Appendix D Revised Historical Technical Report

Transcripción

Appendix D Revised Historical Technical
Report
Historical Resources Technical Document
Rose Bowl Stadium Renovation Project
Prepared in Support of the
Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
City of Pasadena
Prepared by
Myra L. Frank/Jones & Stokes
January 2005
Revised September 2007, October 2007, April 2008
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 1
IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ................................................. 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ................................................................................... 12
HISTORIC CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES AND IMPACTS ANALYSIS ..... 17
ROSE BOWL—SOUTH SIDE ................................................................................. 23
ROSE BOWL—WEST SIDE ................................................................................... 31
ROSE BOWL—NORTH SIDE ................................................................................. 37
ROSE BOWL—EAST SIDE .................................................................................... 44
ROSE BOWL—PERIMETER .................................................................................. 51
ROSE BOWL—INTERIOR ...................................................................................... 58
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 64
OTHER HISTORICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 67
Prospect Historic District ............................................................................... 67
Louise C. Bentz House .................................................................................. 70
Millard House/La Miniatura ............................................................................ 71
Holly Street Livery Stable .............................................................................. 72
Arroyo Terrace Historic District...................................................................... 73
Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape ................................................................... 75
Fannie Morrison Horticultural Center, Kidspace, and Aquatic Center ........... 77
Lower Arroyo Seco ........................................................................................ 77
MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................... 80
APPENDICES
Appendix A: The National Register of Historic Places Nomination of the Rose
Bowl, Prepared on October 18, 1984.
Appendix B: National Historic Landmark Designation, March 17, 1984.
Appendix C: Historic Structure Report and Preservation Plan for the Rose Bowl,
October 1997.
Appendix D: Letter from National Park Service, September 8, 2003.
Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report
Appendix F: Determination of Impacts (April 2003 Proposed Design)
FIGURES
Figure 1: Historical Resources Map ........................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Aerial View of the Rose Bowl, post-1950 ............................................... 15
Figure 3: Scenic View of Rose Bowl, 1920s.......................................................... 15
Historical Resources Technical Document for Final EIR
January 2005; Revised September 2007, October 2007
Page i
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Culturally significant resources are generally separated into two categories:
archaeological resources, and historical resources. The analysis set forth below will
address them accordingly.
Archaeological Resources
Regarding archaeological resources, the existing conditions are unchanged from that
presented in environmental studies completed for the Central Arroyo Master Plan EIR
certified by the City of Pasadena City Council on September 29, 2003. The City of
Pasadena City Council adopted the Hahamongna Watershed Park Master Plan and the
Lower Arroyo Master Plan on September 29, 2003. Although the Central Arroyo Master
Plan was not adopted, the archaeological studies documented in the EIR are still
considered to be current and adequate.
The Central Arroyo Master Plan documents that one prehistoric site was recorded in the
Arroyo, CA-LAN-26, known as Walker’s Sheldon Reservoir Site. This site, found in
1938, is located about a mile north of the Rose Bowl, on the terrace surfaces above the
arroyo. The site contained 53 inhumations, two cremations, numerous artifacts, and
associated rock cairns.
A field inspection of the Rose Bowl and surrounding arroyo channel was made on 30
November 2004. The arroyo bottom preserves the general natural shape of a flow
channel, that is, sloping gently upgrade to the head, and up slope to each side. Present
water flow in the arroyo has been channelized into a concrete-lined channel.
The pedestrian reconnaissance confirmed that the arroyo environment surrounding the
Rose Bowl has been extensively modified by construction of the Bowl, the surrounding
golf course, parking lots, and roads. Few areas of exposed ground surface could be
seen, due to extensive paving and landscaping. Boulders present in the open areas
indicate that high energy flow occurred in the arroyo at times, suggesting that it would be
a poor place for long term human habitation, and that any cultural materials left behind in
the arroyo were probably washed away by subsequent flooding.
The extent of ground disturbance during construction of the Rose Bowl can be seen in
historic photographs. In aerial photos taken during the initial construction of the Rose
Bowl in 1923, earth has been taken from within the Bowl and been used to create the
berm holding up the Bowl. However, areas immediately north of the Bowl can be seen
to be relatively intact, with trees still present around the arroyo channel. The active flow
channel of the arroyo can be seen in the 1923 photograph, a sandy braided stream
January 2005; Revised September 2007
Page 1
CEQA Existing Conditions
slightly inset in the bottom of the Arroyo Seco on the west side, curving between the
Bowl and the adjacent hill slope. Native Americans could have used the slightly
elevated arroyo surface on the eastern edge of this flow channel; however this area was
incorporated into the Bowl footprint.
Subsequent
construction
of
parking lots and the golf course
would have required further
grading and filling in the active
arroyo channel present in 1923,
and this has probably disturbed
any prehistoric cultural resources
that might have been present in
the vicinity of the Rose Bowl.
One historic photo of the
channelization shows a steam
shovel is use in the arroyo
channel.
As stated in the Central Arroyo Master Plan, the floor of the Arroyo Seco has a low
probability to support in situ archaeological resources. This is especially true in the
areas disturbed by extensive stadium construction. However, it should be noted that an
isolated human burial was found on the edge of Arroyo Seco in 2002 approximately 3
miles south of the Rose Bowl in the Arroyo Seco/San Pasqual Recreation Center. This
site, CA-LAN-3057, was found at a depth of two feet below a basketball court during
utility trenching (Foster 2002). In a similar manner, there is a low probability for isolated
archaeological remains to be present beneath the golf course, parking lots, and roads at
some remove from the immediate area of the Rose Bowl.
Paleontology
Arroyo Seco is a broad flood channel, the floor of which is filled with Recent Alluvium.
This Recent Alluvium has a low potential to contain fossil resources. Arroyo Seco in the
vicinity of the Rose Bowl is inset in Pleistocene-age Older Alluvium. Older Alluvium may
be present in the Arroyo Seco at depths of five feet or more. These sediments have a
high potential to contain vertebrate fossils. However, it is probably that Rose Bowl
construction has already disturbed these underlying sediments.
Older Alluvium is also exposed in the hills adjacent to the Arroyo, which will not be
impacted by the Project. Bedrock underlying the Rose Bowl is quartz diorite, which ahs
no sensitivity for paleontological resources.
Page 2
Historical Resources
Historical Background
The following historical background is quoted, in relevant part, from two of the City of
Pasadena’s websites, from City History at the City’s web page and from the Arroyo Seco
Master Plan, prepared for the City of Pasadena, and dated May 16, 2002.
“After the rule of California passed from Spain to Mexico, the Mexican government in
1833 secularized the mission lands and awarded them to individuals. The northeast
corner of San Gabriel Mission, consisting of the 14,000 acres known as Rancho el
Rincon de San Pascual, had previously been gifted in 1826 by the padres to Doña
Eulalia Pérez de Guillen, noted for her advanced age as well as her devoted service to
the mission. On February 18, 1835, it was formally granted by the Mexican government
to her husband, Don Juan Mariné. He and his sons subsequently lost the land, which
changed ownership, a few more times before being granted on November 28, 1843, by
Governor Manuel Micheltorena to his good friend, Colonel Manuel Garfias, son of a
distinguished Mexican family.
In 1852, two years after California was admitted as a state to the Union, Garfias built an
adobe hacienda on the east bank of the Arroyo, where he and his family proceeded to
live in grand style, until he could not meet the interest payment due on a loan. Title to
the land was then transferred in 1859 to his lenders, Dr. John S. Griffin and Benjamin
"Don Benito" Wilson. Portions of the Rancho San Pasqual were thereafter sold, leaving
Griffin and Wilson with 5,328 acres in 1873 (Griffin’s land was bought for $25,000, by the
California Colony of Indiana, formed by Dr. Thomas B. Elliott, which began a steady
influx of Midwesterners and Easterners to Pasadena).
In 1886 Pasadena incorporated, largely as a measure to rid the city of its saloon. In the
ensuing decade, amenities such as sewers, paved streets, and electric street lighting
were installed. On January 1, 1890, the Valley Hunt Club initiated a mid-winter festival
with a procession of flower-bedecked horses and carriages. This became a yearly
tradition that in 1898 was formally sponsored by the Tournament of Roses Association.
An added tourist attraction was the Echo Mountain incline railway which opened in 1893
and included a mountain chalet resort and the Alpine Tavern at Crystal Springs.”1
“During the late 1800s, settlers began to turn their attention to the growing tourist trade.
Because of ideal climate and proximity to the mountains, the area quickly became a
magnet for wealthy easterners pursuing leisure and escaping the cold winters. The
Arroyo Vista Guest House was one of many hotels. Its location on the banks of the
1
City of Pasadena website, http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/History/default.asp, link via About Pasadena and
City History.
Page 3
Arroyo attracted many customers. This guesthouse was the beginning of the elegant
Vista del Arroyo which graces the canyon today.
By 1885, Pasadena was considered a recreational mecca. The Arroyo Seco had
become part of a trail system leading up to a famous retreat in the mountains known as
“Switzer-land.” During this period, the Arroyo was used for a variety of recreational
activities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and picnicking…By the turn of the century,
excessive wood harvesting, recreational use, and fire had taken its toll on the Arroyo.
Recreationists began to seek out other canyons for their activities. Parts of the Arroyo
were then used for dumping. In 1902, a city-owned incinerator was opened near what is
now the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Although the Arroyo was in decline, some people
recognized its unique value. During his visit to Pasadena in 1911, Theodore Roosevelt
is purported to have remarked on the site’s suitability for use as a park.
During the same period, a community of artists, architects, craftsmen, and writers lived on
the banks of the Arroyo Seco. They formed an intellectual and aesthetic movement that
California scholars call the Arroyo Culture. Their lifestyle was based on community and
simplicity, emphasizing harmony with their neighbors and their surroundings. Much of their
artistic inspiration was derived from the Arroyo, which symbolized wild California. Stones
and other materials from the Arroyo were incorporated into the homes they designed and
crafts they made. Wealthy patrons living nearby eagerly supported their work.
During the years before the Great Depression, a number of technological developments
occurred within the Arroyo. In 1913, the Colorado Street Bridge opened. The bridge is
known for graceful architecture. During the Depression, the bridge became known as
Suicide Bridge in grim tribute to the lives lost there.
But as technology developed, interest in preserving the natural character of the park also
increased. In 1917 and 1918, a plan for the Arroyo was developed by Emil T. Mische, a
landscape architect brought to Pasadena by the Garden Club. Mische and the Arroyo
Park Committee, headed by Myron Hunt, recommended that the Lower Arroyo be
preserved, restricted to walking and bridle paths, and planted with only native plants. In
the early 1920s, Charles Lummis and others formed the Arroyo Seco Foundation. This
was the first time a group banded together to promote preservation of the Arroyo.
Because of their efforts, a bond issue was passed by the citizens of Pasadena,
authorizing the purchase of private land in the Arroyo. Several other ordinances
protecting the area were passed.
During the Depression Era, the “First Highway in the West” was constructed from
Pasadena, along the Arroyo Seco, to Los Angeles. This highway is now the 110
Freeway. Early proposals had routed the freeway through the entire Arroyo Seco.
Because of the Arroyo Seco plan and restrictions placed on the land in acquisition
agreements, this upper section of highway was never built.
Page 4
Devil’s Gate Dam is a 115-foot-high concrete arch gravity dam built in 1920 that is
owned and operated by the LACDPW. Devil’s Gate Dam is an important component of
the Arroyo Seco flood control system. Most of the Arroyo Seco downstream of Devil’s
Gate Dam to the Los Angeles River is channelized to contain floods within a concrete
channel section. Channel design in the 1930s was based on Devil’s Gate Dam
attenuating flood flows and in controlling the amount of sediment and debris reaching the
arroyo Seco flood control channel. Devil’s Gate Dam and Reservoir is not listed as a
historic structure in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Historical
Landmarks, or the California Inventory of Historic Places. The State Offices of Historic
Preservation and Historic Landmarks, and the City of Pasadena Department of Historic
Preservation have not listed Devil’s Gate Dam as a historic, resource. Although the dam
is not officially listed as a historic structure, the dam was treated as a historic resource
pursuant to CEQA because it is more than 50 years old.
The Rose Bowl Stadium was designed in 1921 as a horseshoe-shaped stadium. Architect
Myron Hunt, in association with then Tournament President William Leishman, prepared
the original design. Original constructed conformed to the horseshoe design, but the
stadium was enclosed as a full bowl in 1928, increasing spectator capacity to 76,000. The
Rose Bowl has hosted the Tournament of Rose Bowl football game since 1923.
Built as a WPA project in the late 1930s and early1940s, the flood control channel
brought about the greatest change in the Arroyo Seco. The channel altered the
watershed and wildlife ecology and made a striking visual impact on the area, generally
detracting from its beauty and natural character.
La Casita was constructed in 1932 as a joint project sponsored by the Pasadena Garden
Club and the City Park Department to provide jobs for the unemployed. The small
clubhouse, designed by Myron Hunt, was intended to become an art and nature center.
The many rock walls gracing the Arroyo Seco today was subsidized by the Scottville
family to create jobs during the Depression. Developments including a railway and
extension of the freeway were proposed for the Lower Arroyo Seco but were stopped by
movements to preserve what was left of the wild canyon.
In recent years, the City of Pasadena demonstrated its commitment to preserving the Lower
Arroyo Seco as a natural park. Because of the significant role it played in the history of
Pasadena, the Lower Arroyo Seco was declared a (City of Pasadena) cultural landmark in
1977. The Arroyo Seco Ordinance, adopted in 1982, placed restrictions on uses and
development in the Arroyo Seco and established it as a natural preservation area.”2
2
City of Pasadena, Arroyo Seco Master Plan EIR, May 16, 2002, pages 3.4-11 through 3.4-13. Available
online at http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/planning/ASMP/ASMEIR.aps, Section 3.4 Cultural Resources.
Page 5
CEQA Identification of Historical Resources
IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute and Guidelines provide five
basic definitions as to what may qualify as an historical resource. Specifically, Section
21048.1 of the CEQA statute (Division 13 of the California Public Resources Code), in
relevant part, provides a description for the first three of these definitions, as follows:
“…an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in,
the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local
register of historical resources, as defined in subsection (k) of Section 5020.1,3 are
presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless
the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or
culturally significant. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible
for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local
register of historical resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (g) of Section 5024.14 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining
whether the resource may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.”
To simplify the first three definitions provided in the CEQA statute, an historical resource
is a resource that is:
1. Listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register);
2. Determined eligible for the California Register by the State Historical Resources
Commission; or
3. Included in a local register of historical resources (see footnote 3).
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3, supplements the statute by providing two additional definitions of historical
resources, which may be simplified in the following manner. An historical resource is a
resource that is:
3
4
PRC 5020.1(k): "Local register of historic resources" means a list of properties officially designated or
recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.
PRC 5024.1(g): A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in the
California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory.
(2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with office procedures and
requirements.
(3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office [of Historic Preservation] to have a
significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on DPR Form 523.
(4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California
Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible
due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or
altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource.
Page 6
4. Identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements
of Public Resources Code §5024.1(g) [see footnote 4];
5. Determined by a Lead Agency to be historically significant or significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California. Generally, this category
includes resources that meet the criteria for listing on the California Register
(Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
For purposes of this final EIR, all structures, landscape elements and other features that
could be considered historical resources are evaluated in light of each of the above five
definitions under CEQA. Each CEQA definition is described in more detail below, along
with a listing of those historical resources on, adjacent to, near, or historically related to
the proposed project site that meet any of the CEQA definitions.
Historical resources identified are shown on the map in Figure 1.
Definition 1 - Listed in the California Register
There are several ways in which a resource can be listed in the California Register,
which are codified under Title 14 CCR, Section 4851.
•
A resource can be listed in the California Register by the State Historical
Resources Commission.
•
If a resource is listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (National Register), it is automatically listed in the California
Register.
If a resource is a California State Historical Landmark, from No. 770 onward, it is
automatically listed in the California Register.
There are five historical resources that are currently listed in the California Register in
the Central Arroyo project study area, as follows:
•
The Rose Bowl, 991 Rosemont Avenue, listed in the National Register on
02/27/1984 and designated as a National Historic Landmark.
Page 7
•
Figure 1: Historical Resources Map
Page 8
Prospect Historic District, listed in the National Register on 02/27/1987, including the
following address ranges:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
480-1099 Prospect Boulevard,
645-687 (odd only) Prospect Crescent,
421-472 Prospect Square,
470-535 Prospect Terrace,
514-991 Rosemont Avenue,
1010-1126 Armada Drive,
535 Fremont Drive, and
501-550 La Mesa Place.
•
Louise C. Bentz House, 657 Prospect Boulevard, listed in the National Register
on 12/02/1977. Built 1906, designed by Charles and Henry Greene.
•
Holly Street Livery Stable, 110 East Holly Street, listed in the National Register
on 10/25/1979. The Holly Street Livery Stable is not in the geographical study
area, but it is historically related to events associated with the Tournament of
Roses.
•
Millard House; La Miniatura, 645 Prospect Crescent, listed in the National
Register on 12/12/1976. Built 1923, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.
Definition 2 - Determined Eligible for the California Register
There are no historical resources on, adjacent to, or near the proposed project site that
are known to have been determined eligible for the California Register by the State
Historical Resources Commission.
Definition 3 - Listed in a Local Register of Historical Resources
A property listed in a local register of historic resources is considered an historical
resource for the purposes of CEQA. By definition, "local register of historic resources" is
a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local
government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution. The City of Pasadena has three
such designations under Section 17.52.40 of the Pasadena Municipal Code: 1) Historic
Monuments 2) Landmarks and 3) Landmark Districts. All designations require formal
review by the Historic Preservation Commission and approval by the City Council.
Historic Monuments
There are no Historic Monuments on, adjacent to, or near the proposed project site.
Page 9
Landmarks
There are no Landmarks in the Central Arroyo; however the following two Landmarks
are located in the Lower Arroyo.
Lower Arroyo Seco, designated in 1977.
La Casita Del Arroyo, 173 S. Arroyo Boulevard, 1932, designed by Myron Hunt.
Landmark Districts
There are no Landmark Districts on, adjacent to, or near the proposed project site.
Definition 4 - Identified as Significant in an Historical Resources Survey
According to Section 15064.5(a) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource “identified as
significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements [set forth in] section
5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or
culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless
the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant.” The requirements set forth in PRC 5024.1(g) for historical resources
surveys are:
A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed
in the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources
Inventory.
(2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with
office [of Historic Preservation] procedures and requirements.
(3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office [of Historic
Preservation] to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on DPR
Form 523.
(4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for
inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical
resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed
circumstances or further documentation and those which have been
demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the
significance of the resource.
Definition 5 - Determined Significant by the Lead Agency
The fifth and final category of historical resources includes those determined significant
by a lead agency. This usually occurs during the CEQA compliance process, such as
the preparation of this EIR. According to Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines,
“Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead
Page 10
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or
cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the
lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically
significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of
Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852)…”
The following two groups of resources are currently or have been previously under
consideration for some form of historic designation or recognition by the City of
Pasadena, and are considered to be historical resources for the purposes of this EIR:
•
Arroyo Terrace (in process by the City, and proposed for National Register
listing), bounded by North Grand Avenue, Live Oaks Avenue, Arroyo Terrace and
North Orange Grove Boulevard.
•
Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape (in process, proposed by Pasadena Heritage
to be nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Devil’s Gate Dam, upper Arroyo.
Brookside Golf Club (golf courses, not the club house), 1133
Rosemont Avenue, opened 1928.
Rose Bowl.
Jackie Robinson Baseball Stadium, Brookside Park, 1930s,
association with Chicago Cubs Spring training.
Fannie Morrison Horticultural Center Buildings (Kidspace), Brookside
Park, collection of three buildings, built in 1938.
Brookside Plunge, Aquatic Center, Brookside Park.
The Rockery, Brookside Park (park address is 360 North Arroyo.)
Brookside Park Amphitheater, Brookside Park.
La Casita del Arroyo, 173 S. Arroyo Boulevard, lower Arroyo, also
individually designated as a City of Pasadena Landmark.
Stone retaining walls, throughout the Arroyo.
Original circulation elements, (roads and pathways throughout the
Arroyo).
All Historic Bridges over the Arroyo, (throughout the Arroyo).
Page 11
CEQA Environmental Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Significant Impact Criteria
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, Determining the Significance of Impacts to
Historical Resources and Unique Archaeological Resources has been applied to this
project to determine any significant effect on historical resources. Therefore, the project
would result in a significant impact if it causes a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource based on the following criteria established by the
CEQA Guidelines:
(b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration in the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially
impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) 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 of Historical Resources; or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics
[of an historical resource] that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical
resources (pursuant to section 5021.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or its
identification in an historical resources survey meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of
the Public Resources Code, 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
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of
an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead
agency for purposes of CEQA.
(3) Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring,
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and
Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on
the historical resource. [Secretary’s Standards]
The CEQA Guidelines for significant impact on historical resources are applied in this
document by the following series of analyses:
1. The reasons the Rose Bowl was found to be a significant historical resource are
presented;
2. The Rose Bowl’s historic character defining features are identified,
Page 12
3. Potential effects of the proposed project on the Rose Bowl’s character defining
features are analyzed,
4. The effects of the various alternatives on the Rose Bowl’s character defining
features are compared.
For organizational purposes, steps 2, 3, and 4 are applied to the following major spatial
areas of the Rose Bowl:
o
o
o
o
o
o
South Exterior and Forecourt,
West Exterior
North Exterior
East Exterior
Perimeter and Outbuildings
Interior of Bowl.
5. The indirect effect of the proposed project and various alternatives on the other
eight historical resources as defined by CEQA or the CEQA guidelines, including:
o Prospect Historic District;
o Louise C. Bentz House;
o Holly Street Livery Stable;
o Millard House; La Miniatura;
o Lower Arroyo Seco (analysis under Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape);
o La Casita Del Arroyo (analysis under Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape);;
o Arroyo Terrace [Historic District]; and
o Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape.
Significance of the Rose Bowl as an Historical Resource
The National Register of Historic Places nomination of the Rose Bowl, prepared on
October 18, 1984, (See Appendix A) summarizes the significance of the Rose Bowl as
follows:
The Rose Bowl is of outstanding significance in the field of recreation as
the long-term site of the oldest and most renowned post-season college
football “bowl” game, held annually every New Year’s Day since 1916,
and in the Rose Bowl since its completion in 1922 (except for one year
during World War II). The Rose Bowl is also the outstanding extant
historic manifestation of the civic work of the Pasadena Tournament of
Roses Association, the sponsor of the city’s famed annual New Year’ Day
flower festival and parade that dates to 1890, and from which the tradition
of the accompanying annual bowl game arose. This link is symbolized
when the game begins at the conclusion of the parade. In addition, the
Rose Bowl was one of the venues for both the 1932 and 1984 Olympic
Games.5
5
Charleton, James H. National Register Nomination: The Rose Bowl, October 18, 1984, Section 8, page 1.
Page 13
The National Register nomination also included the following excerpt regarding architect
Myron Hunt’s design:
In his work on the Rose Bowl, Hunt studied classical Greek and Roman
theaters and stadiums, including that of Pompeii, as well as contemporary
examples, such as the review of aerial views, of stadiums then recently
built or under construction in the United States. As a result of his study,
he incorporated certain design elements contrary to prevailing fashion.
He built the bowl in a true ellipse and placed the athletes’ entrances to the
field at the corners, which he judged to be the least desirable locations for
seats from the spectators’ point of view. He also decided, on the pattern
of Greek theaters, to leave the southern end open to permit breezes to
enter the field.6
The Rose Bowl was also designated on March 17, 1984, as one of ten properties
associated with the history of recreation and sports in the United States as National
Historic Landmarks, and its significance was stated in the nomination form (See
Appendix B) as follows:
The Rose Bowl is the site of the oldest and most renowned post-season
college football “bowl” game, held annually every New Year’s Day since
1916, and in the Rose “bowl” since its completion in 1922 (except for one
year during World War II). The Rose Bowl also commemorates the civic
work of the Tournament of Roses Association, the sponsor of the city’s
famed annual New Year’ Day flower festival and parade that dates to 1890,
and from which the tradition of the accompanying annual bowl game arose.
This link is symbolized when the game begins at the conclusion of the
parade. The Rose Bowl was also one of the venues of the 1932 and 1984
Olympic Games. The City of Pasadena owns the Rose Bowl.7
As a result, the designated areas of significance of the Rose Bowl as an historical
resource may be summarized as follows:
o
o
o
o
Site of the annual Rose Bowl Game,
Commemoration of the work of the Tournament of Roses Association,
Association with the annual Rose Parade,
Elliptical design (in plan and section) by architect Myron Hunt, based on ancient
and contemporary (ca. 1920) stadiums.
6
Ibid., Section 8, page 4.
U.S. Department of the Interior. Interior Secretary Designates 10 National Historic Landmarks. News
release dated March 9, 1987.
7
Page 14
Figure 2: Aerial view of the Rose Bowl, post-1950
Source: American Stock Photos, Los Angeles Public Library, photo no. 36154
Figure 3: Scenic view of Rose Bowl, 1920s
Source: Hiller Photos, Los Angeles Public Library, photo no. 36161
Page 15
Draft Historical Resources Technical Document
Rose Bowl Stadium Revised Renovation Project
Prepared in Support of the
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
Historic Character defining Features and Impacts Analysis
HISTORIC CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES AND IMPACTS ANALYSIS
A very thorough, thoughtful, and well-documented analysis of the Rose Bowl’s historic
character defining features has already been completed for the City of Pasadena by
Historic Resources Group (Appendix C). The Historic Structure Report and Preservation
Plan (HSR) prepared by Historic Resources Group was reviewed by the National Park
Service (NPS), which stated in a letter dated September 8, 2003, that it was “most
helpful in understanding the changes and chronology of the changes that have occurred
to the resource” (Appendix D).8 Because the HSR is so thorough, and because it served
as the basis for a prior review by the NPS, the inventory of character defining features
used by Historic Resources Group was used again in this document for consistency,
amended, as appropriate, with features identified by NPS.
The NPS letter was prepared after an informal review of the Preservation Alternative
(April 2003) and was not intended to identify the character defining features of the Rose
Bowl to the level of detail of the Historic Resources Group HSR. Many of the features
the NPS identified as “character defining” in the September 8, 2003, letter were not
designed by Myron Hunt and cannot be verified to date to the historic period of
significance of the Rose Bowl (1929–1950), except for those listed below.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The National Historic Landmark boundary of the Rose Bowl. The perimeter fence
establishes the environment sensitive to direct effect.
Arroyo stone wall enclosures for vegetation, giving a mounded or stepped
appearance to the areas around the bowl.
Open underside of the Rose Bowl and the exposed, unpainted concrete surface. As
designed by Myron Hunt, the view of the Rose Bowl is of a monumental, freestanding object in the landscape, the visible shape, form, and curvature of which
echoes the larger natural “bowl” of the Arroyo Seco surrounding it.
Vegetation pattern, especially the roses and large palm trees.
The “open bowl of the stadium with tiered seating,” including “open, unobstructed,
gently sloping tiers of seating punctuated by regularly spaced access tunnels
(vomitoria) with aisles that radiate straight downward to the field and upward above.”
Scoreboards (with red tile roofs).
In addition, two other character defining features refer to views and have been added to
this report.
•
•
At a public scoping meeting held on November 10, 2004, it was also brought up that
the view of the San Gabriel Mountains from inside the Rose Bowl is a character
defining feature. The mountain view is currently visible from the south, west, and
east seating areas of the Rose Bowl.
The aerial view of the Rose Bowl rim, a continuous and pure ellipse, from the
Goodyear Blimp and other airborne vehicles has become a character defining
8
Look, David W., Chief, Cultural Resources Team, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Letter dated September 8, 2003, to Christy McAvoy and Peyton Hall of Historic Resources Group.
Page 17
feature of the Rose Bowl. The blimp may have begun flying over the Rose Bowl as
early as 1929, six years after the Rose Bowl hosted its first football game in 1923.9
Aerial photography of the Rose Bowl football game and the Rose Bowl itself has
been virtually ongoing since 1924 and has become part of the American experience
when watching important Rose Bowl events.
Brief Description of Proposed Revised Project
The proposed revised project would renovate the Rose Bowl for continued use as home
field for UCLA. The Rose Bowl would continue to host the annual collegiate Rose Bowl
game in addition to soccer and other athletic games and events.
The following are relevant excerpts from the Revised Project Description and the draft
master plan dated March 1, 2007.10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Hall of Fame museum and stadium store is proposed for the south end or as part
of a new structure on the west side, which would also include support facilities, a
new press box, and club facilities with amenities such as private suites, club seats,
and loge boxes. The existing two-level press box, built in 1992 and non-character
defining, would be replaced by a new four-level structure containing a “horizon level,”
one club level, and two suite/press levels. This proposed structure would be within
the development envelope (i.e., length, width, and height) analyzed in the previous
certified environmental impact report (EIR). No further analysis of this structure is
required for this Draft Subsequent EIR (DSEIR).
Proposed changes to the south entry plaza include new paving, landscaping, the
reuse of existing trees on the site, and a roundabout for vehicular drop-offs.
Two original tunnels dedicated for athletes’ field access (7a, adjacent to 7 on the
northeast, and 15a, on the northwest), not for public pedestrian access, would be
demolished.
New built space is proposed for an area behind the Court of Champions at the south
entry and below the upper portion of the existing stadium.
Proposed elliptical ring of ground-level one-story concession and restroom buildings,
separated from the bowl by an area allotted for vehicular traffic and interrupted only
by six entry gates, would replace the more scattered concession buildings that are
currently informally located around the bowl’s perimeter or at the base of the
stadium.
“With the removal of the various structures adjacent to the Arroyo stone walls, the
embankment will be returned to full view” (Master Plan, p. 1). “Plantings will include
low-growing native species that cover the slopes of the embankment. Trees at the
outer edges of the ground-level concourse will be chosen for height to emphasize the
bowl’s relationship to the landscape, and at the entry, trees including the Mexican
Fan Palm will be re-used.” (Master Plan, p. 1)
“Excavation and partial removal of the landscaped earthen berms at the base of the
stadium would be required to accommodate the new west-side structure, vertical
circulation towers, and supports. The stone berms would be retained, reinstalled, or
9
Conversation with Bob Urhausen, Goodyear Airship Public Relations Manager, August 15, 2007.
Rose Bowl Master Plan. Available: <http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/
RoseBowlmasterplan.pdf>.
10
Page 18
•
•
reconstructed on site to the maximum extent feasible.” (Revised Project Description,
p. 3-7.) Excavation and removal of the landscaped earthen berms at the base of the
stadium would also be required to accommodate the proposed underground
program.
A pedestrian pathway would wrap around the perimeter of the proposed plaza-level
(ground-level) concession buildings, terminating on either side of the main entry gate
but extending a short distance on both sides beyond the proposed concession
buildings.
Emergency egress would be improved by one of three options:
i. Option A: A new horizon-level concourse, ranging form 10 to 22 feet wide,
would be constructed at the rim of the existing stadium and connected to the
plaza-level concourse with vertical circulation towers at four locations. This
concourse would be constructed along the entire rim of the stadium and extend
around the interior of the stadium at the south and north ends. The new
concourse would be supported by independent support structures outside the
stadium, such as columns, and not attached directly to the existing stadium. In
addition to the supporting columns, this option would require additional
excavation along the sides of the stadium in four locations to accommodate the
towers. This option would require the removal of about 3,500 stadium seats.
ii. Option B: Up to 28 existing access tunnels (those dedicated to public access)
would be doubled in width to provide additional capacity for exiting but detailed to
match the original tunnel surrounds, which are rectangles that are trapezoidal in
shape on both the outside and inside of the stadium. The proposed vomitoria
would also be taller because an upper level (approximately 16’ wide, including
flanking internal staircases, and 8’ tall), would be added to accommodate people
exiting from above, creating a second, wider opening that, like the original, would
be trapezoidal in shape. The original vomitoria, now at the lower level of the
reconfigured opening, would retain their current trapezoidal configuration as seen
from the inside of the stadium. Their interior tunnel width would widen to
approximately 16’ where the tunnel meets the internal concourse. (See Option
B.1) This option would require removal of the landscaped berms and trees where
the widening occurs outside the stadium, and the removal of about 5,000 seats
inside the stadium.
Per the Applicant drawing (“Inner Concourse,” dated 09.13.07), up to 28 existing
tunnel openings (the label used for openings on the Bowl’s exterior) would
double in width, from 8 feet to 16 feet. They would retain the identical shape and
height as the original existing trapezoidal openings. Their new concrete
surrounds would be detailed as the existing concrete surrounds. The vomitoria
(the label used for tunnel openings on the Bowl’s interior) would double in height
and change in appearance and per the Applicant as follows: the lower half of the
reconfigured vomitoria, 8 feet wide, would be identical in location, shape, width,
height and detailing as the original trapezoid. Above that, the upper half of the
revised vomitoria would be 16’ wide, to accommodate new stair runs 4’ wide
flanking an 8’ wide landing permitting egress from seating above the vomitoria.
This upper half of the reconfigured vomitoria, sharing the same center line as the
bottom half of the vomitoria, would be the same height, trapezoidal shape and
Page 19
detailed as the existing concrete surrounds. (See Option B.1) This option
requires the removal of the landscaped berms and trees where the widening
occurs outside the stadium, and the removal of about 5,000 seats inside the
stadium.
Option B.1: Internal Concourse
Under this option, if the stadium access tunnels are widened, the renovation
would be increased to allow the construction of restroom and concession
structures to be built under the stadium and behind the existing earthen berms.
These amenities would be located in an internal concourse ranging from a width
of 50 to a maximum 80 feet wide following the ellipse of the Bowl, comprised of
approximately seven bay widths on the east side and eight bay widths on the
west side; the width depends on the orientation of the structures. The internal
concourse would require additional shoring of the stadium between the tunnels to
allow for expansion, excavation, and reconstruction for the new structures. This
option would require an additional approximately 80,000 cubic yards of soil to be
removed from the site, but would eliminate 50 percent of the structures to be built
along the perimeter of the fence line. No additional seat loss is anticipated with
this option.
iii. Option C: This consists of combining options A and B.
No-Project Alternative
This alternative is required by CEQA (preserving the status quo).
Historic character defining features of the Rose Bowl would be preserved. Displacement
events would remain at an average of approximately 12 per year, and parking in the
Arroyo would not be reduced. Shuttle service would remain as existing. The No-Project
Alternative would not meet the project objective of maintaining financial viability.
Rose Bowl Character Defining Features and Effects of Proposed Project
The following sections describe the character defining features of the Rose Bowl and the
effects of the proposed project and the various alternatives. At the end of each section,
a comparative analysis of the effects of each alternative, using summary terms, is
presented. The weight and size of the font used for the summary term is intended to
characterize the severity of the effect. The summary terms are based on Section
15064.5(b) of the CEQA guidelines and as detailed below.
Page 20
Key to Summary Terms
DEMOLITION: Physically demolishes or destroys “in an adverse manner those
physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical
significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the
California Register of Historical Resources” (character defining features of the
Rose Bowl).
Substantial Alteration: Materially alters in an adverse manner the character defining
features of the Rose Bowl.
Visual Obstruction: Changes the immediate surroundings of the character defining
features of the Rose Bowl such that important views are obstructed.
Acceptable Alteration:
Alterations to character defining features of the Rose Bowl are
minor or follow the Secretary’s Standards.
No Change:
No change from the existing condition of the character defining features of
the Rose Bowl.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
It will be helpful to include here the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation (Standards). The revised 1990 Standards, part of the Department of the
Interior’s regulations (36 CFR Part 67, Historic Preservation Certifications), pertain to
historic buildings of any material, construction type, size, or occupancy, and encompass
both the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass
related landscape features and a building's site and environment as well as attached,
adjacent, or related new construction.
The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable
manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that
requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property
shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Page 21
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to
historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if
appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such
a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
For organizational purposes, the effects analysis for the Rose Bowl that would result
from the proposed project or the various alternatives is applied to the following major
spatial areas of the Rose Bowl:
•
•
•
•
•
•
South Exterior and Forecourt,
West Exterior,
North Exterior,
East Exterior,
Perimeter and Outbuildings,
Interior of the Bowl.
For the following series of analyses within each spatial area of the Rose Bowl, the
following information is presented:
•
•
•
the Rose Bowl’s historic character defining features are identified,
the potential effects of the proposed project on the Rose Bowl’s character defining
features are analyzed, and
the effects of the various alternatives on the Rose Bowl’s character defining features
are compared.
Page 22
Rose Bowl
—South Side
Rose Bowl—South Side
Neon Sign, South Forecourt
The stadium has few exterior or interior
decorative features. The dominant exterior
feature is the columns on the south end. On
the reverse side of the scoreboard, also
located on the south end, is the sign that was
installed in 1950. The back of the scoreboard,
finished with painted cement plaster, appears
as a rectangle with a gabled roof resting on
the top of the center portion, which steps up
once. The words “Rose Bowl” are attached in
cursive cold cathode tube sign letters across
the surface below a single red rose, also
rendered in cold cathode tubes. Below the
sign, bronze plaques are mounted on the
travertine marble veneer attached to the
concrete shear walls on the south facade’s
Court of Champions, a monument to past and
future Rose Bowl teams funded by Chrysler
th
Corporation for the 75 anniversary of the
stadium.
Trademark neon “Rose Bowl” sign, Court of Champions,
and south forecourt. Tunnel openings 25 and 26 are also
visible.
Tunnels, Concessions, Restrooms
Tunnels 24, 25, 26, and 27 were added in
1929–1930 when seating capacity was
increased. Concrete columns support the
upper tiers at the south end of the Rose Bowl.
Restrooms and concession stands built
between 1935 and 1938 were designed by
Myron Hunt and H. C. Chambers. Two woodframe, stucco-clad restrooms (measuring
56 feet by 15 feet) and one wood-frame
concession stand (measuring 37½ feet by
16 feet) were erected between 1937 and
1938. The restrooms were reroofed and
restuccoed in a rough lace pattern,
distinguishing them from structures with the
original smooth stucco used elsewhere.
Tunnel 23 is partially visible behind the concession
stand. Restrooms are on the right.
Page 24
Bowl Reconstruction
Designed by Myron Hunt and recalling ancient
Greek amphitheatres set in the landscape, the
Rose Bowl was first built as a U-shaped
structure with wooden bleachers and concrete
tunnels. Its original seating capacity was
57,000. However, many of the temporary
materials used to complete the stadium in
1922 deteriorated, and the wooden bleachers
frequently caught fire from cigars, pipes, and
cigarettes. By 1927, the south end of the bowl
was enclosed with a concrete-frame structure,
which faces today’s visitors, and the seating
capacity was increased by 19,000 to 76,000.
In 1930, the original wood-on-earth seating
was replaced by a concrete superstructure
above the original earthen berm and tunnels,
increasing the seating capacity to 80,000. In
1950, the north and south rims of the stadium
were raised, creating a uniform rim height and
increasing the seating capacity to more than
100,000.
Above: Today’s enclosed Rose Bowl
stadium (south end); a large video
screen was added adjacent to the
smaller original scoreboard.
Left: The pre-1927/1928 Rose Bowl,
while under construction, was open
on the south end. (Photo from Los
Angeles Public Library Collection.)
Page 25
Forecourt Concrete Bridges and Bridge Construction
The Rose Bowl, elliptical in plan and a partial ellipse in section, is built with reinforced concrete framing and engineered
slabs and risers on cut-and-fill earth construction. The stadium’s south end is supported by lighter framing, termed
“bridge” construction, with round concrete columns that support the upper tiers of seats. Seating risers, columns, the
perimeter wall, and the rim wall are constructed of concrete. The upper seats, added in 1950, were part of a south-end
bowl enlargement design. The pedestrian bridges
leading to the south forecourt were constructed in
1936.
South-end bowl enlargement, showing
example of bridge construction.
Bridge at tunnel 27, with exposed
structure of bowl.
Concrete bridge and stone retaining walls
leading to south forecourt.
Page 26
Character defining Feature (Yes/No)
Dates
Architect or
Engineer
Neon Rose Bowl sign (Yes); Key Letter: V
1949–1950
South forecourt and bridges into bowl (Yes); Key Letter: P
1935
Myron Hunt
Forecourt concrete bridges and retaining walls (Yes); Key Letter: Q
1935
Myron Hunt
Bowl reconstruction, elliptical curvature in plan and section
1927–1930
Myron Hunt
South-end bowl enlargement (Yes); Key Letter: S
1948
Myron Hunt
View of San Gabriel Mountains to the north (Yes)
1922
Myron Hunt
Aerial view of rim (Yes)
1928
Myron Hunt
Women’s toilets at forecourt—substantially altered, exterior and
interior (No); Key Letter: U
1948
Myron Hunt
Toilets—substantially altered, except for some residual structural
elements (No); Key Letter: d
1935;
1983
Myron Hunt;
Adolpho
Miralles
Court of Champions (No); Key Letter: g
1989
Robert and
Annalay
Bennett
(Yes); Key Letter: G
PROPOSED PROJECT For the purposes of this report, the south end of the stadium will
be considered the area from tunnels 24 through 27 or the south-end bowl structure
between proposed suite levels 1, 2, and 3 on the west and east sides of the stadium.
The project proposes a main entrance plaza, which would require new paving,
landscaping, and a roundabout roadway to serve the main entrance. This was analyzed in
the previous certified EIR as an acceptable alteration, and no further analysis is required.
The revised project description states that, where possible, existing trees will be relocated
on-site in landscape planting areas, and this is also an acceptable alteration.
The revised project description states that a Hall of Fame museum and stadium store are
proposed for either a new built space underneath the upper seating area of the existing
stadium, at the south entry and behind the Court of Champions (built in 1989—not
considered a character defining feature but will be retained), or within a new west sideline
Page 27
structure (currently the master plan locates the proposed Hall of Fame on the west). If the
hall is located on the south side, this would be an acceptable alteration because it would
be located behind (and thus not immediately visible) a feature that is not character
defining, and it would not affect the view of this primary entry to the bowl.
The stadium’s south-end character defining neon sign and columns would be preserved.
Non-historic electronic scoreboards would be removed and replaced. The proposed
new signage would not result in a substantial alteration of a character defining feature
and thus would be an acceptable alteration. The proposed concourse level would be
located within the stadium’s rim and thus would have no impact and would not visually
obscure the south façade.
With respect to views of the San Gabriel Mountains from the south, a larger NFL
scoreboard was analyzed in the previous, and certified, EIR; therefore, no further
analysis is required. The proposed smaller scoreboard is considered an acceptable
alteration. (The newly proposed scoreboard will be about 180 feet shorter in length than
the proposed NFL scoreboard, but its height will be equal to the NFL unit.)
Under Option A but not under Option B/B.1, the proposed concession buildings at the
perimeter, visually enclosing more of the south entry than the current configuration,
would visually obscure views of the lower portion of the south entry from the Arroyo
Seco and decrease the bowl’s visual prominence and public presence here.
Option A: Because of the presence of the concourse inside the rim, Option A would
constitute a substantial alteration of the south-end bowl enlargement and substantially
alter the Rose Bowl’s curvature in section, which are two character defining features.
The proposed elevated concourse would be located behind the existing stadium rim; it
would not be visible from the south entry forecourt. However, the change from the 22foot-wide horizon concourse on the exterior of the rim to the 10-foot-wide horizon
concourse on the interior rim would change the aerial view of the rim—now a
continuous, pure ellipse and an important character defining feature—to a view of a
staggered shape that would be fragmented in several locations. Thus, Option A’s
concourse, while not a physical or material alteration, would nonetheless constitute a
substantial alteration of this widely known character defining feature.
Option B/B.1: Tunnels 24–27 would be doubled in width, altering the appearance of the
south-end bowl enlargement. While a visible change in width, the center lines for the
tunnels would not change, and thus the overall symmetry of Myron Hunt’s design would
not change. As proposed, the tunnel openings (exterior) would be the same shape and
height as they are today, with their new concrete surrounds detailed as the existing
concrete surrounds. These changes follow the Standards with regard to rehabilitation of
Page 28
historic buildings, particularly given the need to meet safety and access requirements,
and will be considered mitigated to having a less-than-significant impact on this historical
resource and an acceptable alteration.
The aerial view of the rim would be somewhat changed by the larger press box
(analyzed in the previous certified EIR as an acceptable alteration, with no further analysis
required) but substantially unchanged from what currently exists. The purity of the ellipse
would remain, and therefore Option B in this regard is considered an acceptable
alteration.
Option B.1, the addition of the internal concourse, does not affect the south elevation of
the Rose Bowl.
Option C: Option A, which visually obscures some character defining features and
substantially alters others, would result in significant effects on this resource. While
Option B would result in acceptable alterations, Option C, combining these two options,
would cause a substantial adverse change in this historical resource and constitute a
significant effect on the environment.
NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. This alternative would preserve historic character
defining features as they currently exist or alter or restore them in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, this alternative would not have a
significant effect on the Rose Bowl or its character defining features.
ROSE BOWL—SOUTH SIDE
PROPOSED ALTERATIONS: Level of Impact
Character defining
Feature (Key Letter)
No-Project, Increased
Events, and Historic
Restoration Alternatives
Option A
Option B
Neon Rose Bowl sign (V)
No Change
No Change
No Change
South forecourt (P)
No Change
Acceptable Alteration
Bridges into bowl (P)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Forecourt concrete
bridges and retaining
walls (Q)
No Change
No Change
No Change
Bowl reconstruction,
elliptical curvature in
plan and section (G)—
No Change
Substantial Alteration
Page 29
Character defining
Restoration Alternatives
Option A
Option B
No Change
No Change
South End
South-end bowl
enlargement (S)
Aerial view of rim
DEMOLITION Physically demolishes or destroys “in an adverse manner those
Rose Bowl).
Acceptable Alteration:
Alterations to character defining features of the Rose Bowl are
No Change:
No change from the existing condition of the character defining features of
the Rose Bowl.
Page 30
Rose Bowl
—West Side
Rose Bowl—West Side
Arroyo Stone Berm, Retaining Walls, and Landscaping
A Works Progress Administration (WPA) project initiated in 1936
was responsible for many physical improvements to the stadium.
New construction included perimeter fencing, four pedestrian
bridges, and landscaping. The terraced rock walls that ring the
stadium and currently serve as planters for a variety of
vegetation, including roses, were most likely constructed during
this period. These walls were constructed above the original
Arroyo berms and stone retaining walls constructed in 1922. In
1936, rose bushes, cotoneasters, and eucalyptus trees were
planted. In 1938, palm trees were added in groups of three. In a
letter dated September 8, 2003, the National Park Service
identified the “rock wall enclosures for the vegetation, giving a
mounded or stepped appearance to the area” as character
defining features of the Rose Bowl. On the west side, the
construction of the press box in 1961 and again in 1992 may
have altered the rock wall enclosures. Notably, the walls and
berms have been repaired and patched in a variety of ways and
with a variety of materials and levels of craftsmanship over the
Arroyo stone berm retaining walls and landscaping.
past decades; one of the goals of the revised project is to
reconstruct the berms and walls in a comprehensive manner to
the Standards.
Tunnels 15–23 and Dressing Rooms
Tunnels 15 through 23 are part of the original design of the west side of the
stadium. The field access tunnels (15a and 23) are larger than the rest and
feature more formal, rectilinear portal surrounds in the manner of Egyptian
pylons. These are not for public use. Athletes enter and exit the field through
these larger tunnels at two corners of the stadium. A locker room is located
next to tunnel 23. The original exit tunnel in the northwest corner (15) was not
used for decades but was opened for World Cup Soccer in 1994.
“Corner” tunnel 15a, leading to the field,
with dressing rooms inside.
The press box on the west
side of the stadium has
been substantially altered;
expansion has included
the addition of a third level.
The elevator tower is
visible on the right.
Tunnel 18, with a thin, flanged opening
mimicking the slope of the adjacent berms,
is typical of tunnels 16–22.
Page 32
PROPOSED PROJECT For the purposes of this report, the west end of the stadium will be
considered from tunnels 14–23, including the area where proposed club and suite levels 1,
2, and 3 begin, on the southwest side, to where they end, toward the northwest “corner.”
The proposed project would replace the existing two-level press box (built in 1992 and a
non-character defining feature). As noted earlier, this proposed structure would be
within the development envelope (i.e., length, width, and height) analyzed in the
previous, and certified, EIR, and no further analysis for the DSEIR is required. Corner
tunnel 15a would be demolished.
Dates
Architect or
Engineer
Tunnels 15–22 (Yes); Key Letter: B
1922
Myron Hunt
Dressing rooms in tunnel 15a (Yes); Key Letter: C
1922
Myron Hunt
Arroyo stone berm retaining walls and landscaping. Retaining
walls added on sloping sides; roses planted on berms (Yes);
1922; 1936;
1931; 1938
Myron Hunt
1927–1930
Myron Hunt
Tunnel 23 (Yes); Key Letter: H
1930
Myron Hunt
1928
Myron Hunt
Underside of bowl (Yes)
1922
Myron Hunt
Concessions—three buildings added; existing buildings altered
(No); Key Letter: Y
1970;
1986
Robert Bennett
1935;
1983
Myron Hunt;
Adolpho
Miralles
Women’s toilets at tunnel 15a—substantially altered, exterior and
interior (No); Key Letter: M
1934;
1983
Myron Hunt;
Adolpho
Miralles
Press Box—substantially altered (and expanded by a third level),
except for some residual structural elements (No); Key Letter: X
1960;
1992
Breo Freeman,
with William W.
Gossy; Bull
Stockwell Allen
Key Letter: K
Page 33
Option A: Option A would cause both visual obstructions and substantial alterations to
character defining features. In addition to the previously analyzed press box, this option
proposes the horizon concourse, which would cause a substantial alteration to bowl
reconstruction (elliptical curvature in plan and section) as well as the south-end bowl
enlargement, both character defining features.
Option A also includes two vertical circulation towers for use by the general public,
requiring the demolition of the remaining areas of landscaping and Arroyo stone berms
and walls, a character defining feature. The two vertical circulation towers would visually
obscure two more tunnel bays (14 and 15; 22 and 23) and two more tunnel entrances
(14 and 23) than the proposed and previously certified press box alone. Option A would
thus also potentially visually obscure the remaining portions of the bowl’s underside
available to view on this side, a character defining feature.
In addition, the proposed concourse (22 feet wide on this side), while not a material
alteration, would cause a substantial adverse change to the aerial view of the ellipse of the
Rose Bowl, a character defining feature, by visually obscuring this historic and characteristic
view of the Bowl from the air. The aerial view of the rim, now a continuous and pure ellipse,
would be replaced by a view of a staggered shape that would be fragmented in several
locations along the entire ellipse, most noticeably on the east and west sides.
Option B/B.1: The two vertical circulation towers on this side would be reduced in scale
from those in Option A because their purpose would no longer be to function as
emergency exits for the general public; rather, they would serve primarily as access for
the more limited population of those using the press box and suite facilities. Therefore, a
smaller amount of the remaining landscaping and fewer Arroyo stone berm walls would
be demolished. However, the two down-scaled towers would still constitute a visual
obstruction of the remaining part of the bowl and the berms on this elevation that remain
available to view.
The aerial view of the rim, while somewhat diminished by the greater mass of the
proposed press box and smaller circulation towers, would not be substantially altered.
With regard to this character defining feature, this would be an acceptable alteration.
Tunnel openings 14 and 23 would be doubled in width in this option and possibly visible
depending on the width of the down-scaled circulation towers. While a visible change,
the center lines for the tunnels would not change, and thus the overall symmetry of
Myron Hunt’s design would be retained. As proposed, the tunnels openings would be
the same shape and height as they are today, with their new concrete surrounds
detailed as the existing concrete surrounds. These changes follow the Standards with
regard to rehabilitation of historic buildings, particularly given the need to meet safety
Page 34
and access requirements, and will be considered mitigated to having a less-thansignificant impact on this historical resource and an acceptable alteration.
The internal tunnel concourse proposed for this option (B.1) would occur on this side of
the Bowl and affect the area underneath the concrete rises from approximately tunnels
15 to 22 (approximately eight bay widths). The internal concourse as proposed would
not be visible from inside or outside the Bowl, and no character defining features on this
west side, already substantially altered, would be affected by Option B.1.
Option C: Option A, which demolishes a portion of the landscaping and Arroyo berms
and walls, substantially alters character defining features and visually obscures others; it
would result in a significant effects on the environment. While Option B would result in
demolition of less landscaping and fewer Arroyo stone berms and walls, less visual
obstruction of the underside of the bowl, and acceptable alterations, Option C,
combining the impacts of options A and B, would cause a substantial adverse change in
this historical resource and a significant effect on the environment.
NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE, INCREASED EVENTS ALTERNATIVE, AND
HISTORIC RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE Each of these three alternatives would
preserve historic character defining features as they current exist or alter or restore them
in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, the alternatives
would not have a significant effect on the Rose Bowl or its character defining features.
ROSE BOWL—WEST SIDE
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
Option A
Option B
Tunnels 15–22 (B)
No Change
Visual Obstruction
Tunnels 14, 23
No Change
Visual Obstruction
Dressing rooms in
Tunnel 15a (C)
No Change
Arroyo stone berm
retaining walls (K)
No Change
Demolition
Demolition
Page 35
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
Option A
Option B
No Change
No change
Aerial view of rim
No Change
Underside of the
bowl
No Change
Visual Obstruction
Visual Obstruction
plan and section (G)
Rose Bowl).
Acceptable Alteration: Alterations to character defining features of the Rose Bowl are
No change from the existing condition of the character defining features of the
Rose Bowl.
No Change:
Page 36
Rose Bowl
—North Side
Rose Bowl—North Side
Underside of the Bowl
The underside of the Rose Bowl shows the very thin concrete shell containing
the stepped seating and the exceptionally slender reinforced concrete columns
that support the shell, often braced with diagonal or X-shape concrete cross
members. The original material must be continually maintained to control
spalling since the clearance between reinforcing steel and the surface of the
concrete is very thin.
The underside of the
stadium seats.
Arroyo Stone Berm, Retaining Walls, and Landscaping
A Works Progress Administration (WPA) project initiated in
1936 was responsible for many physical improvements to
the stadium. New construction included perimeter fencing
and landscaping under the direction of Myron Hunt. The
terraced rock walls that ring the stadium and currently
serve as planters for a variety of vegetation, including
roses, were most likely constructed during this period.
These walls were constructed above the original Arroyo
stone berms and retaining walls that were built in 1922. In
1936, rose bushes, cotoneasters, and eucalyptus trees were
planted. In 1938, palm trees were added in groups of three.
In a letter dated September 8, 2003, the NPS identified the
“open underside of the bowl” as a character defining
feature of the Rose Bowl. Views to the underside are most
visible along the north side. Tunnels 8 through 14 on the
north side are part of the original design. A tier of seats
was added to the north side in 1948.
The Arroyo stone berm retaining walls and landscaping
on the north side of the Rose Bowl. The back side of
the north scoreboard is visible as well as tunnel 12.
Page 38
The underside of seating
added during the 1930
reconstruction, and the
Arroyo stone berm
retaining walls and
landscaping at tunnel 9.
The north end of the Rose Bowl was
enlarged by an extra tier of seats in
1948.
Page 39
Dates
Architect or
Engineer
1922
Myron Hunt
1922; 1936
Myron Hunt
Retaining walls added on sloping sides; roses planted on
berms (Yes); Key Letter: between each “B” on graphic; “K” not
1931; 1938
shown
Scoreboard at north end with tile roof (Yes) Key Letter F
1927
Myron Hunt
View of San Gabriel Mountains over the north rim (Yes) from
EIR scoping meeting
1948
Natural Feature
1927–1930
Myron Hunt
North end of Bowl enlargement (Yes); Key Letter: S
1948
Myron Hunt
1928
Myron Hunt
View to underside of bowl (Yes)
1922
Myron Hunt
1935;
1983
Myron Hunt;
Adolpho Miralles
Women’s toilet at tunnels 12 and 13—substantially altered,
exterior and interior (No); Key Letter: T
1948;
1983
Myron Hunt;
Adolpho Miralles
PROPOSED PROJECT
For the purposes of this report, the north section of the
stadium will be considered to include tunnels 8 through 14. The revised project
description states that “on the north side, excavation to accommodate underground
program areas such as the loading dock, stadium operations, administration, food
service operations, would occur.” The subterranean area programmed at the north end
of the stadium would be covered with paving and landscaping to match other public
areas. A vehicular entrance and required ingress/egress would be provided on this
north side through a new truck ramp.
The stadium’s below-grade program would involve the demolition and reconstruction of
the 1922 Arroyo stone berm retaining walls, landscaping, and the 1936 stone terrace
walls, which are character defining features; this would be an acceptable alteration as
long as such reconstruction follows the Standards for rehabilitation. This reconstruction
will be considered mitigated to having a less-than-significant impact on this historical
resource and an acceptable alteration.
Page 40
The non-historic electronic scoreboards, as well as the northern scoreboard designed by
Myron Hunt (and a character defining feature), would be removed and replaced. A
larger NFL scoreboard was analyzed in the previous certified EIR; no further analysis is
required, and thus the proposed smaller scoreboard is considered an acceptable
alteration. The newly proposed scoreboard will be about 180 feet shorter in length than
the NFL scoreboard, but its height will be equal to the NFL unit.
Restrooms located at the north end built between 1935 and 1983 have been
substantially altered and are not considered character defining structures.
Option A: Because of the presence of the concourse on the inside of the rim, Option A
would constitute a substantial alteration of the south-end bowl enlargement and a
substantial alteration of the Rose Bowl’s curvature in section, two character defining
features.
As depicted in the master plan, under Option A, the 10-foot-wide horizon concourse at
the top of the seating area would continue along the inside of the north rim of the
stadium; no exterior vertical supports would exist. Thus, the north façade and the view
of the underside of the bowl would not be altered. However, the aerial view of the rim, a
continuous, pure ellipse and important character defining feature, would now be a view
of a staggered shape fragmented in several locations Thus, Option A’s concourse, while
not a physical or material alteration, would nonetheless constitute a substantial alteration
of this widely known character defining feature.
A vertical circulation tower on the stadium’s northeast side, in front of the “tunnel bay”
between tunnels 8 and 9, would accommodate an entrance to field access tunnel 7a. A
second vertical circulation tower would be located in front of the tunnel bay between
tunnels 13 and 14. These two towers would visually obscure four tunnel entrances: 8, 9,
13, and 14. They would require the demolition of the existing landscaped berms and
stone walls, character defining features, in these two locations. In addition, because the
proposed northernmost gate is also the narrowest among the six proposed gates, the
proposed one-story perimeter buildings would also visually obscure views of the bowl
from the north more so than from any other vantage point.
Option B/B.1: Tunnel entrances 8–14 would be visible as widened elements. Those
landscaped berms and stone walls flanking the entrances would be reduced by
approximately 4 feet on either side of each widened tunnel, but much of the existing
fabric would be unaffected and the views of the underside of the bowl unchanged. While
a visible change in width, the center lines for the tunnels would not change, and thus the
overall symmetry of Myron Hunt’s design would be retained. As proposed, the tunnel
entrances would be the same shape and height as they are today, with their new
Page 41
concrete surrounds detailed as the existing concrete surrounds. This change follows the
Standards with regard to rehabilitation, particularly given the need to meet safety and
access requirements, and will be considered mitigated to having a less-than-significant
impact on this historical resource and an acceptable alteration.
Option B.1, the addition of the internal concourse, does not affect the north elevation of
the Rose Bowl.
substantially alters others, would result in significant effects on this resource. While
Option B would result in acceptable alterations and some visual obstruction, Option C
would cause a substantial adverse change in this historical resource and a significant
impact on the environment.
HISTORIC RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE This alternative would preserve historic
character defining features as they current exist or alter or restore them in accordance
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, this alternative would not have
a significant effect on the Rose Bowl or its character defining features.
ROSE BOWL—NORTH SIDE
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
Tunnels 8–14 (B)
No Change
Visual Obstruction
Arroyo stone berm
retaining walls and
landscaping
(between 8 and 9;
14 and 15)
No Change
Demolition
Arroyo stone berm
retaining walls and
landscaping
(between 14 and 9)
No Change
View of San Gabriel
Mountains over the
north rim
No Change
Option A
Option B
Page 42
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
Option A
Option B
Scoreboard at north
end with tile roof (F)
No Change
Aerial view of rim
No Change
No Change
Bowl reconstruction
plan and section (G)
No Change
No Change
View of underside of
bowl (Yes)
No Change
Visual Obstruction
No Change
(Yes)
Rose Bowl).
Rose Bowl.
No Change:
Page 43
Rose Bowl
—East Side
Rose Bowl—East
Underside of the Bowl
The underside of the Rose Bowl shows the very thin concrete shell containing
the legible stepped seating and the exceptionally slender reinforced concrete
columns that support the shell, often braced with diagonal or “X” concrete
cross members. The original material must be continually maintained to
control spalling, since the clearance between reinforcing steel and the surface
of the concrete is very thin.
The underside of the
stadium seats.
Arroyo Stone Berm Retaining Walls
A Works Progress Administration (WPA) project initiated in
1936 was responsible for many physical improvements to the
stadium. New construction included perimeter fencing and
landscaping. The terraced rock walls that ring the stadium
and currently serve as planters for a variety of vegetation,
including roses, were most likely constructed during this
period. These walls were constructed above the original
Arroyo berms and stone retaining walls constructed in 1922.
In 1936, rose bushes, cotoneasters, and eucalyptus trees were
planted. In 1938, palm trees were added in groups of three. In
a letter dated September 8, 2003, the National Park Service
identified the “rock wall enclosures for the vegetation, giving
a mounded or stepped appearance to the area,” as character
defining features of the Rose Bowl.
Tunnel 2 is on the left.
Page 45
Rose Bowl—East
Tunnels 1-7, 7a, and 28a and Dressing Rooms
Tunnels 1 through 7, 7a, and 28a are part of
the original design; tunnel 28 was added in
1929 when seating capacity of the stadium was
increased. Field access tunnel 7a is larger than
the rest and features a portal surround.
Athletes enter and exit the field through this
larger tunnel, which is connected to a locker
room, as is another located next to tunnel 28.
The original exit tunnel in the northeast corner
(7) was not used for decades but was opened
for World Cup Soccer in 1994.
Tunnel leading to the field, with dressing rooms inside.
Dates
Architect or
Engineer
Dressing rooms in tunnel 7a (now used for storage) (Yes);
1922
Myron Hunt
1922;
1931
Myron Hunt
Key Letter: K
Retaining walls added on sloping sides; roses planted on berms
(Yes); Key Letter: K
1935–
1938
Myron Hunt
1922
Myron Hunt
Tunnel 28 (Yes); Key Letter (H)
1930
Myron Hunt
1927–
1930
Myron Hunt
1928
Myron Hunt
View to underside of bowl (Yes)
1922
Myron Hunt
Dressing rooms under south end; demolished to slab and
reconstructed; substantial alterations and additions; remodeled (No);
Key Letter: E
1927;
1937;
1960;
1982
Myron Hunt;
City Park Dept.
Key Letter: C
Arroyo stone berm retaining walls and landscaping (Yes);
Page 46
Rose Bowl—East
PROPOSED PROJECT
For the purposes of this report, the east section of the
stadium will be considered as the area from existing tunnel 9, toward the northeast
section of the stadium, to existing tunnel 28, toward the southeast.
Option A: Option A would cause a substantial alteration to the Bowl reconstruction,
(elliptical curvature in plan and section) a character defining feature. The proposed 22foot-wide horizon concourse on the exterior of the rim on the east side would
substantially and adversely affect the aerial view of the rim, a continuous, pure ellipse
and a character defining feature, to a view of a staggered shape fragmented in several
locations. Thus, Option A’s concourse, while not a physical or material alteration, would
nonetheless constitute a substantial alteration of this widely known character defining
feature on the east side.
Supports for the concourse could visually obscure views of the underside of the Bowl, a
character defining feature and particularly prominent on this façade. Apart from the
aerial view of the Bowl, recognized by a global audience, the view from the east is
typically much more available to the general public and local community than any other
vantage point unless a visitor is directly approaching the main entrance at the south
entry. (To the west—already substantially altered by the existing press box—and to
the north, the Bowl is surrounded by the private Brookside Golf Course, creating a
much more distant view than available from Rosemont Avenue, which flanks the Bowl
on the east. Thus, this view of the Rose Bowl’s east elevation, which is relatively
unaltered, is particularly important in its role of conveying the architecture of Myron
Hunt’s design.
With respect to the east elevation, because it is self-supporting and not physically
attached, the proposed concourse and two circulation towers could be considered a
long-term reversible condition. The added presence of the two proposed circulation
towers, approximately 14 to 15 feet taller than the concourse, would visually obstruct
vews of tunnel entrances 9 and 28. Tunnels 9 and 28 are also considered character
defining features. However, this option is a major intervention and, even though it is
technically reversible, it is a potentially permanent building component. The horizon
concourse would appear and perform as though it were attached to the rim of the Bowl,
especially since it would provide unimpeded access for emergency egress. Thus, in this
particularly sensitive location, the effect on the environment of these supports and
towers constitutes a visual obstruction that causes a substantial adverse change in the
character of the bowl, one that could undermine the ability of this resource to convey its
historical significance.
Depending on their height and design, the proposed ground-level concourse of
peripheral buildings could potentially introduce a level of low-elevation visual
Page 47
Rose Bowl—East
obstruction to the “face” of the bowl most directly experienced by passersby. In
addition, the two proposed towers and supporting structure for the concourse would
involve demolition of an extensive section of the existing Arroyo stone berms, retaining
walls, and landscaping, all of which are character defining features. As a result, the
combined visual and material changes to the east side of the Rose Bowl caused by
construction of the proposed suites and concourses would constitute a substantial
adverse alteration and a significant effect on the environment, particularly because the
east elevation has been relatively unaltered when compared to the west, a greater
amount of historic berms and Arroyo stone walls would be demolished, and the height,
depth, and width of the proposed new construction relative to the historic scale of the
Rose Bowl would be greater.
Option B/B.1: Tunnel entrances 9 and 28 would be visible as widened elements. While
a visible change in width would occur, the center lines for the tunnels would not change,
and thus the overall symmetry of Myron Hunt’s design would be retained. As proposed,
the tunnels would be the same shape and height as they are today, with their new
concrete surrounds detailed and finished to match the existing concrete surrounds. This
change follows the Standards with regard to rehabilitation of historic buildings,
particularly given the need to meet safety and access requirements, and will be
considered mitigated to having a less-than-significant impact on this historical resource
and an acceptable alteration.
The internal tunnel concourse proposed in Option (B.1) would occur on this side and
affect the area underneath the concrete risers from approximately tunnels 2 to 8. The
internal concourse as proposed would not be visible from inside or outside the Bowl and
thus would not cause any adverse change to the character defining features of the Rose
Bowl’s east side.
In addition, under this option, placing up to 50 percent of the restrooms and concession
stands initially proposed for perimeter locations allows more of the Rose Bowl’s
character defining features on this east elevation to be visible to the public. As noted,
this elevation is most easily seen and experienced by the public.
substantially alters others, would result in a substantial adverse change on this
resource and constitute a significant effect on the environment. While Option B would
result in acceptable alterations, Option C, combining options A and B, would also
cause a substantial adverse change in this historical resource and a significant effect
on the environment.
Page 48
Rose Bowl—East
character defining features as they current exist or alter or restore them in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Therefore, this alternative
would not have a significant effect on the Rose Bowl or its character defining
features.
ROSE BOWL—EAST SIDE
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
Dressing rooms in
tunnel 7a (C)
No Change
Arroyo stone berm
retaining walls and
landscaping; retaining
walls added on sloping
sides; roses planted
on berms (K)
No Change
Demolition
plan and section
No Change
No change
Tunnels 1–9 (B)
No Change
Visual Obstruction
Tunnel 28 (H)
No Change
Visual Obstruction
Aerial view of rim
(Yes)
No change
View of underside of
bowl (Yes)
Visual Obstruction
No change
Option A
Option B
Page 49
Rose Bowl—East
Rose Bowl).
Rose Bowl.
No Change:
Page 50
Rose Bowl
—Perimeter
Rose Bowl—Perimeter
Administration Building
The Administration Building is situated between
tunnels 1 and 28 in the southeast part of the
stadium. The building has been altered since
1940, but it retains, in general, a rectangular
plan. It is no longer used as a ticket office;
hence, the original, small ticket windows on the
west
and
east
facades
have
been
encapsulated, but the grills are intact. The onestory, wood-frame, stucco-clad building has a
flat roof with a parapet. The front façade
(southeast elevation) has a centrally located,
recessed, non-original entry door with a
stained-glass panel, also non-original; there are
also two vinyl-coated aluminum-frame windows.
Above the entry and window are stationary
wood louvers that cover original wood-frame,
single-pane sash windows, the glass of which is
Administration Building
painted over.
Outbuildings
Outbuildings stand in the area between the
fence and the stadium. Seventeen restrooms
and six concession stands, all rectangular in
plan, are inside the fence that surrounds the
stadium. Many are wood-framed, stucco-clad
buildings with red clay tile or composition
shingle roofs, while others are constructed of
concrete. Roof forms are side gabled, either
low pitch, shed, or hipped. Other outbuildings
on the Rose Bowl site were built as part of
larger improvement projects for the stadium. In
1927–1928, the following structures were built:
two team rooms, four toilets, one radio room,
one scoreboard, one storage room, and one
temporary hospital.
Women’s restroom between tunnels 7 and 8.
Left: Restroom in
southwest parking lot
(character defining
feature).
Right: Ticket booth
near south entrance
gates.
Page 52
Fences and Gates
When the first Tournament of Roses football game was played on January 1,
1923, all then-available 57,000 seats were filled. Fans broke through the
southern fence and crowded the stadium. Today, a wire fence encompasses
the stadium, interrupted by seven entrance gates with turnstiles and four
other gates for automobiles, employees and participants, emergency
vehicles, and the disabled. It should be noted, however, that in 1994,
portions of the fence boundary were moved outward, and the woven wire
fences were replaced with steel pickets, which are not historic.
Example of existing fence and
gate at Rose Bowl perimeter.
Page 53
Dates
Architect or
Engineer
Administration Building; WPA project adds to the front and
1927;
Myron Hunt;
rear of the original building; front (east) bay relocated and
1939;
City Park
rotated to the northeast to accommodate columns for southend enlargement; connecting bay added (Yes); Key Letter: R
1948
Dept.;
Myron Hunt
Woven wire fence and gates at perimeter; fence and gates
1922;
Myron Hunt
replaced; woven wire fence added at tunnels 24 and 27;
portions of the perimeter fence area relocated to enlarge the
1933–1936;
1953;
concourse space on the east side of the bowl (Yes) (use of
1994
material and configuration); Key Letter: L
Ticket booths—hexagonal buildings, fixed or portable (Yes);
Key Letter: e
1928
Myron Hunt
View of underside of bowl (Yes)
1922
Myron Hunt
Toilet in parking lot (Yes); Key Letter: N
1935
Myron Hunt
Concessions—three buildings added; existing buildings altered
(No); Key Letter: Y
1970;
1986
Robert
Bennett
Concessions (No); Key Letter: f
1990s
1935;
1983
Myron Hunt;
Adolpho
Miralles
Women’s toilets at tunnel 15A—substantially altered, exterior and
1934;
Myron Hunt;
interior (No); Key Letter: M
1983
Adolpho
Miralles
Women’s toilet at tunnels 12 and 13—substantially altered, exterior
and interior (No); Key Letter: T
1948;
1983
Myron Hunt;
Adolpho
Miralles
Women’s toilets at forecourt—substantially altered, exterior and
interior (No); Key Letter: U
1948
Myron Hunt
Gates (No); Key Letter: W
1960
City Park
Dept.
Page 54
PROPOSED PROJECT For the purposes of this report, the perimeter section of the
stadium will be considered the area from the existing surrounding ancillary structures to
the outside of the stadium perimeter fence and gates. The toilet structure, located in the
parking lot, will also be included in the perimeter area.
Option A or C
The proposed project would demolish the existing ancillary structures around the
perimeter of the stadium and remove the existing asphalt surfacing and landscaping.
The administration building, woven wire fence and gates, ticket booths, toilet in the
parking lot, and the woven and steel picket fences, all of which are considered character
defining features, would be removed and demolished. This was analyzed in the
previous EIR, and no further analysis of this demolition work is required for this DSEIR.
One-story peripheral buildings that trace a larger ellipse in the shape of the Rose Bowl
would replace the existing concession stands and tents. The solid continuity of these
proposed buildings under this option would be only be interrupted by six gates, with the
south main entry gate larger and the north gate smaller than the others. The proposed
peripheral buildings could potentially create a new fortress-like or wagon-circle feeling to
the visual experience of the Rose Bowl, in large part because the gate openings are
small in comparison to the length and apparently solid mass of the peripheral buildings.
Notably, the Rose Bowl has always been perceived as a free-standing single object
rooted in a natural, landscaped setting. It was not part of a larger composition nor did it
appear to be mounted on a base ring of low-rise buildings, as it would under this option.
From every direction, the proposed perimeter buildings would visually obscure views that
currently show how the Rose Bowl engages the ground and surrounding landscape,
especially the landscaped Arroyo stone berms at their lower elevations.
Other ancillary structures include toilets and concessions, built in 1934, 1983, and the
1990s. These resources are not considered character defining features of the stadium.
Page 55
Option B/B.1
This option includes an internal concourse where up to 50 percent of the restrooms and
concession stands would be housed. While the rest of the proposed restrooms and
concession stands would be still be located along the perimeter, the sizeable reduction
of peripheral buildings proposed under Option B/B.1 would permit more of the character
defining features to be visually available along the entire circumference of the Rose
Bowl, particularly the visual experience of the Bowl as a freestanding object in the
landscape as Myron Hunt conceived it. In addition, a number of scattered one-storey
buildings already exist along the perimeter, and thus the proposed peripheral buildings,
similar in size, orientation and amount of lot coverage, would not alter existing conditions
to a substantial degree. Thus, Option B/B.1 would not cause a substantial adverse
change to the perimeter of the Rose Bowl and is an acceptable alteration.
character defining features as they currently exist or alter or restore them in accordance
ROSE BOWL—PERIMETER
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
Administration
Building (R)
No Change
Demolition
Demolition
Woven wire fence
and gates at
perimeter (L)
No Change
Demolition
Demolition
Ticket booths (e)
No Change
Demolition
Demolition
Toilet in parking lot
(N)
No Change
Demolition
Demolition
Aerial view of rim
No Change
Option A
Option B
Page 56
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
Option A
Option B
(Yes)
View of Rose Bowl
No Change
Visual Obstruction
from other areas of
Arroyo Seco (Yes)
Rose Bowl).
Rose Bowl.
No Change:
Page 57
Rose Bowl
—Interior
Rose Bowl—Interior
Scoreboards
The two original scoreboards were constructed
at the outer rim of the stadium at the north and
south ends, part of the 1927 building program
initiated by Myron Hunt. Lighting was added to
the Rose Bowl in 1929 when six 65-foot steel
towers with floodlights were erected on
reinforced concrete foundations. The south
scoreboard is located atop the south-end
addition, which enclosed the once U-shaped
stadium and increased seating capacity. On
the reverse side of the scoreboard is the neon
“Rose Bowl” sign that was installed in 1950.
The scoreboard is finished with painted cement
plaster and appears as a rectangle with a
gabled red-tile roof resting on the top of the
center portion, which steps up once. Since
1927, the scoreboard power and controls have
been replaced (1934), as well as faces and
controls (1941), power and controls (1958),
clock and sign (1966), wiring and lamp doors
(1969), and power and controls (1973). In
The original scoreboard is visible in the center of the
south end (with gabled roof). Aluminum seats were
added in 1969.
1948, the scoreboard was relocated to the new,
extended rim of the bowl. The 1927 scoreboard
is flanked by modern-era electronic scoreboards
and signs.
Two views of the north scoreboard.
Page 59
Seating at Vomitoria
Access to seats for spectators is provided by 28
tunnels, vomitoria, that lead from outside the
stadium to the level between the two principal
tiers. Tunnels 1 through 23 and tunnel 28 are
part of the original design; four tunnels, 24–27,
were added in 1929–1930 when the seating
capacity of the stadium was increased. In a
letter dated September 8, 2003, the NPS
identified the “open bowl of the stadium with
tiered seating,” including “open, unobstructed,
gently sloped tiers of seating punctuated by
regularly spaced access tunnels with aisles that
radiate straight downward to the field and
upward above” as a character defining feature
of the Rose Bowl.
Dates
North and south scoreboards (with tile roof)—exterior shell
and roof only (Yes); Key Letter: F
1927
Seating at vomitoria (Yes); Key Letter: J
1930
Architect or
Engineer
Vomitoria (tunnel entrances) (Yes)
1927–
1930
Myron Hunt
Field, original configuration (Yes); Key Letter: A
1922
Myron Hunt
South-end addition (Yes); Key Letter: D
1927
Myron Hunt
Seating—aluminum bleachers, with and without backs (No);
Key Letter: Z
1969
Robert Bennett
Electronic scoreboards (No)
1990s
Lighting (No); Key Letter: c
1992
Box seats (No); Key Letter: a
1972
Accessible seating (No); Key Letter: b
1986
Robert Bennett
Page 60
PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERATIONS: For the purposes of this report, the interior
section of the stadium will be considered the area from the playing field to the upper
bowl structure’s perimeter seating. The current bench and theater-style seating would
be replaced by new seats, including general seating, club seating, and luxury suite
seating. The proposed project would also change the number of seats, the playing field,
lighting systems, and other stadium systems, all of which would occur in the interior of
the bowl. These proposed improvements are substantially similar to, or less intense,
than those analyzed in the previous, and certified, EIR; no further analysis of these
improvements is required.
The existing scoreboard housing at the south end, a character defining feature, would be
retained, but the existing scoreboard at the north end, also a character defining feature,
would be removed and replaced with a new scoreboard and video system (see also
Rose Bowl – North Side). Non-historic electronic/video boards would be removed and
replaced. New advertising panels would be incorporated within the interior structure.
The existing field lighting poles would be removed and replaced with a new horizontally
configured lighting system, which was analyzed and certified in the previous EIR.
Option A: This option includes the horizon concourse, which would intrude within the rim
of the bowl on the north and south ends, overhanging the upper-level seats and
changing the interior character of the bowl. Option A would thus constitute a substantial
alteration of the south-end bowl enlargement and substantially alter the Rose Bowl’s
curvature in section, two character defining features.
Option B/B.1: It is within the interior of the bowl that this option would have the greatest
effect on the original aerial view of the bowl, on the interior of the bowl, and on the fabric
of the bowl itself. The shape and size of a vomitorium would change from a single
rectangle in the shape of a trapezoid to a two-level and larger vomitorium with a different
shape. This new shape would consist of an upper, wider trapezoid centered above a
lower, smaller trapezoid that is identical to the existing vomitorium in shape; the
combination of the upper and lower trapezoid would somewhat resemble a keyhole
when viewed in elevation. While the shape and size of the vomitoria would obviously
constitute a change from the existing condition, their locations and spatial relationships
as symmetrically distributed elements around the stadium’s interior would be preserved.
The reconfigured vomitoria would also be in keeping with the scale of the bowl. Notably,
this change would permit the tunnels to continue to be used for their historic purpose—
circulation and egress. Finally, their materials and surrounding trim would be detailed
and finished to match the existing vomitoria.
While the change from a smaller trapezoid to a larger “keyhole” would constitute a
change with regard to the interior of the Bowl, this change does not rise to the level of
Page 61
significance under CEQA. It does not materially alter “in an adverse manner those
physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance
and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources
as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.”
As the Standards note, “deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced.” While “deteriorated” typically refers to a decline in a material, the inability of
the current configuration of the tunnels to meet egress requirements could be interpreted
as such a deterioration in its ability to function safely, a deterioration that could have
begun as early as 1928 when the horseshoe shape was enclosed and seating capacity
increased from 57,000 to 76,000 (and then to 90,000 when upper seating was later
added).
This change in the size and shape of the vomitoria follows the Standards with regard to
rehabilitation of historic buildings, particularly given the need to meet safety and access
requirements, and will be considered mitigated to having a less-than-significant impact
on this historical resource and an acceptable alteration.
The internal concourse proposed under Option B/B.1 would not be visible from the
interior and thus would have no impact here.
The proposed project would include improvements to the playing field, lighting systems, and
other stadium systems, all of which occur in the interior of the bowl. Again, it should be noted
that all proposed improvements are substantially similar to or smaller in scope than those
analyzed in the previous EIR, and no further analysis of these improvements is required.
substantially alters others, would result a substantial adverse change on this resource and
constitute a significant effect on the environment. While Option B would result in acceptable
alterations, Option C, combining options A and B, would also cause a substantial adverse
change in this historical resource and a significant effect on the environment.
character defining features as they current exist or alter or restore them in accordance
ROSE BOWL—INTERIOR
Page 62
Character defining
Restoration
Alternatives
South scoreboard (F)
North scoreboard (F)
No Change
Seating at vomitoria (J)
No Change
Vomitoria (tunnel
entrances) (Yes)
Option A
Option B
No Change, south
No Change
Demolition, south
Demolition, south
No change
elliptical in plan and
section (G)
No Change
No Change
Field, original
configuration (A)
No Change
South-end addition (D)
No Change
Rose Bowl).
Rose Bowl.
No Change:
Page 63
Rose Bowl—Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS—ROSE BOWL
The No-Build Alternative would not result in a significant effect on the Rose Bowl. The
Rose Bowl would retain its National Historic Landmark status. It would not have an
indirect effect on any other historical resource in the study area.
Impact of No-Build: Not Significant
The Proposed Revised Project with Option A would result in a substantial adverse
change to the Rose Bowl under CEQA because the project would cause “alteration of
the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of [the] historical
resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Section 15064.5(b) (1).
The Rose Bowl’s appearance would be substantially altered at the rim, at the base, and
around the circumference by the combined intervention of the horizon-level concourse;
four large vertical circulation towers; requisite supports; the greater density of
surrounding peripheral buildings visually obstructing existing views of the Bowl, and the
loss of the historical fabric of the Arroyo stone walls and berms resulting from these
measures. Cumulatively, these measures would materially impair the Rose Bowl’s
ability to convey its historical significance and could jeopardize its eligibility for inclusion
in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for
purposes of CEQA and its status as a National Historic Landmark.
Impact of Option A: Significant
The Proposed Revised Project with Option B/B.1 would not result in a significant
adverse change to the Rose Bowl under CEQA.
The aerial view of the bowl’s elliptical rim would not change. The underside and a much
greater percentage of the existing Arroyo stone berm walls and landscaping would be
retained and/or restored and thus important views of the Rose Bowl would be more
visible and available to the public than the existing condition now affords. This option
does not include the horizon-level concourse and vertical supports for the concourse. It
does include two fewer and smaller circulation towers on the west elevation, an area
previously and substantially altered and analyzed and certified in the previous EIR.
While an obvious change from the existing condition, the altered vomitoria as proposed
do not materially alter in an adverse way the ability of the Rose Bowl to convey its
historical significance. The proposed vomitoria follow the Standards with regard to
rehabilitation, and thus shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a
significant impact on the historical resource.
Page 64
Arroyo Stone Berms and Landscaping
This determination of No Significant Adverse Change and No Significant Impact is
qualified in that the demolition and reconstruction of the material and fabric associated
with the Arroyo stone walls, berms, terraces, and landscaping be executed following
HABS recordation and documentation, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the
supervision of a qualified architectural historian or a licensed and qualified historical
resources architect. In addition, the same mitigation measures for Option A and C apply
to Option B where pertinent, that is, where historical resources are being altered or
demolished (such as all tunnel entrances, vomitoria, and any affected berms and
landscaping):
A Historical Resource Documentation Report shall be prepared for the Rose Bowl. The
resources shall be archivally photographed in a manner similar to Historic American
Buildings Survey (HABS) standards, and the documentation shall be donated to a
suitable repository, such as the Pasadena Library. The documentation shall amend the
existing HABS report for the Rose Bowl in the Library of Congress collection, focusing
on those areas that would be directly affected by the proposed project. There would still
be a significant effect after mitigation because archival documentation would not mitigate
demolition of the historical resource to a level of less than significant.
These features should be recorded before removal under the supervision of a qualified
architectural historian or qualified historical resources architect and in accordance with
HABS standards, above.
This determination of No Substantial Adverse Change and No Significant Impact is
additionally qualified in that proposed Option B.1, addressing the internal concourse,
assumes that the concrete risers – the historic material and form of the concrete Bowl
itself – would be retained and preserved.
Impact of Option B/B.1 After Mitigation: Not Significant
The Proposed Revised Project with Option C
Option A, which visually obscures some character defining features and substantially
alters others, would result in a substantial adverse change on this resource and
constitute a significant effect on the environment. While Option B/B.1 would result in
acceptable alterations, Option C, combining options A and B, would cumulatively cause
a substantial adverse change in this historical resource and a significant effect on the
environment.
Page 65
Impact of Option C: Significant
Mitigation Measures for Options A and C
resources shall be archivally photographed in a manner similar to HABS standards, and
the documentation shall be donated to a suitable repository, such as the Pasadena
Library. The documentation shall amend the existing HABS report for the Rose Bowl in
the Library of Congress collection, focusing on those areas that would be directly
affected by the proposed project. There would still be a significant effect after mitigation
because archival documentation would not mitigate demolition of the historical resource
to a level of less than significant.
These features should be recorded before removal under the supervision of a qualified
architectural historian or qualified historical resources architect and in accordance with
HABS standards, above.
Level of Impact After Mitigation, Option A and C: Significant
Page 66
Other Historical Resources
OTHER HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Prospect Historic District
The Prospect Historic District, listed in the National Register on 02/02/1987, is located
on the east rim of the Arroyo Seco, east of the Rose Bowl and would not be directly
affected by the proposed project. The closest part of Prospect District is over 720 feet
from the Rose Bowl fence line. The ranges of street addresses that contribute to the
district are:
•
480–1099 Prospect Boulevard,
•
645–687 (odd only) Prospect Crescent,
•
421–472 Prospect Square,
•
470–535 Prospect Terrace,
•
514–991 Rosemont Avenue,
•
1010–1126 Armada Drive,
•
535 Fremont Drive, and
•
50–550 La Mesa Place.
Representative streetscapes of the Prospect District are shown below:
Prospect Terrace and Rosemont
Avenue, facing northwest
La Mesa Place, facing east
Prospect Boulevard and Prospect
Crescent
535 Fremont Drive
Page 67
Views of the Rose Bowl from the district are generally unaffected, although it is visible
from specific properties along Armada Drive and Prospect Crescent, as shown below.
The residence at 1030 Armada Drive (top) is among the closest in the Prospect Historic
District to the Rose Bowl, and it has views to the Rose Bowl across Armada Drive, as
shown (bottom) with the photographer facing west across Armada Drive.
Page 68
The residence at 655 Prospect Crescent (top) is typical of houses along Prospect
Crescent that have views to the Rose Bowl from their rear windows and yards, as shown
(bottom) facing northwest from the 600 block of Prospect Crescent.
Conclusion: The alterations to the Rose Bowl proposed by the project or the Alternate
Design Alternative would be visible from specific points within the Prospect District, but
would not be seen from the vast majority of the district’s contributors. These changes
would not diminish the reasons the Prospect District was listed in the National Register
and California Register, and would not alter “its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Therefore, the
proposed project or alternatives would not result in a significant effect on this historical
resource.
Page 69
Louise C. Bentz House
The Louise C. Bentz House was individually listed in the National Register on
12/02/1977, and was designed by Greene & Greene. It is located at 657 Prospect
Boulevard, within the boundaries of the Prospect Historic District.
The Bentz House (top) is located on an interior street within the Prospect Historic
District, and does not have views of the Arroyo Seco or Rose Bowl, as shown in this
view (bottom) facing northwest, toward Prospect Crescent and the Rose Bowl.
Conclusion: Any alterations that would occur to the Rose Bowl would not be visible
from the Bentz House, therefore, the proposed project or alternatives would not result in
a significant effect on this historical resource or its setting.
Page 70
Millard House/La Miniatura
The Millard House/La Miniatura was individually listed in the National Register on
12/12/1976, and was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It is located at 645 Prospect
Crescent, within the boundaries of the Prospect Historic District.
The Millard House (top) is located on an interior street within the Prospect Historic
District, and does not have views of the Arroyo Seco or Rose Bowl, as shown in this
view (bottom) facing northwest, toward Prospect Crescent and the Rose Bowl.
Conclusion: Any alterations that would occur to the Rose Bowl would not be visible
from the Millard House, therefore, the proposed project or alternatives would not result in
a significant effect on this historical resource or its setting.
Page 71
Holly Street Livery Stable
The Holly Street Livery Stable was individually listed in the National Register on
10/25/1979. It is located at 110 East Holly Street, in Old Pasadena, and is not in
geographic proximity to the Rose Bowl or the Arroyo Seco. It is included in the study area
because of its historic association with events held during the Tournament of Roses.
The Holly Street Livery Stable (top) does not have views of the Arroyo Seco or Rose
Bowl, as shown in this view (bottom) facing northwest, toward the Raymond Theatre,
Old Pasadena, and the general direction of the Rose Bowl.
Conclusion: Any changes in events that would occur at the Rose Bowl would not affect
those Tournament of Roses events that may occur at the Holly Street Livery Stable,
therefore, the proposed project or alternatives would not result in a significant effect on
this historical resource.
Page 72
Arroyo Terrace Historic District
The Arroyo Terrace Historic District was listed in the National Register of Historic Places
on June 29, 2007. It is bounded by North Grand Avenue, Live Oaks Avenue, Arroyo
Terrace, and North Orange Grove Boulevard. It is located on the east rim of the Arroyo
Seco, southeast of the Rose Bowl and would not be directly affected by the proposed
project. The closest part of Arroyo Terrace is over 3,500 feet from the Rose Bowl fence
line. The addresses of homes that contribute to the district are:
•
•
•
200, 210, 230, and 240 North Grand Avenue ;
368, 370, 400, 406, and 440 Arroyo Terrace; and
239 North Orange Grove Boulevard.
A representative streetscape of the Arroyo Terrace (proposed) Historic District, facing
north on North Grand Street from the intersection of Live Oaks Avenue and North Grand
Street, is shown below.
Views of the Rose Bowl from the district are generally unaffected, although it is visible
across the street from specific properties, including 240 North Grand Avenue and 368
Arroyo Terrace, as exemplified below.
Page 73
The residence at 240 North Grand Street (top) is among the two closest in the Arroyo
Terrace (proposed) Historic District to the Rose Bowl. It was designed by Greene &
Greene and built in 1900 and 1906. It has views across Jackie Robinson Field to the
Rose Bowl, as shown (bottom) facing north across Grand Street.
Conclusion: The alterations to the Rose Bowl proposed by the project or the Alternate
Design Alternative would be visible from specific points within the Arroyo Terrace
(proposed) Historic District, but would not be seen from the vast majority of the district’s
contributors. These changes would not diminish the reasons Arroyo Terrace would be
eligible for the National Register and California Register, and would not alter “its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be
materially impaired.” Therefore, the proposed project or alternatives would not result in
a significant effect on this historical resource.
Page 74
Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape
The Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape is not currently designated under federal, state, or
local criteria. However, it is under pending approval for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places; 25 contributing features in the Cultural Landscape have been identified
in the National Registration form, October 2007. This resource is extremely large,
extending from Devil’s Gate Dam at the northern limits, to the intersection of San Rafael
Avenue and Arroyo Boulevard at the southern limits, a distance of approximately four (4)
miles. The Lower Arroyo Seco was designated as a City of Pasadena Landmark in
1977. The following identified character defining features of the Arroyo Seco Cultural
Landscape include:
Devil’s Gate Dam, upper Arroyo (8,500 ft., or 1.62 mi., from Rose Bowl).
Brookside Golf Club (golf courses, not the club house), 1133
Rosemont Avenue, opened 1928 (685 ft., or .13 mi., from Rose Bowl).
o Rose Bowl.
o Jackie Robinson Baseball Stadium, Brookside Park, 1930s,
association with Chicago Cubs Spring training (1,530 ft., or .29 mi., from
Rose Bowl).
o Fannie Morrison Horticultural Center Buildings (Kidspace), Brookside
Park, collection of three buildings, built in 1938.
o The Rockery, Brookside Park (3,100 ft., or .59 mi., from Rose Bowl).
o Brookside Park Amphitheater, Brookside Park (3,100 ft., or .59 mi.,
from Rose Bowl).
o La Casita del Arroyo, 173 S. Arroyo Boulevard, lower Arroyo, also
individually designated as a City of Pasadena Landmark (6,300 ft., or
1.3 mi., from Rose Bowl).
o Stone retaining walls, throughout the Arroyo.
o Original circulation elements, (roads and pathways throughout the
Arroyo).
o All historic bridges over the Arroyo (throughout the Arroyo), including
Colorado Street Bridge (5,755 ft., or 1.09 mi., from Rose Bowl), La Loma
Bridge (9,500 ft., or 1.81 mi., from Rose Bowl), San Rafael Bridge, and
Holly Street Bridge.
o
o
Representative views of the features that contribute to the Arroyo Seco Cultural
Landscape, and views from each feature toward the Rose Bowl, are shown below.
Page 75
Mitigation Measures
Devil’s Gate Dam
Devil’s Gate Dam, looking to the southeast.
Looking to the southwest from Devil’s Gate
Dam toward Rose Bowl.
Brookside Golf Course
Brookside Golf Course, looking to the east.
Looking to the south from Brookside Golf
Course toward Rose Bowl.
Jackie Robinson Stadium
Jackie Robinson Stadium, looking to
the north.
Looking to the north from bleachers of
stadium toward Rose Bowl.
Page 76
Fannie Morrison Horticultural Center, Kidspace, and Aquatic Center
Fannie Morrison Horticultural Center
Kidspace
Horticultural Center, looking to the east.
Kidspace (behind vegetation) adjacent to
Center looking to the southwest.
Brookside Park Amphitheater and Rockery
Amphitheater looking to the south.
View of Rockery, facing southeast.
Page 77
View from Amphitheater and Rockery in the general direction of the Rose
Bowl, which is obscured from view at this location by landscape and
natural vegetation.
Page 78
Lower Arroyo Seco
La Casita Del Arroyo,
173 S. Arroyo Blvd.
Colorado Street Bridge
Constructed 1932, a City of Pasadena
Landmark.
Constructed 1913, listed in the National
Register, view facing north.
Arroyo Path (typical)
Facing north from La Casita Del Arroyo.
Stone Wall Beneath
Colorado Street Bridge
Facing north from La Casita Del Arroyo.
Conclusion: The views to the Rose Bowl from the vast majority of the contributing
features of the Arroyo Seco (proposed) Cultural Landscape are so distant or
obstructed that they are unaffected. For this reason, alterations to the Rose Bowl
would have no effect on the Lower Arroyo Seco or the La Casita Del Arroyo or their
setting. Where views to the Rose Bowl do exist, for example, from the Brookside Golf
Course and Jackie Robinson Stadium, the alterations to the Rose Bowl proposed by
the project or the Alternate Design Alternative would not diminish the reasons those
features were found to contribute to the Cultural Landscape. There would also be no
direct effect on ancillary elements such as Arroyo stone walls, paths or circulation
elements, outside the fence line of the Rose Bowl itself. Of course, the Rose Bowl
itself is a contributing feature of the Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape, and significant
effects on the Rose Bowl would result in significant effects on the Arroyo Seco Cultural
Page 79
Landscape. Therefore, in cases where the proposed project or alternatives would
result in a significant effect on the Rose Bowl, they would also result in a significant
effect on the Arroyo Seco Cultural Landscape.
MITIGATION MEASURES
resources shall be archivally photographed in a manner similar to Historic American
Buildings Survey (“HABS”) standards, and the documentation shall be donated to a
suitable repository, such as the Pasadena Library. The documentation shall amend the
existing HABS report for the Rose Bowl in the Library of Congress collection, focusing
on those areas that would be directly affected by the proposed project. There would still
be a significant effect after mitigation because archival documentation would not mitigate
demolition of the historical resource to a level less than significant.
If there is room between new construction and the fence line, these features, should be
recorded before removal and replaced in kind, replicating the original intent, look, and
function.
Level of Impact After Mitigation
Proposed Project: Significant
Alternate Design Alternative: Not Significant
No Build: Not Significant
Page 80
APPENDICES
Appendix A
The National Register of Historic Places
Nomination of the Rose Bowl,
Prepared on October 18, 1984.
Appendix B
National Historic Landmark Designation,
March 17, 1984.
Appendix C
Historic Structure Report and
Preservation Plan for the Rose Bowl,
October 1997.
Appendix D
Letter from National Park Service,
September 8, 2003.
Appendix E
Cultural Resources Technical Report
Appendix F
Determination of Impacts
(April 2003 Proposed Design)

Appendix D Revised Historical Technical Report

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

ISTANBUL, NOVEMBER 20, 2013 The Marmara Hotel, Taksim

High Efficiency Flush Valve Bowl, Floor Mount

plan your days where summer plays.

Historic Preservation Field School

Mass Times Eucharistic Adoration reconciliation