as wildflowers, shrubs, trees, and exotic plants, are in poor health or have been replaced with weeds. After over a decade of abandonment, the site lacked maintenance and had become overrun with non-native grasses, shrubs, and trees, and an extensive removal and replanting process would be necessary to revitalize the site. The students presented their findings at the Pasadena Open Space Fair on February 28, 2009, to promote community engagement with the site and recommend alternative designs for the property. Although public interest in the revitalization of the property prompted the city to adopt its Open Space Element to reestablish the center, it has remained abandoned to the present (Coppess 2008; Gilmore et al. 2009; LAT 1995: 20). As of 2025, the site remains in poor condition, and only the wood post entrance and a plaque remain, with few original plantings left. Pasadena’s proposed Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project has spurred interest in the site once again, and the city has developed a Site Concept Design that is out for public comment. The final design for the site is expected to be approved by spring 2026, and it will possibly result in the redevelopment of the site in the future (Exhibit 3) (Coppess 2025).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
37 Exhibit 2. View of the Earthside Nature Center entrance in 2008.

Source: Coppess 2008.

Exhibit 3. City of Pasadena’s Site Concept Design for the Earthside Nature Center, 2025.

Source: Coppess 2025.

Eaton Wash Stormwater Capture Project - Site Concept Design .teaSS TO WUAQO
U.l'H(NlNl'V SCH00l ANO
IO'W' ANOGIRLSClUI
Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
38 Exer Urgent Care
The Exer Urgent Care building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-030-901) was initially developed as a clubhouse for the Girls Club of Pasadena ca. 1955 by the City of Pasadena (LAT 1959: 238; ParcelQuest 2025). The clubhouse was expanded in 1961 to include a patio area, a library, three additional craft rooms, and a teen room (LAT 1961b: 349). Activities, events, and training sessions were hosted at the clubhouse from the 1950s to the 1990s (LAT 1959: 238; LAT 1964: 13; LAT 1970: 473; LAT 1980: 514; LAT 1990: 212). Research indicates that the building was owned by the City of Pasadena and operated by the Pasadena Girls Club until 2009, when it was converted to the Pasadena Urgent Care Center (Google Earth 2025). A study by Huntington Hospital in 2006 determined the community’s need for more healthcare in the growing underserved areas of Pasadena and proposed the construction of a new urgent care center. Two City-owned properties were suggested at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (the subject property) and the former St. Luke Hospital facility at 2690 East Washington Boulevard. The study concluded that the northwest portion of the city had the greatest need for an urgent care center, so the East Del Mar Boulevard property was chosen for the development of the Pasadena Urgent Care Center in 2009 (HH 2006). Historical aerial photographs show that additions were added to the primary (north) and rear (south) elevations of the building to accommodate the urgent care in 2009 (NETR 2025a). By 2019, the building was occupied by Exer Urgent Care, which has remained at the property to the present under the ownership of the City of Pasadena (Google Earth 2025; ParcelQuest 2025).

SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line

The SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line is a 13-mile 66kV transmission line installed in 1951 between the SCE Mesa Substation, Anita Substation, and Easton Substation. Prior to the development of the transmission line segment in APE, historic aerial photographs indicate the corridor on APN 5754-030-802 was undeveloped.

During the late 1970s, SCE leased the property to a commercial nursery, which has continued to operate on the property to the present. By 2005, SCE had also installed 220kV lines supported by steel lattice towers within the utility corridor (NETR 2025a).

Research did not identify the original engineer, builder, or contractor of the SCE Transmission Line. Additional research conducted at Newspapers.com, Calisphere, and the Oline Archive of California, also did not identify the original architect, builder, or contractor. It appears unlikely that the SCE Transmission Line was constructed by a master architect or builder.

5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

5.1 Federal

5.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act
The principal federal law addressing historic properties is the NHPA, as amended (54 United States Code of Laws [USC] 300101 et seq.), and its implementing Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
39 regulations (36 CFR Part 800). Section 106 requires a federal agency with jurisdiction over a proposed federal action (referred to as an “undertaking” under the NHPA) to take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The term “historic properties” refers to “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register” (36 CFR Part 800.16(l)(1)). The implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) describe the process for identifying and evaluating historic properties, for assessing the potential adverse effects of federal undertakings on historic properties, and for seeking to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. The Section 106 process does not require the preservation of historic properties; instead, it is a procedural requirement mandating that federal agencies take into account effects to historic properties from an undertaking prior to approval.

The steps of the Section 106 process are accomplished through consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, federally recognized Indian tribes, local governments, and other interested parties. The goal of consultation is to identify potentially affected historic properties, assess effects to such properties, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on such properties. The agency also must provide an opportunity for public involvement (36 CFR Part 800.1(a)). Consultation with Indian tribes regarding issues related to Section 106 and other authorities (such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order No. 13007) must recognize the government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, as set forth in Executive Order 13175, 65 FR 87249 (Nov. 9, 2000), and Presidential Memorandum of Nov. 5, 2009.

5.1.2 National Register of Historic Places
The NHPA of 1966 established the National Register as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s historic resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 CFR Section 60.2). The National Register recognizes a broad range of cultural resources that are significant at the national, state, and local levels and can include districts, buildings, structures, objects, prehistoric archaeological sites, historic-period archaeological sites, traditional cultural properties, and cultural landscapes. As noted above, a resource that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register is considered “historic property” under NHPA Section 106.

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Properties of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
40 C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one or more of the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance.

Ordinarily religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces or graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the National Register unless they meet one of the Criteria Considerations (A-G), in addition to meeting at least one of the four significance criteria and possessing integrity.

5.2 State

5.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act
The following CEQA statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:
▪ PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” ▪ PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource”; it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource.
▪ PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” ▪ PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.
▪ PRC Sections 21083.2(b) and 21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation -in-place mitigation measures. Preservation in pl ace is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources and significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also help avoid conflict with religious or c ultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
41 If a site is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(q)), it is an “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)).

Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource or an historical resource.” A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1); PRC Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project does any of the following:
(1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
(2) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (3) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)).

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2(a)–(c)).

Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
42 (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person (PRC Section 21083.2(g)).

Impacts on nonunique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a nonunique archaeological resource qualifies as a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) (PRC Sections 21074(c) and 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98.

5.2.2 The California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated below. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to possessing significance, the CRHR requires that a resource also possess integrity, which is defined under 14 CCR § 4852(c) as “the authenticity of an historical Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
43 resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.”
In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 4852(d)(2)).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

5.2.3 Native American Historical Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code Section 5097
State law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American human remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities; and establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

5.2.4 California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California Repatriation Act), enacted in 2001, required all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions. The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes.

5.2.5 California State Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 of 2014 amended PRC Section 5097.94 and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that tribal cultural resources must be considered under CEQA and also provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for the lead agency. PRC Section 21074 describes a tribal cultural resource as a site, Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
44 feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American tribe and that is either:
▪ On or determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register; or
▪ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1.

AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report.

PRC Section 21084.2 establishes that a project that may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on tribal cultural resources should be considered under CEQA. PRC Section 21080.3.2 states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to tribal cultural resources, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).

5.2.6 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County coroner has examined the remains (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[c]). In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), the NAHC will notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. Within 48 hours of being granted access to the Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
45 site, the MLD may recommend means of treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and associated grave goods.

5.3 Local

5.3.1 City of Pasadena Landmark Criteria
Chapter 17.62 of City’s Municipal Code from September 8, 2025, also known as the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, establishes the eligibility criteria for historic resources within Pasadena. Municipal Code Section 17.62.040 identifies that a landmark shall include all historic resources previously designated as a cultural heritage landmark before adoption of this Chapter in 2002 and any historic resource that is of a local level of significance and meets at least one (1) of the following criteria (City of Pasadena 2025c):

It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City; or
It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City; or
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City or possesses artistic values of significance to the City; or It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history.

6.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

6.1 Records Search
Dudek archaeologist Brenda Rogers conducted a CHRIS records search on April 17, 2025, at the SCCIC located on the campus of the California State University, Fullerton.

The records search encompassed the entire APE and a 1-mile search radius. The purpose of the records search is to identify any previously recorded cultural resources that may be located in or adjacent to the APE and to identify previous studies in the Project vicinity. In addition to a review of previously prepared site records and reports, the records search also included a review of historical maps of the APE, ethnographies, the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historic Property Data File, and the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility.

6.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies
The SCCIC records search results indicate that 36 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within 1 mile of the APE. Of these, two previous studies overlap with the APE (LA-9705 and LA-10175), both of which are characterized as cultural resources inventories (Table 1). Approximately 100% of the Project site has been A.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
46 subject to past cultural resources investigations. See Confidential Appendix B for the complete SCCIC records search results and associated documentation.

Table 1. Previously Conducted Studies Intersecting APE
Report ID Year Author Title
Intersects APE
LA-9705 2007 Pacific Legacy, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Southern California Edison Company Tehachapi
Renewable Transmission Project, Kern, Los
Angeles and San Bernardino Counties,
California. ARR #05-01-01046
LA-10175 2009 Applied EarthWorks,
Inc.

Confidential Cultural Resources Specialist
Report for the Tehachapi Transmission Project
Report LA-9705
Cultural Resources Inventory of the Southern California Edison Company Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, ARR #05-01-01046 (Pacific Legacy Inc. 2007) documents the results of an inventory conducted for the Tehachapi Renewables Transmission Project. The report was prepared by Pacific Legacy and consisted of an archival records search, literature review, pedestrian survey, data evaluation, and report preparation. The study area overlaps with 100% of the Project site. The report cites 43 prehistoric resources, 48 historic-period archaeological sites, 4 multi-component sites, and 8 isolate finds within the 250- to 500-foot-wide survey corridor. None of the cultural resources identified intersect the current proposed APE.

Report LA-10175
Confidential Cultural Resources Specialist Report for the Tehachapi Transmission Project (Applied EarthWorks Inc. 2009) documents the results of an inventory conducted for the Tehachapi Renewables Transmission Project. The report was prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc., and consisted of an archival records search, literature review, pedestrian survey, data evaluation, and report preparation. The study area overlaps with 100% of the Project site. The report cites 57 prehistoric resources, 73 historic-period archaeological sites, and 5 multi-component sites within the 250- to 500-foot-wide survey corridor. None of the cultural resources identified intersect the current currently proposed APE.

6.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The SCCIC records search results indicate that 62 cultural resources have been previously recorded within 1 mile of the APE (Table 2). Of these, one resource Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
47 intersects with the APE (P-19-190502). P-19-190502 is characterized as a historic-age transmission line constructed ca. 1951. The vast majority of the remaining 61 resources are historic-era built environment resources associated with the development of the City of Pasadena during the twentieth century. See Confidential Appendix B for the complete SCCIC records search results, associated documentation, and California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms, and below Table 2 for a discussion on the resources described above.

Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the APE Primary
Number Trinomial Age Description

NRHP/CRHR
Eligibility
Intersects APE
P-19-190502 - Historic SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton 66kV
Transmission Line
Recommended
ineligible

Outside of APE
P-19-003682 CA-LAN-
003682/H
Prehistoric,
Historic
Suangna Native American
Village
Not Evaluated
P-19-003804 CA-LAN-
003804H
Historic Las Encinas Hospital Not Evaluated
P-19-183162 - Historic Pasadena Motel Grouping Not Evaluated P-19-183164 - Historic Travelodge Not Evaluated
P-19-183165 - Historic Swiss Lodge Not Evaluated
P-19-183166 - Historic Astro Motel Not Evaluated
P-19-183167 - Historic Vagabond Inn Not Evaluated
P-19-183168 - Historic Ace Motel Not Evaluated
P-19-183181 - Historic United Picture & Frame Co. Recommended ineligible
P-19-183182 - Historic Sierra Madre Blvd
Commercial Grouping
Not Evaluated
Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
48 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the APE Primary
Number Trinomial Age Description

NRHP/CRHR
Eligibility
P-19-183185 - Historic Pasadena Fire Station #7 Not Evaluated P-19-183186 - Historic Lamanda Park Commercial
Area
Not Evaluated
P-19-183187 - Historic Proctor Insurance Co. Not Evaluated P-19-183191 - Historic Morton C Hartzell Methodist
Episcopal Church
Not Evaluated
P-19-183192 - Historic Third Church of Christ
Scientist
Not Evaluated
P-19-183195 - Historic Dudley & White Blacksmiths Recommended ineligible
P-19-183196 - Historic C M Northrup & Son Real
Estate
Not Evaluated
P-19-183198 - Historic Royal Palms Trailer Court Not Evaluated P-19-183199 - Historic California Sewing Machine
Co.

Not Evaluated
P-19-183328 - Historic Pasadena Rubber Stamp
Works
Not Evaluated
P-19-183477 - Historic Pasadena Trailer Park Not Evaluated P-19-183478 - Historic Sparkle Laundry & Cleaners Not Evaluated P-19-183479 - Historic Siam Gourmet Not Evaluated
P-19-183480 - Historic Pasadena Hub Caps Not Evaluated
P-19-183481 - Historic VCR TV MW Stereo Repair Not Evaluated P-19-183482 - Historic Mutual Bldg & Loan Assn. Not Evaluated Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
49 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the APE Primary
Number Trinomial Age Description

NRHP/CRHR
Eligibility
P-19-183483 - Historic Post Office Not Evaluated
P-19-183484 - Historic Locators Agency Not Evaluated
P-19-183485 - Historic Sharon Newbold Realtor Not Evaluated P-19-183486 - Historic Sud'N Service Not Evaluated
P-19-183487 - Historic Silver-Reed Not Evaluated
P-19-183488 - Historic Gwinn's Restaurant Not Evaluated P-19-183489 - Historic Serendipity Not Evaluated
P-19-183490 - Historic Serendipity Not Evaluated
P-19-183491 - Historic Serendipity Not Evaluated
P-19-183492 - Historic Serendipity Not Evaluated
P-19-183943 - Historic Stuart Co. Plant & Office Bldg Listed P-19-184686 - Historic Hempel Tile Not Evaluated
P-19-184687 - Historic Glo-Quartz Mfg. Not Evaluated
P-19-184688 - Historic Pasadena Indoor Swapmeet Not Evaluated P-19-188038 - Historic Warner's Egyptian Theater Recommended ineligible
P-19-189110 - Historic AT & SF RR bridge over
Rosemead Blvd
Recommended
ineligible
P-19-189225 - Historic First Western Bank Appears eligible Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
50 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the APE Primary
Number Trinomial Age Description

NRHP/CRHR
Eligibility
P-19-189226 - Historic First National Bank of
Lamanda Park
Listed
P-19-189227 - Historic Denny's Listed
P-19-189228 - Historic Suzuki Dealership Appears eligible P-19-189229 - Historic Fred C Henson Co. Listed
P-19-189230 - Historic Factory Service Recommended
ineligible
P-19-189231 - Historic Vista Paint & Wallcovering Appears eligible P-19-189232 - Historic Glatts Lumber Recommended
ineligible
P-19-189233 - Historic Simpson Bldg. Recommended
ineligible
P-19-189236 - Historic Street Lights Appears eligible
P-19-190399 - Historic Single-family residence Not Evaluated P-19-190917 - Historic Single-family residence Recommended ineligible
P-19-192125 - Historic Single-family residence Not Evaluated P-19-192131 - Historic Single-family residence Not Evaluated P-19-192132 - Historic Single-family residence Not Evaluated P-19-192133 - Historic Single-family residence Not Evaluated P-19-192134 - Historic Single-family residence Not Evaluated Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
51 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile of the APE Primary
Number Trinomial Age Description

NRHP/CRHR
Eligibility
P-19-192221 - Historic Single-family residence Recommended ineligible
P-19-192479
- Historic Naval Ordinance Test Station
(NOTS); Pasadena, Foothill
Plant
Appears eligible
for CR

P-19-190502
P-19-190502 is characterized as a historic-age transmission line that runs generally north to south for approximately 13 miles to distribute power between the SCE Mesa Substation, Anita Substation, and Eaton Substation. A segment of the resource intersects the APE. The resource was originally documented in 2010 by Wendy L.

Tinsley Becker, who reports it as first constructed in 1951, and notes that historical research did not identify a significant association with any of the three substations. This resource was given the California Office of Historic Preservation status code of 6Z:

Found ineligible for National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation (Becker 2010). Dudek provided an updated inventory and evaluation of the transmission line segment in the APE as part of the current study and is discussed further Chapter 8, Significance Evaluation.

6.2 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search Dudek requested a NAHC SLF search of the APE and a 1-mile radius on April 24, 2025.

The SLF consists of a database of known Native American resources. These resources may not be included in the SCCIC database. The NAHC replied via email on May 7, 2025, stating that the SLF search was completed with positive results. Positive results indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within 1 mile of the APE, and not necessarily directly within the APE. The NAHC additionally provided a list of Native American tribes and individuals/organizations with traditional geographic associations that might have knowledge of cultural resources in this area. To date, Dudek has not sent outreach letters to any of the entities identified by NAHC. See Appendix C for complete documentation of NAHC correspondence and SLF search results.

In compliance with Section 106, USACE, as the federal lead agency, is responsible for conducting government-to-government consultation with federally recognized California Tribes, and the City, as the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA, is responsible for conducting government-to-government consultation with California Native American Tribes pursuant to AB 52.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
52 6.3 Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs

6.3.1 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical topographic maps can often depict the natural elevation of the APE as well as the historic development of the surrounding area. Although topographic maps are not comprehensive, they are another tool in determining whether the APE has been disturbed. Historical topographic maps of the APE are available for the years of 1884 to 2022 (NETR 2025b). The topographic map from 1930 reveals the first development around the APE with the construction of Blanche Street to the north, now Del Mar Boulevard, as well as a larger gridwork of roads farther north of the APE. In 1930, transmission lines running on a north to south axis across the APE first appear, as do two small structures that appear on the eastern edge of the Eaton Wash Channel and within the APE. The 1941 topographic map depicts the current gridwork of streets around the Eaton Wash Channel, as well as a large structure to the northeast of the APE, now Exer Urgent Care, and two small structures to the south and within the APE.

By 1967, there is only one small structure now located south of the Exer Urgent Care Building. There are no substantial observable changes in the historic depiction of the APE and surrounding areas from 1967 until the last available historical topographic map from 2022 (NETR 2025b).

6.3.2 Historical Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs of the APE are available from 1952 to 2022 (NETR 2025a). The 1952 historical aerial photograph depicts an open landscape with some trees and a baseball diamond located within the western portion of the APE, while the eastern portion of the APE has several undeveloped paths paralleling the channelized Eaton Wash leading to a small structure visible in the northeast portion of the APE. By 1964, there are two additional structures located within the eastern portion of the APE, in the location of the extant Exer Urgent Care building. The informal paths noted in 1952 are no longer visible, but there appears a dirt access road following the alignment of the transmission lines located to the southeast and within the APE. By 1972, The Exer Urgent Care building, in its current extent, is depicted within the northern portion of the APE, in place of the two buildings first noted in 1964. By 1972, there also appears an additional structure located within the central portion of the APE, in the location of the previous Earthside Nature Center. There are no observable changes to the APE until 1993. By 1993, several informal pathways and paved parking areas appear around the Exer Urgent Care building. South of those parking areas, on the eastern portion of the APE are groves of trees lining the east bank of the Eaton Wash Channel, while western portion remains an open grassy area with trees lining the Eaton Wash Channel. The 2009 historical aerial photograph reveals that all structures located within the eastern portion of the Project area (with the exception of the Exer Urgent Care building) have been demolished and the area graded. There are no substantial observable changes in the historic depiction of the APE and surrounding areas from 2010 until the last available historical aerial photograph from 2022 (NETR 2025a).

Overall, this review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs indicates that the APE has been subject to past disturbances associated with the channelization of Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
53 Eaton Wash, building development, demolition, and grading. Additionally, this archival review revealed the presence of historic-era several built environment located within the APE, those of which are discussed in further detail in Chapters 7.0, Cultural Resources Survey, and 8.0, Significance Evaluation, of this report.

7.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY

7.1 Survey Methods

7.1.1 Archaeological Survey Methods
Dudek archaeologist Roshanne Bakhtiary, MA, RPA, conducted an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the APE for archaeological resources on June 26, 2025. Standard archaeological procedures and techniques consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for archaeology were employed during the pedestrian survey.

When possible, 10-meter interval survey transects were conducted and oriented in cardinal directions, east to west. Where visible, the ground surface was examined for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock, imported marine shell), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, features indicative of the current or former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historic artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics, building materials).

Ground disturbances such as rodent/reptile burrows, cut banks, and drainages were also visually inspected for exposed subsurface materials. All fieldwork was documented using field notes and Apple Generation 14 (iPhone) equipped with Esri Field Maps and Avenza PDF Maps software with close -scale georeferenced field maps of the APE for archaeological resources . All field notes, photographs, and records related to the study are on file at Dudek’s Pasadena, California office. A discussion of existing conditions and survey results are provided in Section 7.2.1, Archaeological Survey Results.

7.1.2 Built Environment Survey Methods
On June 26, 2025, Dudek architectural historian Katie Ahmanson, MHC, conducted an intensive-level survey of the APE for built environment resources. Four resources were documented using digital photography and field notes, which are on file at Dudek’s Pasadena, California, office. All photographs were taken on June 26, 2025.

7.2 Survey Results

7.2.1 Archaeological Survey Results
The APE for archaeological resources consists primarily of flat, fallow land, with portions currently used as grounds for an operational nursery. Ground surface visibility ranged from non-existent (virtually 0%) to moderate (25%–50%). Approximately 75% of the APE for archaeological resources had zero ground surface visibility (Photograph 1), while the remainder had moderate ground surface visibility (Photograph 2). Overall, the APE encompasses portions of the former Earthside Nature Center, the Eaton Wash Channel, the City of Pasadena’s Eaton Blanche Park, and an operational nursery. The majority of the area is currently used as an informal dumping ground and for bee box storage. Observed Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
54 disturbances include evidence of grading and vegetation clearing and modern debris throughout. Although the remains of the former Earthside Nature Center were recorded during this field effort, this resource is being treated as a built environment resource. No archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey of the APE for archaeological resources.

Photograph 1. Example of zero ground surface visibility, view facing south.

Source: Dudek 2025, IMG_4198.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
55 Photograph 2. Example of moderate ground surface visibility. View facing west.

Source: Dudek 2024, IMG_4087.

7.2.2 Built Environment Survey Results
The built environment survey identified five historic-era (45 years of age or older) properties within the APE for built environment resources, consisting of the Eaton Wash Channel (Map ID 1), Eaton Blanche Park (Map ID 2), the Earthside Nature Center site (Map ID 3), an urgent care center at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (Map ID 4), and the SCE Mesa-Anita Eaton Transmission Line (Map ID 5). All historic-era properties are recorded and evaluated on DPR 523 Forms located in Appendix D.

8.0 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION

8.1 Map ID 1: Eaton Wash Channel

8.1.1 Description
The Eaton Wash Channel is a stormwater channel in Pasadena, California spanning approximately 8 miles south from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Rio Hondo River In South El Monte. It is completely paved with concrete and has a width of about 30 feet with a depth of about 10 feet (Photograph 3). The channel body includes a low-flow channel along the western boundary that carries a regular streamflow and a bank for excess water. Chain-link fencing lines the top of the channel walls along its west and east boundaries of the wash. The intensive survey recorded a segment of the alignment that measured approximately 145 feet in length (Photograph 4). Known alterations to the wash include repairs in 1952 and 1954, and concrete paving between 1953 and 1964 (PI 1952: 4; PI 1954: 31; NETR 2025a).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
56 Photograph 3. View of the Eaton Wash Channel, looking north.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1114.

Photograph 4. View of the Eaton Wash Channel, looking south.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1124.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
57 8.1.2 Statement of Significance
NRHP/CRHR Criteria
The Eaton Wash Channel was evaluated in consideration of the NRHP and CRHR criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the evaluation, the Eaton Wash Channel is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR due to a lack of significant associations.

CRITERION A/1: EVENTS
Under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1, the segment of the Eaton Wash Channel lacks a direct and important association with any event significant in local, state, or national history. The Eaton Wash Channel was initially developed as an unpaved wash ca. 1894 to drain stormwater in the surrounding canyon. During the late 1910s, the area was subdivided and developed with single-family residences. However, as development increased, so did flooding, leading to increased reports of property damage. To quell the flooding, the wash was channelized with concrete between 1953 and 1964 and has likely been repaved to allow for its continuous use. Although the Eaton Wash Channel contributed to the overall development of the Eaton Canyon, its contribution to this growth was a consequence of the residential expansion in the area, rather than the initial impetus for development. Lacking sufficient associative significance, the Eaton Wash Channel is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1.

CRITERION B/2: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2, the Eaton Wash Channel lacks a significant association with the productive life of any person important in local, state, or national history. The Eaton Wash Channel was developed as a flood control channel ca. 1894 and channelized between 1953 and 1964. Because the wash is essentially an undertaking of the Los Angeles County Flood Control Department, it represents the collective efforts of many individuals. Therefore, the channel lacks a significant association with any single individual whose work rose to the level of singular importance necessary for listing, and it is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2.

CRITERION C/3: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, the subject segment of the Eaton Wash Channel is not distinctive in terms of a particular stormwater channel type, a period, or a method of construction. Research did not identify the engineer, architect, or builder of the channel, but it appears unlikely that it was the work of a master in engineering. The Eaton Wash Channel was channelized sometime between 1953 and 1964 using standard concrete paving, and it lacks innovation concerning its overall design, form, and function. The Eaton Wash Channel exemplifies common, standardized flood channel designs and construction methods characteristic of channels built during the mid-twentieth century and subsequently modernized throughout the twenty-first century.

Additionally, research did not indicate that the Eaton Wash Channel represents an Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
58 important variation, evolution, or transition of flood channel development. Lacking sufficient design and construction value, the Eaton Wash Channel is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3.

CRITERION D/4: DATA POTENTIAL
Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, the Eaton Wash Channel is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. Therefore, the Eaton Wash Channel is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4.

City of Pasadena Landmark Criteria
The Eaton Wash Channel also does not appear to meet any of the City of Pasadena’s historic resources designation criteria to be considered a landmark as outlined under Section 17.62.040(D)(2) of the Pasadena Code of Ordinances.

CRITERION A: EVENTS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A , the Eaton Wash Channel is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1, research does not indicate that the subject property was associated with significant events, therefore, it is not recommended eligible for City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A.

CRITERION B: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B, the Eaton Wash Channel is not associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City . As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2, due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B.

CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C, the Eaton Wash Channel is not a particularly distinctive example of a type, style, period, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City, or possess artistic values of significance to the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3, the subject property is a common example of a standardized flood channel built during the mid-twentieth century, and therefore, is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Criterion C.

CRITERION D: DATA POTENTIAL
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D, the Eaton Wash Channel has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history. As Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
59 discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4, the subject property lacks significance under City of Pasadena Criterion D.

8.1.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion
Because the Eaton Wash Channel lacks the necessary significance to meet any of the NRHP or CRHR listing criteria, or the City of Pasadena landmark designation criteria, an analysis of the structure’s physical integrity was considered unwarranted and immaterial to the overall finding that the subject property is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database. As such, this evaluation concludes that the subject property is not a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA because it does not meet any of the NRHP evaluation criteria as described under 36 CFR Section 60.4. Additionally, the subject property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a).

8.2 Map ID 2: Eaton Blanche Park

8.2.1 Description
Eaton Blanche Park is located at 3100 E Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-031-901) and encompasses 5.5 acres on the west side of the Eaton Wash Channel and south side of Del Mar Boulevard. The park consists of a softball field developed ca. 1952, followed by the construction of two tennis courts, a softball field, a basketball court, picnic tables, open green space, a restroom, and two parking lots ca. 1960, when the park was established. Play structures were developed ca. 1992, and the bathroom was replaced in 2018. The park is accessed by an asphalt-paved parking lot on the south side of Del Mar Boulevard and an asphalt-paved parking lot on the north side of Millicent Way.

Concrete walking paths lead from the parking lots to the sports courts, play structures, picnic area, and the restroom on the northern portion of the park (Photographs 5–7).

The softball field on the southern portion of the park includes a grass lawn with a baseball diamond and outfield. A metal batting cage surrounds home plate of the baseball field on the southwest corner of the lawn (Photograph 8). According to historical aerial photographs, the park appears to remain primarily unaltered since 2018.

Landscaping includes a variety of plants, shrubs, mature trees, and lawns.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
60 Photograph 5. View of the sports courts and parking lot, looking northwest.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1095.

Photograph 6. View of the play structure, looking northeast.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1094.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
61 Photograph 7. View of the picnic area, looking north.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1099.

Photograph 8. View of the softball field, looking southwest.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1104.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
62 8.2.2 Statement of Significance
NRHP/CRHR Criteria
Eaton Blanche Park was evaluated in consideration of the NRHP and CRHR criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the evaluation, Eaton Blanche Park is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR due to a lack of significant associations.

CRITERION A/1: EVENTS
Under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1, archival research did not find that Eaton Blanche Park possesses a direct and important association with any events or pattern of events significant in local, state, or national history. The subject property was constructed during the post-World War II expansion of the public parks system in Pasadena. This growth in parks was reflective of the local and state-wide population increase in the decades following World War II’s conclusion in 1945. Numerous parks were developed and renovated during this period, with the first park, Jefferson Park, developed in 1945. Post-World War II growth was an important trend both regionally and in California; however, this property did not contribute in any significant way to this pattern of development. It is also not known to be directly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of Pasadena, California, or the nation. It was neither the first nor the last park developed in the city, and was merely following a continuous pattern of increased park development in the post-war period, and did not directly influence development in the region. Research also did not identify a significant historical event that occurred on the property. Therefore, Eaton Blanche Park does not meet NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1.

CRITERION B/2: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2, Eaton Blanche Park lacks a significant association with the productive life of any person important in local, state, or national history. Research revealed that the park was developed and operated by the City of Pasadena Department of Public Parks and Buildings ca. 1960, during a period of park expansion throughout the city. Today, the subject property is one of several parks owned and operated by the City of Pasadena. Research did not identify any information indicating that individuals associated with the city government made a significant contribution to the management of Eaton Blanche Park would rise to the threshold of significance required for eligibility. Due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, Eaton Blanche Park is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2.

CRITERION C/3: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, Eaton Blanche Park is not distinctive in terms of a particular park type, a period, or a method of construction. The subject property was developed as a public park ca. 1960 to provide green space to the growing local community. It has been renovated over the years, including the addition of Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
63 play structures ca. 1992, and the replacement of the bathroom in 2018. The park reflects a common park design that lacks innovation with regard to its overall design, form, and function. Additionally, research did not indicate that Eaton Blanche Park is associated with the work of a master architect or builder. As it is a common, purpose- built, property type and style, it is unlikely that it was the work of a master architect or builder. Eaton Blanche Park does not contribute to the significance of a potential or existing historic district. Overall, the property lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3.

City of Pasadena Landmark Criteria
Eaton Blanche Park also does not appear to meet any of the City of Pasadena’s historic resources designation criteria to be considered a landmark as outlined under Section

17.62.040(D)(2) of the Pasadena Code of Ordinances.

CRITERION A: EVENTS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A, Eaton Blanche Park is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1, research does not indicate that the subject property was associated with significant events, therefore, it is not recommended eligible for City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A.

CRITERION B: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B, Eaton Blanche Park is not associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2, due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B.

CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C, Eaton Blanche Park is not a particularly distinctive example of a type, style, period, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City, or possess artistic values of significance to the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3, the subject property is a common example of a Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
64 park designed and renovated in the mid to late twentieth century, and therefore, is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C.

CRITERION D: DATA POTENTIAL
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D, Eaton Blanche Park has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4, the subject property lacks significance under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D.

8.2.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion
Because Eaton Blanche Park lacks the necessary significance to meet any of the NRHP or CRHR listing criteria, or the City of Pasadena landmark designation criteria, an analysis of the structure’s physical integrity was considered unwarranted and immaterial to the overall finding that the subject property is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database. As such, this evaluation concludes that the subject property is not considered a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA because it does not meet any of the NRHP evaluation criteria as described under 36 CFR Section 60.4. Additionally, the subject property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a).

8.3 Map ID 3: Earthside Nature Center Site

8.3.1 Description
The former Earthside Nature Center site on the rear of the property at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-030-901) contains two features related to the previous history of the site: a wood post entrance and a plaque. The wood post entrance on the north end of the site consists of a post and lintel structure with signage displaying “Earthside Nature Center” (Photograph 9). The plaque is affixed to a stone just beyond the entrance, and contains an inscription reading, “With Deep Appreciation Frances G. ‘Terry’ Lee Memorial Redwood Grove 1992” (Photograph 10). Chain-link fencing encases the property, and although many of the original plantings have been replaced by weeds and shrubs, some trees remain (Photograph 11). However, the plants appear in poor condition, and there is no formal landscaping present. The site is bordered by the Eaton Wash Channel to the west and south, Exer Urgent Care to the north, and a plant nursery to the east. Alterations include the demolition and removal of features formerly associated with the site, such as benches, tables, a kiosk, plaques, and sheds, and the removal of original plantings at unknown dates.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
65 Photograph 9. The wood post entrance to the Earthside Nature Center site, looking southeast.

Source: Dudek, IMG_4126.

Photograph 10. View of the plaque at the Earthside Nature Center site, looking south.

Source: Dudek, IMG_4085.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
66 Photograph 11. View of the Earthside Nature Center site, looking southeast.

Source: Dudek, IMG_4176.

8.3.2 Statement of Significance
NRHP/CRHR Criteria
The Earthside Nature Center site was evaluated in consideration of the NRHP and CRHR criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the evaluation, the Earthside Nature Center site is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR due to a lack of significant associations.

CRITERION A/1: EVENTS
Under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1, the Earthside Nature Center site lacks a direct and important association with any event significant in local, state, or national history. The nature center was established on the property in 1971 as a community garden planted by volunteers. It was known for its variety of native plantings and offered tours as well as public events. In 1989, it was awarded the AHS’s Award for Urban Beautification, however, it was abandoned in 1995 and left without maintenance since.

Presently, only two features formerly associated with the site remain, and many of the original plantings have been overgrown with weeds. Although the Earthside Nature Center appears to have been an exceptional community garden within Pasadena from the 1970s to 1990s gaining national recognition in 1989, the site has not been maintained over the years and no longer retains sufficient integrity to reflect its history.

The loss of the majority of original features on the property has altered its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Integrity of association is lost because the alterations and changes in use have rendered it unable to convey its historic character.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
67 The two extant features, the wood post entrance and plaque, do not sufficiently reflect the history of the site to meet NRHP or CRHR Criterion A/1. As such, the Earthside Nature Center site does not possess associative significance under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1.

CRITERION B/2: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2, the Earthside Nature Center lacks a significant association with the productive life of any person important in local, state, or national history. Research indicates that SCE has owned the property since 1951, and it has been occupied by three organizations from ca. 1955 to 2025. The property was used by the Girls Club of Pasadena for club activities from ca. 1955 to 1971, when the Earthside Nature Center was established on the property by Elna Bakker and Kevin Connelly. Although Bakker was well known in her field as a naturalist, her career does not appear to be significantly associated with the subject property. She is best known as an author with several books about ecology, geology, and anthropology of California.

Likewise, the majority of her achievements protecting public lands and habitats are associated with her activities as a member of the Sierra Club (LAT 1995: 20; Sierra Club 1995). Therefore, the subject property cannot be associated with Bakker’s productive life. Due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2.

CRITERION C/3: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, the Earthside Nature Center site does not fully embody the distinctive characteristics of a community garden from 1971. Due to substantial alterations, the site contains few remains of the original facility. Only the wood post entrance from 1971 and a plaque from 1992 are known to be original to the site. The remaining original trees appear to be in poor condition, and many of the original plantings have been replaced by weeds and shrubs. There is also no indication that any of these resources are the work of a master or possess high artistic value.

Likewise, the resource is not part of a potential or existing historic district. As such, the Earthside Nature Center site lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3.

CRITERION D/4: DATA POTENTIAL
Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, the subject property is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. The original site of the Earthside Nature Center has been significantly disturbed since 1971, when it was established. After its closure in 1995, the property was abandoned and became overgrown with weeds and shrubs. Likewise, many of the original features were removed at unknown dates. The site is unlikely to contain any data that would answer specific research questions due to disturbance and substantial alterations. As such, the subject property lacks significance under NRHP/CRHR D/4.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
68 City of Pasadena Landmark Criteria
The Earthside Nature Center also does not appear to meet any of the City of Pasadena’s historic resources designation criteria to be considered a landmark as outlined under Section 17.62.040(D)(2) of the Pasadena Code of Ordinances.

CRITERION A: EVENTS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A, the Earthside Nature Center is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1, research does not indicate that the subject property was associated with significant events, therefore, it is not recommended eligible for City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A.

CRITERION B: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B, the Earthside Nature Center is not associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2, due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B.

CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C, the Earthside Nature Center is not a particularly distinctive example of a type, style, period, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City, or possess artistic values of significance to the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3, the subject property has been substantially altered and contains few remains of the original facility. Therefore, it is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C.

CRITERION D: DATA POTENTIAL
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D, the Earthside Nature Center has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4, the subject property lacks significance under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D.

8.3.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion
Because the Earthside Nature Center lacks the necessary significance to meet any of the NRHP or CRHR listing criteria, or the City of Pasadena landmark designation criteria, an analysis of the structure’s physical integrity was considered unwarranted and immaterial to the overall finding that the subject property is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database. As such, this evaluation concludes that the subject property is not considered a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA because it does not meet any of the NRHP evaluation criteria as described under 36 CFR Section 60.4. Additionally, the subject property is not Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
69 considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a).

8.4 Map ID 4: Exer Urgent Care

8.4.1 Description
The property at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard (APN 5754-030-901) contains an urgent care building surrounded by an asphalt-paved parking lot (Photograph 12). Access to the property is provided by two concrete driveways on the south side of Del Mar Boulevard. The urgent care building is irregular in plan and one-story in height. The building is clad with wood-clapboard siding and topped by a metal-batten cross-gable roof with overhanging closed eaves with exposed rafters. A covered main entrance beneath the extending roof overhang on the primary (north) elevation contains two sets of metal-frame fully glazed doors (Photograph 13). Secondary access is provided by metal doors on the northeast corner of the primary elevation and the west and east elevations (Photographs 14 and 15). Fenestration consists of grouped metal-sash awning windows with brise soleil. Only the primary elevation and partial views of the east and west elevations were visible during the property survey. A concrete masonry unit wall encases the northern boundary of the property, and metal-rail fencing surrounds the east, south, and west boundaries. Landscaping includes small plantings, trees, and shrubs. Alterations include the expansion of the building in 1961 and additions to the primary and rear (south) elevation of the building ca. 2018. Due to substantial alterations, the building no longer represents distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or period. It contains elements of Modern utilitarian design, including minimal exterior ornamentation, grouped metal-sash awning windows with brise soleil, a metal-batten cross-gable roof, wood-clapboard siding, and a concrete slab foundation.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
70 Photograph 12. The east and primary (north) elevations of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking southwest.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1138.

Photograph 13. Primary (north) elevation of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking south.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1142.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
71 Photograph 14. East elevation of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking southwest.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1140.

Photograph 15. The primary and west elevations of 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, looking southeast.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1128.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
72 8.4.2 Statement of Significance
NRHP/CRHR Criteria
3160 East Del Mar Boulevard was evaluated in consideration of the NRHP or CRHR criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the evaluation, 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR due to a lack of significant associations.

CRITERION A/1: EVENTS
Under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1, the building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard lacks a direct and important association with any event significant in local, state, or national history. The building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard was constructed by the City of Pasadena for the Girls Club of Pasadena ca. 1955 during the post-war population and development boom. It was occupied by the Girls Club of Pasadena from ca. 1955 to 2009, when it was converted to an urgent care center. While civic properties such as the subject property were developed in residential neighborhoods throughout Pasadena in the post-war period to accommodate the recreational needs of fast fast- growing city, there is no indication that the subject property is particularly significant within this pattern of development, either regionally or nationwide. Likewise, the building was heavily altered and converted to an urgent care center in 2009, and no longer bears an association with the Girls Club of Pasadena. As an urgent care center, the subject property is not the first or the last facility developed in Pasadena. The subject property represents the continuation of a decades-long period of civic development after the conclusion of World War II. However, mere association with a broad trend is insufficient to meet NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1. The property must also have an important association with a historic trend or event. In the specific case of the building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard, it is not known to be directly associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the history of Pasadena, California, or the nation. Therefore, the subject property is not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1.

CRITERION B/2: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2, the residence at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard lacks a significant association with the productive life of any person important in local, state, or national history. Research indicates that the City of Pasadena has owned the property from ca. 1955 to the present and that it has been occupied by three organizations in that time. The Girls Club of Pasadena occupied the property from ca. 1955 to 2009, the Pasadena Urgent Care Center from 2009 to ca. 2019, and Exer Urgent Care from ca. 2019 to the present. Research did not uncover information that indicated that these occupants made a significant contribution to history. Due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
73 CRITERION C/3: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, the urgent care building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard is not significant because it does not represent an important example of a type, period, or method of construction. Research did not identify an architect or builder for the property, and it appears unlikely to be the work of a master architect or builder. Although the subject property lacks a formal discernible architectural style, it does reflect elements of Modern utilitarian design, including minimal exterior ornamentation, grouped metal-sash awning windows with brise soleil, a metal-batten cross-gable roof, wood-clapboard siding, and a concrete slab foundation.

The subject property is a heavily altered example of a modest and undistinguished building converted to an urgent care center in 2009, which is a ubiquitous property type found throughout the region. The subject property appears to have been constructed using well-documented and common construction techniques and methods.

Additionally, as a purpose-built building, it does not possess high artistic values and is not the product of an architect or builder attempting to articulate the design principles or aesthetics of a formal architectural style or substyle. The property is also not a rare example of its type; there are similar urgent care facilities from throughout the city, state, and nation. The last portion of NRHP Criterion C refers to a district, which is defined as a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The subject property does not contribute to the significance of a potential or existing historic district. Overall, the subject property lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3.

City of Pasadena Landmark Criteria
The building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard also does not appear to meet any of the City of Pasadena’s historic resources designation criteria to be considered a landmark as outlined under Section 17.62.040(D)(2) of the Pasadena Code of Ordinances.

CRITERION A: EVENTS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A, the building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1, research does not indicate that the subject property was associated with significant events, therefore, it is not recommended eligible for City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
74 CRITERION B: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B, the building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard is not associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2, due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B.

CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C, the building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard is not a particularly distinctive example of a type, style, period, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City, or possess artistic values of significance to the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3, the subject property is a heavily altered example of a modest and undistinguished building, and therefore, is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C.

CRITERION D: DATA POTENTIAL
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D, the building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4, the subject property lacks significance under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D.

8.4.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion
Because the building at 3160 East Del Mar Boulevard lacks the necessary significance to meet any of the NRHP or CRHR listing criteria, or the City of Pasadena landmark designation criteria, an analysis of the structure’s physical integrity was considered unwarranted and immaterial to the overall finding that the subject property is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database.

As such, this evaluation concludes that the subject property is not considered a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA because it does not meet any of the NRHP evaluation criteria as described under 36 CFR Section 60.4. Additionally, the subject property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a).

8.5 Map ID 5: SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line

8.5.1 Description
The SCE 220kV and 66kV Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Lines and two transmission line towers in the APE were surveyed from the public right-of-way (Photograph 16). The two 40-foot-tall metal lattice-frame towers are topped with conductors and long cross arms with porcelain insulators that hold the transmission wires. The lines span approximately 370 feet on the east side of the Eaton Wash Channel (Photograph 17).

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
75 The lines, poles, and conductors have likely been replaced. Overall, these components currently appear to be in good condition.

Photograph 16. The SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line, looking south.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1135.

Photograph 17. The SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line along the Eaton Wash Channel, looking northeast.

Source: Dudek, IMG_1116.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
76 8.5.2 Statement of Significance
NRHP/CRHR Criteria
The SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line was previously recorded by Wendy L.

Tinsley Becker at Urbana Preservation & Planning LLC in the report, Southern California Edison Company’s Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project Historic Infrastructure Eligibility Evaluation – Mesa-Anita Eaton Transmission Line, from 2010.

As a result of the evaluation, Dudek agrees with the previous findings that the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line is recommended not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR due to a lack of significant associations.

CRITERION A/1: EVENTS
Under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line lacks a direct and important association with any event significant in local, state, or national history. The 66kV transmission line was installed in 1951 to distribute power from the SCE Mesa Substation, Anita Substation, and Eaton Substation during the post- war population and development boom. By 2005, the 220 kV transmission line was added. Both lines are outside of the 1912-1941 period that the SCE Historic-Era Electrical Infrastructure Management Program identified as a significant period in the development of transmission line systems designed to transmit electrical power within the 67 kV to 230 kV range. Although the transmission lines are representative of the development of electrical power infrastructure in post-war Pasadena, they are not associated with any event(s) or period(s) important in SCE or electrical engineering history. Therefore, the subject property is not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1.

CRITERION B/2: SIGNIFI CANT PERSONS
Under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line lacks a significant association with the productive life of any person important in local, state, or national history. Archival research indicates that the transmission line system is associated with the SCE Company. Although the power company played an important role in the development of electrical infrastructure in Pasadena and Southern California, the transmission line segment represents the collective work of many individuals rather than the work of any single individual.

Research did not uncover information that indicated that any individuals who made a singular and significant contribution to the development of electrical transmission line systems are associated with the line. Due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2.

CRITERION C/3: DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION
Under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line is not significant because it does not represent an important example of a type, period, or method of construction. The transmission line is part of a linear transmission line system consisting of steel lattice towers, which are common support Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
77 structures for transmission lines in Pasadena, Los Angeles County, and California.

According to the SCE Historic-Era Electrical Infrastructure Management Program, “By 1930 SCE developed the backbone of their 66 kV system, by 1940 the backbone of their 220 kV system and by 1970 their 500 kV system” (Tinsley 2017: 86). Therefore, the 1951 66 kV subject system is representative of ubiquitous infrastructure that exemplifies a standardized transmission system consisting of steel lattice towers, transmission lines, and hardware, and it lacks innovation regarding its overall design, form, and function. Additionally, research did not indicate that the transmission line is associated with the work of a master engineer or builder, nor did it reveal that the subject line segment represents an important variation, evolution, or transition of transmission line development because they fall outside the 1912 to 1941 period of significance that SCE identified for this voltage class of transmission lines. Overall, the subject property lacks sufficient design and construction value to meet NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3.

CRITERION D/4: DATA POTENTIAL
Under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line is not significant as a source, or likely source, of important historical information, nor does it appear likely to yield important information about historic construction methods, materials, or technologies. This technology is well understood through contemporary trade journals and scientific monographs. As such, the subject property lacks significance under NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4.

City of Pasadena Landmark Criteria
The building at SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line also does not appear to meet any of the City of Pasadena’s historic resources designation criteria to be considered a landmark as outlined under Section 17.62.040(D)(2) of the Pasadena Code of Ordinances.

CRITERION A: EVENTS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1, research does not indicate that the subject property was associated with significant events, therefore, it is not recommended eligible for City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion A.

CRITERION B: SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line is not associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2, due to a lack of identified significant associations with any persons important in our past, the subject property is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion B.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
78 CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line is not a particularly distinctive example of a type, style, period, or method of construction, nor does it represent the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City, or possess artistic values of significance to the City. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3, the subject property is a common example of ubiquitous and undistinguished infrastructure, and therefore, is recommended not eligible under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion C.

CRITERION D: DATA POTENTIAL
Under the City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D, the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history. As discussed in NRHP/CRHR Criterion D/4, the subject property lacks significance under City of Pasadena Landmark Criterion D.

8.5.3 Statement of Integrity and Conclusion
Because the SCE Mesa-Anita-Eaton Transmission Line lacks the necessary significance to meet any of the NRHP or CRHR listing criteria, or the City of Pasadena landmark designation criteria, an analysis of the structure’s physical integrity was considered unwarranted and immaterial to the overall finding that the subject property is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database. As such, this evaluation concludes that the subject property is not considered a historic property under Section 106 of the NHPA because it does not meet any of the NRHP evaluation criteria as described under 36 CFR Section 60.4. Additionally, the subject property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a).

9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Archaeological Resources
Dudek’s cultural resources inventory of the APE for archaeological resources indicates that there is a moderate potential for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during Project implementation. Dudek conducted a records search of the APE and surrounding 1-mile radius at the SCCIC. The records search identified 62 cultural resources within a 1-mile radius of the APE, the majority of which are characterized as historic-age built environment resources associated with the development of the City of Pasadena over the twentieth century.

A NAHC SLF search was also requested, and results were positive for Native American cultural resources within 1 mile of the APE, though the NAHC did not provide details on what the resource(s) are or where they are located. No archaeological resources were identified during the pedestrian survey, though the majority of the ground surface was obscured by plant debris and other materials. Additionally, Dudek’s archival review indicates that the majority of the APE has been previously disturbed by the channelization of Eaton Wash, building development, demolition, and grading.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
79 Given the former presence of the Earthside Nature Center within the APE and its location adjacent to the historic course of the Eaton Wash Channel, there is a moderate potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological resources during Project implementation. Compliance with measures outlined below would reduce potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological resources and human remains during project implementation.

Cultural Resources Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Protocols. It is recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during all initial ground- disturbing activities for the Project. Archaeological monitoring may be adjusted (increased, decreased, or discontinued) at the recommendation of the archaeological principal investigator, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology, and based on the inspection of exposed cultural material and the observed potential for soils to contain intact cultural deposits or otherwise significant archaeological material. The archaeological monitor shall be provided a copy of this technical report and its pertinent appendices to inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas for potential cultural material or deposits. The requirement for Tribal monitoring, while recommended, shall be determined by the lead agency in consultation with the traditionally culturally affiliated tribes with geographic ties to the Project area.

In the event that unanticipated archaeological deposits or features are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the archaeological principal investigator is provided access to the Project site and can assess the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The work exclusion buffer may be adjusted as appropriate to allow work to feasibly continue at the recommendation of the archaeological principal investigator. Should it be required, temporary flagging shall be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. The potential for avoidance should be the primary consideration of this initial process. Significance of the find shall be assessed as outlined by CEQA (14 CCR Section 15064.5[f]; PRC Section 21082) and Section 106 of the NHPA. If the archaeological principal investigator observes the discovery to be potentially significant under CEQA and/or the NHPA, additional efforts, such as the preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, and/or data recovery, may be warranted prior to allowing construction to proceed in this area.

Daily monitoring logs shall be completed by the on-site archaeological monitor. Within 60 days following completion of construction, the archaeological principal investigator shall provide an archaeological monitoring report to the City. This report shall include the results of the cultural monitoring program (even if negative), including a summary of any findings or evaluation/data recovery efforts, and supporting documentation that demonstrates all mitigation measures defined in the environmental document were appropriately met. Appendices shall include archaeological monitoring logs and documentation relating to any newly identified or updated cultural resources. This report shall be submitted to the SCCIC once considered final.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
80 While recommended, the requirement to include a Native American Monitor should be determined by the City, having reviewed cultural resources technical findings, through government-to-government consultation with the traditionally culturally affiliated tribes with geographic ties to the Project site and in review of the present report findings.

Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if potential human remains are found, the Los Angeles County Coroner (County Coroner) shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The County Coroner shall provide a determination within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, shall occur until a determination has been made regarding if the find is human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours. In accordance with PRC Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased Native American. The Most Likely Descendant shall then recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Based on the results of this investigation and the recommendations provided to ensure the proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries during ground- disturbing activities, this study concludes that the Project, as currently designed, would result in a finding of No Historic Properties Affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated on cultural resources and human remains under CEQA.

9.2 Historic Architectural Resources
Dudek evaluated five historic-age properties in the APE and found that none are eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the City of Pasadena Historic Resources Database due to a lack of significant associations and architectural merit due to a lack of historical significance and architectural merit. Therefore, no historic properties have been identified within the APE. As such, we recommend a finding of No Historic Properties Affected.

10.0 REFERENCES
AA (Abramson Architects). 2025a. “Cedars-Sinai Urgent Care | Award Winner.” Los Angeles: Abramson Architects. Accessed August 5, 2025. https://www.abramsonarchitects.com/work/cedars-sinai-urgent-care.

AA. 2025b. “Cedars-Sinai Los Feliz Urgent Care & OB/GYN | Award Winner.” Los Angeles: Abramson Architects. Accessed August 5, 2025. https://www.abramsonarchitects.com/work/cedars-sinai-los-feliz-urgent-care-ob- gyn#:~:text=Abramson%20Architects%20%7C%20Cedars%2DSinai%20Los,//% 202022%20SCDF%20Design%20Award.

AHS (American Horticultural Society). 2025. “Great American Gardeners Awards History.” Alexandria, Virginia: American Horticultural Society. Accessed September 2025. https://ahsgardening.org/great-american-gardeners-awards-history/.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
81 Applied EarthWorks Inc. 2009. Confidential Cultural Resources Specialist Report for the Tehachapi Transmission Project . On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center.

Ashby, G.E., and J.W. Winterbourne. 1966. “A Study of Primitive Man in Orange County and Some of its Coastal Areas.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 2(1): 3-52.

Bancroft, H.H. 1884. History of California. San Francisco: A.L. Bancroft & Company.

Barber, M. 1985. “Dump Goes Back to Nature: A Treasure Trove of Flora in Pasadena.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA). April 7, 1985.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-04-07-ga-27809-story.html.

Basgall, M.E., and M.C. Hall. 1990. “Adaptive Variation in the North-Central Mojave Desert.” Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Basgall, M.E., L. Johnson, and M.J. Hale. 2002. An Evaluation of Four Archaeological Sites in the Lead Mountain Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas.

Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978. “Luiseño.” In Handbook of North American Indians:

Volume 8, California, edited by R.F. Hiezer, 550–563. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

Bean, L.J., and C.R. Smith. 1978. “Gabrielino.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 538–549. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution.

Becker, W. 2010. DPR Site Form P-19-190502. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center.

Blackburn, T. 1963. Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Annual Report, Archaeological Survey. University of California, Los Angeles.

Boscana, G. 1846. “Chinigchinich; A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California.” In Life in California, by A. Robinson, 227–341. New York: Wiley & Putnam.

Brown, J. Jr., and J. Boyd. 1922. History of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.

Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company.

Byrd, B.F., and S.N. Reddy. 2002. “Late Holocene Adaptations Along the Northern San Diego Coastline: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
82 Erlandson and T.L. Jones, 41–62. University of California, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

CGS (California Geological Survey). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces: Note 36. p. 4.

City of Pasadena. 2025a. “Heritage: A Short History of Pasadena.” City of Pasadena.

Accessed July 17, 2025. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/about- pasadena/history-of-pasadena/.

City of Pasadena. 2025b. “Eaton Blanche Park.” City of Pasadena. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/parks-and-rec/parks/eaton-blanche-park/.

City of Pasadena. 2025c. Pasadena Municipal Code: A Codification of the General Ordinances of Pasadena, California. Pasadena, California. September 8, 2025. https://library.municode.com/ca/pasadena/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TI T17ZOCO_ART6LAUSDEPEPR_CH17.62HIPR_17.62.040CRDEHIRE.

Cleland, J.H., A.L. York, and L.M. Willey. 2007. Piecing Together the Prehistory of Landing Hill: A Place Remembered. EDAW Cultural Publications No. 3. EDAW Inc., San Diego.

Coppess, M. 2008. “Secret Garden.” East of Allen. December 13, 2008. https://eastofallen.com/2008/12/13/secret-garden/.

Coppess, M. 2025. “A New Chapter in the Earthside Story.” East of Allen. July 18, 2025. https://eastofallen.com/2025/07/18/a-new-chapter-in-the-earthside-story/.

Data USA. 2025. “Pasadena, CA.” Data USA. Accessed July 17, 2025. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/pasadena-ca/#economy.

Davis, E.L. 1978. The Ancient Californians: Rancholabrean Hunters of the Mojave Lakes Country. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series No. 29.

Dumke, G.S. 1944. The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. San Marino, California: Huntington Library Publications.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2023. Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California. Accessed March 2025. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/
Division-of-Safety-of-Dams/Files/Publications/DAMS-WITHIN-JURISDICTION-

OF-THE-STATE-OF-CALIFORNIA-LISTED-ALPHABETICALLY-BY-COUNTY- SEPTEMBER-2023.pdf.

ECNCA (Eaton Canyon Nature Center Association). 2025. “Easton Canyon History.” Pasadena, California: Eaton Canyon Nature Center Association. Accessed July 21, 2025. https://www.ecnca.org/history-of-eaton-canyon/.

Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
83 EI (Edison International). 2023. “Our History”. Edison International. Accessed December 14, 2023.

Gallegos, D.R., ed. 1987. San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy.

San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper No. 1.

Golla, V. 2007. “Linguistic Prehistory.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, 71–82. New York: Altamira Press.

Gilmore, R., L. Golden, H.C. Tsang, and J. Vandenburgh. 2009. Earthside Nature Center Green Vision. Prepared for the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. 2009. Accessed July 24, 2025.

Google Earth. 2025. Google Earth, desktop application; centered on the review area.

Accessed March 2025. https://www.google.com/earth/.

Grenda, D.R. 1997. “Site Structure, Settlement Systems, and Social Organization at Lake Elsinore, California.” PhD dissertation; University of Arizona, Tucson.

Griset, S. 1996. “Southern California Brown Ware.” PhD dissertation; University of California, Riverside.

Hale, M.J. 2001. “Technological Organization of the Millingstone Pattern in Southern California.” Master’s thesis; California State University, Sacramento.

Hale, M.J. 2009. “Santa Barbara and San Diego: Contrasting Adaptive Strategies on the Southern California Coast.” PhD dissertation; University of California, Davis.

Harrington, J.P. 1934. “A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4). Washington, DC.

Harrington, J.P. 1942. “Culture Element Distributions: XIX, Central California Coast.” Anthropological Records 7:1. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hector, S.M. 2006. Cultural Resources Study for the Maintenance of Old Mission Dam, Mission Trails Regional Park, San Diego, California . Prepared for the City of San Diego.

Heizer, R.F. 1978. “Introduction.” In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 1–6. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Heizer, R.F. , and K.M. Nissen. 1973. The Human Sources of California Ethnography .

Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Archaeological Research Facility.

HH (Huntington Hospital). 2006. “Urgent Care Center Assessment.” Pasadena, California: HH. May 5, 2006. https://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/2008% Cultural Resources Assessment November 4, 2025
84 20agendas/Sep_08_08/11A%20URGENT%20CARE%20CENTER%
20ASSESSMENT.pdf.

HRG (Historic Resources Group) and Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation. 2025. City of Pasadena Public Review Draft Historic Statement. Prepared for the City of Pasadena Planning and Community Development Department of the Planning Division. Pasadena, California: HRG. April 2025. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/ planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/Pasadena-Historic-Context-Statement-All- Chapters-April-2025.pdf?v=1752790006363.

Johnson, J.R., and J.G. Lorenz. 2006. “Genetics, Linguistics, and Prehistoric Migrations: An Analysis of California Indian Mitochondrial DNA Lineages.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 26:33–64.

Johnston, B.E. 1962. California’s Gabrielino Indians. Los Angeles: Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Southwest Museum.

King, C.D. 2000. Native American Indian Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Report prepared for the Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation (Cooperative Agreement No. 8540-94-003), National Park Service West Region, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Topanga, California:

Topanga Anthropological Consultants.

Kroeber, A.J. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. New York: Dover Publications Inc.

LAT (Los Angeles Times). 1959. “Pasadena Girls Club to Fete Anniversary.” Newspapers.com: Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, May 10, 1959.

Page 238 ends

Pasadena City CouncilAugust 31, 2026

Pasadena City Council
August 31, 2026