“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” bicycling and public transit can allow streets to transport more people in a fixed amount of right-of-way.
Caltrans supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets and other traffic calming measures. Please note the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the road diet treatment as a proven safety countermeasure, and the cost of a road diet can be significantly reduced if implemented in tandem with routine street resurfacing.
Also, Caltrans has published the VMT-focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), and Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/office-of-smart-mobility-climatechange/sb-743 The Travel Demand Forecasting Model calculation results for the proposed project determined that the project would not cause a significant impact to any of the metrics as outlined in the City’s Traffic Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice and Guidelines. The transportation analysis also concluded that the project would not cause a decrease in the percentage of existing citywide service population within a quarter mile of Level 1 and 2 transit or bike facilities. Furthermore, the analysis also concluded that the project would not decrease the Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility Score.
Additionally, the proposed project lies within 0.25 miles of the Gold Line/Del Mar Metro Station and encourages bike use by providing end-of-trip bicycle storage. Therefore, the project will not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and will encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation.
The CEQA transportation analysis (included as Appendix G) utilized a CEQA threshold of an increase of the existing Citywide VMT per capita of 22.6. The analysis concluded an incremental change (existing plus project) of 16.2, which is below the significant impact cap. There would be a less than significant impact.
The project has been evaluated by the Pasadena Department of Transportation (PasDOT) and its impact on circulation due to the proposed use and its design has been found not to be hazardous to traffic circulation either within the project or in the vicinity of the project. In addition, the project’s circulation design meets the City’s engineering standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and would have no associated impacts.
For this project, transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, will require a 1 Letter A-1
Mr. Kevin Johnson
April 1, 2021
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” transportation permit from Caltrans. It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods and idle time not to exceed 10 minutes.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 269-1124 and refer to GTS # LA-2021-03510AL-MND.
Sincerely,
MIYA EDMONSON
IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
email: State Clearinghouse
1 Letter A-1
DOC 6111349.D16
March 24, 2021
Ref. DOC 6091161
Mr. Kevin Johnson
Senior Planner
City of Pasadena
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Dear Mr. Johnson:
SCEA Response Letter for the Central Park Apartment Project The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) received the Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the subject project forwarded by your office on March 8, 2021. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundary of District No. 16. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service:
1. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts’ Arroyo-Seco Trunk Sewer Section 4, located in Garfield Avenue just east of Arroyo Seco Parkway. The Districts’ 21-inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 13.4 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 2 mgd when last measured in 2015.
2. The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 261.1 mgd, or the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant located in the City of Cerritos, which has a capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 21.7 mgd.
3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project site, described in the plan as a mixed-use development consisting of 11,400 square feet of retail space and 84 residential apartments, is 16,809 gallons per day. For a copy of the Districts’ average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater Program and Permits, select Will Serve Program, and scroll down to click on the Table 1, Loadings for Each Class of Land Use link.
4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee to connect facilities (directly or indirectly) to the Districts’ Sewerage System or to increase the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is used by the Districts to upgrade or expand the Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee may be required before this project is permitted to discharge to the Districts’ Sewerage System. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.lacsd.org, under Services, then Wastewater (Sewage) and select Rates & Fees. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel(s) or facilities on the parcel(s) in the development. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, the developer should contact the Districts’ Wastewater Fee Public Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727. 1 Letter A-2
Mr. Kevin Johnson 2 March 24, 2021
DOC 6111349.D16
5. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts’ wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CCA. All expansions of Districts’ facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of the Districts’ treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise the developer that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform the developer of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts’ facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717 or at [email protected].
Very truly yours,
Adriana Raza
Customer Service Specialist
Facilities Planning Department
AR:dc
cc: A. Schmidt
A. Howard
1 Letter A-2
April 6, 2021
Kevin Johnson
City of Pasadena
Planning & Community Development Department
175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Sent by Email: [email protected]
RE: Central Park Apartments Project
Notice of Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for coordinating with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) regarding the proposed Central Park Apartments Project (Project) located at 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue in the City of Pasadena (City). Metro is committed to working with local municipalities, developers, and other stakeholders across Los Angeles County on transit-supportive developments to grow ridership, reduce driving, and promote walkable neighborhoods. Transit Oriented Communities (TOCs) are places (such as corridors or neighborhoods) that, by their design, allow people to drive less and access transit more. TOCs maximize equitable access to a multi-modal transit network as a key organizing principle of land use planning and holistic community development.
Per Metro’s area of statutory responsibility pursuant to sections 15082(b) and 15086(a) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA: Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Ch. 3), the purpose of this letter is to provide the City with specific detail on the scope and content of environmental information that should be included in the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the Project. In particular, this letter outlines topics regarding the Project’s potential impacts on the Metro bus services and facilities which should be analyzed in the SCEA, and provides recommendations for mitigation measures as appropriate.
Effects of a project on transit systems and infrastructure are within the scope of transportation impacts to be evaluated under CEQA.
1 In addition to the specific comments outlined below, Metro is providing the City and Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (Applicant) with the Metro Adjacent Development Handbook (attached), which provides an overview of common concerns for development adjacent to Metro right-of-way (ROW) and transit facilities, available at www.metro.net/projects/devreview/. 1 See CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(a); Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA, December 2018, p. 19.
1 Letter A-3
86 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
Notice of SCEA – Metro Comments
April 6, 2021
Project Description
The Project includes the redevelopment of an existing surface parking lot with the construction of a new 6-story mixed-use project over four levels of subterranean parking.
Recommendations for SCEA Scope and Content
Bus Service Adjacency
1. Service: Metro Bus Line 260 operates on Fair Oaks Avenue, adjacent to the Project. One Metro Bus stop is directly adjacent to the Project at the southwest corner of Fair Oaks Avenue Dayton Street. Other transit operators such as Foothill Transit and Pasadena Transit may provide service in the vicinity of the Project and should be consulted.
2. Impact Analysis: The SCEA should analyze potential effects on Metro Bus service and identify mitigation measures as appropriate. Potential impacts may include impacts to transportation services, stops, and temporary or permanent bus service rerouting. Specific types of impacts and recommended mitigation measures to address them include, without limitation, the following:
a. Bus Stop Condition: The SCEA should identify all bus stops on all streets adjacent to the Project site. During construction, the Applicant may either maintain the stop in its current condition and location, or temporarily relocate the stop consistent with the needs of Metro Bus operations. Temporary or permanent modifications to any bus stop as part of the Project, including any surrounding sidewalk area, must be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant and allow passengers with disabilities a clear path of travel between the bus stop and the Project. Once the Project is completed, the Applicant must ensure any existing Metro bus stop affected by the Project is returned to its pre-Project location and condition, unless otherwise directed by Metro.
b. Driveways: Driveways accessing parking and loading at the Project site should be located away from transit stops, and be designed and configured to avoid potential conflicts with on-street transit services and pedestrian traffic to the greatest degree possible. Vehicular driveways should not be located in or directly adjacent to areas that are likely to be used as waiting areas for transit.
c. Bus Stop Enhancements: Metro encourages the installation of enhancements and other amenities that improve safety and comfort for transit riders. These include benches, bus shelters, wayfinding signage, enhanced crosswalks and ADA-compliant ramps, pedestrian lighting, and shade trees in paths of travel to bus stops. The City should consider requesting the installation of such amenities as part of the Project. d. Bus Operations Coordination: The Applicant shall coordinate with Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events Coordinator at 213-922-4632 and Metro’s Stops and Zones Department at 213-922-5190 not later than 30 days before the start of Project construction. Other municipal bus services may also be impacted and shall be included in construction outreach efforts.
1 Letter A-3
86 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
Notice of SCEA – Metro Comments
April 6, 2021
Transit Supportive Planning: Recommendations and Resources Considering the Project’s proximity to Del Mar Station, Metro would like to identify the potential synergies associated with transit-oriented development:
1. Transit Supportive Planning Toolkit: Metro strongly recommends that the Applicant review the Transit Supportive Planning Toolkit which identifies 10 elements of transit-supportive places and, applied collectively, has been shown to reduce vehicle miles traveled by establishing community-scaled density, diverse land use mix, combination of affordable housing, and infrastructure projects for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people of all ages and abilities. This resource is available at https://www.metro.net/projects/tod-toolkit.
2. Land Use: Metro supports development of commercial and residential properties near transit stations and understands that increasing development near stations represents a mutually beneficial opportunity to increase ridership and enhance transportation options for the users of developments. Metro encourages the City and Applicant to be mindful of the Project’s proximity to the Del Mar Station, including orienting pedestrian pathways towards the station.
3. Transit Connections and Access: Metro strongly encourages the Applicant to install Project features that help facilitate safe and convenient connections for pedestrians, people riding bicycles, and transit users to/from the Project site and nearby destinations. The City should consider requiring the installation of such features as part of the conditions of approval for the Project, including:
a. Bicycle Use and Micromobility Devices: The provision of adequate short-term bicycle parking, such as ground-level bicycle racks, and secure, access-controlled, enclosed long-term bicycle parking for residents, employees, and guests. Bicycle parking facilities should be designed with best practices in mind, including highly visible siting, effective surveillance, ease to locate, and equipment installation with preferred spacing dimensions, so bicycle parking can be safely and conveniently accessed. Similar provisions for micro-mobility devices are also encouraged. b. First & Last Mile Access: The Project should address first-last mile connections to transit and is encouraged to support these connections with wayfinding signage inclusive of all modes of transportation. For reference, please review the First Last Mile Strategic Plan, authored by Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), available on-line at:
http://media.metro.net/docs/sustainability_path_design_guidelines.pdf
4. Parking: Metro encourages the incorporation of transit-oriented, pedestrian-oriented parking provision strategies such as the reduction or removal of minimum parking requirements and the exploration of shared parking opportunities. These strategies could be pursued to reduce automobile-orientation in design and travel demand.
5. Wayfinding: Any temporary or permanent wayfinding signage with content referencing Metro services or featuring the Metro brand and/or associated graphics (such as Metro Bus pictograms) requires review and approval by Metro Signage and Environmental Graphic Design.
6. Transit Pass Programs: Metro would like to inform the Applicant of Metro’s employer transit pass programs, including the Annual Transit Access Pass (A-TAP), the Employer Pass Program 1 Letter A-3
86 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
Notice of SCEA – Metro Comments
April 6, 2021
(E-Pass), and Small Employer Pass (SEP) Program. These programs offer efficiencies and group rates that businesses can offer employees as an incentive to utilize public transit. The ATAP can also be used for residential projects. For more information on these programs, please visit the programs’ website at https://www.metro.net/riding/eapp/.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me by phone at 213-922-2671, by email at [email protected], or by mail at the following address:
Metro Development Review
One Gateway Plaza
MS 99-22-1
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952
Sincerely,
Shine Ling, AICP
Manager, Transit Oriented Communities
cc: Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Attachments and links:
• Adjacent Development Handbook: https://www.metro.net/projects/devreview/ 1 Letter A-3
May 3, 2021
Kevin Johnson
Senior Planner
Design and Historic Preservation
City of Pasadena
Dear Kevin Johnson:
I wish to comment on the Central Park Apartments project that is proposed for the corner of Dayton and Fair Oaks Avenue. As a resident of Pasadena since 1989, and a resident and board member of the Castle Green Homeowner’s Association (HOA) since 2012, I am concerned about the impacts to the historic setting, as well as the larger economic and political issues the development poses for the City of Pasadena.
I’d like to start by saying that neither I nor the Castle Green HOA oppose development of the site. I know that sounds surprising, but it deserves emphasis: we’re not attempting to shut down other uses for the property, but we are concerned about several issues that I will outline in this letter.
We can begin with a few practical considerations. The current design proposal is significantly larger than the one the applicant proposed previously. The project has gone from 64 units to 84 units plus 4 ground floor live/work units, with only four additional affordable housing units. The increase in size means that not only will Castle Green quite literally be put in the shade, but so too will Hotel Green, where elderly residents often cannot leave their apartments. These residents are already limited to the reduced open space afforded by the parking lot conversion. This parking lot is their only option because the park can be unsafe.
On a planning level, I’d like to point out G&K are proceeding as if they obtained a Certified Final Environmental Impact Report, but it has been delayed since 2015. To my knowledge, the data was limited in scope and originated much earlier—in 2013. The city has changed substantially since then, including the robust use of the children’s area of Central Park, located at Dayton and Fair Oaks and directly across from the proposed development. The rehabilitation of the park, with family-friendly access, is one of the City’s great achievements. Its eastern perimeter—Raymond Avenue—is a beautiful late Victorian street scape, as is its western boarder of Fair Oaks Avenue. But the park, and especially the children’s zone, is but one of several potential Old Town victims of the environmental impacts from this proposed development. Consider, for example, traffic and parking: since the 2013 data collection, the city has increased in population considerably, particularly with the completion of the Westgate development, who's residents are the primary users of the children's playground, a mere 30 yards from the front door and driveway of the proposed Central Park Apartments. How does the public access the park from the north and west approaches? How do families get little ones safely to the swings and climbing bars? The proposed restrictions to Dayton and 1 Letter O-1
obvious impacts on Fair Oaks (as well as Raymond) will severely affect the general public, and especially the many families who live in the neighborhood.
In my layman’s understanding, the developer is attempting to avoid the sorts of questions and issues outlined above by invoking the authority of a Sustained Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) instead of adhering to laws in place at the time it was first submitted for review. The resulting structure is massive and threatens existing buildings. In effect, the developer is using the SCEA as a shield for huge differences in the current proposal, totaling a 35% bonus overall in units and size of structure. Because of the 35% increase, the parking levels have gone from 2 subterranean levels to 4. The proposed structure now has eleven levels to it. It doesn’t take an expert to grasp that the engineering for such a massive structure, with its deep digging, will directly endanger two of its neighbors: Castle Green, and Hotel Green.
And I wouldn’t want to be the crepe shop on Fair Oaks that will be squeezed in between Hotel Green and the looming Central Park Apartments.
As the longest-serving member of the Castle Green HOA, over the years I have attended several meetings with G&K’s team members and representatives. In those conversations I heard remarkably uninformed ideas come forward. For example, when discussing uses for their proposed commercial space, they suggested approaching Trader Joe’s. The person was flabbergasted when I said we have the original nearby, under a mile walk. He next offered a Whole Foods, not knowing that the West Coast flagship is less than a mile from here. My point is that G&K do not have their finger on the pulse of Pasadena, have not performed market research for the commercial spaces they intend to build, and are uninterested in what the commercial future of Old Town might look like. Given the enormous investment they intend to make, one would wish for more than large, empty commercial spaces; at the moment I think we have enough of those, and I doubt the public will see wisdom in creating more. And if G&K aspire to build a landmark structure (as their website states), shouldn’t they be obligated to harmonize aesthetically as well as commercially with the neighborhood—an historic and beautiful Old Town that this city worked so hard to achieve? Instead, what the developer has in mind is outsized and cookie-cutter, and inappropriate in the urban and architectural context of the city’s most iconic park and building—Castle Green and Central Park, for which their proposal is (ironically enough) named.
I’ll close by reiterating that the Castle Green HOA does not oppose development of the site. But it urges the City to practice oversight, including mindfulness about the negative effects of the SCEA draft proposal when historical properties are involved. In our instance it’s not just Castle Green and Hotel Green that are endangered, but also the park and the larger vision of a city that spent over 30 years cultivating one of the most distinctive and charming urban settings in the country—Old Town. Viewed more broadly, all of Pasadena is unique for its abundance of historical properties; it is part of what draws people here. Greenlighting this development as proposed under the SCEA rules will set a precedent that I urge the city to consider with care—we have too many treasures, and would be wise not to put them in the shade of testosterone-scaled projects built next door to them. Let’s meet our housing and growth needs with responsible development that integrates with the entirety of its environment— environmental, aesthetic, and commercial--and doesn’t just exploit a loophole in the law.
1 Letter O-1
Yours sincerely,
Colleen Jaurretche
VP Castle Green Board of Governors
1 Letter O-1
!"#$$%&'()*+&,-!#).$%&.-----------
/-01&$%%)-223
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
310-798-2400
Brandt-Hawley Law Group
Chauvet House • PO Box 1659
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
preservationlawyers.com
707.938.3900
April 23, 2021
Victor M. Gordo, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Kevin Johnson, Senior Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
City of Pasadena
via email
Subject: Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Central Park Apartments
Honorable Mayor Gordo, City Councilmembers, and Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for providing an extension until May 6 for public comment on the Draft SCEA for the Central Park Apartments, per our request last month on behalf of the Castle Green Homeowners Association.
Since then, in researching SCEA requirements we have become aware that the Central Park Apartments project in fact cannot qualify for the SCEA process.
We bring that to your attention now because a shift in your project environmental review to revise the 2015 EIR would avoid delay and cost.
The relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act that address the SCEA process begin at Public Resources Code section 21155.1. That section mandates “applicability requirements” for a “sustainable communities project.” One criterion is that the project “not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21155.1 (a)(5).) Castle Green and the Green Hotel are historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 as they are listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. 1 2
Letter O-2
City of Pasadena re
Central Park Apartments Draft SCEA
April 23, 2020
It is evident that the project would have significant impacts on Castle Green and the Green Hotel. And should there be a dispute about that, CEQA’s lowthreshold ‘fair argument’ standard applies. The application of the parallel historical resources exception to CEQA categorical exemptions is similarly dependent on whether “a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” The California Supreme Court’s decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1117, endorsed the fair argument standard on that issue, and there is no contrary authority. Berkeley Hillside cited Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1072, with approval as to its holding that “the fair argument standard applies to the question of whether the proposed project ‘may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource’ and thereby have a significant effect on the environment.”
Because there is a fair argument that the proposed project will significantly affect known historic resources, the SCEA procedures do not apply.
For projects that can qualify for SCEA review — thus, not here — a separate section of the SCEA statutory provisions deals with “project review.” IF a project is determined subject to the SCEA process, under Section 21155.2 (b)(7) a public agency’s “review and approval” are then reviewed for legal adequacy under the deferential substantial evidence standard. The statute also makes clear that an agency’s decision to use the SCEA process, if qualified, is discretionary.
We would be happy to discuss these points with city staff and counsel.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Brandt-Hawley Douglas P. Carstens
2 Letter O-2
Chatten-Brown, Carstens
& Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
310-798-2400
Brandt-Hawley Law Group
Chauvet House • PO Box 1659
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
preservationlawyers.com
707.938.3900
May 6, 2021
Kevin Johnson, Senior Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
City of Pasadena
via email
Subject: Comments on Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment For Central Park Apartments at 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue
Dear Mr. Johnson:
On behalf of the Castle Green Homeowners Association, we object to the City’s proposed reliance on a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) as a basis for its consideration of the proposed Central Park Apartments project (Project) proposed by Goldrich Kest.
The applicant, architectural firm Architectural Resources Group Inc. (ARG), proposes a 32,362-square foot project at 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue. As an initial matter, we note that an inappropriate or incompatible project could have the effect of detracting not just on views to and from the National Register-designated Hotel Green Apartments and Castle Green, but could change the low-rise scale of the entire historic district. Any consideration of a project in this area must be undertaken with utmost sensitivity to the broad context of this historic property. Additionally, consideration of this project should also encompass impacts on local traffic patterns known or discovered that also significantly affect the ambience of the district. Consideration of cumulative impacts, air quality and land use impacts, known or uncovered areas of controversy, and alternatives should not be lost by relying upon the SCEA review process rather than a more appropriate environmental impact report (EIR) review process.
I. TO BETTER INFORM AND SERVE THE PUBLIC, THE CITY
SHOULD RELY ON AN EIR RATHER THAN A SCEA.
Procedurally, relying on a SCEA would surely be a poor policy choice as well as a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the impacts the project creates disqualify it from SCEA eligibility.
1 2
Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
As a practical matter, an EIR has already been prepared and circulated for a previous project proposed by Goldrich Kest in 2014 called the Green Hotel Apartments.
That EIR review process should continue — with appropriate updating and responses to comments — rather than shifting to a SCEA document that constrains City review by negating or omitting analyses of alternatives and traffic impacts, among other omitted analysis to properly review this larger project’s impacts.
Even if reliance on a SCEA were to be available, it would be within the City’s limited discretion to decide whether to choose that process. And if so, the SCEA would have to meet the criteria set forth in CEQA and it should be reviewed and commented on by the Design Commission and City Planning Commission, as in an EIR process, before being considered by the City Council. The City Council needs the benefit of input and recommendations from both appointed bodies before making a decision about such a momentous project. The City need not set a precedent here about use of SCEAs in general; it may simply act on its knowledge that differences of opinion about project impacts remaining can be addressed in an EIR process much more readily than in a truncated SCEA review process.
Below is an explanation of why historic impacts prevent the use of a SCEA. The Association will also discuss other impacts such as alternatives, traffic, and aesthetics that further highlight the superiority of using an EIR rather than a SCEA for such a significant project that will profoundly affect the character of the entire City.
II. HISTORIC IMPACTS COULD BE SIGNIFICANT, THUS
REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND
NOT ALLOWING A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
The Project is proposed on a historically designated site. As has been pointed out to the City in correspondence from Kelly Sutherlin MacLeod, AIA, and Francesca Smith, an architectural historian, the boundaries of the historic Castle Green and Green Hotel are defined in the original National Register registration form. Those boundaries include the entire square block bounded by Raymond Avenue on the east, Green Street on the north, Fair Oaks Avenue on the west and Dayton Street on the south.
A SCEA is only allowed if the Project will cause no adverse impacts to historic resources. The relevant provisions of CEQA that address the SCEA process begin at Public Resources Code section 21155.1. That section mandates “applicability requirements.” One criterion is that the project “not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21155.1 (a)(5).) Castle Green and the Green Hotel are historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 as they are listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. 2 3
Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
It is evident that the project would have significant impacts on Castle Green and the Green Hotel. CEQA’s low-threshold ‘fair argument’ standard applies. The application of the parallel historical resources exception to CEQA categorical exemptions is similarly dependent on whether “a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” Such a substantial adverse change does not have to go so far that the resource would be delisted, as changes short of those that would cause delisting can also be substantial and adverse. The California Supreme Court’s decision in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1117, endorsed the fair argument standard on that issue, and there is no contrary authority. Berkeley Hillside cited Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1072, with approval as to its holding that “the fair argument standard applies to the question of whether the proposed project ‘may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource’ and thereby have a significant effect on the environment.”
In sum, because there is a fact-based fair argument that the proposed project will significantly affect known historic resources, the SCEA procedures do not apply.
For projects that can qualify for SCEA review — thus, not here — a separate section of the SCEA statutory provisions deals with “project review.” If, and only if, a project is determined subject to the SCEA process, under Section 21155.2 subdivision (b)(7) a public agency’s “review and approval” are then reviewed for legal adequacy under the deferential substantial evidence standard. Again, the statute also makes clear that an agency’s decision to use the SCEA process, if qualified, is discretionary.
III. A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT MUST BE INCLUDED IN AN EIR.
Relying on a SCEA would deprive the City of an ability to examine alternative configurations and designs of the proposed project. In the previous EIR for the Green Hotel Apartments Project, only one alternative was deemed possible (see enclosure 1, p. 1-5 [addressing Reduced Height Alternative]) — a known inadequacy compounded by the SCEA.
CEQA’s core statutory purpose is to avoid adverse impacts. There are many alternate uses for the Project site that would not adversely affect historic resources. An EIR must analyze alternate locations that could accommodate the type of project the proponents plan without causing the same significant impacts.
In addition to off-site locations, alternate onsite designs that reduce significant impacts must also be considered, including two reduced-density alternatives. One such alternative could be the original third wing extension from Colonel Green’s never built “1903 Concept.” Sadly, the SCEA unjustly refers to this Project as based on this concept, 3 4
Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
calling it “The 1903 Vision.” Yet the proposed Project is in complete contradiction to Colonel Green’s intent and illustrations, and to Goldrich & Kest’s own admitted attempt to illustrate the 1903 Concept in 2011 (Scheme C of three presented options.) (See 2015 FEIR, Attachment G, PDF page 38.)
By choosing to rely on the SCEA, the City Planning Department proposes to avoid CEQA’s core requirement to analyze feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives. This effort to avoid analysis of alternatives must be rejected.
As the SCEA at Appendix A, page 1, states: “Public Resources Code Section 21151.2 requires that a transit priority project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable EIRs.” The SCEA asserts “The City has complied with PRC Section 21151.2 by reviewing all of the suggested mitigation measures in Connect SoCal (2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) and the City of Pasadena General Plan EIR for imposition on the project.” However, this is incorrect.
The SCEA has not incorporated mitigation measures from the Draft EIR prepared for the Castle Green Apartments proposal. Alternatives are a form of mitigation measure: “The chief goal of CEQA is mitigation or avoidance of environmental harm. To argue that only mitigation measures need be discussed overlooks the fact that alternatives are a type of mitigation.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 403.)
The Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR dated June 2015 by CDM Smith included a reduced density alternative called the “Smaller Scale Alternative” that would have reduced historic resource impacts. (FEIR, p. 3-25; see enclosure 1, p. 1-5 [addressing Reduced Height Alternative.) This alternative must be analyzed.
IV. ALL OF THE PROJECT’S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS MUST BE COMPREHENSIVELY
ADDRESSED IN AN EIR.
A SCEA is not intended to address all potential significant impacts of a proposed project. Instead, a SCEA is only intended to address certain specified impacts on the theory that transit-oriented development is to be encouraged despite impacts it may have.
An EIR must comprehensively identify and address all of the “significant environmental effects” of a proposed project. (Public Resources Code § 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2.) Both “[d]irect and indirect significant environmental effects” must be analyzed, “giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(a).) In addition to the aesthetic and historic 4 5
Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
impacts that are discussed above, it will be critical for an EIR to address impacts in the areas of biological resources, air quality and human health, traffic and access, and land use plans.
We and others have submitted comments on prior proposed versions of the current Project, which had been undergoing environmental review that included preparation of a draft and final EIR. (See enclosure 1 [summary section of Final EIR].) A. Air Quality and Human Health Could Be Adversely Affected.
The SCEA states that 45,500 cubic yards of grading soil export and use of construction equipment is planned. (SCEA, p. 4.0-28.) The extent and nature of the construction activities will likely lead to extensive air quality impacts. With nearby sensitive receptors such as the Hotel Green Apartments, Castle Green, and the Children’s Park Playground in Central Park, avoiding or mitigating air pollution impacts to the fullest possible extent will be critical.
B. Land Use and Planning Impacts Must Be Addressed.
The Central District Specific Plan should guide development in this area. The SCEA dismisses the possibility of Project conflicts with this plan in a mere one page conclusory discussion. (SCEA, p. 4.0-104.) The conclusion is not based upon sufficient examination of the Plan’s requirements.
The Central District Specific Plan requires that infill construction should be consistent with existing buildings (page 99); view corridors should be protected (page 132); and well-defined open space should be created (page 147). Other requirements apply as well. These and the Central District Specific Plan’s other requirements should be fully explained and applied to the Project before the City considers consistency of the project with this fundamental plan.
SCEA Appendix A - Incorporation of Applicable Mitigation Measures, Performance Standards and Criteria from Prior Applicable EIRs - lists the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 transportation strategy and the City of Pasadena General Plan EIR in the introductory paragraph. It does not list the previous 2014-15 project EIR (see Enclosure 1) as contributing to mitigation measures. Thus, the mitigations proposed in Appendix A do not rely on the previous uncertified EIR.
The sixty-eight SCEA mitigation measures largely depend on the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 strategy (including 45 measures or 66% of all included measures), far less than on the Pasadena General Plan/Central District/Old Pasadena Plan (23 measures, or 6 7
5 Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
34% of all measures).
The SCEA could be in direct conflict with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Objective 7: “…infill… that respect existing resources will be encouraged.” The SCEA is also in direct conflict with the Central District Specific Plan objectives of Design Review in three steps if the Design Commission is not the lead decision-making body and final word. In a prior review process for the Green Hotel Apartments Project, City staff member Kevin Johnson stated at the April 8, 2013 scoping session that the Design Commission would be the ultimate decision making body.
C. Traffic and Safety Access Issues Must Be Clearly Addressed Rather Than Relegated to an Appendix in the SCEA.
The Project as proposed will severely impact Dayton Avenue, which is a small street that already strains under its traffic burden. (See Enclosure 1, 2015 Green Hotel Apartments Project Final EIR, p. 1-13 [stating “the increased traffic introduced along Dayton Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond Avenue would constitute a significant impact” for which there is “No feasible mitigation” so it is a “Significant and unavoidable” impact].) An EIR must thoroughly assess traffic impacts to this and other local roads around the Project site. Fire Department safety and access must be critical subjects of an EIR.
With our prior March 10, 2014 letter about the prior project proposal on the site, we submitted a traffic and impact analysis prepared by Tom Brohard. This analysis is hereby incorporated by reference, since project impacts will be similar.
The SCEA has a section in the Transportation Appendix (Appendix G) that is called "Transportation Impact Analysis - Outside of CEQA Analysis" (dated 5/3/2019) (Appendix G PDF pg. 511-527) that uses updated data to analyze three street segments and four intersections. It fails to look at South Fair Oaks segment from Dayton to Delmar, and fails to look at unsignalized Dayton/Fair Oaks & Dayton/Raymond intersections - inadequacies pointed out in 2015 EIR documents. It also omits Fair Oaks Avenue segment from Dayton to Green street that was included in 2015 EIR, which means SCEA omits meaningful Fair Oaks Avenue segment and daily trips analysis.
In the attachment, Table 5 and 6, page 10 (PDF pg. 524) of this section in the report states that the Dayton Street Roadway Segment again fails because the Vehicular Increase in ADT is 82.6%. 2019 figures show that existing daily trips have risen from 883 (2013) to 1,049 (2019), and this larger SCEA Project generates 866 new daily trips, causing the failure of the Dayton Street Segment.
The SCEA relies on 2013 and 2015 data from the uncertified 2015 EIR. The 8 7
Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
SCEA also has three traffic sections in the Appendix G (Transportation) that rely on possibly outdated bike and pedestrian issues, and the 2015 FEIR showed 64 units creating an additional 693 daily trips on Dayton segment, a 77% increase, while SCEA project volume shows net 866 new trips (SCEA Appendix G, p. 12), a 83% increase, after reducing Gross Total trips of 963 (92% increase) with transit credits, et cetera. Existing daily trips on Dayton were 883 in the 2015 EIR.
The ‘cumulative projects’ analysis that the SCEA omits from the main document (in the Outside CEQA portion of Appendix G in the SCEA) is using 2013 data, clearly not adequately reflective of anything relevant to today’s Pasadena.
The SCEA deprives the public of a proper understanding of the traffic impacts the proposed project would have. Instead of an SCEA, the City should update the EIR and subject it to proper public review and participation with comments and responses.
The SCEA allows Traffic and Transportation issues to be avoided when considering significant impacts. In order to qualify for an SCEA, the public agency must certify that there is sufficient infrastructure in an area. (Pub. Resources Code s. 21155.1 [requiring certification that “The transit priority project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the transit priority project …can be adequately served by existing utilities.”]) Roadways are part of the existing public utility infrastructure that must support a project. Yet the SCEA refers to the previous 2015 FEIR that analyzes the 2015 Project:
- Contains less than 75% of the number of units of the 2021 SCEA Project. - Contains less than 80% of the square footage of the 2021 SCEA Project. - Contains less than 25% of the parking spaces of the 2021 SCEA Project. - Produces 20% less daily car trips of the 2021 SCEA Project. - Has one less excavated level of parking than the 2021 SCEA Project.
The SCEA relies on uncertified Transportation information from 2013 and 2015, outdated materials for this NEW project. The City cannot have it both ways by a) utilizing SCEA for a “NEW” project, but relying on 2013 data from a previous uncertified EIR from a smaller project that was never supported or affirmed.
The SCEA relies on Bicycle/Pedestrian mode studies on Dayton Street to say that no mitigation or improvements needed, yet it is clear that Dayton Street configurations must change to handle the 83% increase (about 853 trips in excess of City’s limit for this roadway segment per 2015 EIR’s smaller project), and there are no required or proposed Dayton Street or intersection mitigation. APX G, PDF pg. 75, 77.
Additionally, it appears that no PEQI or BEQI was performed on any other roadway segment. (See SCEA Appendix G, p. 13.) How do residents from the East Ambassador Campus get to Central Park?
8 Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
The SCEA relies on HCM Signalization Intersection Capacity Analysis (Apx. G, PDF pg. 57-73), yet ignores the dangerous and challenging unsignalized intersections at Dayton/Fair Oaks (split configuration) and at Dayton Raymond. Therefore, by omission, the SCEA falsely and inadequately concludes that there are no intersection issues, just as the uncertified 2015 EIR did.
In fact, the SCEA’s abbreviated traffic studies fail to study, let alone suggest needed mitigation for, the two critical unsignalized intersections at both ends of the significantly impacted Dayton Street Segment. (Appendix G, 5/3/19 Transportation Impact Analysis (PDF pg. 42). This analytical failure occurs again as in the challenged and uncertified 2015 FEIR.
Fair Oaks Avenue driveway is stated to be “… in direct contrast to the City’s Street Design Guidelines.” (January 22, 2018 Predevelopment Plan Review for City Council – Doc.) But it is not in conflict, and no data is provided to support the City’s rejection outright. Being “in contrast” does not disqualify a Fair Oaks driveway, which suggests the SCEA (and previous EIR) should have studied this option.
The City knows that the project’s impact on the Dayton Street Segment was significant with the smaller 2015 project (Enclosure 1, p. 1-13), and is far more significant for the current Project under SCEA review. In both, no mitigation is considered, let alone studied.
Bicycle parking with no bike improvements required or mandated, despite the unsafe existing unsignalized intersection conditions at the split Dayton/Fair Oaks intersections, does not mitigate impacts. Pedestrian review when no crosswalk or safety improvements are required or mandated, despite the horrible intersection conditions at the split Dayton/Fair Oaks intersections does not mitigate impacts.
D. The Current Proposed Project Continues A Prior Proposal But the SCEA Provides Insufficient Information.
The history of proposals at the Project site is relevant. In 2011, initiating the Central Park Apartments, ARG presented three possible development schemes to the public. "Scheme C" was described as similar to Colonel Green's 1903 concepts, and was encouraged for exploration. However, G&K rejected it outright. This history is relevant because today's SCEA project is claiming to be some sort of reincarnation of the "1903 vision" by G&K, yet today's overbearing Project is significantly not anything like the respectfully smaller Scheme C (for which the Association makes no endorsement here).
In 2013, an EIS for the revived Project was roundly panned in public scoping sessions, yet G&K proceeded to the DEIR in 2014, which by evidence of the public and Design Commission's comments all had extensive concerns and questions, and a general 8 9
Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
consensus that this inadequate DEIR that failed to address any 2013 concerns and raised further additional concerns that mushroomed with the 2015 Revised Draft EIR and Final EIR hearings. The SCEA makes no mention of the prior history of project proposals for this same Project site. (SCEA, p. 3.0-5 [“prior applicable EIRs” named are “SCAG Connect SoCal… EIR, the City of Pasadena General Plan EIR, and the Central District Specific Plan EIR”; no others are identified].)
In 2017, there was a Design Commission Preliminary Review with only a reduced set of plans and a 13 page staff report not made available until a few days before this review. In 2018 there was a Predevelopment Plan Review in front of the City Council.
At both reviews, only more questions arose as the massive size and impacts, and poor level of design. And it appeared obvious that the 1903 concepts were being left back with 2011's Scheme C.
There is a failure that continues to expand today with G&K's failure to heed many public or Design Commission concerns and questions with a new, larger SCEA project demanding less transparency and public review and now a City Council review rather than the Design Commission with lower standards of approval.
Since the 2021 Central Park Apartments Project still relies on the uncertified 2015 FEIR (and 2013 data) with uncertified responses to all of the public comments, the SCEA is inappropriately applied to this oversized 2021 Project.
The SCEA avoids identification and study of standard, critical environmental issues:
- No Alternatives are put forward;
- No Known Areas of Controversy are addressed, despite 11 identified in the 2015 DEIR, as well as at least 9 additional concerns from public comments (6 noted in the DEIR and at least 3 more from the public comments). All of the 2014-15 “areas” apply. (See Enclosure 1, pp. 1-6 to 1-7.)
- Additional Areas of Controversy noted in the 2015 FEIR Public Comments are relevant but are not mentioned or studied. (See Enclosure 1, pp. 1-6 to 1-7.) - Specific Issues to be Resolved in the 2015 FEIR are not identified or addressed, let alone resolved.
- No Cumulative Development Impacts are identified or studied. The 2015 FEIR relies on 2013 Cumulative Projects, 2013 city population and other now-outdated 2013 transportation facts. The significantly larger 2021 Project relies on outdated 2013/2015 data, despite far more Cumulative projects through 2021+. - The SCEA contains an inapplicable (and possibly inaccurate) “Outside of CEQA Analysis” section that proves the 2021 Project is detrimental to the Dayton Street Roadway Section, yet fails to study adjacent Dayton Street intersections or request mitigation. It studies less than the 2015 EIR, yet today’s project is far bigger. 9 Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
The 2015 DEIR’s Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist is 103 pages, more that 236% the size of SCEA’s Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist of just 55 pages, despite the larger, more complex and arguably more impactful 2021 Project. The SCEA fails to provide adequate review of environmental impacts.
The SCEA relies on a minimized, subjective and unproven Environmental Checklist in analyzing environmental impacts, while its Appendices rely on 2015 and 2013 data that require updating for this larger 2021 Project.
Additional informational deficiencies and inadequacies of the SCEA are detailed in the enclosed May 5, 2021 Letter of Mike Salazar, Architect of the Castle Green Architecture and Design Committee for the Castle Green Homeowners Association. (Enclosure 2) and relevant comment letters that were submitted on the prior version of the Project proposed for the Project site (Enclosure 3). Please respond to each of these points in each of these letters as they are incorporated herein.
E. Re-Submission Of All Previous Comments on the Prior Version of this Proposal.
All public comments submitted in writing for the 2013-2015 Scoping, DEIR, Revised Draft EIR and Final EIR for the Green Hotel Apartments Project are hereby incorporated by reference and their applicability is clear to this enlarged version of the Project under SCEA review. Impacts of the currently proposed Project are likely greater than were studied in the 2014-15 EIR process because the current project has 35% more units, over 20% more square footage, has more height and height exemptions, and significantly more aesthetic, traffic and environmental impacts.
Further, the audio records of every review of projects proposed on the Project site from 2014 to the present that contain Commissioner, Councilmember, Staff and public comment are hereby incorporated by reference.
CONCLUSION.
As explained above, the City lawfully cannot and should not rely on a SCEA process. The proposed SCEA also fails the City and the public as an informational document upon which to consider such an impactful Project. The City should require revision and finalization of the EIR process that it started, and proceed with review and recommendation by the Design Commission before any approval actions are considered. 9 10
11 Letter O-3
City of Pasadena
May 6, 2021
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Douglas P. Carstens
[email protected]
[email protected]
Enclosures:
1. Summary pp. i to 1-13 from 2015 Final EIR for Green Hotel Apartments
2. May 5, 2021 Letter from Mike Salazar, Architect of the Castle Green Architecture and Design Committee for the Castle Green Homeowners Association
3. Relevant Comment Letters regarding prior version of Project proposed on Project site
Susan Brandt-Hawley
9 10
11 Letter O-3
ENCLOSURE 1
Table of Contents
Section 1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2 Corrections and Additions ................................................................................................................ 2-1 Section 3 Comments and Responses ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3 .1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Draft EIR Published January 24, 2014 ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Recirculated Draft EIR Published January 20, 2015 .......................................................... 3-2
3.2 List of Commenters ....................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.1 List of Public Agencies and Private Parties Commenting on the Draft EIR .............. 3-3
3.2.2 List of Public Agencies and Private Parties Commenting on the Recirculated Draft EIR ............................................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Responses to Comments ............................................................................................................................. 3-3
3.3.1 Topical Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ............................................................. 3-3 Topical Response (TR)-CR-1 Potential Impacts to Historic Resources ............... 3-4 TR-AES-1 Potential View Impacts ........................................................................................ 3-8 TR-ALT-1 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................. 3-10
3.3.2 Individual Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ..................................................... 3-29 Letter No. 1 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County ................... 3-31 Letter No. 2 Pasadena Heritage ................................................................................... 3-37 Letter No. 3 Castle Green Homeowner's Association ......................................... 3-47 Letter No. 4 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP ......................................................... 3-91 Letter No. 5 Ann Scheid ................................................................................................ 3-103 Letter No. 6 Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, FAIA .......................................................... 3-111
3.3.3 Comments Received at the Public Hearing on the Draft EIR ..................................... 3-126
3.3.4 Individual Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft ElR ....................... 3-130 Letter No. 7 Ciy of San Marino ................................................................................... 3-131 Letter No. 8 Castle Green Homeowner's Association ....................................... 3-135
3.3.5 Comments Received at the Public Hearing on the Recirculated Draft EIR .......... 3-157 Section 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........................................................................ 4-1 Attachment 1 - Design Process Memorandum
CDN!th 5ml
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 2-3a
Figure 2-5
Figure 3.1-2
Figure 3-1-15
Figure 3-1.16
Figure 3.1-17
Figure 3.1-18
Figure 3.1-19
Figure 3.1-20
Figure 3.1-21
Aerial Overview - Oblique Angel ............................................................................................................. 2-7 Site Plan and First Floor Layout ............................................................................................................... 2-9 Location of On-Site Trees .......................................................................................................... 2-13 & 3-83 Vantage Point Locations -Vantage Points 5 through 8 ............................................... 2-15 & 3-11 Vantage Point 5 .............................................................................................................................. 2-17 & 3-13 Vantage Point 6 .............................................................................................................................. 2-19 & 3-15 Vantage Point 7 .................................................................................................................... 2-21 & 3-17 Vantage Point 8 .................................................................................................................... 2-23 & 3-19 Vantage Point Locations -Vantage Points 9 ..................................................................... 2-25 & 3-21 Vantage Point 9 ..................................................................................................................... 2-27& 3-23 List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table4-6
Table4-l
Summary of Project Impacts, Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 1-7 Summary Disposition of Protected Trees with Project Implementation ................ 2-3 & 3-81 Summary of On-Site Trees ........................................................................................................... 2-5 & 3-79 Summary Disposition of Protected Trees with Project Implementation ............. 2-11 & 3-80 Reduced Height Alternative - Traffic Generation ........................................................................... 2-33 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................................ 4-3 Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
CDMth Sml
Section 1
Summary
Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089, and 15132, the City of Pasadena (the City) has prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Green Hotel Apartments Project (proposed project or project). A Final EIR is defined by Section 15362(b) of the CEQA Guidelines as "containing the information contained in the Draft EIR; comments, either in verbatim or in summary received in the review process; a list of persons commenting; and the responses of the Lead Agency to the comments received."
The Final EIR is organized in the following sections:
• Section 1 - Summary: This Section is intended to provide a summary of the CEQA requirements, including Project Location, Setting and Description information, Alternatives to the Project, Areas of Controversy, Issues to be Resolved and a Summary of the Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
• Section 2 - Corrections and Additions: This Section includes changes to text within the Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR as a result of either comments received from interested parties during the public review period or as initiated by the Lead Agency (City of Pasadena or City).
• Section 3 - Comments and Responses: This Section includes all comments received on the original Draft EIR during the document's 45-day public review period, which began on January 24, 2014 and was completed on March 11, 2014, and on the Recirculated Draft EIR during the document's 45-day public review period, which began on January 20, 2015 and was completed on March 5, 2015. A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments on the Draft EIR and/or the Recirculated Draft EIR is provided. Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR have been prepared and are included in this Section of this Final EIR.
• Section 4 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This Section includes a list of all mitigation measures for the project and identifies the timing associated with, and entity responsible for, implementing each mitigation measure in a table format. Space is provided within the table for tracking mitigation implementation and effectiveness.
This document, along with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference), make up the Final EIR as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, which states:
CDMth Sm1
The Final EIR shall consist of
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. 1-1
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
Section 1 • Summary
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EJR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
Uses of the Final EIR
The Final EIR allows the public and the decision makers the opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, the comments and responses to those comments, and other components of the EIR, such as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, prior to approval of the project. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part.
After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the following three certifications as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines:
• That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; • That the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and
• That the Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state its reasons for supporting the approved action in writing. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial information in the record, which includes the Final EIR.
Project Location and Setting
The City of Pasadena (City) is located approximately ten miles northeast of the City of Los Angeles in the County of Los Angeles. Regional access to the City is provided by State Route 134 (SR 134 ), Interstate 210 (1-210 or Foothill Freeway), State Route 110 (SR110), and Interstate 710 (1-710). The project site is located at 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue, at the northeast corner of Fair Oaks Avenue at Dayton Street. Vehicle access points at the project site currently exist on Dayton Street and South Fair Oaks Avenue. The project site is located within a developed area of Downtown Pasadena on one of the City's main commercial streets and is surrounded by residential, commercial, retail, and recreational land uses. The project site is bordered by a one-story cafe building and the existing Green Hotel Apartments on the north, Castle Green on the east, Dayton Street and Central Park on the south, and South Fair Oaks Avenue on the west.
The project site is rectangular in shape and approximately 32,362 square feet in size. The site is currently flat and has a surface parking lot with 60 parking spaces ( 4 handicapped parking spaces and 56 regular parking spaces), a billboard, concrete pathways, benches, an outdoor eating area, and 20 trees (15 of which are protected under the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance). The 15 protected trees consist of eight Mexican fan palms, two California fan palms, one Canary Island palm, three Camphor trees, and one Indian laurel fig tree. 1-2
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
CDM.th sm1
Section 1 • Summary
The project site is zoned CD-1 (Central District Specific Plan Sub-district 1, Old Pasadena Subdistrict) and has a General Plan Land Use designation of Specific Plan. The project site also is within the Old Pasadena Historic District which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The Castle Green, located to the east of the project site, and the existing Green Hotel Apartments buildings, located to the north of the project site, were listed together, along with the project site, in the National Register in 1982, and are therefore also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The Castle Green/Green Hotel Apartments listing that includes the project site is an individual listing on the National Register (not as an historic district), and the two buildings were also listed as contributors to the Old Pasadena Historic District (1983; revised, 2007). The boundaries of the Castle Green and existing Green Hotel Apartments are defined in the original National Register registration form as: "The square block bounded by Raymond Avenue on the east, Green Street on the north, Fair Oaks [A]venue on the west and Dayton Street on the south." Thus, the entire block, which includes the project site, is listed as a historical property in the National Register.
Across Dayton Street to the south is Central Park, a 9.2 acre park which is also a contributing resource to the Old Pasadena Historic District. Across Fair Oaks Avenue to the west are three to four-story mixed-use buildings and parking lots, and across Raymond Avenue to the east are one and two-story commercial uses, all of which are also within the boundaries of the Old Pasadena Historic District. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Del Mar Gold Line Light Rail Station is located less than a quarter of a mile to the southeast of the project site along Raymond Avenue just north of Del Mar Boulevard.
Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed project include the following:
• Provide new apartments to assist in satisfying the increasing demand for this product type in the City of Pasadena, and particularly in the Central District and within easy walking distance of jobs and the Metro Gold Line.
• Provide new restaurant, commercial, and retail shops in Old Pasadena, thereby increasing tax revenues throughout the City.
• Provide multi-family housing within a transit-oriented district and within the immediate vicinity of a Metro Gold Line station.
• Provide affordable multi-family housing to the City's underserved affordable market demand, particularly within the Central District and within walking distance of service oriented jobs. • Provide the residents of the adjacent existing Green Hotel Apartments appropriate parking with direct ingress/egress.
• Build out the third parcel of the Castle Green/ existing Green Hotel Apartments in a manner that is based on the original turn of the 20th century vision, which has been underutilized as surface parking since the 1950's, to thereby create a compatible new gateway framing an entrance to Old Pasadena.
• Broaden the retail connection on Fair Oaks Avenue to Colorado Boulevard by providing retail services along the street frontage.
1-3
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
Section 1 • Summary
• Create a mixed-use development that faces, compliments, and engages with the open space to the south of the site.
• Preserve views of the park from the south-facing units of the existing Green Hotel Apartments by providing an open space corridor between the Castle Green and the proposed project.
Project Characteristics
The proposed project involves construction and operation of a six-story mixed-use building with 64 residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space on an existing surface parking lot currently occupied by a billboard, 60 parking spaces and landscaping at 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue in Pasadena. The project site is 32,362 square feet and the proposed multi-story mixed-use building would be 76,980 square feet in size.
The ground floor would consist of 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 20 parking spaces, with 11 of the 20 parking spaces "tucked under" the building. In addition, 15 bicycle parking spaces ( 4 open rack and 11 enclosed) would be provided on the ground floor. Residential units would be located on the second through sixth floors. The proposed project would provide 9,600 square feet of private open space and recreational uses, which would consist of 2,880 square feet of open space (including a pool), a 1,050 square-foot gym, and 5,670 square feet of open space provided in the courtyard on the ground floor.
Parking for the project would be provided in compliance with City's Zoning Code and would be accommodated with 20 parking spaces on the ground floor and two levels of underground parking providing 147 parking spaces. The City's Zoning Code requires the provision ofa minimum of 107 spaces for the new building as well as replacement of the 60 existing spaces on-site, which serve the existing Green Hotel Apartments. The proposed building would have a height of 75 feet and would comprise 76,980 square feet of gross floor area (2.38 floor area ratio). The height, floor area ratio, and setbacks meet the development standards for the CD-1 zoning district.
The driveway to the project site would be located along Dayton Street and would provide access to the surface and underground parking. Both ingress and egress would be available from Dayton Street.
Pedestrian access to the residential lobby and commercial uses would be available off of Fair Oaks Avenue.
Construction of the proposed project would require the removal of 10 of the 15 trees protected under the City's ordinance.1 The City's Tree Protection Ordinance requires protected trees to be replaced, but allows for several replacement alternatives. If all protected trees to be removed are proposed to be replaced with non-palm trees, they may be replaced with 76 non-palm trees of a minimum 24-inch box size or 48 non-palm trees of a minimum 36-inch box size. Alternatively, if protected palm species are proposed to be replaced with new palm trees, the aggregate height of replacement palm trees must total 167.5 feet, and the remaining removed non-palm trees may be replaced with either 40 24-inch box trees or 24 36-inch box trees.
The Tree Replacement Matrix adopted by the City Council in 2010 also indicates that protected specimen trees must be replaced with specimen or native trees on the list of protected native and 1 In addition to the 15 protected trees located within the project site, there are three protected trees located directly adjacent to the project site, as shown in Figure 3.1-2 of the Final EIR and accounted for in Table 3-2 of the Final EIR (Tree Nos. 7, 22, and 23). Those three protected trees would remain in-place with project implementation. 1-4
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
CDN!th 5ml
Section 1 • Summary
specimen trees. The four protected non-palm trees proposed to be removed are on the list of specimen trees; therefore the trees planted to replace them must be on the list of protected native or specimen trees. The City's Tree Protection Ordinance also states that "the developer may request to pay a fee instead of planting on site up to 50 percent of the required number of replacement trees." A total of 24 new 36-inch box trees and new palm trees totaling 176 feet in height would be planted on-site, thereby meeting the required replacement trees per the City's Tree Protection Ordinance.
Three existing palm trees would be transplanted on-site to naturally draining soil and the new trees would be planted in either naturally draining soil or planters above the subterranean parking.
Planters would be raised to provide a portion of the required five-foot planter depth above the grade.
Therefore, the proposed project would meet the requirements of the City's Tree Protection Ordinance.
Removal of protected trees requires adherence to the ordinance through the review and approval of applications for each removed tree and findings are required to be made to ensure the removals meet the ordinance. The requested tree removals will be reviewed in conjunction with the design review that is required for the proposed project.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project are anticipated to include demolition, site preparation, excavation, grading, construction of the new mixed-use building, application of coatings, paving, painting/striping, installation oflighting/security lighting, and landscaping. Construction would occur in one phase lasting approximately 28 months, beginning in August 2014 and completing in December 2016. Site clearing and grubbing activities would last for approximately five days, demolition of the existing parking lot would occur over a period of approximately one month, grading of the project site is anticipated to take approximately three months, building sub-phase (i.e., construction of the building and underground parking levels) would last for 16 months, application of architectural coatings would last approximately 10 months, and asphalt application would last approximately two months, with some construction phases overlapping. Construction staging would occur on-site and construction of the proposed project would require a maximum of 40 construction workers. Demolition of the existing parking lot would produce approximately 620 cubic yards (cy) of debris. Grading and excavation on the project site would produce approximately 30,000 cy of soil for export.
Alternatives to the Project
CEQA requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts, while attaining the basic objectives of the project. Comparative analysis of the impacts of these alternatives is required. In response to the significant impacts associated with the proposed project, the City developed and considered the following alternatives to the project:
• Alternative 1 - No Project
The No Project Alternative is the No Build Alternative and assumes that the proposed building would not be constructed; the site would remain in its current state and continue to be occupied by a billboard and utilized for parking by residents of the existing Green Hotel Apartments building.
• Alternative 2 - Reduced Height
The Reduced Height Alternative assumes the construction of a mixed-use building, much like the proposed building; however, two fewer floors would be constructed thereby reducing the CDMth Sm1 1-5
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
Section 1 • Summary
number ofresidential units from 64 to 42 and reducing the required number of parking spaces from 166 to 131. A total of 5,000 square feet of commercial space would remain within the ground floor of the building under the Reduced Height Alternative.
Four other alternatives were considered but rejected as infeasible, as outlined further in Section 4.0, Alternatives.
The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be identified from the alternatives considered in an EIR. The No Project Alternative would result in no environmental impacts and therefore would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative to the proposed project.
However, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the No Project Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, a second build alternative must be identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As such, Alternative 2, the Reduced Height Alternative, would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative to the proposed project because this alternative would reduce the severity of the significant and unavoidable traffic impact along the Dayton Street segment between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond Avenue.
Areas of Known Controversy
The CEQA Guidelines require a Draft EIR to identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Comments were received from public agencies and interested parties in response to the circulated Notice of Preparation (NOP). In compliance with CEQA Guidelines, the City held two scoping meetings on April 8 and April 15, 2013, to solicit comments and to inform the public of the proposed EIR. Comments were also received in response to the published NOP (provided in Appendix A), which identified environmental topics that local and regional agencies recommended for analysis in the Draft EIR. The following environmental topics of potential controversy were identified during the scoping meetings and/or NOP process:
• Aesthetic and landscaping changes through the removal of trees/canopy trees and survival of new and transplanted trees;
• Ingress/Egress along Dayton Street;
• Fire Safety and emergency access along Dayton Street; • Increased traffic from project implementation;
• Density and height of project relative to surrounding land uses and buildings; • Historical significance of entire block on which the project site is located; • Impact on views from surrounding buildings;
• Alternatives to the proposed design;
• Air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, and specifically the neighboring Castle Green, the existing Green Hotel Apartments, and Central Park;
• Unreinforced masonry walls of Castle Green Apartments could be impacted by excavation, vibration, and other construction activities; and
1-6
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
CDN!th Sm1
Section 1 • Summary
• Loss of soil during construction could cause displacement of Castle Green.
As a result of the comments received during the scoping process, the following environmental topics were evaluated in depth in this Draft EIR:
• Aesthetics;
• Air Quality;
• Cultural Resources;
• Greenhouse Gases;
• Noise and Vibration; and
• Transportation and Circulation.
Issues to be Resolved
The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to present issues to be resolved by the lead agency. These issues include the choice between alternatives and whether or how to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. The major issues to be resolved by the City of Pasadena, as the Lead Agency for the project include the following:
• Whether the recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; • Whether additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the project; and • Whether the project or an alternative should be approved.
Summary of Project Impacts, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures
A summary of the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, conditions of approval (COA) and mitigation measures (MM) included to avoid or lessen the severity of potentially significant environmental impacts, and residual impacts, is provided in Table 1, Summary of Project Impacts, Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, below.
Table 1 Summary of Project Impacts, Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Significance Threshold and Project Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Impact Aesthetics
The project would introduce a new 6-story No mitigation is required building on a site located within a built-out
environment adjacent to two existing six- and
seven-story buildings. The project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista (i.e., blocking views of the San Gabriel
Mountains from public vantage points or from
the adjacent uses).
The project would introduce a new building on No mitigation is required a site covered with mature trees and utilized
only for surface parking. However, the project
CDM.th sm1
Less than
significant impact
Less than
significant impact
1-7
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
Section 1 • Summary
would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
The project would create a new source of No mitigation is required Less than increased levels of ambient lighting and glare in significant impact the immediate vicinity of the site; however,
light emanating from the new building would
be consistent with the ambient nighttime
illumination levels of existing development and
proposed exterior lighting would be shielded
and oriented in a manner that will prevent
spillage or glare onto surrounding uses.
The project would result in new shadows being No mitigation is required Less than cast on light-sensitive uses; however, the significant impact project site is in an urban environment,
immediately adjacent to existing buildings of
comparable massing and height.
Air Quality
The project would create emissions during No mitigation is required No impact construction and operation but would not
conflict with implementation of the applicable
air quality plan.
The project would create emissions from No mitigation is required Less than operational/area sources and from increased significant impact vehicle trips, but would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation.
The project would generate emissions from No mitigation is required Less than operational/area sources and-from increased significant impact vehicle trips but would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any
nonattainment criteria pollutant.
The project construction would generate MM AQ-1: Construction Equipment Engine Less than emissions that would not exceed, but would Requirements. The construction contractor shall significant impact nearly approach, the PM2_5 emissions ensure that off-road construction equipment be thresholds; as such, mitigation is included to equipped with engines that meet the model year ensure that the project would not expose 2007 or Tier 3 emission standards for off-road sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant compression-ignition (diesel) engines (13 CCR 2420- concentrations during construction. 2425.1). Older model year engine may also be used if they are retrofit with a diesel particulate filter to
reduce PM emissions to the applicable emission
standards.
MM AQ-2: Construction Equipment Limitations. The
construction contractor shall ensure that the
cumulative hours of operation for all off-road diesel
equipment do not exceed 60 hours per day.
The project would generate odors from No mitigation is required Less than construction equipment and potentially from significant impact commercial uses during operations; however,
the project would not create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Cultural Resources•
The project is adjacent to but would not No mitigation is required Less than 2 As part of the Final EIR. an additional condition of approval, COA-CUL T -1, was incorporated into the project to address unanticipated archaeological finds during project construction. As described in Section 2 below, it was already concluded in the Initial Study /Notice of Preparation that implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources. The addition of COA-CUL T-1 does not change that earlier conclusion; hence, it is not a mitigation measure and is therefore not listed in this table. 1-8
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
CDMth Sml
involve demolition or physical alteration of the
historic Hotel Green or Castle Green
Apartments or any other historic structures.
The project involves new construction adjacent
to existing historic resources and would not
involve relocation of a historic resource.
The project involves new construction adjacent
to existing historic resources and would not
involve conversion, rehabilitation or alteration
of a significant resource and would comply
with the Standards 9 and 10 of the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
The project would involve the construction of a
new building adjacent to existing historic
resources; however, the new construction
would not reduce the integrity or significance
of important resources on the site or in the
vicinity. The historic character and integrity of
the Castle Green and existing Green Hotel
Apartments would remain intact.
Greenhouse Gases
The project would generate greenhouse gas
emissions as a result of vehicles traveling to
and from the apartments, natural gas
combustion from space heating, disposal of
solid waste, and electricity used directly by the
building and indirectly to supply water to the
site and to treat wastewater; however, these
emissions would not exceed the SCQAMD's
proposed screening-level significant threshold
for commercial land uses.
The project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses.
Noise and Vibration
The project could expose persons to or
generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies.
Maximum construction noise levels (which
would occur occasionally and intermittently
when equipment would work closest to the
sensitive receptors at the property line at full
power) are estimated at 91 dBA at the existing
Green Hotel Apartments and 81 dBA at Castle
Green at the ground floor. However average
construction noise levels would be 75 dBA and
74 dBA, respectively. Noise levels would be
slightly lower at elevations above the ground
floor because of increased distance between
the source and receptor. Since the maximum
noise levels to be generated during
construction is 80 dBA at 100 feet from the
noise source, construction noise levels would
not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance limit for
construction noise of 85 dBA at a distance of
100 feet. However, mitigation is included to
minimize noise levels to neighboring properties
to the maximum extent feasible.
CDl\llth sm1
Section 1 • Summary
significant impact
No mitigation is required. Less than
significant impact
No mitigation is required Less than
significant impact
No mitigation is required less than
significant impact
No mitigation is required less than
significant impact
No mitigation is required No impact
COA NOISE-1: Noise Barriers. Before the start of Less than pavement demolition, the contractor shall erect a 20- significant impact foot-high temporary noise barrier, such as a curtain
of durable flexible composite material with soundabsorptive material on one or both sides and solid wall composed of 5/ 8-inch plywood or heavier, on the
northern and eastern sides of the project site. The
noise barrier shall be installed without any gaps and
with the sound absorptive side facing the
construction activity area. The barrier shall be
maintained and any damage that may occur be
promptly repaired. The barrier shall remain in place
until the completion of outdoor construction
requiring use of diesel-powered equipment.
COA NOISE-2: Noise Reduction Measures. Prior to
approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of
demolition, grading and building permits, the
following noise-reduction measures shall be included
in the construction plans or specifications:
• The construction contractor shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with
properly operating and maintained mufflers,
consistent with manufacturers' standards.
• The construction contractor shall place all
stationary construction equipment so that the
1-9
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
Section 1 • Summary
The proposed project would contribute
operational (post-construction) noise to the
existing environment through (1) the addition
of traffic on local streets, (2) on-site stationary
sources, and (3) on-site outdoor activities.
The primary noise source to the project site
and surrounding buildings is traffic on Fair Oaks
Avenue. The proposed building would block a
substantial portion of the traffic noise to the
project site, the existing Green Hotel
Apartments, and Castle Green. The resultant
traffic noise level at Castle Green and the
existing Green Hotel Apartments residences
would be less than the existing ambient noise
level.
Operational noise sources associated with the
proposed residential uses would include, but
would not be limited to mechanical equipment
(e.g., heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
[HVAC] units and swimming pool pumps);
landscape maintenance equipment; vehicles in
the surface parking area; vehicles entering and
leaving the subterranean parking area; and
outdoor activities at the swimming pool area.
The project would not result in a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project.
1-10
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
equipment is as far as reasonably feasible from
noise-sensitive receptors and so emitted noise is
directed away from noise-sensitive receptors.
• The construction contractor shall locate equipment
staging in areas that will create the greatest
distance between staging area noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors.
COA Nolse-3: Adherence to Noise Restrictions
Ordinance. The project shall adhere to all applicable
requirements of the Noise Restrictions Ordinance
during project construction and operation. A
Construction Related Noise Plan is required as part of
the Construction Staging Plan and must be reviewed
by the Building Division and the Department of
Transportation and approved prior to the issuance of
a grading permit. This plan should show the location
of any construction equipment and how the noise
from this equipment will be mitigated by such
methods as: temporary noise attenuation barriers;
preferential location of equipment; and use of
current technology and noise suppression
equipment.
MM NOISE-1: Construction Time Limits. Prior to
issuance of grading and/or building permits,
contractor specifications shall include a note
indicating that noise-generating construction
activities shall be limited to between the hours of
7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and
between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM
Saturday. On Sundays and Federal holidays, no noisegenerating construction activities shall be permitted.
COA NOISE-3: Adherence to Noise Restrictions
Ordinance. The project shall adhere to all applicable
requirements of the Noise Restrictions Ordinance
during project construction and operation. A
Construction Related Noise Plan is required as part of
the Construction Staging Plan and must be reviewed
by the Building Division and the Department of
Transportation and approved prior to the issuance of
a grading permit. This plan should show the location
of any construction equipment and how the noise
from this equipment will be mitigated by such
methods as: temporary noise attenuation barriers;
preferential location of equipment; and use of
current technology and noise suppression
equipment.
COA NOISE-4: HVAC Noise Levels. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall
provide data to the Director of Planning and
Community Development demonstrating that the
noise level from heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) units, swimming pool
equipment, and similar mechanical equipment when
measured inside any dwelling unit on the same
property or 20 feet from the outside of the dwelling
unit in which the noise source or sources may be
located would be less than 50 dBA.
COA NOISE-5: Exterior to Interior Noise Reduction.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall present data to the Director of
Planning and Community Development
demonstrating that the exterior-to-interior noise
reduction for residential units facing Fair Oaks
Less than
significant impact
Cfrfflth
The project would generate noise during
construction and during operation. However,
construction and operational noise would not
expose persons or generate noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
Construction of the proposed project has the
potential to generate vibration to the adjacent
structures and their occupants. Construction of
the proposed project would not require pile
driving or blasting, which are generally the
sources of the most severe vibration. In
addition, vibratory compactors would not be
CDMth Sml
Section 1 • Summary
Avenue would be at least 24 A-weighted decibels
(dBA).
COA NOISE-6: Noise Notification. Prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, the applicant shall present information to the
Director of Planning and Community Development
demonstrating that appropriate sale or lease transfer
documents for residential units include an advisory
that the residence is located in the Central District,
an area where there is a potential for noise from
commercial and nighttime activities. The following
language is provided as an example:
All potential buyers and/or renters of residential
property in the Green Hotel Apartments, which is
in Pasadena's Central District Specific Plan area,
are hereby notified that they may be subject to
audible noise levels attributed to business and
entertainment-related activities common to such
areas, including amplified sound, music, delivery
vehicles, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and
other urban noise
MM NOISE 2: Noise Restrictions within the Common
Outdoor Area. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the
Director of Planning and Community Development
demonstrating that the building's Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) or equivalent
regulations include a prohibition on the use of radios, televisions, "boom boxes", and similar devices in the
pool area and other outdoor common areas unless
the devices are used with headphones, ear buds, or
similar device and that signs with such restrictions
are posted at the pool area .
MM NOISE-3: Pool Hours of Operation. Prior to the
issuance of an occupancy permit, the Applicant shall
provide evidence to the Director of Planning and
Community Development demonstrating that the
building's CC&Rs or equivalent regulations include a
prohibition on the use of the pool area between
10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. and that signs with pool
hours are posted at the pool area.
COA NOISE-3: Adherence to Noise Restrictions Less than
Ordinance. The project shall adhere to all applicable significant impact requirements of the Noise Restrictions Ordinance
during project construction and operation . A
Construction Related Noise Plan is required as part of
the Construction Staging Plan and must be reviewed
by the Building Division and the Department of
Transportation and approved prior to the issuance of
a grading permit. This plan should show the location
of any construction equipment and how the noise
from this equipment will be mitigated by such
methods as: temporary noise attenuation barriers;
preferential location of equipment; and use of
current technology and noise suppression
equipment.
MM NOISE-4: Consult with Structural Engineer and Less than Project Historical Architect. Prior to approval of significant impact grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition,
grading and building permits, and to the satisfaction
of the City of Pasadena, the applicant shall retain a
Professional Structural Engineer with experience in
structural vibration analysis and monitoring for
1-11
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
Section 1 • Summary
used during project construction. However,
conventional heavy construction equipment
would be used for demolition of the existing
parking lot and adjacent sidewalks, for
excavation of the two levels of subterranean
parking, and for export of demolished and
excavated materials.
Because structural damage considerations
require limiting vibration levels to 0.12 ppv
in/sec or a similar level, the perception of
vibration by persons in the existing Green Hotel
Apartments would fall within the barely
perceptible to distinctly perceptible range.
Given the sensitivity of the surrounding uses,
the project has the potential to expose persons
and structures to excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.
1-12
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
historic buildings and a Project Historical Architect as a team to perform the following tasks:
• Review the project plans for demolition and
construction;
• Survey the project site and the existing
Green Hotel Apartment building and the 84
South Fair Oaks Avenue structure, including
geological testing, if required; and
• Prepare and submit a report to the Director of
Planning and Community Development to include,
but not be limited to, the following:
o Description of existing conditions at the
existing Green Hotel Apartment building
and the 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue
structure;
o Vibration level limits based on building
conditions, soil conditions, and planned
demolition and construction methods to
ensure vibration levels would be below
0.12 ppv in/sec, the potential for damage
to the existing Green Hotel Apartment
building and the 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue
structure;
o Specific measures to be taken during
construction to ensure the specified
vibration level limits are not exceeded; and
o A monitoring plan to be implemented
during demolition and construction that
includes post-construction and postdemolition surveys of the existing Green Hotel Apartment building and the 84 South
Fair Oaks Avenue structure.
o Examples of measures that may be
specified for implementation during
demolition or construction include, but are
not limited to
Prohibition of certain types of impact
equipment;
Requirement for lighter tracked or
wheeled equipment;
Specifying demolition by non-impact
methods, such as sawing concrete;
Phasing operations to avoid
simultaneous vibration sources; and
Installation of vibration measuring
devices to guide decision making for
subsequent activities.
MM NOISE-5: Post-Construction Survey and
Documentation. To the satisfaction of the City of
Pasadena, at the conclusion of vibration-causing
activities, in the unanticipated event of discovery of
vibration-caused damage, the Structural Engineer
and the Project Historical Architect shall document
any damage to the existing Green Hotel Apartment
building and the 84 South Fair Oaks Avenue structure
caused by construction of the project and shall
recommend necessary repairs. The project applicant
shall be responsible for any repairs associated with
vibration-caused damage as a result of construction
of the project. Any repairs shall be undertaken and
completed as required to conform to the Secretary of
CDMth Sml
..
Transportation and Circulation
The project is consistent with the policies in the
Mobility Element of the City's General Plan.
However, the project would introduce new
vehicle trips onto the Dayton Street segment
between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond
Avenue. The increased number of vehicle trips
would result in a significant traffic impact to
this street segment. As such, while no Mobility
Element inconsistencies would occur, the
increased traffic introduced along Dayton
Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Raymond
Avenue would constitute a significant impact.
The project would generate new vehicle trips,
although not to such an extent at designated
congestion management program street
segments and intersections such that impacts
would be significant. As such, the project would
not conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to, level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways.
The anticipated maximum queue length for the
westbound left-turn at Fair Oaks Ave/Dayton
Street would not exceed the available storage
length of the westbound traffic lane on Dayton
Street. Additionally, the project would
incorporate regulatory signage so that
westbound traffic along Dayton Street would
not block the project driveway. Therefore, the
project would not result in a safety hazard due
to the project's design.
The project would provide emergency access
along Fair Oaks Avenue and Dayton Street, and
as such, would not result in inadequate
emergency access.
The project would result in an increased
number of vehicle trips and would temporarily
affect Metro bus stops during construction.
However, the project would not conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities.
CDMth Sm1
Section 1 • Summary
the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations 68), and
shall apply the California Historical Building Code
(California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8) and
other applicable codes.
No feasible mitigation. Significant and
unavoidable
No mitigation is required. No impact
COA TRANS-1: Regulatory Signage. Regulatory Less than
signage shall be installed at the project driveway's significant impact intersection with Dayton Street to prevent motorists
from blocking the driveway. This signage shall
conform to Pasadena Police Department signage
standards for signage installed along driveways with
blocked driveways violations and any violations shall
be subject to citations by PD.
No mitigation is required Less than
significant impact
MM TRANS-1: Coordination with Metro. The Less than
construction contractor shall contact and notify significant impact Metro Bus Operations Control Special Events
Coordinator at 213-922-4632 a minimum of 10
working days prior to any construction activities that
may impact Metro bus lines. Additionally, the
construction contractor shall contact and include
other bus services, such as ARS and Foothill Transit,
in construction outreach efforts that may be affected
by construction activities. A quarterly compliance
report submitted by the construction contractor
would satisfy Metro's monitoring requirements.
MM TRANS-2: Maintain Pedestrian Access.
Construction activity shall not be allowed to block or
interfere with pedestrian access to the existing
transit stop located along Fair Oaks Avenue, near the
corner of Fair Oaks Avenue and Dayton Street.
1-13
Green Hotel Apartments Final EIR
ENCLOSURE 2
Mike Salazar, Architect of the Castle Green Architecture and Design Committee for the Castle Green Homeowners Association
PAGE 1 of 8
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena.
May 5, 2021
This letter is a supplemental letter from the Castle Green Homeowners Association on this 2021 SCEA Project Report’s inadequacies, failures and inappropriate application of a diminished SCEA review. Below are some “overarching” inadequacies indicating not only is SCEA inappropriate (See Carstens et. al. letter for the Association, May 6, 2021) for this project, but that SCEA is woefully inadequate to review this project. Several specifics are mentioned that prove the relevance of previously submitted letters & comments, and their relation to the SCEA Project.
An inappropriate application of SCEA under the guise of a Transportation-beneficial project ignores or dismisses glaring defects of the actual project and the overbearing historical impacts. With 88 total units, this project fails to provide an expected larger amount of real affordable income level housing, the most basic need and certainly more critical that one of many ‘transit’ projects.
Less than 10% of these units are in an affordable range. And by seeking a Vested Tract map approval (by a single zoning official, thereby avoiding a Planning Commission review), it is clear that the apartment project will readily be converted to condominiums. On it’s face there is certainly no objection to a conversion strategy, but for this Project it is just one more diversion from the overbearing, massive structure that will dominate this national Register parcel, historic buildings and block.
We know the old excuse for avoiding significant affordable housing levels is that “it just won’t pencil out.” But for long-time owner G&K, with its history of few improvements and spotty maintenance of this recreation/parking parcel (as well as their deteriorating historic building), this isn’t an excuse. Yet barely does SCEA mention (other than statistically) this low quantity of affordability. Will this translate when a condo conversion happens? Overarching Inadequacy 1: Relying on the uncertified and unapproved previous EIR.
The SCEA far-too-often (if not as a basis) erroneously relies on or mimics parts of the mostly inadequate and disputed analyses and conclusions of the previous EIR, and fails to meet CEQA standards for a complex and domineering 2021 Project (Project).
Overarching Inadequacy 2: The 2021 SCEA Project represents a significant increase in most all project metrics (traffic, units, footprint, heights, impacts, etc.), yet the SCEA can obfuscate or ignore the likely increases in impacts.
The myriad of mitigation or almost duplication of non-mitigation from its earlier version’s EIR raises fundamental questions of the SCEA’s applicability to this project, of the analyses that are conducted and the elimination or reduction of areas of impact, controversy and study.
Overarching Inadequacy 3: The 2021 SCEA fails to acknowledge and consider most cumulative impacts and project impacts required for study in the previous EIR, Section 3. Its lack of comprehensive inclusion is a deficiency of the SCEA Project. Six or more sections in the previous EIR cover standard and relevant cumulative effects. Yet relatively few areas of the SCEA discuss cumulative impacts let alone recognize possible impacts.
SCEA’s MISLEADING and INADEQATE DESCRIPTIONS
A continued inadequacy from the previous EIR, carried much farther (and less adequately handled) is the Project Description, the rather subjective and misleading minimization of the 100+year significant and recognized elevations of the historic Hotel Green buildings facing the Project site impacted significantly by this project, and the dismissive descriptions of the National Register project site & parcel as a parking lot, or a parking lot with a billboard.
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 2 of 8
It is not adequate and frankly contrary to CEQA standards to diminish that this site had and retains its original historic recreation purpose. An omission of this fact in the National Register listing is an academic oversight and doesn’t alter history or facts. The fact of the matter is this site started as extended park lands (with a singular house dwarfed by Colonel Green in the park), then soon added a sports court (roque or tennis it seems, as a mirror to an new Central Park roque court), and stayed a primary use of this use into the WWII-war years and still partially exists right now, with some remaining 1903-era walkways and trees (partly overlooked in this report as well). In fact, recreation is the longest-lasting continual use and condition of this parcel and of the two hotel parcels (also overlooked by this report). Despite adding parking in an expanding fashion since the 40s or 50s (unclear when parking originated), there also were enhanced recreation uses added with a large elliptical swimming pool and shuffleboard to enhance its recreation uses.
Today roughly 20-30% (despite aggressive and possibly unpermitted concrete paving) of this parcel is basically open space/recreation space/event space. Their parking lot, despite its overtake of the majority of space, is usually 30-40% full, and the overall impression from visually looking at this parcel is a very green space, with over 30 trees in place with the historic hotel building both quite visible and not ‘hidden’ as the report states.
Sadly, these inadequacy comments were similar to those made for the previous EIR, and another reason that all previous comments remain relevant through their resubmission during this SCEA review. For this reason, the entire historic and cultural resources sections are woefully inadequate, just like the previous uncertified EIR.
SPECIFIC SCEA INADEQUACIES
SCEA Sections 4.0, pgs 4.0-8 – 4.0-23. DEIR Sections 3.1 - INADEQUATE VIEW LOCATIONS The SCEA erroneously relies on or mimics the mostly inadequate and disputed view locations and analyses of the previous EIR, not meeting CEQA requirements. Perhaps no other letter comment from the previous EIR documents sums up the inadequate SCEA VIEW analysis and review better than Pasadena Heritage’s March 11, 2014 letter describing the faults with the 2014 “Vantage Points.” This is why the Castle Green Homeowners Association is resubmitting all previous EIR Comment Letters (and other related modes of comments). The Association states these quoted comments clearly apply to the 2021 SCEA Project:
View A replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 4.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “From Vantage Point 4, the proposed project would greatly alter the existing visually prominent landscaping and would be a significant impact.”
View B replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 3.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “…clearly shows how the project would block views of the Castle Green and its tree canopy from the west; this would be a significant impact.
View C replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 1.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “From Vantage Points 1 and 2, removal of the historic trees would cause substantial damage to scenic resources and would be an additional significant impacts.” It should also be noted that because the Project fails to match the 1903 Concept’s significant setback from Dayton Street (similar to the Castle Green’s 30+ feet setback above the main floor), this view all but blocks 138-year views of the historic DOTY Building, not only from the existing historic buildings on the block, but for all on Dayton street, until they reach the Fair Oaks intersection – also a significant impact unrecognized.
View D (Previous EIR Vantage Point 5). This view has little differential from VIEW E, and appears to be a set up in an opening clearance to show parts of the historic Green Hotel Apartments View E (Previous EIR Vantage Point 6). As noted in VIEW D, this is merely a space waster.
View F replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 7.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “ Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 3 of 8
View G replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 2.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “From Vantage Points 1 and 2, removal of the historic trees would cause substantial damage to scenic resources and would be an additional significant impacts.”
View H replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 8.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “ Views not analyzed nor acknowledged in SCEA nor the previous EIR are the historic views to the Vista Del Arroyo former hotel and San Rafael Hills, as well as the Linda Vista Hills. And the SCEA apparently makes not statement of the cumulative loss of views.
And worth noting is that since the SCEA denigrates as not significant the elevations of the historic hotel buildings facing the Project, it diminishes or negates view impacts as noted:
A. The Green Hotel Apartments are already obscured by the trees located on or near the project site as well as within Central Park. In fact, since 2018, the largest tree canopy that existed died, and since 2018 there is a great broad view of the Green Hotel Apartments (and vice versa from the apartments to Central Park), a fact omitted from the SCEA..
B. SCEA admits, “… views of the Green Hotel Apartments and the Castle Green from Central park would be altered. However their primary elevations on East Green Street and South Raymond Avenue would remain unaltered. Here is evidence that the SCEA wrongly dismisses the established elevations historic Hotel Green buildings facing the Project as secondary with no impacts. The Association calls this a significant impact on cultural resources, as these are not secondary elevation. In fact, Design Commissioners asked that all visible facades of the former Hotel Green buildings on this block be designated as primary facades (See FEIR, Section 3.3.3, March 11, 2014 public hearing).
C. SCEA states that CEQA, “…emphasizes evaluation of visual resources that are visible from public places… the project might affect private views,..” But then goes on to say private views, “…are not generally regarded as a significant environmental impact under CEQA. The private views of this National Register property are in fact significantly impacted, and this building’s significance should make this evident. SCEA downplays most Aesthetic impacts, and is not appropriate for this project and site. And appropriate CEQA analysis can and must recognize these impacts.
D. The final erroneous assumption in SCEA is, “…the project would not in any way obstruct the views of any of the historic buildings or other scenic resources in the vicinity. False. From the 1887 Doty Building, it’s 1898 views of the Castle Green and most of the Green Hotel Apartments are virtually eliminated. From this historic former parking structure on South Raymond Avenue and the former site of the 1894 Hotel Green’s outdoor courtyard of west Old Pasadena (and the Doty specifically) is blocked because of no Dayton Street setback that Colonel Green envisioned for the 1903 concept. The Castle Green’s aforementioned views of the former Vista del Arroyo hotel and San Rafael hills may also be blocked due to the excessive heights of the SCEA Project, about 16 feet higher than the previous EIR project! The inappropriateness of the SCEA is summed up on page 4.0-6, stating that because of SB743, being in a TPA, NO AESTHETIC IMPACTS can be considered! This is unacceptable for this significant National Register landmark.
So the SCEA concludes there are NO view impacts.
SCEA Section 4.0, Previous EIR Section 3.1 - SUBTANTIAL SHADE SOURCE INTRODUCED The SCEA Project also impacts the existing historic block by introducing a substantial shade source. The height and scale of the previous EIR project was 75 feet, and was noted that the height and scale of the proposed project would result in new shadows and virtually perpetual shade on the lower floors that would impact the Green Hotel Apartments and Castle Green’s historic west (rear) landscaped yard. These previous comments/statements clearly apply.
SCEA MITIGATION MEASURES INSUFFICIENT
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 4 of 8
PMM CULT-1, Page A-17. The Association strongly disagrees that no mitigation measures are needed, as we believe this project creates significant adverse impacts on the historic block and the existing Hotel Green structures.
The contextual setting of these historic buildings is being radically disturbed by this stand-alone domineering 7 story Project, rationalized by cherry picking the historic record and creating a false narrative of the recreation of the early 1903 concepts for a Fair Oaks Avenue wing of the Hotel Green. At best this project is fighting the stately calm of the 120 or so years old historic structures to be the highlight or feature of this historic block, instead of being subservient and complimentary to these most-historic buildings and site. At worst it’s a railroading of an angry owner that couldn’t care less about history by insisting on a domineering structure that all but hides the historic buildings at the gateway of the Old Pasadena Historic District.
This mitigation calls for preserving the contextual settings, yet the site goes from green open space with parking to a largely built out solo building, pushing to crowd out views of the historic setting and structures and forever altering and overpowering these most historic structures. This shameful SCEA process seems to not recognize obvious impacts and seems to imply that delisting should be the only criteria for declaring a significant impact on these majestic structures, and ignores the fact that this project surely does impair them.
No alternative projects are considered in this ill-advised SCEA process, despite the outcry during the previous EIR process for reduced-impact alternatives. Having this SCEA process initially forego our Design Commission’s lead role called for in our General Plan and Central District Plan is a travesty at best. Instead SCEA make a political football and a mockery of the necessary environmental review for such a complex and important parcel already on the National Register, sending it to the City Council for “approvals” that circumvent our community standards and guiding documents.
PMM GEO-2, Page A-21. It seems the rational that since the site is not known to contain paleontological resources (seemingly mostly because it remains undisturbed) that the site is not expected to yield a unique paleontological resource is just about as lazy as it gets. Why not apply this mitigation measure, since this remains undisturbed land?
PMM HAZ-5, Page A-29. While perhaps beyond or outside the scope of this mitigation measure, it seems that a significantly impacted Dayton Street (with unsignalized intersection not studied in the SCEA at each end) could impede emergency access routes. Since the fire department may not have been given the full range of traffic impacts and vehicle trips added in the vicinity of the S. Fair Oaks fire station, this seems to be an inadequate study.
PMM LU-1, Page A-32. This raises a serious land use issue, with the SCEA Project avoiding any study of and therefore mitigation of the Dayton Street/Fair Oaks Ave. intersection, despite the impact of more than half of the daily 866 new vehicle trips. This LU-1 deals with dividing communities, and making this intersection less safe, with no pedestrian or bicycle improvements, it is effectively separating and isolating the in-town former East Ambassador College village created west of Fair Oaks Avenue, effectively creating a divide. While this intersection is not safe right now, ignoring this intersection and waiting to mitigate once the project’s 866 daily trips are mostly added is inadequate.
And this LU-2 says to orient transportation projects (this is what SCEA says this is) to minimize impacts on existing communities by incorporating direct crossings at regular intervals for pedestrian, bicyclists and vehicles. This Project does neither, and identifies no mitigation requirement, making the lack of mitigation inadequate.
Effectively ignoring the impacts of an 83% increase in daily trips on Dayton Street Roadway Segment, and ignoring any responsibility to study, let alone mitigate known issues and barriers to easy access across Fair Oaks, the Project is creating or at minimum making an unsafe barrier even more difficult to cross. And if it is “infeasible” to avoid this reinforcing the barrier that Fair oaks Avenue already is, the provisions are to be part of required mitigation to improve bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle access across improved roadways. This additional lack of mitigation is also inadequate.
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 5 of 8
PMM LU-2, Page A-32. The example above in LU-1 of further isolating the former East Ambassador College village could apply to the inadequacy of this lack of mitigation. Does a physical barrier have to readily visible? A street may not be a physical (as in touchable) barrier, but if it’s difficult at best to cross, then it certainly is a barrier of sorts in the spirit of CEQA (this would go for LU-1 above as well).
Certainly this conflicts with the General Plan, Central District Plan and the Old Pasadena Specific Plan. It is also curious as to why the city would place the only Land Use and Planning mitigation measures LU-1 & 2 under the Connect SoCal measures and not use our General Plan or Central District Plan as the basis for mitigation. This is an example of the SCEA review being inappropriate for this project.
If this intersection and related roadways were properly studied, the ‘barrier’ of sorts created by almost doubling Dayton Street daily trips with no mitigation, and no mitigation because of no studying the Dayton/Fair Oaks intersection, effectively letting this intersection’s deficiencies get worse and less safe, mitigation measures can and should be required to reduce what could be a substantial adverse effect of the project, the project should be modified’ to eliminate this conflict. But is avoiding any study an acceptable reason to let these conditions worsen, and/or just another example of the inadequate SCEA study? PMM NOISE-1, Page 33. There is no study or anticipation of noise from the single driveway between the two historic Hotel Green structures and the oversized Project, creating a 3-sided canyon that could reflect all driveway noise from an additional 866 daily trips. No study, therefore this mitigation is inadequate.
PMM NOISE-2, Page A-36. This Noise & Vibration mitigation measure should also include measures for the Castle Green, without the, it is inadequate. And there seems to be no difference from the previous EIR 3-level depth parking than the SCEA 4-level depth parking (a significant increase and risk)..
PMM PSP-1, Page A-37. This is related to SCEA Section 4.15 Public Services. The impacts here state that no alteration of public facilities will be needed, but since the signalized fire station stop on Fair Oaks Avenue is at the unsignalized and unstudied offset-Dayton Street/Fair Oaks Avenue (DS/FOA) intersection, this should be considered as a possible alteration. By not studying this complex unsignalized intersection, this SCEA has no standing to know if the intersection or this fire signal may be impacted, thus an inadequate determination of impact level (4.15) and mitigation should be included as part of the Project. At very least, a traffic control plan should be part of SCEA and the Project.
PMM TRA-1, Page A-38. Despite SB743, the SCEA application fails because there are significant impacts to Cultural Resources, and SCEA application cannot be used if it conflicts with Historic Resources. The Association disagrees with the Cultural Heritage analysis and conclusions of no significant impacts to the historic block and structures.
Mitigation Measure PMM-TRA-1 is incorrect. The City knows that by the “Outside of CEQA” transportation section, albeit even less than the smaller previous EIR project, that the number of daily trips on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment (DSRS) will significantly impact that Segment. The SCEA also failed to look at the minimum segment/intersections that the previous EIR did, despite knowing that the DSRS impacts far exceed their reasonable standards of increases.
And once again, as with the previous EIR of a smaller project, the SCEA failed to look at the two unsignalized intersections bookending the impacted DSRS. Thus the SCEA declares that no intersections are impacted. This is false and dangerous. The unsignalized Dayton Street/Raymond Ave. (DS/RA) & the Dayton Street /Fair Oaks Ave. (DS/FOA) intersections are likely in need of a project-driven & integrally-designed upgrade/mitigation, not left to fail and then altered at the City’s expense. But when it comes to the DS/FOA intersection, it is already a dangerous, unsignalized intersection with a critical offset that the previous EIR may not have truly considered (See 2015 RDEIR Fig3.6-14). There is no correction in the FEIR, and if SCEA used or relied on this previous EIR, there is no mention of this difficult offset unsignalized intersection needing any level of improvement. This clearly demonstrates an inadequacy of the SCEA.
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 6 of 8
The Association objects to this MM’s conclusion that, “Transportation impacts were concluded to be less than significant.” We know the DSRS will be overloaded based on the “Outside CEQA” section. We also know the SCEA cannot adequately conclude without documentation that the two unstudied intersections aren’t impacted. In fact, we raise the concern and legal ruling in the IDS Project where not only was the density & envelope of an oversized building forced to be reduced, but the mere exclusion of an intended crosswalk mitigation from the project resulted in forcing the crosswalk to be integrally designed with the project.
To use the City’s own words, the increase in traffic volume on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment (this is for the previous EIR’s smaller 64 unit project) ”… would be a significant environmental effect.” Thus, the City knows that the SCEA’s 84-unit project will be an even worse “significant” environmental impact. The Association finds this hard to comprehend, and beyond inadequate for any project.
PMM TRA-2, Page A-39 finds no issues with emergency access. As mentioned in the previous EIR comments, the cursory Fire Department review was inadequate, as it is for the SCEA, to realistically assess the impact of what the SCEA daily trip increase of 83% on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment will mean. As DSRS stands today, it is too narrow at 30 feet in width to accommodate the necessary street parking/loading spaces and two-way traffic.
How will the DSRS doubling of daily trips be irrelevant, and still function as a fire department alternate route to the east portions of Pasadena?
This is the ONLY fire department access to the Castle Green by either our Dayton Street rear driveway, or the 20 foot wide emergency gates also on this DSRS? In all the City/SCEA/EIR documents to the fire department, not once is mentioned any of these facts, and certainly not the 83% increase in daily trip traffic. Irregardless of the ability to not consider roadway segment impacts, the City knows the DSRS will be significantly impacted, yet doesn’t even require this project to make even the most minor traffic changes until after the problems arise, after construction, especially when ignoring a basic crosswalk cost the city (and IDS project developers) a lot of time and money in the IDS courtroom battle.
How will the signalized fire station lights on southbound Fair Oaks Avenue at the south edge of the DS/FOA not be impacted? With no crosswalks and significantly more daily trips this intersections gets knowingly more unsafe.
And with no bicycle and pedestrian required enhancements, this intersection just gets more unsafe, all with City knowledge.
MM 4.1 Cultural Resources, Page A-49. We disagree as inadequate the conclusion that no significant impacts on the historic block, buildings and site, or that those identified are less than significant. The conclusion in the SCEA that there are no impacts to Cultural Resources is flawed, and such impacts are not dismissed by SB743’s overreaching elimination of Aesthetic impacts.
MM 9.1 Noise (and Vibration), Page A-50. The Association finds this MM as inadequate and in fact the entire 9- page 4.13 Noise section, less than 50% of the previous EIR’s 20+ pages, for a SCEA project much larger (and deeper), we find the analysis and the mitigation efforts NOI-1 and NOI-2 inadequate and dangerous to the historic Hotel Green structures and 84 S. Fair Oaks as well.
A lone Vibration Receptor #2 is mentioned in regard s to the Castle Green. This is stated to be just forty feet from the project, and therefore about the same distance away from the Castle Green. Given the known seismic tendencies of the Castle Green (and the repaired damage from the Whittier series of quakes, this seems inadequate. In fact, both measures fail to mention and require any mitigation measure for the Castle Green.
Similar concerns must be voiced for MM 9.3 & 9.4, as they both rely on NOI-1 & NOI-2 that include no mitigation measures for the Castle Green. It is unclear if MM 9.5 applies to the Castle Green, so this is an inadequate mitigation measure as well.
MM 13.1, Page A-51. This transportation mitigation measure depends on a City update in 2020 of a “Nexus Study” for development impact fees. This update is critical to be completed, given that the SCEA fails to require minimum traffic measures on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment known to be significantly impacted, nor for the two Dayton Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 7 of 8
Street bookend intersections that aren’t even studied, yet remain primitively unsignalized, and unsafe.
Unfortunately, this mitigation claims to be not applicable at the project level, which makes this measure inadequate.
It is possible that this project could come in before the completion of the Nexus Study, and avoid what the Association sees as necessary impact payments due to the high likelihood that Dayton Street (and the bookend intersections) will require future mitigation of the known significant traffic increase/impact.
MM Aesthetics, Page A-51 contains standard project mitigation measures to avoid potential new levels of light and glare effects. This includes such mitigation requirements as examining potential light and glare, requiring features to avoid adverse light and glare, limiting reflective and glare-producing materials, requiring nighttime lighting focused down and away from adjacent properties. However, due to SB743, this mitigation measure is deemed “not relevant” to the Project. “The project’s aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant impacts. But does this mean that the analysis is to be omitted, as we don’t see these items yet studied or required to be. It is only negating the significant impact, not negating the public’s right to know if Aesthetics issues will arise. This leads to an inadequate SCEA.
MM Noise considers that this project will not have a significant noise impacts, yet all 866 daily trips generated from this project will come and go from the singular Dayton Street driveway, within a three-sided enclosed 75-90 foot tall building canyon. How can the noise from the singular driveway not affect the existing historic building occupants? This is a serious reason to look at alternatives – that are NOT required or presented in the SCEA review. The city knows that while the Green Hotel Apartments (contrary to their required adherence to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for windows/window replacement) may have some level of modern soundproofing, the Castle Green entirely retains historic wood windows with mostly historic single-pane glass.
So despite the Castle Green being more susceptible to project driveway noise of 866 new daily trips, the SCEA anticipates no significant or even non-significant noise impacts, yet we cannot find the analysis of the 3-sided uniform height canyon this oversized project creates. And the mitigation measure states that it is “not anticipated to have a significant noise impact. Yet there is no CEQA definition or standard of how to “not anticipate” an impact without studying the possible impact, which wasn’t done, thus making the noise analysis inadequate and the elimination of any mitigation inadequate.
PREVIOUS “COMMENTS” APPLICABILITY
It must also be noted that all previous comments/letters be resubmitted as relevant because the 2021 SCEA Project is a clearly larger and more impactful version than the smaller previous EIR project that failed to receive certification and approvals. This is not a new project, but an enlarged and more complex and impactful version of the previous EIR. In fact, the staff and commissioner comments back in the EIR reviews stated it be best that the project return with modifications. This is clearly that project with modifications, and certainly not covering most suggestions. The SCEA application is inappropriate because this really is merely an upsized version of the previous EIR project and fails to respond to larger impacts.
These “Comments” consist of all correspondence letters and comments received in 2013-2019. All EIS, DEIR, RDEIR and FEIR public comment submitted and given by the public as well by the respective governmental body - either the City Council or Design Commissioners - and their respective staff from minutes and audio recordings and when documented in the above noted EIR documents (such as FEIR Sec. 3.3, and other relevant document sections).
In the SCEA the Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Noise and Vibration, Transportation, Alternatives, Areas of Controversy (from previous EIR, omitted/diminished in SCEA), Other CEQA Considerations (from previous EIR, omitted/diminished in SCEA), and possibly other areas, all continue to be impacted in recognized, similar ways, and likely often more significantly.
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 8 of 8
“Comments” in the form of Letters and Sections within previous EIR documents that document public meetings:
See DEIR, Appendix A, Letters from 2013 & EIS (in order published); Two Letter dated April 23, 2013; Letter dated April 24, 2013; Letter dated April11, 2013; 2nd Letter dated April 24, 2013; Letter/Petition dated April 23, 2013; Letter dated October 17, 2008; Letter dated October 11, 2010; Letter dated October 25, 2010; Letter dated September 23, 2011; Letter dated October 21, 2010; Letter dated October 25, 2010; Metro Letter dated April 16, 2013; NAHC Letter dated march 27, 2013.
See FEIR Section 3.3.2, Letter No. 1, March 11, 2014; Letter No. 2, March 11, 2014; Letter No. 3, March 9, 2014; Letter No. 4, March 10, 2014; Letter No. 5, March 11, 2014; Letter No. 6, March 11, 2014; Letter 7, Jan 26, 2015; Letter 8, March 2, 2015. FEIR Sec. 3.3.3, 3.3.5 has public and commissioner comments.
Unfortunately any City Council reviews and comments do not appear to be made available, which is a deficiency of the EIR and ultimately this SCEA process and a disservice and disadvantage to the public.
Other included Comments from EIR documents may be included.
Not available: minutes and audio recordings from all 2013-2019 hearings, some documentation is provided in various EIR docs. Unfortunately any City Council reviews and comments do not appear to be included in the pervious EIR documents or made available, which is a deficiency of the EIR and ultimately this SCEA process and a disservice and disadvantage to the public.
In the coming month(s), the Castle Green Homeowners Association will provide additional documentation and illustrations to reinforce the above and more reasons that the SCEA process is flawed, and that a Revised EIR process must continue.
Respectfully,
/S/
Mike Salazar
For the Castle Green Homeowners Association
Mike Salazar, Architect of the Castle Green Architecture and Design Committee for the Castle Green Homeowners Association
PAGE 1 of 8
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena.
May 5, 2021
This letter is a supplemental letter from the Castle Green Homeowners Association on this 2021 SCEA Project Report’s inadequacies, failures and inappropriate application of a diminished SCEA review. Below are some “overarching” inadequacies indicating not only is SCEA inappropriate (See Carstens et. al. letter for the Association, May 6, 2021) for this project, but that SCEA is woefully inadequate to review this project. Several specifics are mentioned that prove the relevance of previously submitted letters & comments, and their relation to the SCEA Project.
An inappropriate application of SCEA under the guise of a Transportation-beneficial project ignores or dismisses glaring defects of the actual project and the overbearing historical impacts. With 88 total units, this project fails to provide an expected larger amount of real affordable income level housing, the most basic need and certainly more critical that one of many ‘transit’ projects.
Less than 10% of these units are in an affordable range. And by seeking a Vested Tract map approval (by a single zoning official, thereby avoiding a Planning Commission review), it is clear that the apartment project will readily be converted to condominiums. On it’s face there is certainly no objection to a conversion strategy, but for this Project it is just one more diversion from the overbearing, massive structure that will dominate this national Register parcel, historic buildings and block.
We know the old excuse for avoiding significant affordable housing levels is that “it just won’t pencil out.” But for long-time owner G&K, with its history of few improvements and spotty maintenance of this recreation/parking parcel (as well as their deteriorating historic building), this isn’t an excuse. Yet barely does SCEA mention (other than statistically) this low quantity of affordability. Will this translate when a condo conversion happens? Overarching Inadequacy 1: Relying on the uncertified and unapproved previous EIR.
The SCEA far-too-often (if not as a basis) erroneously relies on or mimics parts of the mostly inadequate and disputed analyses and conclusions of the previous EIR, and fails to meet CEQA standards for a complex and domineering 2021 Project (Project).
Overarching Inadequacy 2: The 2021 SCEA Project represents a significant increase in most all project metrics (traffic, units, footprint, heights, impacts, etc.), yet the SCEA can obfuscate or ignore the likely increases in impacts.
The myriad of mitigation or almost duplication of non-mitigation from its earlier version’s EIR raises fundamental questions of the SCEA’s applicability to this project, of the analyses that are conducted and the elimination or reduction of areas of impact, controversy and study.
Overarching Inadequacy 3: The 2021 SCEA fails to acknowledge and consider most cumulative impacts and project impacts required for study in the previous EIR, Section 3. Its lack of comprehensive inclusion is a deficiency of the SCEA Project. Six or more sections in the previous EIR cover standard and relevant cumulative effects. Yet relatively few areas of the SCEA discuss cumulative impacts let alone recognize possible impacts.
SCEA’s MISLEADING and INADEQATE DESCRIPTIONS
A continued inadequacy from the previous EIR, carried much farther (and less adequately handled) is the Project Description, the rather subjective and misleading minimization of the 100+year significant and recognized elevations of the historic Hotel Green buildings facing the Project site impacted significantly by this project, and the dismissive descriptions of the National Register project site & parcel as a parking lot, or a parking lot with a billboard. 1 2
Letter O-3a
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 2 of 8
It is not adequate and frankly contrary to CEQA standards to diminish that this site had and retains its original historic recreation purpose. An omission of this fact in the National Register listing is an academic oversight and doesn’t alter history or facts. The fact of the matter is this site started as extended park lands (with a singular house dwarfed by Colonel Green in the park), then soon added a sports court (roque or tennis it seems, as a mirror to an new Central Park roque court), and stayed a primary use of this use into the WWII-war years and still partially exists right now, with some remaining 1903-era walkways and trees (partly overlooked in this report as well). In fact, recreation is the longest-lasting continual use and condition of this parcel and of the two hotel parcels (also overlooked by this report). Despite adding parking in an expanding fashion since the 40s or 50s (unclear when parking originated), there also were enhanced recreation uses added with a large elliptical swimming pool and shuffleboard to enhance its recreation uses.
Today roughly 20-30% (despite aggressive and possibly unpermitted concrete paving) of this parcel is basically open space/recreation space/event space. Their parking lot, despite its overtake of the majority of space, is usually 30-40% full, and the overall impression from visually looking at this parcel is a very green space, with over 30 trees in place with the historic hotel building both quite visible and not ‘hidden’ as the report states.
Sadly, these inadequacy comments were similar to those made for the previous EIR, and another reason that all previous comments remain relevant through their resubmission during this SCEA review. For this reason, the entire historic and cultural resources sections are woefully inadequate, just like the previous uncertified EIR.
SPECIFIC SCEA INADEQUACIES
SCEA Sections 4.0, pgs 4.0-8 – 4.0-23. DEIR Sections 3.1 - INADEQUATE VIEW LOCATIONS The SCEA erroneously relies on or mimics the mostly inadequate and disputed view locations and analyses of the previous EIR, not meeting CEQA requirements. Perhaps no other letter comment from the previous EIR documents sums up the inadequate SCEA VIEW analysis and review better than Pasadena Heritage’s March 11, 2014 letter describing the faults with the 2014 “Vantage Points.” This is why the Castle Green Homeowners Association is resubmitting all previous EIR Comment Letters (and other related modes of comments). The Association states these quoted comments clearly apply to the 2021 SCEA Project:
View A replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 4.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “From Vantage Point 4, the proposed project would greatly alter the existing visually prominent landscaping and would be a significant impact.”
View B replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 3.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “…clearly shows how the project would block views of the Castle Green and its tree canopy from the west; this would be a significant impact.
View C replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 1.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “From Vantage Points 1 and 2, removal of the historic trees would cause substantial damage to scenic resources and would be an additional significant impacts.” It should also be noted that because the Project fails to match the 1903 Concept’s significant setback from Dayton Street (similar to the Castle Green’s 30+ feet setback above the main floor), this view all but blocks 138-year views of the historic DOTY Building, not only from the existing historic buildings on the block, but for all on Dayton street, until they reach the Fair Oaks intersection – also a significant impact unrecognized.
View D (Previous EIR Vantage Point 5). This view has little differential from VIEW E, and appears to be a set up in an opening clearance to show parts of the historic Green Hotel Apartments View E (Previous EIR Vantage Point 6). As noted in VIEW D, this is merely a space waster.
View F replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 7.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “ 2 3
Letter O-3a
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 3 of 8
View G replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 2.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “From Vantage Points 1 and 2, removal of the historic trees would cause substantial damage to scenic resources and would be an additional significant impacts.”
View H replicates the Previous EIR’s challenged “Vantage Point 8.” Pasadena Heritage noted, “ Views not analyzed nor acknowledged in SCEA nor the previous EIR are the historic views to the Vista Del Arroyo former hotel and San Rafael Hills, as well as the Linda Vista Hills. And the SCEA apparently makes not statement of the cumulative loss of views.
And worth noting is that since the SCEA denigrates as not significant the elevations of the historic hotel buildings facing the Project, it diminishes or negates view impacts as noted:
A. The Green Hotel Apartments are already obscured by the trees located on or near the project site as well as within Central Park. In fact, since 2018, the largest tree canopy that existed died, and since 2018 there is a great broad view of the Green Hotel Apartments (and vice versa from the apartments to Central Park), a fact omitted from the SCEA..
B. SCEA admits, “… views of the Green Hotel Apartments and the Castle Green from Central park would be altered. However their primary elevations on East Green Street and South Raymond Avenue would remain unaltered. Here is evidence that the SCEA wrongly dismisses the established elevations historic Hotel Green buildings facing the Project as secondary with no impacts. The Association calls this a significant impact on cultural resources, as these are not secondary elevation. In fact, Design Commissioners asked that all visible facades of the former Hotel Green buildings on this block be designated as primary facades (See FEIR, Section 3.3.3, March 11, 2014 public hearing).
C. SCEA states that CEQA, “…emphasizes evaluation of visual resources that are visible from public places… the project might affect private views,..” But then goes on to say private views, “…are not generally regarded as a significant environmental impact under CEQA. The private views of this National Register property are in fact significantly impacted, and this building’s significance should make this evident. SCEA downplays most Aesthetic impacts, and is not appropriate for this project and site. And appropriate CEQA analysis can and must recognize these impacts.
D. The final erroneous assumption in SCEA is, “…the project would not in any way obstruct the views of any of the historic buildings or other scenic resources in the vicinity. False. From the 1887 Doty Building, it’s 1898 views of the Castle Green and most of the Green Hotel Apartments are virtually eliminated. From this historic former parking structure on South Raymond Avenue and the former site of the 1894 Hotel Green’s outdoor courtyard of west Old Pasadena (and the Doty specifically) is blocked because of no Dayton Street setback that Colonel Green envisioned for the 1903 concept. The Castle Green’s aforementioned views of the former Vista del Arroyo hotel and San Rafael hills may also be blocked due to the excessive heights of the SCEA Project, about 16 feet higher than the previous EIR project! The inappropriateness of the SCEA is summed up on page 4.0-6, stating that because of SB743, being in a TPA, NO AESTHETIC IMPACTS can be considered! This is unacceptable for this significant National Register landmark.
So the SCEA concludes there are NO view impacts.
SCEA Section 4.0, Previous EIR Section 3.1 - SUBTANTIAL SHADE SOURCE INTRODUCED The SCEA Project also impacts the existing historic block by introducing a substantial shade source. The height and scale of the previous EIR project was 75 feet, and was noted that the height and scale of the proposed project would result in new shadows and virtually perpetual shade on the lower floors that would impact the Green Hotel Apartments and Castle Green’s historic west (rear) landscaped yard. These previous comments/statements clearly apply.
SCEA MITIGATION MEASURES INSUFFICIENT
3 Letter O-3a
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 4 of 8
PMM CULT-1, Page A-17. The Association strongly disagrees that no mitigation measures are needed, as we believe this project creates significant adverse impacts on the historic block and the existing Hotel Green structures.
The contextual setting of these historic buildings is being radically disturbed by this stand-alone domineering 7 story Project, rationalized by cherry picking the historic record and creating a false narrative of the recreation of the early 1903 concepts for a Fair Oaks Avenue wing of the Hotel Green. At best this project is fighting the stately calm of the 120 or so years old historic structures to be the highlight or feature of this historic block, instead of being subservient and complimentary to these most-historic buildings and site. At worst it’s a railroading of an angry owner that couldn’t care less about history by insisting on a domineering structure that all but hides the historic buildings at the gateway of the Old Pasadena Historic District.
This mitigation calls for preserving the contextual settings, yet the site goes from green open space with parking to a largely built out solo building, pushing to crowd out views of the historic setting and structures and forever altering and overpowering these most historic structures. This shameful SCEA process seems to not recognize obvious impacts and seems to imply that delisting should be the only criteria for declaring a significant impact on these majestic structures, and ignores the fact that this project surely does impair them.
No alternative projects are considered in this ill-advised SCEA process, despite the outcry during the previous EIR process for reduced-impact alternatives. Having this SCEA process initially forego our Design Commission’s lead role called for in our General Plan and Central District Plan is a travesty at best. Instead SCEA make a political football and a mockery of the necessary environmental review for such a complex and important parcel already on the National Register, sending it to the City Council for “approvals” that circumvent our community standards and guiding documents.
PMM GEO-2, Page A-21. It seems the rational that since the site is not known to contain paleontological resources (seemingly mostly because it remains undisturbed) that the site is not expected to yield a unique paleontological resource is just about as lazy as it gets. Why not apply this mitigation measure, since this remains undisturbed land?
PMM HAZ-5, Page A-29. While perhaps beyond or outside the scope of this mitigation measure, it seems that a significantly impacted Dayton Street (with unsignalized intersection not studied in the SCEA at each end) could impede emergency access routes. Since the fire department may not have been given the full range of traffic impacts and vehicle trips added in the vicinity of the S. Fair Oaks fire station, this seems to be an inadequate study.
PMM LU-1, Page A-32. This raises a serious land use issue, with the SCEA Project avoiding any study of and therefore mitigation of the Dayton Street/Fair Oaks Ave. intersection, despite the impact of more than half of the daily 866 new vehicle trips. This LU-1 deals with dividing communities, and making this intersection less safe, with no pedestrian or bicycle improvements, it is effectively separating and isolating the in-town former East Ambassador College village created west of Fair Oaks Avenue, effectively creating a divide. While this intersection is not safe right now, ignoring this intersection and waiting to mitigate once the project’s 866 daily trips are mostly added is inadequate.
And this LU-2 says to orient transportation projects (this is what SCEA says this is) to minimize impacts on existing communities by incorporating direct crossings at regular intervals for pedestrian, bicyclists and vehicles. This Project does neither, and identifies no mitigation requirement, making the lack of mitigation inadequate.
Effectively ignoring the impacts of an 83% increase in daily trips on Dayton Street Roadway Segment, and ignoring any responsibility to study, let alone mitigate known issues and barriers to easy access across Fair Oaks, the Project is creating or at minimum making an unsafe barrier even more difficult to cross. And if it is “infeasible” to avoid this reinforcing the barrier that Fair oaks Avenue already is, the provisions are to be part of required mitigation to improve bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle access across improved roadways. This additional lack of mitigation is also inadequate.
5 4
6 7
Letter O-3a
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 5 of 8
PMM LU-2, Page A-32. The example above in LU-1 of further isolating the former East Ambassador College village could apply to the inadequacy of this lack of mitigation. Does a physical barrier have to readily visible? A street may not be a physical (as in touchable) barrier, but if it’s difficult at best to cross, then it certainly is a barrier of sorts in the spirit of CEQA (this would go for LU-1 above as well).
Certainly this conflicts with the General Plan, Central District Plan and the Old Pasadena Specific Plan. It is also curious as to why the city would place the only Land Use and Planning mitigation measures LU-1 & 2 under the Connect SoCal measures and not use our General Plan or Central District Plan as the basis for mitigation. This is an example of the SCEA review being inappropriate for this project.
If this intersection and related roadways were properly studied, the ‘barrier’ of sorts created by almost doubling Dayton Street daily trips with no mitigation, and no mitigation because of no studying the Dayton/Fair Oaks intersection, effectively letting this intersection’s deficiencies get worse and less safe, mitigation measures can and should be required to reduce what could be a substantial adverse effect of the project, the project should be modified’ to eliminate this conflict. But is avoiding any study an acceptable reason to let these conditions worsen, and/or just another example of the inadequate SCEA study? PMM NOISE-1, Page 33. There is no study or anticipation of noise from the single driveway between the two historic Hotel Green structures and the oversized Project, creating a 3-sided canyon that could reflect all driveway noise from an additional 866 daily trips. No study, therefore this mitigation is inadequate.
PMM NOISE-2, Page A-36. This Noise & Vibration mitigation measure should also include measures for the Castle Green, without the, it is inadequate. And there seems to be no difference from the previous EIR 3-level depth parking than the SCEA 4-level depth parking (a significant increase and risk)..
PMM PSP-1, Page A-37. This is related to SCEA Section 4.15 Public Services. The impacts here state that no alteration of public facilities will be needed, but since the signalized fire station stop on Fair Oaks Avenue is at the unsignalized and unstudied offset-Dayton Street/Fair Oaks Avenue (DS/FOA) intersection, this should be considered as a possible alteration. By not studying this complex unsignalized intersection, this SCEA has no standing to know if the intersection or this fire signal may be impacted, thus an inadequate determination of impact level (4.15) and mitigation should be included as part of the Project. At very least, a traffic control plan should be part of SCEA and the Project.
PMM TRA-1, Page A-38. Despite SB743, the SCEA application fails because there are significant impacts to Cultural Resources, and SCEA application cannot be used if it conflicts with Historic Resources. The Association disagrees with the Cultural Heritage analysis and conclusions of no significant impacts to the historic block and structures.
Mitigation Measure PMM-TRA-1 is incorrect. The City knows that by the “Outside of CEQA” transportation section, albeit even less than the smaller previous EIR project, that the number of daily trips on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment (DSRS) will significantly impact that Segment. The SCEA also failed to look at the minimum segment/intersections that the previous EIR did, despite knowing that the DSRS impacts far exceed their reasonable standards of increases.
And once again, as with the previous EIR of a smaller project, the SCEA failed to look at the two unsignalized intersections bookending the impacted DSRS. Thus the SCEA declares that no intersections are impacted. This is false and dangerous. The unsignalized Dayton Street/Raymond Ave. (DS/RA) & the Dayton Street /Fair Oaks Ave. (DS/FOA) intersections are likely in need of a project-driven & integrally-designed upgrade/mitigation, not left to fail and then altered at the City’s expense. But when it comes to the DS/FOA intersection, it is already a dangerous, unsignalized intersection with a critical offset that the previous EIR may not have truly considered (See 2015 RDEIR Fig3.6-14). There is no correction in the FEIR, and if SCEA used or relied on this previous EIR, there is no mention of this difficult offset unsignalized intersection needing any level of improvement. This clearly demonstrates an inadequacy of the SCEA.
11 8
12 13
9 10
Letter O-3a
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 6 of 8
The Association objects to this MM’s conclusion that, “Transportation impacts were concluded to be less than significant.” We know the DSRS will be overloaded based on the “Outside CEQA” section. We also know the SCEA cannot adequately conclude without documentation that the two unstudied intersections aren’t impacted. In fact, we raise the concern and legal ruling in the IDS Project where not only was the density & envelope of an oversized building forced to be reduced, but the mere exclusion of an intended crosswalk mitigation from the project resulted in forcing the crosswalk to be integrally designed with the project.
To use the City’s own words, the increase in traffic volume on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment (this is for the previous EIR’s smaller 64 unit project) ”… would be a significant environmental effect.” Thus, the City knows that the SCEA’s 84-unit project will be an even worse “significant” environmental impact. The Association finds this hard to comprehend, and beyond inadequate for any project.
PMM TRA-2, Page A-39 finds no issues with emergency access. As mentioned in the previous EIR comments, the cursory Fire Department review was inadequate, as it is for the SCEA, to realistically assess the impact of what the SCEA daily trip increase of 83% on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment will mean. As DSRS stands today, it is too narrow at 30 feet in width to accommodate the necessary street parking/loading spaces and two-way traffic.
How will the DSRS doubling of daily trips be irrelevant, and still function as a fire department alternate route to the east portions of Pasadena?
This is the ONLY fire department access to the Castle Green by either our Dayton Street rear driveway, or the 20 foot wide emergency gates also on this DSRS? In all the City/SCEA/EIR documents to the fire department, not once is mentioned any of these facts, and certainly not the 83% increase in daily trip traffic. Irregardless of the ability to not consider roadway segment impacts, the City knows the DSRS will be significantly impacted, yet doesn’t even require this project to make even the most minor traffic changes until after the problems arise, after construction, especially when ignoring a basic crosswalk cost the city (and IDS project developers) a lot of time and money in the IDS courtroom battle.
How will the signalized fire station lights on southbound Fair Oaks Avenue at the south edge of the DS/FOA not be impacted? With no crosswalks and significantly more daily trips this intersections gets knowingly more unsafe.
And with no bicycle and pedestrian required enhancements, this intersection just gets more unsafe, all with City knowledge.
MM 4.1 Cultural Resources, Page A-49. We disagree as inadequate the conclusion that no significant impacts on the historic block, buildings and site, or that those identified are less than significant. The conclusion in the SCEA that there are no impacts to Cultural Resources is flawed, and such impacts are not dismissed by SB743’s overreaching elimination of Aesthetic impacts.
MM 9.1 Noise (and Vibration), Page A-50. The Association finds this MM as inadequate and in fact the entire 9- page 4.13 Noise section, less than 50% of the previous EIR’s 20+ pages, for a SCEA project much larger (and deeper), we find the analysis and the mitigation efforts NOI-1 and NOI-2 inadequate and dangerous to the historic Hotel Green structures and 84 S. Fair Oaks as well.
A lone Vibration Receptor #2 is mentioned in regard s to the Castle Green. This is stated to be just forty feet from the project, and therefore about the same distance away from the Castle Green. Given the known seismic tendencies of the Castle Green (and the repaired damage from the Whittier series of quakes, this seems inadequate. In fact, both measures fail to mention and require any mitigation measure for the Castle Green.
Similar concerns must be voiced for MM 9.3 & 9.4, as they both rely on NOI-1 & NOI-2 that include no mitigation measures for the Castle Green. It is unclear if MM 9.5 applies to the Castle Green, so this is an inadequate mitigation measure as well.
MM 13.1, Page A-51. This transportation mitigation measure depends on a City update in 2020 of a “Nexus Study” for development impact fees. This update is critical to be completed, given that the SCEA fails to require minimum traffic measures on the Dayton Street Roadway Segment known to be significantly impacted, nor for the two Dayton 14 15
16 13
17 Letter O-3a
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 7 of 8
Street bookend intersections that aren’t even studied, yet remain primitively unsignalized, and unsafe.
Unfortunately, this mitigation claims to be not applicable at the project level, which makes this measure inadequate.
It is possible that this project could come in before the completion of the Nexus Study, and avoid what the Association sees as necessary impact payments due to the high likelihood that Dayton Street (and the bookend intersections) will require future mitigation of the known significant traffic increase/impact.
MM Aesthetics, Page A-51 contains standard project mitigation measures to avoid potential new levels of light and glare effects. This includes such mitigation requirements as examining potential light and glare, requiring features to avoid adverse light and glare, limiting reflective and glare-producing materials, requiring nighttime lighting focused down and away from adjacent properties. However, due to SB743, this mitigation measure is deemed “not relevant” to the Project. “The project’s aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant impacts. But does this mean that the analysis is to be omitted, as we don’t see these items yet studied or required to be. It is only negating the significant impact, not negating the public’s right to know if Aesthetics issues will arise. This leads to an inadequate SCEA.
MM Noise considers that this project will not have a significant noise impacts, yet all 866 daily trips generated from this project will come and go from the singular Dayton Street driveway, within a three-sided enclosed 75-90 foot tall building canyon. How can the noise from the singular driveway not affect the existing historic building occupants? This is a serious reason to look at alternatives – that are NOT required or presented in the SCEA review. The city knows that while the Green Hotel Apartments (contrary to their required adherence to the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for windows/window replacement) may have some level of modern soundproofing, the Castle Green entirely retains historic wood windows with mostly historic single-pane glass.
So despite the Castle Green being more susceptible to project driveway noise of 866 new daily trips, the SCEA anticipates no significant or even non-significant noise impacts, yet we cannot find the analysis of the 3-sided uniform height canyon this oversized project creates. And the mitigation measure states that it is “not anticipated to have a significant noise impact. Yet there is no CEQA definition or standard of how to “not anticipate” an impact without studying the possible impact, which wasn’t done, thus making the noise analysis inadequate and the elimination of any mitigation inadequate.
PREVIOUS “COMMENTS” APPLICABILITY
It must also be noted that all previous comments/letters be resubmitted as relevant because the 2021 SCEA Project is a clearly larger and more impactful version than the smaller previous EIR project that failed to receive certification and approvals. This is not a new project, but an enlarged and more complex and impactful version of the previous EIR. In fact, the staff and commissioner comments back in the EIR reviews stated it be best that the project return with modifications. This is clearly that project with modifications, and certainly not covering most suggestions. The SCEA application is inappropriate because this really is merely an upsized version of the previous EIR project and fails to respond to larger impacts.
These “Comments” consist of all correspondence letters and comments received in 2013-2019. All EIS, DEIR, RDEIR and FEIR public comment submitted and given by the public as well by the respective governmental body - either the City Council or Design Commissioners - and their respective staff from minutes and audio recordings and when documented in the above noted EIR documents (such as FEIR Sec. 3.3, and other relevant document sections).
In the SCEA the Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Noise and Vibration, Transportation, Alternatives, Areas of Controversy (from previous EIR, omitted/diminished in SCEA), Other CEQA Considerations (from previous EIR, omitted/diminished in SCEA), and possibly other areas, all continue to be impacted in recognized, similar ways, and likely often more significantly. 18 19
20 17
Letter O-3a
Castle Green Homeowners Association
SCEA Project Inappropriateness, Inadequacies and Failings Supplemental Letter.
Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair oaks Avenue, Pasadena PAGE 8 of 8
“Comments” in the form of Letters and Sections within previous EIR documents that document public meetings:
See DEIR, Appendix A, Letters from 2013 & EIS (in order published); Two Letter dated April 23, 2013; Letter dated April 24, 2013; Letter dated April11, 2013; 2nd Letter dated April 24, 2013; Letter/Petition dated April 23, 2013; Letter dated October 17, 2008; Letter dated October 11, 2010; Letter dated October 25, 2010; Letter dated September 23, 2011; Letter dated October 21, 2010; Letter dated October 25, 2010; Metro Letter dated April 16, 2013; NAHC Letter dated march 27, 2013.
See FEIR Section 3.3.2, Letter No. 1, March 11, 2014; Letter No. 2, March 11, 2014; Letter No. 3, March 9, 2014; Letter No. 4, March 10, 2014; Letter No. 5, March 11, 2014; Letter No. 6, March 11, 2014; Letter 7, Jan 26, 2015; Letter 8, March 2, 2015. FEIR Sec. 3.3.3, 3.3.5 has public and commissioner comments.
Unfortunately any City Council reviews and comments do not appear to be made available, which is a deficiency of the EIR and ultimately this SCEA process and a disservice and disadvantage to the public.
Other included Comments from EIR documents may be included.
Not available: minutes and audio recordings from all 2013-2019 hearings, some documentation is provided in various EIR docs. Unfortunately any City Council reviews and comments do not appear to be included in the pervious EIR documents or made available, which is a deficiency of the EIR and ultimately this SCEA process and a disservice and disadvantage to the public.
In the coming month(s), the Castle Green Homeowners Association will provide additional documentation and illustrations to reinforce the above and more reasons that the SCEA process is flawed, and that a Revised EIR process must continue.
Respectfully,
/S/
Mike Salazar
For the Castle Green Homeowners Association
20 21
Letter O-3a
1 Letter O-5
1 Letter O-5
1 Letter O-5
1 Letter O-5
May 6, 2021
Kevin Johnson, Senior Planner
Planning & Community Development Department
Planning Division, Design & Historic Preservation Section 175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California, 91101
Re: Central Park Apartments – COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SCEA Dear Kevin Johnson,
Pasadena Heritage has reviewed the Draft SCEA and the Appendices of interest to us. Our primary concern are the adjacent historic resources, notably Castle Green (of which we hold a preservation easement) and Hotel Green, but also the Doty Block (an important African American site) and Central Park. We do not believe that there will be a direct negative impact on any of these sites, but we are concerned about construction vibrations, obscured views and increased traffic on Dayton Street.
We support the proposed mitigations measures that will limit construction vibrations: “MM Noise-1: Consult with Structural Engineer and Project Historical Architect” and “MM Noise-2: Post Construction Survey and Documentation.” It is worrying that that the vibration sensors in the Hotel Green and 84 S. Fair Oaks Ave. tripped the threshold, but the mitigation measures appear to be adequate and are definitely prudent. We request that monitoring of the Castle Green be added to the list even though sensors there did not trip, just in an abundance of caution, and that any post construction inspection or repair requirements also include the Castle Green, the oldest of the nearby buildngs.
We believe the most serious risk of vibration would come from excavation and construction of the underground parking structure. We request that alternatives be considered, including reducing on-site parking either through an Affordable Housing Concession Menu reduction option or by providing parking off-site. Reducing the subterranean garage from four levels as proposed to two or three would cause less vibration risk and in a shorter time span.
Reducing parking would also reduce the vehicular trips generated from the building, and reduce traffic along Dayton Street. There are safety concerns associated with so much additional traffic next to Central Park, and all strategies should be considered, especially given the location of the popular playground.
2 3
1 Letter O-6
Re: Proposed Amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance | Page 2 Finally, we note that there is some impact to views of Castle Green and Central Park from Dayton St. or S. Fair Oaks Ave. We suggest studying if stepping back the new building above the first story would provide better views from these vantage points, similar to how Castle Green steps back above its larger base.
We thank you for receiving our comments concerns and suggestions, ask that they be considered in the preparation of the final SCEA and hope they can be addressed as the project review continues.
Sincerely,
Susan N. Mossman Andrew Salimian
Executive Director Preservation Director
5 4
Letter O-6
!"#"$%&'#()"$&*&+,-./0,1&203-3045.,/6 "#$#%&'($)*#%+),-./0',.* 121345432167
"#$!%&!'(')
*+,-.!/01.20.&!3+.-04!56#..+4
7-8$!09!5#2#:+.#&!56#..-.;!<!70==>.-8$!?+,+60@=+.8!?+@#48=+.8 ?+2-;.!<!A-2804-B!54+2+4,#8-0.!3+B8-0.
)C%!DE!F#49-+6:!G,+.>+
5#2#:+.#&!7G!H))()
G88.I! *+,-.!/01.20.&!3+.-04!56#..+4
J+I 7+.84#6!5#4K!G@#48=+.82&!3>@@6+=+.8#6!G.#6$2-2
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL ?+#4!"4E!/01.20.I
M.!3+@8+=N+4!'()H!M!@4+@#4+:!81+ A-2804-B#6!J+20>4B+!O+B1.-B#6!J+@048 PF5G!70.2>68-.;!J+@048Q 904!81+!7+.84#6!5#4K!G@#48=+.82!540R+B8!P540R+B8QE!O1-2 4+@048!-2!-.B6>:+:!#2!G88#B1=+.8!G!80! 81-2!6+88+4E!MS,+!#620!-.B6>:+:!=$!4+2>=+!#2!G88#B1=+.8!TE!U-81!81-2!6+88+4!MS=!@40,-:-.;! 2>@@6+=+.8#6!#.#6$2-2!4+;#4:-.;!81+!814+2106:2!904!-=@#B82!0.!1-2804-B#6!4+20>4B+2!#2!:+9-.+:! N$!81+!7#6-904.-#!V.,-40.=+.8#6!W>#6-8$!GB8!P7VWGQ!#.:!10X!8102+!814+2106:2!#@@6$!80!81+! 540R+B8E
"#$%&#'()&!*'$!+,-./"&!'0!#+&"'$+/.(!$%&'1$/%&
7VWG!4+Y>-4+2!81#8!81+!:-4+B8&!-.:-4+B8&!#.:!B>=>6#8-,+!-=@#B82!09!@40@02+:!#B8-0.2!N+!#22+22+:! #.:!:-2B602+:E!O1+!38#8+!7VWG!F>-:+6-.+2!2+8!81+!28#.:#4:!904!:+8+4=-.-.;!81+!2-;.-9-B#.B+!09! -=@#B82!0. 1-2804-B#6!4+20>4B+2!-.!O-86+!)Z!7#6-904.-#!70:+!09!J+;>6#8-0.2!3+B8-0.!)%([ZE%PNQ&! X1-B1!28#8+2I
G!@40R+B8!X-81!#.!+99+B8!81#8!=#$!B#>2+!#!2>N28#.8-#6!#:,+42+!B1#.;+!-.!81+!2-;.-9-B#.B+! 09!#.!1-2804-B#6!4+20>4B+!-2!#!@40R+B8!81#8!=#$!1#,+!#!2-;.-9-B#.8!+99+B8!0.!81+! +.,-40.=+.8E
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
1 Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 2
Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b)(1) further clarifies “substantial adverse change” as follows:
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A) in turn explains that an historical resource is “materially impaired” when a project:
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; As a property conveys its significance as a historical resource through its physical characteristics, the test for determining whether or not a proposed project will have a significant impact on an identified historical resource is whether or not the project will alter in an adverse manner the integrity of the historical resource such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or other landmark programs such as the list of Pasadena Historic Monuments.
Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin #15 as "the ability of a property to convey its significance.”1 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes the following seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials. Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Thus, the significance of a property must be fully established before the integrity is analyzed.
The first step in assessing integrity is determining the essential physical features that must be present for a property to convey its significance. All properties change over time and it is not necessary for a property to be unaltered from its original construction to retain integrity.
However, it must remain sufficiently intact to communicate its historic identity. The essential physical features are those features that define both why a property is significant and when it was significant. Thus, determining the period of significance is the second step in assessing integrity.
The period of significance is the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for designation. A period of significance usually begins with the date when significant activities or events began 1 National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington D.C.:
National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1997), 44-45.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 3
giving the property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction or a date of an event (i.e., a battle, opening of a business, establishment of a settlement, etc.).
In the case of architecturally significant properties, the period of significance is normally the date of construction. A property important for illustrating a particular style must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style. Thus, integrity of design, workmanship and materials are the most critical aspects of integrity in this instance. 2 Alternatively, a property can
illustrate a style regardless of its location or setting. Therefore, integrity of location and setting are not critical aspects of integrity of architecturally significant properties.
For historically significant properties, the period of significance is usually measured by the length of the association with the important events, activities, or persons. Integrity of location and association are the most critical aspects of integrity for a property that was the site of an historic event. A property missing original design features could still be eligible so long as it expresses it function and configuration. The basic test for determining the integrity of a property associated with an important person or event is whether a historical contemporary would recognize the property as it exists today.
While some factors of integrity are more important than others, depending on the property, a majority of the seven recognized factors should be retained. Integrity and condition are not the same. A property can be in poor condition yet retain integrity; however, a property in poor condition may lack integrity of materials and workmanship if the features are deteriorated.
INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT OF OLD PASADENA HISTORIC DISTRICT AND GREEN HOTEL For purposes of the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment under consideration by the City of Pasadena, the impacts of the proposed development at 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue (the “Project”) were assessed within the 86 South Fair Oaks Avenue Historical Resources Technical Report, October 2020, prepared by Historic Resources Group (HRG). The analysis completed by HRG concludes that the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5. To assist City decisionmakers, the following is a point-by-point analysis of potential project impacts on the Old Pasadena Historic District and Green Hotel historical resources.
This analysis provides the following: a summary of significance, a summary of current integrity, and an analysis of integrity after the completion of the Project. Both designated historical resources currently retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance. The purpose of this supplemental material is to analyze whether, upon completion of the Project, the resources will continue to retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance and be eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and as Pasadena Historic Monuments, such that their significance will not be materially impaired. Both resources’ current integrity and conceptual integrity are provided side-by-side, for comparison.
2 Ibid, 48.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 4
TABLE 1: OLD PASADENA HISTORIC DISTRICT
National Register listed in 1983 and updated in 2008
California Register listed in 1992
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE
For a property to qualify for listing in the National Register, it must meet one of four (A, B, C and D) criteria for significance. The Old Pasadena Historic District is listed under Criteria A and C.
Criterion A: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
As the historic commercial center of Pasadena, the Historic District documents the economic development of the city and its various phases of growth from the 1880s to the 1930s. The Historic District is significant at the local level under Criterion A in the area of commerce.
Criterion C: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, and represents the work of a master(s), and represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
While the Historic District is visually cohesive, it consists of buildings constructed over the course of a relatively broad period of time and designed for a variety of uses representing a range of architectural styles and the work of many prominent regional architects. The Historic District is architecturally significant as the largest intact assemblage of commercial buildings in Pasadena and imparts a strong sense of past time and place. It is significant at the local level under Criterion C in the area of architecture.
Period of Significance: 1886 to 1936
Areas of Significance: Commerce and Architecture
Contributing Buildings: 154
Contributing Sites: 1
Noncontributing Buildings: 423
Vacant and Parking Lots: 8 (not counted as noncontributing)4 3 The 2008 update to the National Register listing refers to 40 noncontributing buildings. Subsequent to that update, two new buildings have been constructed.
4 The 2008 update to the National Register listing refers to 10 vacant and parking lots. Subsequent to that update, two vacant and parking lots have been developed.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 5
ASSESSMENT OF INTEGRITY – CURRENT AND CONCEPTUAL
For a property to qualify for listing in the National Register, it must retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. There are seven aspects that in various combinations define integrity: Location, Design, Setting Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association.
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
Current Conceptual
The Old Pasadena Historic District retains
integrity of location. The Historic District has
not been moved as a whole and the
contributing resources remain in their
original locations.
The Project would not result in the relocation
of any contributing resources within the
Historic District. Additionally, the Project
would not cause an alteration to the
boundary of the Historic District. Therefore,
the integrity of location would be unaffected
by the Project.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
Current Conceptual
The Old Pasadena Historic District retains
integrity of design. It was not developed
according to a plan, but rather evolved over
decades. The development pattern is
characterized by continuous street walls but
the buildings range in size and scale and a
variety of styles are present, reflective of a
period of significance that spans almost 50
years. Buildings within the Historic District
are one to eight stories in height. The
majority of contributing buildings retain
their form, plan, and style, and in this way
the Historic District retains its historic
character as a whole.
As the Project Site is a vacant lot mostly used
for surface parking, it was not counted as a
contributing or noncontributing resource.
Therefore, the Project would not result in the
alteration of any contributing resources
within the Historic District. Furthermore, the
new building would be compatible with the
size, scale, and style of the adjacent
contributing resources. The new building
would not be substantially taller than other
buildings in the Historic District; it is shorter
than the Hotel Green. At its highest point, the
Project’s maximum roof height is 90 feet,
which is approximately 21 feet shorter than
the maximum roof height of the tallest
portions of the adjacent Green Hotel
Apartments (111 feet) and 15 feet shorter
than the tallest portions of the Castle Green
(105 feet). While the new building would
introduce a new visual element within the
Historic District, the pattern of development
would be maintained. Therefore, the integrity
of design would be unaffected by the Project.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 6
Setting is the physical environment of an historic property, constituting topographic features, vegetation, manmade features, and relationships between buildings or open space.
Current Conceptual
The Old Pasadena Historic District retains
integrity of setting. The contributing
resources possess the same spatial
relationships with each other as existed
historically. The features of the setting
include the configuration of streets, alleys,
and sidewalks. While the streetscape
improvements generally post-date the
period of significance, they are respectful of
the historic character of the Historic District.
The Project would not result in alterations to
the topography, natural or manmade
streetscape improvements, or relationships
between any contributing resources within
the Historic District, nor would it alter the
context of the Historic District, which includes
154 contributing buildings. Introducing one
new building will not alter the relationship or
configuration of the Historic District. While
the new building would introduce a new
visual element within the Historic District, the
relationship among the contributing
resources would not be changed.
Furthermore, the new building would not
block important views of contributing
buildings. Therefore, the integrity of setting
would be unaffected by the Project.
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form an historic property.
Current Conceptual
The Old Pasadena Historic District retains
integrity of materials. The contributing
resources are substantially unaltered from
the period of significance and many
buildings have been rehabilitated in
compliance with the Standards since the
Historic District was listed. Typical exterior
materials consist of stucco, brick, and stone
wall cladding, red clay roof tiles, and
decorative details of wood, terra cotta, and
tile. Alterations to the contributing buildings
have been in keeping with this palette of
materials and materials beyond repair have
been replaced in kind.
The integrity of materials would be
unaffected by the Project. As the Project Site
is a vacant lot mostly used for surface parking,
it was not counted as a contributing or
noncontributing resource. Therefore, the
Project would not involve the alteration of
any contributing resources within the Historic
District and would not result in the
destruction of any historic materials.
Damage to adjacent contributing buildings
from vibration as a result of Project
construction activities is not anticipated but
would be monitored. Any unanticipated
damage to historic materials would be
repaired.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 7
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture, people, or artisan during any given period in history or pre-history.
Current Conceptual
The Old Pasadena Historic District retains
integrity of workmanship. The contributing
resources are substantially unaltered from
the period of significance and many
buildings have been rehabilitated in
compliance with the Standards since the
Historic District was listed. The buildings
display examples of both vernacular
construction techniques and plain finishes as
well as skilled craftsmanship and ornamental
detailing.
The integrity of workmanship would be
unaffected by the Project. As the Project Site
is a vacant lot mostly used for surface parking,
it was not counted as a contributing or
noncontributing resource. Therefore, the
Project would not involve the alteration of
any contributing resources within the Historic
District and would not result in the
destruction of any evidence of skilled
construction techniques or building practices.
Furthermore, while damage to adjacent
contributing buildings from vibration as a
result of Project construction activities is not
anticipated, it would be monitored. Any
unanticipated damage to historic
workmanship would be repaired.]
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historical sense of a particular period of time.
Current Conceptual
The Old Pasadena Historic District retains
integrity of feeling. When listed, the Historic
District contained approximately 80%
contributing and 20% noncontributing
resources. Through its significant
concentration of contributing resources and
retention of integrity of design, materials,
workmanship, and setting, it conveys a
strong sense of time and place from the
period of significance.
The integrity of feeling would be unaffected
by the Project. The new building would not
significantly alter the ratio of contributing to
noncontributing resources within the Historic
District. Furthermore, the new building would
be compatible with the aesthetics of the
Historic District in its size, scale, and design
with the adjacent contributing buildings and
would maintain the historic character of the
Historic District as a whole. The Historic
District would continue to feel like the
commercial center of Pasadena during the
early twentieth century.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 8
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Current Conceptual
The Old Pasadena Historic District retains
integrity of association. It is the place where
Pasadena’s commercial center developed
and is sufficiently intact to convey that
relationship to an observer.
The integrity of association would be
unaffected by the Project. The new building
would not have any impact on the Historic
District’s ability to convey its historic function
as the commercial center of Pasadena. Along
Fair Oaks Avenue, the Project includes ground
floor commercial uses and establishes a front
setback that is visually consistent with the
proximate contributing resources oriented to
Fair Oaks Avenue.
CONCLUSION
The Historic District would retain all seven aspects of integrity and would continue to be eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C upon Project completion. Therefore, the Project would not materially impair the significance of the Historic District and it would have no impact on the historical resource.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 9
TABLE 2: HOTEL GREEN
National Register listed in 1982
California Register listed in 1992
Pasadena Historic Monument designated 1997
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE
For a property to qualify for listing in the National Register, it must meet one of four (A, B, C and D) criteria for significance. The Hotel Green is listed under Criteria A and C.
Criterion A: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
The Hotel Green (as represented in the remaining portion now called the Castle Green) is one of the few surviving late nineteenth century hotels in California. The hotel played a key role in the early history of Pasadena, helping to cultivate its social, cultural, and economic development. The property is significant at the state level under Criterion A in the area of commerce.
Criterion C: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction and represents the work of a master.
The Hotel Green is also a significant example of Late Victorian era architecture with Spanish, Mexican, and Moorish influences. The building was designed by the master architect Frederick L. Roehrig. The commission contributed to Roehrig’s growing reputation in Southern California. The property is significant at the local level under Criterion C in the area of architecture.
Period of Significance: 1887 to 19265
Areas of Significance: Commerce and Architecture
ASSESSMENT OF INTEGRITY – CURRENT AND CONCEPTUAL
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
Current Conceptual
The Hotel Green retains integrity of location.
The listing included the entire block, which is
comprised of the Project Site and three
The Project would not result in the
relocation of the Hotel Green or any of its
significant components or essential
5 Although the HRG analysis describes the period of significance as concluding in 1924, the Castle Green was officially organized as a cooperative apartment building in 1926, ending its use as a hotel.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 10
buildings: the Castle Green, Green Hotel
Apartments (incorporating the Wooster
Block), and 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue.6 The
buildings remain in their original locations.
character-defining features. Therefore the
integrity of location would be unaffected by
the Project.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
Current Conceptual
The Hotel Green retains integrity of design.
The remaining portion of the Hotel Green
comprises the Project Site and two buildings
(the Castle Green and Green Hotel
Apartments) constructed in phases and
designed in what has been described as an
eclectic blend of Spanish, Mexican, and
Moorish influences. The Castle Green is
irregular in form but has a long north-south
orientation with a primary elevation facing
Raymond Avenue. It is set back from Raymond
Avenue by approximately 100 feet and from
Dayton Street by approximately 30 feet. The
Green Hotel Apartments incorporated the
Wooster Block and is generally rectangular in
form with a semi-circular room on the south.
It has an east-west orientation and a primary
elevation facing Green Street. There is no
setback from the sidewalk. Within in the Lshape created by the junction between these two buildings are a surface parking lot, an
advertising billboard, and landscaping (the
Project Site).
The integrity of design would be unaffected
by the Project. The Project Site is not a
character-defining feature because the
improvements postdate the period of
significance for the property. Therefore the
removal of the improvements on the Project
Site would not alter the form, plan, space,
structure, or style of the property.
Furthermore, the design cues for the new
building are taken from the original concept
for the Hotel Green developed by Roehrig in
1903. The Project would complete the Ushaped plan envisioned by Roehrig and would be divided from the Castle Green by a
landscaped courtyard. The height of the
Project would be lower than the Green
Hotel Apartments and Castle Green. At its
highest point, the Project reaches 90 feet –
15 feet shorter than the maximum height of
the Castle Green and 21 feet shorter than
the maximum height of the Green Hotel
apartments. Each elevation of the new
building would be a fully articulated design
and a carefully considered relationship to
the Hotel Green, including the Dayton
Avenue colonnade which has a maximum
height of 36 feet. In addition to the large
ground level courtyard, and landscaped
pedestrian paths, the new building would
feature a series of balconies and roof decks
that reinforce the history of outdoor living
6 The building at 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue was not discussed in the Hotel Green nomination form and was not historically associated with the Hotel Green. The building is included as a contributor to the Old Pasadena Historic District.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 11
on the property. The roof would include a
variety of shapes that would be fit with tiles
on the pitched areas, like the Hotel Green.
Setting is the physical environment of an historic property, constituting topographic features, vegetation, manmade features, and relationships between buildings or open space.
Current Conceptual
The integrity of setting of the Hotel Green has
been diminished by past alterations. The
character-defining features of the setting
include the relatively flat topography with a
minor decline in grade from north to south,
the lack of setback on the north along Green
Street, the approximately 100-foot setback on
the east along Raymond Avenue, and the
landscaping within the eastern setback.
The historic character on the west along Fair
Oaks Avenue and on the south along Dayton
Street has been diminished by a series of
alterations that have resulted in the existing
condition of the Project Site. During the
period of significance, this space included a
residence, a tennis court, and landscaping.
The existing features in this space include a
surface parking lot, billboard, and landscape
features that are not related to the Hotel
Green. Although trees and other vegetation
exists that date to the period of significance,
they are remnants and do not reflect any
significant designed landscape.
This space (the Project Site) was not identified
as significant in the nomination form and is
not intact from the period of significance.
Therefore it is not a character-defining feature
of the setting of the property. Furthermore,
the space was the proposed location for an
additional wing to the Hotel Green that would
have extended from south elevation of the
Wooster Block along Fair Oaks Avenue.
The Project would not result in alterations
to topographic features, vegetation,
manmade features, or relationships
between buildings or open space that
characterize the Hotel Green. Because the
existing improvements on the Project Site
postdate the period of significance for the
property, they are not character-defining
features. While the new building would
introduce a new visual element to the
property, the relationship between the
significant components and essential
character-defining features would not be
changed.
In connection with the Project, multiple
replacement trees will be added to the site
consistent with City requirements, resulting
in a net gain of 17 trees on the site and a
total of 38 proposed trees, including mature
and relocated trees within the courtyard
area.
Renderings from 1903 convey an intention
to fill the Project Site with a large extension
of the Hotel Green oriented to Fair Oaks
Avenue with a colonnade along Dayton
Street, completing a U-shaped complex. The
Project location and massing are drawn
from those renderings and reflect that
relationship. Furthermore, the important
views of the Castle Green are the streetfacing elevations along Raymond Avenue and Dayton Street, while the important view
of the Green Hotel Apartments is the streetfacing elevation along Green Street. The Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 12
new building would not block or alter any of
these views. As reflected in visual
simulations prepared in connection with the
Sustainable Communities Environmental
Assessment, views of the secondary or
lesser exteriors of the Castle Green and
Green Hotel Apartments from other vantage
points, including Central Park, are largely
the same in the with and without Project
conditions. Therefore, although the Project
includes construction of a building where no
building currently exists, the character of
the Project Site has already changed
considerably since the period of
significance. The integrity of setting would
not be further affected by the Project.
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form an historic property.
Current Conceptual
The Hotel Green retains integrity of materials.
The primary historic materials of the Castle
Green include coarsely textured stucco walls,
wood windows and doors, metal roof tiles,
iron balconies, and terra cotta ornamentation.
The primary historic materials of the Green
Hotel Apartments include rusticated stone at
the corner, textured stucco walls, wood
windows and doors, and ceramic roof tiles.
Since it was listed, alterations to the Hotel
Green have been executed in compliance with
the Standards.
The integrity of materials would be
unaffected by the Project. The Project Site is
not a character-defining feature because the
improvements postdate the period of
significance for the property. Therefore the
removal of the improvements on the Project
Site would not result in the destruction of
any historic materials.
Damage to adjacent contributing buildings
from vibration as a result of Project
construction activities is not anticipated but
would be monitored. Any unanticipated
damage to historic materials would be
repaired.
Additionally, the new building’s materials
would have the same visual qualities as the
historic materials of the Hotel Green but
would be wholly modern and therefore
differentiated as new. Instead of roughly
textured stucco, the new building would be
sheathed in smooth or lightly textured
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 13
cement plaster. The rusticated stone
remaining from the original construction of
the Green Hotel Apartments would be
expressed as cast stone panels on the base
of the new building. The new building would
have energy efficient casement windows
and storefront systems with a profile similar
to wood casements on adjacent buildings
and painted an accent color drawn from the
Hotel Green color palette.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture, people, or artisan during any given period in history or pre-history.
Current Conceptual
The Hotel Green retains integrity of
workmanship. The Castle Green and Green
Hotel Apartments display examples of both
vernacular construction techniques and plain
finishes as well as skilled craftsmanship and
ornamental detailing. The nomination form
notes the terra cotta ornamentation on the
pedestrian bridge pavilion as the most notable
example of workmanship. Since it was listed,
alterations to the Hotel Green have been
executed in compliance with the Standards.
The integrity of workmanship would be
unaffected by the Project. The Project Site is
not a character-defining feature because the
improvements postdate the period of
significance for the property. Therefore the
removal of the improvements on the Project
Site would not result in the destruction of
any evidence of skilled construction
techniques or building practices.
Damage to adjacent contributing buildings
from vibration as a result of Project
construction activities is not anticipated but
would be monitored. The construction
activities would be adjacent to the
secondary elevations of the contributing
buildings, which are not notable for their
workmanship. Any unanticipated damage to
historic workmanship would be repaired.
Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historical sense of a particular period of time.
Current Conceptual
The Hotel Green retains integrity of feeling.
Through its integrity of design, materials,
workmanship, and setting, it conveys a strong
sense of time and place from the period of
significance.
The integrity of feeling would be unaffected
by the Project. The new building would be
compatible with the aesthetics of the Hotel
Green in its size, scale, and design and
would maintain the historic character of the
property. The Hotel Green would continue
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 14
to feel like a resort hotel during the early
twentieth century.
The Project Site is also located along the
secondary exteriors of the Green Hotel
Apartments and Castle Green, and given the
scale of the Project, the improvements are
only partially visible from portions of Green
Street and Raymond Avenue.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Current Conceptual
The Hotel Green retains integrity of
association. During the 1890s, the Hotel
Green, including buildings that have been
demolished, functioned a resort hotel and
social and cultural center for Pasadena. The
remaining buildings are sufficiently intact to
convey that relationship to an observer.
The integrity of association would be
unaffected by the Project. The new building
would not have any impact on the
property’s ability to convey its historic
function as a resort hotel.
CONCLUSION
The Hotel Green would retain all seven aspects of integrity and would continue to be eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C and as a Pasadena Historic Monument upon Project completion. Therefore, the Project would not materially impair the significance of the Hotel Green and it would have no impact on the historical resource.
Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 15
COMPLIANCE WITH SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS
The GPA Consulting Report also included an evaluation of the Project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards).
Compliance with the Standards does not necessarily determine whether a project would result in an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Rather, a project in compliance would have a less than significant impact as the Standards are designed to maintain the integrity of historic properties.
7 The Standards were issued by the National Park Service and are accompanied by Guidelines for four types of treatments: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. It is important to note that the Standards are not intended to be prescriptive, but instead provide general guidance. They are intended to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions to balance continuity and change, while retaining materials and features to the maximum extent feasible. Their interpretation requires exercising professional judgment and balancing the various opportunities and constraints of any given project. Not every Standard necessarily applies to every aspect of a project, nor is it necessary to comply with every Standard to achieve compliance.
Though none of the four treatments as a whole applies specifically to new construction in the vicinity of historical resources, Standards #9 and #10 of the Standards for Rehabilitation provide relevant guidance for such projects. Thus, the Project’s relationship with the Hotel Green is analyzed below for compliance with Standards #9 and #10.
Standard #9 states: "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.
The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment."
The proposed Project is compatible with the Hotel Green in terms of historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing. The primary historic materials of the Castle Green include coarsely textured stucco walls, wood windows and doors, metal roof tiles, iron balconies, and terra cotta ornamentation. The primary historic materials of the Green Hotel Apartments include rusticated stone at the corner, textured stucco walls, wood windows and doors, and ceramic roof tiles. The new building’s materials would have the same visual qualities as the historic materials but would be wholly modern and therefore differentiated as new.
Instead of roughly textured stucco, the new building would be sheathed in smooth or lightly textured cement plaster. The rusticated stone remaining from the original construction of the Wooster Block would be expressed as cast stone panels on the base of the new building. The new building would have energy efficient casement windows and storefront systems, with a 7 Title 14 California Code of Regulations § 15126.4(b).
Letter O-7
7+.84#6!5#4K!G@#48=+.82 )[
@409-6+!2-=-6#4!80!X00:!B#2+=+.82 0.!#:R#B+.8!N>-6:-.;2 #.:!@#-.8+:!#.!#BB+.8!B0604!:4#X.! 940=!81+!A08+6!F4++.!B0604!@#6+88+E!
G2!28#8+:!#N0,+&!81+!2-d+!#.:!2B#6+!09!81+!.+X!N>-6:-.;!X0>6:!N+!B0=@#8-N6+!X-81!81+!A08+6! F4++.!N+B#>2+!-8!X0>6:!N+!#@@40a-=#8+6$!81+!2#=+!1+-;18E!O1+!=#22-.;!-2!2-=-6#4!80!81+!X-.;! 81#8!X#2!@6#..+:!904!81+!B0=@6+a&!N>8!.+,+4!+a+B>8+:[email protected]!09!81+!.+X!N>-6:-.;!-2! 26-;186$!X-:+4!0.!81+!20>81!-.!#BB04:#.B+!X-81!81+!B>44+.8!d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mH!N+B#>2+!81+!.+X!N>-6:-.;!X0>6:!28#.:!0.!-82!0X.!#2!#! B0.8+=@04#4$!$+8!84#:-8-0.#6!X04K!09!#4B1-8+B8>4+&!X1-6+!B0=@6+=+.8-.;!81+!A08+6!F4++.E!O1+! 540R+B8!X0>6:!.08!-=@#B8!81+!-.8+;4-8$!09!81+!A08+6!F4++.!80!81+!:+;4++!81#8!-8!X0>6:!.0!60.;+4! N+!+6-;-N6+!#2!N081!#!B0.84-N>804!80!81+!A-2804-B!?-284-B8!#.:!#2!#.!-.:-,-:>#6!1-2804-B#6!4+20>4B+E 38#.:#4:!m)(!28#8+2I!_D+X!#::-8-0.2!#.:!#:R#B+.8!04!4+6#8+:!.+X!B0.284>B8-0.!X-66!N+! >.:+48#K+.!-.!2>B1!#!=#..+4!81#8&!-9!4+=0,+:!-.!81+!9>8>4+&!81+!+22+.8-#6!904=!#.:!-.8+;4-8$!09! 81+!1-2804-B!@40@+48$!#.:!-82!+.,-40.=+.8!X0>6:!N+!>.-=@#-4+:E` O1+!540R+B8!B0=@6-+2!X-81!38#.:#4:!m)(E!O1+!.+X!N>-6:-.;!-2!.08!@1$2-B#66$!B0..+B8+:!80!81+! 7#286+!F4++. 04!F4++.!A08+6!G@#48=+.82&!04!904!81#8!=#88+4!81+!N>-6:-.;!#8!\Z!3E!]#-4!^#K2! G,+.>+ 81#8!-2!@#48!09!81+!^6:!5#2#:+.#!A-2804-B!?-284-B8!:+2-;.#8-0.&!N>8!.08!@#48!09!81+!F4++.! A08+6!:+2-;.#8-0.E!M9!81+!.+X!N>-6:-.;!X+4+!4+=0,+:!-.!81+!9>8>4+&!81+!#:R#B+.8!B0.84-N>8-.;! N>-6:-.;2!X0>6:!.08!N+!=#8+4-#66$!#99+B8+:E!O1+!+22+.8-#6!904=!#.:!-.8+;4-8$!09!81+!A08+6!F4++.! #.:!-82!+.,-40.=+.8!X0>6:!N+!>.-=@#-4+:E
O1+!540R+B8!X0>6:!B0=@6$!X-81!38#.:#4:2!mH!#.:!m)(!#.:!X0>6:!.08!:-=-.-21!81+!-.8+;4-8$!09! 81+!A08+6!F4++.E!O1+!540R+B8!X0>6:!.08!4+2>68!-.!#!2>N28#.8-#6!#:,+42+!B1#.;+!80!81+!A08+6! F4++.E!M8!X0>6:!4+=#-.!+6-;-N6+!904!6-28-.;!-.!81+!D#8-0.#6!#.:!7#6-904.-#!J+;-28+42!#.:!904! :+2-;.#8-0.!#2!#!A-2804-B!"0.>=+.8E
/'0/(1&+'0
[email protected][email protected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a-28-.;!-=@40,+=+.82!0.!81+!540R+B8!3-8+!:0! .08!B0.84-N>8+!80!81+!2-;.-9-B#.B+!09!81+!A08+6!F4++.!04!^6:!5#2#:+.#!A-2804-B!?-284-B8E! 2 Letter O-7
7+.84#6!5#4K!G@#48=+.82 )C
O1+4+904+&!81+!:+=06-8-0.!09!81+!+a-28-.;!-=@40,+=+.82!X0>6:!.08!4+:>B+!81+!-.8+;4-8$!09!81+2+! 1-2804-B#6!4+20>4B+2!80!81+!:+;4++!81#8!81+$!X0>6:!.0!60.;+4!N+!+6-;-N6+!904!6-28-.;!>.:+4! .#8-0.#6&!28#8+&!04!60B#6 6#.:=#4K!04!1-2804-B!:-284-B8!@40;4#=2E!O1+!540R+B8!X0>6:!-.840:>B+!#! .+X!,-2>#6!+6+=+.8!X-81-.!81+!N0>.:#4-+2!09!81+!A08+6!F4++.!#.:!^6:!5#2#:+.#!A-2804-B! ?-284-B8b!10X+,+4&!81+!.+X!N>-6:-.; X0>6:!N+!@1$2-B#66$!2+@#4#8+:!940=!81+!B0.84-N>8-.;! N>-6:-.;2!0.!81+!540R+B8!3-8+!#.:!-.!81+!,-B-.-8$& #.:!-8!1#2!N++.!:+2-;.+:!#.:!X0>6: N+! B0.284>B8+:!-.!#!=#..+4!81#8!-2!B0.2-28+.8!X-81!81+!3+B4+8#4$!09!81+!M.8+4-04n2!38#.:#4:2!904!81+! O4+#8=+.8!09!A-2804-B!540@+48-+2E!
3-.B+4+6$&!
O+4+2#!F4-=+2&!54-.B-@#6
2 Letter O-7
Central Park Apartments 18
ATTACHMENT A
Central Park Apartments
86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard
Pasadena, California
Historical Resource Technical Report
Prepared by:
September 2019
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Qualifications 1
1.2 Methodology 2
2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3
2.1 National Register of Historic Places 3
2.2 California Register of Historical Resources 5
2.3 Pasadena Historic Preservation Ordinance 7
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 8
3.1 History and Description of the Project Site and Vicinity 8
4. PROJECT IMPACTS 19
4.1 Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical Resources 19
4.2 Secretary of the Interior's Standards 19
4.3 Project Description 20
4.4 Analysis of Project Impacts 21
5. CONCLUSIONS 29
6. SOURCES 30
APPENDIX A – Résumés
APPENDIX B – National Register of Historic Places Nominations Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to analyze whether or not a proposed development project (the Project) would impact any historical resources subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project involves one parcel located at 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue in the City of Pasadena.
The parcel is occupied by a surface parking lot, an advertising billboard, and landscaping. The Project would involve the demolition of the existing improvements and the construction of a new six-story plus mezzanine mixed-use building above four levels of subterranean parking. GPA Consulting (GPA) was retained to identify historical resources on and in the vicinity of the Project site, to assess any potential impacts the Project may have on the identified historical resources, and to recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate.
GPA concluded that the Project site is located within the boundaries of the property known as the Hotel Green, which is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places and locally designated as a Historic Monument. The Hotel Green includes two buildings, the Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments. In addition, the Project site is located within the boundaries of the Old Pasadena Historic District, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Properties and historic districts listed in the National Register of Historic Places are automatically included in the California Register of Historical Resources. Thus, the Hotel Green and Old Pasadena Historic District are also listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and are historical resources defined by CEQA. GPA did not identify any potential historical resources in the vicinity of the Project site that have not already been listed or evaluated.
The threshold for determining significant impacts on historical resources in the State CEQA Guidelines is whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change, which is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate vicinity such that the historical resource is materially impaired. GPA concluded that the Project would have no impact on the identified historical resources, because the Project would not materially impair the overall integrity of the Hotel Green or Old Pasadena Historic District. The existing improvements on the Project site do not contribute to the significance of the Hotel Green or Old Pasadena Historic District. Therefore, the demolition of the existing improvements would not reduce the integrity of these historical resources to the degree that they would no longer be eligible for listing under national, state, or local landmark or historic district programs. The Project would introduce a new visual element within the boundaries of the Hotel Green and Old Pasadena Historic District; however, the new building would be physically separated from the contributing buildings on the Project site and in the vicinity and it has been designed and will be constructed in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. As the Project would have no impact on historical resources, no mitigation is recommended or required.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Qualifications
The purpose of this report is to analyze whether or not a proposed development project (the Project) would impact historical resources. The Project involves one parcel located at 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue in the City of Pasadena (see Figure 1). The parcel is mostly occupied by a surface parking lot. The Project would involve the construction of a six-story plus mezzanine mixed-use building comprising approximately 11,617 square feet of ground-floor commercial space including four work/live units and 84 residential units above four levels of subterranean parking with approximately 195 parking spaces.
Figure 1: Project site indicated with dashed line. Base image courtesy of Google Maps.
GPA Consulting (GPA) was retained to identify historical resources on and in the vicinity of the Project site, to assess any potential impacts the Project may have on the identified historical resources, and to recommend mitigation measures, as warranted, for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Teresa Grimes was responsible for the preparation of this report. She fulfills the qualifications for historic preservation professionals outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61. Her résumé is attached in Appendix A.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 2
1.2 Methodology
To identify historical resources and assess potential project impacts, GPA performed the following tasks:
1. Conducted a field inspection of the Project site and vicinity to determine what areas might be impacted by the Project. For the purposes of this report, the study area was identified as the block on which the Project site is located as well as the properties to the south and west. Historical resources beyond these perimeters were not included in the study area because the Project would have no potential to impact them as they are visually and physically separated from the Project site by intervening buildings.
2. Collected and reviewed existing information on the Project site and properties in the vicinity to identify listed and previously evaluated historical resources. This research revealed that the Project site is located within the boundaries of the property known as the Hotel Green, which is individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places and locally designated as a Historic Monument. In addition, the Project site is located within the boundaries of the Old Pasadena Historic District, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. GPA did not identify any potential historical resources in the vicinity of the Project site that have not already been listed or evaluated.
3. Conducted selective research to fill gaps in the existing information, which included the National Register of Historic Places nomination forms for the Hotel Green and Old Pasadena Historic District (see Appendix B). This research included a review of Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, historic aerial photographs, and local newspaper articles.
4. Reviewed and analyzed the Updated Concept Design Review Submittal prepared by Architectural Resources Group to determine if the Project would have an impact on the identified historical resources.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 3
2. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Generally, a lead agency must consider a property a historical resource under CEQA if it is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The California Register is modeled after the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Furthermore, a property is presumed to be historically significant if it is listed in a local register of historical resources or has been identified as historically significant in a historic resources survey (provided certain criteria and requirements are satisfied) unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the property is not historically or culturally significant.1 The National Register, California Register, and local designation programs are discussed below.
2.1 National Register of Historic Places
The National Register is "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment."2 Criteria
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (unless the property is of “exceptional importance”) and possess significance in American history and culture, architecture, or archaeology. A property of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria:3
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Context
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be significant within a historic context. National Register Bulletin #15 states that the significance of a historic property can be judged only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific...property or site is understood and its meaning...is made clear.”4 A property must represent an important aspect of the area’s history or prehistory and possess the requisite integrity to qualify for the National Register. 1 Public Resources Code §5024.1 and 14 California Code of Regulations §4850 & §15064.5(a)(2). 2 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.2.
3 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4.
4 National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington D.C.:
National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1997), 7-8.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 4 Integrity
In addition to possessing significance within a historic context, to be eligible for listing in the National Register a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin #15 as "the ability of a property to convey its significance.”5 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes the following seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials.
Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Thus, the significance of the property must be fully established before the integrity is analyzed.
Historic Districts
The National Register includes significant properties, which are classified as buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects. A historic district “derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.”6
A district is defined as a geographically definable area of land containing a significant concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development.7 A district’s significance and historic integrity should help determine the boundaries. Other factors include:
• Visual barriers that mark a change in the historic character of the area or that break the continuity of the district, such as new construction, highways, or development of a different character;
• Visual changes in the character of the area due to different architectural styles, types, or periods, or to a decline in the concentration of contributing resources; • Boundaries at a specific time in history, such as the original city limits or the legally recorded boundaries of a housing subdivision, estate, or ranch; and • Clearly differentiated patterns of historical development, such as commercial versus residential or industrial.8
Within historic districts, properties are identified as contributing and noncontributing. A contributing building, site, structure, or object adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archeological values for which a district is significant because:
• It was present during the period of significance, relates to the significance of the district, and retains its physical integrity; or
• It independently meets the criterion for listing in the National Register.9 5 National Register Bulletin #15, 44-45.
6 Ibid, 5.
7 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.3(d).
8 National Register Bulletin #21: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties Form (Washington D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 12.
9 National Register Bulletin #16: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 16.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 5
2.2 California Register of Historical Resources
In 1992, Governor Wilson signed Assembly Bill 2881 into law establishing the California Register. The California Register is an authoritative guide used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse impacts.10 The California Register consists of properties that are listed automatically as well as those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed in the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register;
• State Historical Landmarks from No. 0770 onward; and
• Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register.11 Criteria and Integrity
For those properties not automatically listed, the criteria for eligibility of listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria, but are identified as 1-4 instead of A-D. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property generally must be at least 50 years of age and must possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Properties eligible for listing in the California Register may include buildings, sites, structures, objects, and historic districts. A property less than 50 years of age may be eligible if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. While the enabling legislation for the California Register is less rigorous with regard to the issue of integrity, there is the expectation that properties reflect their appearance during their period of significance.12
10 Public Resources Code §5024.1 (a). 11 Public Resources Code §5024.1 (d). 12 Public Resources Code §4852.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 6 The California Register may also include properties identified during historic resource surveys.
However, the survey must meet all of the following criteria:13
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 [SOHP] procedures and requirements;
3. The resource is evaluated and determined by the office [SOHP] to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on a DPR Form 523; and
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 that have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those that have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource.
SOHP Survey Methodology
The evaluation instructions and classification system prescribed by the SOHP in its Instructions for Recording Historical Resources provide a Status Code for use in classifying potential historical resources. In 2003, the Status Codes were revised to address the California Register. These Status Codes are used statewide in the preparation of historical resource surveys and evaluation reports.
The first code is a number that indicates the general category of evaluation. The second code is a letter that indicates whether the property is separately eligible (S), eligible as part of a district (D), or both (B). There is sometimes a third code that describes some of the circumstances or conditions of the evaluation. The general evaluation categories are as follows:
1. Listed in the National Register or the California Register.
2. Determined eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register.
3. Appears eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register through survey evaluation.
4. Appears eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register through other evaluation.
5. Recognized as historically significant by local government.
6. Not eligible for listing or designation as specified.
7. Not evaluated or needs re-evaluation.
The specific Status Codes referred to in this report are as follows:
1S Individual property listed in the National Register by the Keeper. Listed in the California Register.
1D Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in the National Register by the Keeper. Listed in the California Register.
13 Public Resources Code §5024.1.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 7 5S1 Individual property that is listed or designated locally.
2.3 Pasadena Historic Preservation Ordinance
The City of Pasadena’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is codified in Chapter 17.62 of the Pasadena Zoning Code. It includes criteria for Landmarks, Historic Monuments, Historic Signs, Landmark Trees, and Landmark Districts. As previously stated, the Hotel Green is a designated Historic Monument. The criteria for the designation of Historic Monuments are outlined in Section
17.62.040 as follows:
1. A Historic Monument shall include all historic resources previously designated as historic treasures before adoption of this Chapter, historic resources that are listed in the National Register at the State-wide or Federal level of significance (including National Historic Landmarks) and any historic resource that is significant at a regional, State, or Federal level, and is an exemplary representation of a particular type of historic resource and meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the region, State, or nation. b. It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the region, State, or nation.
c. It is exceptional in the embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction; or that is an exceptional representation of the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is significant to the region, State, or nation; or possesses high artistic values of regional, State-wide, or national significance.
d. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the region, State, or nation.
2. A Historic Monument designation may include significant public or semi-public interior spaces and features.
In addition to these criteria, the City’s ordinance states that the seven aspects of integrity defined by National Register of Historic Places Bulletin #15 shall be applied when determining Historic Monument eligibility.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 8
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1 History and Description of the Project Site and Vicinity Old Pasadena Historic District14
The Project site is located within the boundaries of the Old Pasadena Historic District, which was listed to the National Register in 1983. Properties that are listed in the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register. Thus, the Historic District is also listed in the California Register. The Historic District is significant at the local level under National and California Register Criteria A/1 and C/3. As the historic core of Pasadena, the Historic District documents the economic development of the city and its various phases of growth between 1886 and 1936. The Historic District also contains an important record of the evolution of architectural design in Southern California as well as the work of many prominent regional architects.
While the Historic District is visually cohesive, it consists of buildings constructed over the course of a relatively broad period of time and designed for a variety of uses representing a range of architectural styles. Historically, the Santa Fe Train Station and Hotel Green anchored the center of the Historic District. Though predominately commercial in character, the Historic District contains a few residential buildings, several churches, and the aforementioned Central Park. Architectural styles found within the Historic District include late nineteenth and early twentieth century revivals such as Spanish Colonial Revival as well as idioms from the modern movement such as Art Deco.
Building heights within the Historic District range from one to eight stories with larger, high style buildings on the major arteries of Fair Oaks Avenue, Raymond Avenue, and Colorado Boulevard and the smaller, vernacular buildings concentrated on the side streets of Union, Green, and Holly.
The National Register nomination was updated in 2008, to document the changes to contributing and noncontributing resources and to adjust the boundaries. In 2008, there were 154 contributing buildings, 1 contributing site, and 40 noncontributing buildings within the Historic District. There are four contributing resources in the vicinity of the Project site listed below and shown in Figure 3.
1. Central Park
2. Doty Block
3. 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue
4. Hotel Green
14 Teresa Grimes, “National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Old Pasadena Historic District (Boundary Increase/Decrease/Additional Information), Pasadena,” 2007.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 9 Figure 2: Old Pasadena National Register Historic District. Project site outlined in red. Base image courtesy of Google Maps.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 10 Figure 3: Contributors in the vicinity of the Project site are numbered and shaded orange. Approximate Project site outlined in red. Base image courtesy of Google Maps.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 11
1. Central Park
Central Park is located south of the Project
site. It is one of the oldest parks in the City of
Pasadena, having been purchased in 1902.
The park consists of lawns, winding paths,
mature trees, and a few small buildings, and
once served as a recreation area for guests
of the Hotel Green. The park was originally
designed by Thomas Chisolm. While it was
redesigned in 1927 by Cook & Hall and Ralph
Cornell, the original configuration of the
paths still exists.15
2. Doty Block
The Doty Block is west of the Project site,
across S. Fair Oaks Avenue. It is a three-story
brick building that was constructed in 1887
for James E. Doty, who owned the largest
carriage business in the San Gabriel Valley.
The Doty Block was one of the “most
substantial” early brick buildings in
Pasadena. Original features that were
removed in 1924 include a corner tower and
projecting bays. In 1998, the building was
rehabilitated, including the replacement of
damaged brick and the storefronts, apart
from the original cast iron columns.16
3. 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue
84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue is directly south of the
Wooster Block and north of the Project site. It
is a one-story vernacular commercial
building clad in stucco with a single storefront
and clay tile along the roofline. It was
identified as a contributing building
separately from the Hotel Green in the Old
Pasadena Historic District National Register
nomination, and does not appear to have
been specifically addressed in the Hotel
Green National Register nomination,
although it is within the boundary of the
individual listing from 1982.17
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid. 17 Ibid; Gadski, Clark, and Graydon.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 12 Hotel Green
The Hotel Green was listed in the National Register in 1982 and designated a Historic Monument in 1997. Properties that are listed in the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register. Thus, the Hotel Green is also listed in the California Register. The Hotel Green is significant at the state level under National and California Register Criteria A/1 and C/3. The Hotel Green (as represented in the remaining portion now called the Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments) is one of the few surviving nineteenth century hotels in California. The hotel was a key factor in the early history of Pasadena, helping to cultivate its development. The design is a significant example of Late Victorian era architecture with Moorish and Spanish influences. The entire block bounded by Raymond Avenue on the east, Green Street on the north, Fair Oaks Avenue on the west, and Dayton Street on the south are included within the National and California Register listings and Historic Monument designation (see Figure 4).18 The block includes three buildings, the Castle Green, Green Hotel Apartments, 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue19 as well as the Project site.
Figure 4: The Hotel Green as indicated on the 1979 National Register nomination form.
Base image courtesy of Google Maps.
18 City of Pasadena, “California Historical Resources Inventory Database,” accessed November 13, 2018, http://pasadena.cfwebtools.com.
19 Although the building is not specifically addressed in the 1982 Hotel Green National Register nomination, it is within the boundary,
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 13 The Hotel Green was developed by Colonel George C. Green who made his fortune in patent medicine after moving to Pasadena and saw the city's potential as a resort location.20 In 1891, he purchased the Webster Hotel, which was located on the eastside of Raymond Avenue. The hotel was such a success that Col. Green decided to construct an addition to the north in 1893. When the addition was completed in 1894, the entire property was renamed the Hotel Green. Neither the Webster Hotel nor the Hotel Green Addition remains.21 The remaining portion of the Hotel Green comprises the Project site and two buildings (Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments) constructed in phases and designed in what has been described as an eclectic blend of Spanish, Mexican, and Moorish influences. In order to further expand the hotel, in 1895 Col. Green acquired the Wooster Block at the southeast corner of S. Fair Oaks Avenue and Green Street. Constructed in 1887, the building had served as Throop College (later renamed the California Institute of Technology). In May of 1887, construction began on an annex (historically referred to as the Central Building or Annex and currently as the Castle Green) designed by architect Frederick L. Roehrig; it was completed in 1898 and featured a distinctive elevated pedestrian bridge across Raymond Avenue, which no longer exists. Roehrig designed a final expansion (then called the Western Building or Annex and now the Green Hotel Apartments) that was completed in 1903 and incorporated the Wooster Block at the property’s northwest corner.22 An additional wing, conceived but never constructed, would have connected with the south elevation of the Wooster Block creating a U-shaped building with a landscaped central courtyard and arcade along Dayton Street (see Figure 5). The wing would have featured stores along S. Fair Oaks Avenue and Dayton Street, balconies along the tops of the stores, and a tower like element on the south elevation to counterbalance the Caste Green.
Figure 5: Artist's rendering of the Hotel Green including the wing in the lower left hand corner that was never built (Pasadena Museum of History, 1903)
In 1914, Daniel L. Linnard purchased the Hotel Green. Unable to maintain the hotel, which had grown to over 400 rooms, Linnard sold the portion east of Raymond, which was renamed the Pasadena Hotel. In 1929, the bridge spanning Raymond Avenue was removed, followed by the 20 Mary Ellen Gadski, Alson Clark, and Genevieve Graydon, “National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Hotel Green, Pasadena,” 1979. 21 The one-story building at 80-82 S. Raymond Avenue is all that remains of the Webster Hotel. The upper stories were demolished in 1935. 22 Ibid.; Architectural Resources Group, Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA, Concept Design Review, May 16, 2018.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 14 removal of the Pasadena Hotel in 1935, save for a small portion at the southeast corner of Raymond Avenue and Green Street. Meanwhile, the ownership of the portion of the hotel west of Raymond was divided between the wing that is now known as the Castle Green and the wing including the Wooster Block that is now known as the Green Hotel Apartments. The period of significance for the Hotel Green is 1887, the date the Wooster Block was constructed, through 1926, the date the Castle Green ceased operation as a hotel and organized as a co-operative apartment house. The phases of the Hotel Green construction are summarized in the tables and figures on the following pages.
TABLE 1: Phases of Construction23
Year Completed Historic Name Extant?
1887 Wooster Block Yes
c. 1890 Webster Hotel
(later Hotel Green) No
1894 Hotel Green Addition No
1898
Central Building or
Annex
(later Castle Green)
Yes
1904
Western Building or
Annex (later Green
Hotel Apartments)
Yes
23 Ibid.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 15 Figure 6: 1890 Sanborn Map, Sheets 3 and 5. Approximate Project site outlined in red.
Figure 7: 1910 Sanborn Map, Vol. 2, Sheet 28. Approximate Project site outlined in red.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 16 Figure 8: 1951 Sanborn Map, Vol. 1, Sheet 117. Approximate Project site outlined in red.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 17 Project Site
The Project site is a 32,362 square foot corner parcel with frontage on S. Fair Oaks Avenue on the west and Dayton Street on the south. The flat parcel is currently improved with a surface parking lot, an advertising billboard, and landscaping. As previously stated, the Project site is located within the boundaries of the Old Pasadena Historic District and Hotel Green. In the Old Pasadena Historic District nomination, it is not counted as a contributing or noncontributing resource. In the Hotel Green nomination it is described as having "...parking lots, garages, and other service facilities."24
Figure 9: The Project site, looking northeast from across S. Fair Oaks Avenue (GPA, 2018) The first building to be constructed on the Project site appears to have been a one-story grocery store.25 By 1888, it had been removed and the Project site remained vacant until 1903 when Col.
Green constructed a one-story residence for his daughter Lotta.26 The Project site was the proposed location for an additional wing to the Hotel Green that would have extended from south elevation of the Wooster Block along Fair Oaks Avenue. The wing was not constructed and the area is indicated as a "park" on the 1910 Sanborn map (see Figure 7). Historic photographs document that it was landscaped in a manner much like Central Park to the south with curving paths and trees. Around 1914, a tennis court was added in the southwest corner of the Project site. The residence was removed sometime between 1931 and 1951. The 1951 Sanborn map indicates that the area was used as a parking lot. A swimming pool was added near the outdoor dining terrace of the Green Hotel Apartments in 1953, but it was in-filled and paved over in the early 1970s. The oval shape remains and is currently covered with grass and a shuffle board court. 24 Gadski, Clark, and Graydon, Item 7, Page 1.
25 Ibid; "Patent medicine" is a commercial product sold without a prescription; Sanborn Fire Insurance Company, 1887, Sheet 1.
26 "Hotel Green Bungalow" drawing archived at Pasadena Museum of History Research Library and Archives.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 18 There are also mature trees on the Project site. Some may be remnants from an early landscape plan that appears in historic photographs, but not longer remains intact.
Figure 10: The Project site, looking north from fence on Dayton Street (GPA, 2018) Figure 11: The Project site, looking southeast from fence on Fair Oaks (GPA, 2018) Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 19
4. PROJECT IMPACTS
4.1 Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical Resources CEQA requires that the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of proposed actions be assessed and disclosed. The State CEQA Guidelines set the standard for determining the significance of impacts to historical resources in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b), which states:
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.
Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b)(1) further clarifies “substantial adverse change” as follows:
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A) in turn explains that a historical resource is “materially impaired” when a project:
Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; As such, the test for determining whether or not a proposed Project will have a significant impact on an identified historical resource is whether or not the Project will alter in an adverse manner the physical integrity of the historical resource such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the National or California Registers or other landmark programs such as Pasadena Historic Monuments.
4.2 Secretary of the Interior's Standards
Projects that may affect historical resources are considered to have a less than significant impact if they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards).27 Projects with no other potential impacts qualify for a Class 31 exemption under CEQA if they meet the Standards.28 The Standards were issued by the National Park Service, and are accompanied by Guidelines for four types of treatments for historical resources:
Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Though none of the four treatments as a whole applies specifically to new construction in the vicinity of historical resources, Standards #9 and #10 of the Standards for Rehabilitation provide relevant guidance for such projects.
The Standards for Rehabilitation are as follows:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 27 14 CCR § 15126.4(b).
28 14 CCR § 15331.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 20
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will 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 elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will 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 where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will 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.
It is important to note that the Standards are not intended to be prescriptive, but instead provide general guidance. They are intended to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions to balance continuity and change, while retaining materials and features to the maximum extent feasible. Their interpretation requires exercising professional judgment and balancing the various opportunities and constraints of any given project. Not every Standard necessarily applies to every aspect of a project, nor is it necessary to comply with every Standard to achieve compliance.
4.3 Project Description
The proposed Project would involve the demolition of the existing surface parking lot, advertising billboard, and landscaping and the construction of a six-story plus mezzanine mixed-use building containing a total gross floor area of approximately 93,355. The new building would comprise approximately 11,617 square feet of ground floor commercial space including four work/live units, 84 residential units including eight for very low-income residents, and four levels of subterranean parking with 195 parking spaces. In accordance with the Central District Specific Plan, the ground floor along Fair Oaks would be occupied by approximately 6,192 square feet of retail and/or food uses, extending the existing Old Pasadena retail district southward to create a link with Central Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 21 Park. The four work/live units, approximately 1,300 square feet each, would line the ground floor along Dayton Street, facing Central Park. The subterranean parking would include spaces for the Green Hotel Apartments, which currently utilizes the surface parking located on the Project site.
Figure 12: Artist's rendering of proposed project, Dayton Street elevation, looking northeast (ARG, 2019) The design cues for the proposed Project are taken from the original concept for the Hotel Green developed by Frederick L. Roehrig in 1903, but conform with the current zoning code and development standards. The Project would complete the U-shaped plan envisioned by Roehrig and would be divided from the Castle Green by a landscaped courtyard. The height of the Project would be lower than the historic components of the Hotel Green, i.e., the Green Hotel Apartments and Castle Green. Each elevation of the new building would be a fully articulated design and a carefully considered relationship to the Hotel Green, Central Park, and Old Pasadena Historic District. In addition to the large ground level courtyard, the new building would feature a series of balconies and roof decks that reinforce the history of outdoor living on the site. The roof would include a variety of shapes that would be fit with tiles on the pitched areas. Although the plans are still conceptual, the material palette that would include cast stone for the building base and ornamental features such as the balconies and tower cornice, painted plaster for the upper floors, clay roof tiles, and aluminum frame windows and storefronts.
4.4 Analysis of Project Impacts
The proposed Project does not involve the demolition, destruction, or relocation of any historical resources. While the Project site is located within the boundaries of the Hotel Green National and California Register listings and Historic Monument designation, the surface parking lot and advertising billboard post date of the period of significance, which culminates in 1926. While there are some mature trees that appear to date from the period of significance, the landscape design that they were associated with is essentially gone.29 It has been repeatedly altered and is not a character-defining feature of the Hotel Green. The existing condition does not reflect the landscape design from the period of significance (1887 - 1926). There is one Canary Island date palm with an estimated year of 1908 and one Camphor tree with an estimated year of 1913.
Otherwise, the trees appear to have been planted between 1928 and 2002. The Canary Island date palm would be relocated within the Project site, while the Camphor tree will be removed.
This aspect of the Project would have no impact on the Hotel Green because it would not result in a substantial adverse change in the eligibility of the Hotel Green as a historical resource. The 29 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC, "Tree Aging for 86 S. Fair Oaks," June 3, 2013.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 22 integrity of the Hotel Green would not be diminished by the demolition of the existing improvements and relocation and removal of trees on the Project site. It would remain eligible for listing in the National or California Registers and designation as a Historic Monument. Furthermore, consistent with City requirements and as reflected in the Project landscape plan, multiple replacement trees will be added to the site consistent with City requirements, resulting in a net gain of 19 trees on the site and a total of 38 proposed trees.
The Old Pasadena National Register nomination did not count surface parking lots, such as the Project site, as contributing or noncontributing resources. Furthermore, the surface parking lot and advertising billboard post date of the period of significance for the Historic District (1886 - 1936).
Thus, the demolition of the existing improvements on the Project site would have no impact on the Historic District. This aspect of the Project would not impair the integrity of the Historic District. It would remain eligible for listing in the National or California Registers.
The Project would also involve the construction of a new building on the site. The new construction would result in an alteration within the boundaries of the Old Pasadena Historic District and Hotel Green. Whether the alteration would result in an impact on these historical resources as defined by CEQA is analyzed below.
Old Pasadena Historic District
In analyzing the potential impacts of the Project on the Historic District, the central question is whether the new building would affect the integrity of the Historic District to the degree that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the National and California Registers. Such an effect would only occur if the Historic District no longer retained sufficient integrity to convey its significance as the historic commercial center of Pasadena after the completion of the Project.
According to National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, there are seven aspects of integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials. When assessing the integrity of a historic district, National Register Bulletin #15 advises the following, “the relationships among the district’s components must be substantially unchanged since the period of significance.”30 Meaning, a historic district must retain integrity of setting and feeling overall. Setting refers to the character of the place in which the historical resource is situated. Feeling refers to how the historical resource expresses a particular period of time.
While National Register Bulletin #15 does not directly address the impact of new construction on the setting or feeling of a historic district, it provides direction in assessing the impact of noncontributing buildings on the physical integrity of a listed historic district, as follows:
When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district’s integrity, take into consideration the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of historic environment.31 30 National Register Bulletin #15, 46.
31 National Register Bulletin #15, 46.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 23 As a result, the following analysis considers whether the Project would directly or indirectly affect the Historic District’s integrity of setting and feeling in terms of the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the new noncontributing building.
Relative Number
When the nomination for the National Register Historic District was updated in 2008, it included 154 contributing buildings, 1 contributing site, and 40 noncontributing buildings. The Historic District has changed since it was listed in 1983 and updated in 2008, and it will continue to change in the future as new buildings are constructed on the remaining surface parking lots, as existing noncontributing buildings are redeveloped, and as contributing buildings are rehabilitated and restored. Since 2008, two new buildings (see Figures 13 and 14) have been constructed increasing the number of noncontributing buildings from 40 to 42. 49 S. Fair Oaks Avenue replaced the surface parking lot at Assessor Parcel Number 5713-007-025 and 125 N. Raymond Avenue replaced the surface parking lots at Assessor Parcel Numbers 5723-021-019 and 5723-021-020.
Figure 13: 49 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, noncontributing
building at corner of Green Street constructed in
2014 (GPA 2018)
Figure 14: 125 N. Raymond Avenue,
noncontributing building at corner of Holly Street
constructed in 2012 (GPA 2018)
The new building on the Project site would increase the number of noncontributing buildings within the Historic District from 42 to 43. As the number of contributing resources (154 buildings and 1 site) would remain unchanged at 155, the relative increase would represent a small fraction in the ratio of contributing to noncontributing resources. The percentage of noncontributing buildings would change from 20.5% to 22%. Therefore, the Project would not affect the integrity of setting or feeling of the Historic District because it would not significantly increase the relative number of noncontributing buildings.
Size, Scale, and Design
Size, scale, and design are often important factors in historic districts. For example, the vast majority of the buildings in the Spring Street Financial District in Downtown Los Angeles are BeauxArts in style and 12 stories in height. Another example is the Carroll Avenue Historic District in Angelino Heights where most of the buildings are two-story, late Victorian era houses. As discussed in the National Register nomination and analyzed below, the Old Pasadena Historic District is not a collection of buildings unified by size, scale, or design. Although the majority of buildings within the Old Pasadena Historic District are two-stories in height, there are a few eight-story buildings and a number of one-story buildings. The taller buildings include the Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments, located on the same block as the Project site. Taller buildings also include the Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 24 three noncontributing buildings at the intersection of S. Fair Oaks Avenue and Green Street, just northwest of the Project site. At eight stories in height, the tallest buildings in the Historic District are the contributors at 26-30 and 91-93 N. Raymond Avenue (see Figures 15 and 16).
Figure 15: 26-30 N. Raymond Avenue, contributing
building constructed in 1913 (GPA 2018)
Figure 16: 91-93 N. Raymond Avenue, contributing
building constructed in 1914 (GPA 2018)
The new building is compatible in size and scale with the range of building heights in the Historic District. The Project site shares the block with the Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments but the new building would not be as tall. The Castle Green ranges from six to seven stories with a maximum height of approximately 105 feet, while the Green Hotel Apartments is seven stories with a maximum height of approximately 111 feet. The majority of the new building would be six stories with a base allowable height of 75 feet. The penthouse mezzanine level, approximately 1,202 square feet in gross floor area, rises to approximately 84 feet in height. The tallest portion of the building would be at the corner of Fair Oaks and Dayton, which would reach 90 feet in height at the crest of the roof (see Figure 17).
Figure 17: Artist's rendering of south elevation of proposed project in relationship to the Castle Green to the right and Green Hotel Apartments in the background (ARG 2019) The new building would be substantially taller than the contributing building at 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, which is only one-story in height. However, the new building is physical separated from 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue by ten-foot setback. The base of the new building, which would be reinforced by a different material than the one used on the upper stories, is also similar to the height of 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, creating a strong visual connection with the adjacent commercial storefront. Furthermore, 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue has been historically situated next to Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 25 another much taller building, the Wooster Block, which was later incorporated into the Green Hotel Apartments (see Figures 18 and 19).
Figure 18: 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue with the Wooster Block on the left and the Project site on the right (GPA, 2018)
Figure 19: Artist's rendering of proposed project, S. Fair Oaks Avenue elevation, looking southeast. The contributing building at 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue is in the lower left hand corner of the illustration (ARG, 2019) Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 26 Regarding design, while the new building
would be identifiable as new construction, it
picks up on the architectural vocabulary of
the Castle Green and Green Hotel
Apartments. The overall massing, elevations,
and roof shapes were inspired by the wing
that was planned for the complex, but never
executed. First and foremost, the footprint of
the new building maintains the courtyard that
was planned, which continues the open
space across from Central Park. Like the
Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments,
the new building would have solid wall
construction with punched openings. The
base of the new building is a continuation of
the datum line established by the adjacent
historic buildings on the block. The
fenestration pattern on the new building is
stacked vertically and the openings are recessed and appropriately proportioned. Arched openings are used for the main entrance on S. Fair Oaks Avenue, along the storefronts on Dayton Street, and at selected locations on the upper stories in another nod to the adjacent historic buildings. Likewise, balconies and hipped roofs are features used judiciously in the new building that have been borrowed from the Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments. The Project would not affect the integrity of feeling and setting of the Historic District because the new building is compatible with the primary contributing buildings on the block (the Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments) in terms of its size, scale, and design.
The other contributing building in the vicinity of the Project site is the Doty Block. The size, scale, and design of the new building would have no affect on the ability of the Doty Block to convey its significance as a contributor to the Historic District. Buildings designed in a variety of architectural styles already characterize the Historic District. As the new building would be across S. Fair Oaks Avenue, a major thoroughfare, it would not be appropriate to take design cues from the Doty Block.
Location
The boundary of the Historic District is irregular in shape, generally extending in a north south direction between Fair Oaks and Raymond Avenues and in an east west direction along Colorado Boulevard and Green Street (see Figure 2). The Project site is located in the approximate midpoint of the Historic District, across from Central Park, a contributing site. The location is not inappropriate for new construction because another wing to the Hotel Green complex was intended for the Project site. Furthermore, the visual association that once existed between the Project site and Central Park has been lost. The historic landscape from the Hotel Green period of significance (1894 - 1924) is no longer discernable as a result of alterations to the Project site discussed above.
While the new building would introduce a new visual element within the Historic District, the relationship among the contributing resources would not be substantially changed. The new building would not obstruct important views from within the Historic District or disrupt historic development patterns. Existing views of the south facade of the Green Hotel Apartments and west Figure 20: Castle Green, south and west facades
(GPA 2018)
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 27 facade of the Castle Green would be obscured from S. Fair Oaks by the new building. However, the landscaped space east of the new building would provide a buffer between the new building and the Castle Green, and the two facades would remain visible from Dayton Street and Central Park beyond. Therefore, the Project would not affect the integrity of feeling or setting of the Historic District because of an inappropriate location.
Summary
The proposed Project would not diminish the Historic District’s integrity of feeling or setting. It would not have a significant impact on the relative number of noncontributing buildings. It would be compatible in terms of size, scale, and design with the contributing buildings on the block.
Although the Project site is located in the approximate midpoint of the Historic District, it has no potential to intrude on important view corridors or interfere with historic patterns of development.
The Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the contributing resources in the vicinity, which would remain intact and visible. Additionally, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the Old Pasadena Historic District as a whole. It would remain eligible for listing in the National and California Register.
Hotel Green
The analysis for determining impacts of adjacent new construction on individual historical resources, such as the Hotel Green, is similar to that described above. The primary issue is whether the integrity of setting and feeling would be so diminished by the new construction that the Hotel Green (Castle Green and Green Hotel Apartments) would no longer qualify as a historical resource. Standards #9 and #10 are also relevant to the analysis of potential impacts on the Hotel Green as an individual historical resource. Thus, compliance with Standards #9 and #10 is analyzed below.
Standard #9 states: "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment."
The proposed Project is compatible with the Hotel Green in terms of historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing. The primary historic materials of the Castle Green include coarsely textured stucco walls, wood windows and doors, metal roof tiles, iron balconies, and terra cotta ornamentation. The primary historic materials of the Green Hotel Apartments include rusticated stone at the corner, textured stucco walls, wood windows and doors, and ceramic roof tiles. The new building’s materials would have the same visual qualities as the historic materials but would be wholly modern and therefore differentiated as new. Instead of roughly textured stucco, the new building would be sheathed in smooth or lightly textured cement plaster. The rusticated stone remaining from the original construction of the Wooster Block would be expressed as cast stone units with a light sand finish on the base of the new building. The new building would have aluminum windows and doors, but they would have a similar profile as wood casements and painted an accent color drawn from the Hotel Green color palette.
As stated above, the size and scale of the new building would be compatible with the Hotel Green because it would be approximately the same height. The massing is similar to the wing that was planned for the complex, but never executed. The footprint of the new building is slightly wider on Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 28 the south in accordance with the current zoning code, but still maintains the central landscaped courtyard. Although the historic courtyard is divided between two property owners, the landscape design visually reunites the two spaces. The fenestration pattern of the new building is also similar to the Hotel Green in the arrangement and proportion of the openings. The new building incorporates features from the Hotel Green such as arched openings, roof brackets, and balconies, but with a more contemporary flair. The Project complies with Standard #9 because the new building would stand on its own as a contemporary yet traditional work of architecture, while complementing the Hotel Green. The Project would not impact the integrity of the Hotel Green to the degree that it would no longer be eligible as both a contributor to the Historic District and as an individual historical resource.
Standard #10 states: “New additions and adjacent or related new construction will 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.”
The Project complies with Standard #10. The new building is not physically connected to the Castle Green or Green Hotel Apartments, or for that matter the building at 84 S. Fair Oaks Avenue. If the new building were removed in the future, the adjacent contributing buildings would not be materially affected. The essential form and integrity of the Hotel Green and its environment would be unimpaired.
The Project would comply with Standards #9 and #10 and would not diminish the integrity of the Hotel Green. The Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the Hotel Green. It would remain eligible for listing in the National and California Registers and for designation as a Historic Monument.
With regard to the potential for construction impacts on the Hotel Green, none are anticipated according to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc. July 2019. The Castle Green would be more than 80 feet from the subterranean excavation for the Green Hotel Apartments, which is beyond the influence area. Furthermore, soldier piles will be drilled and designed to accommodate the surcharge loads from the Green Hotel Apartments, so no additional stress or pressure on the Castle Green or Green Hotel Apartments is anticipated.
Construction-generated vibration is not a factor because drills as opposed to vibratory pile drivers will be used to construct the soldier piles. Thus, construction vibration monitoring is not required or recommended.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 29
5. CONCLUSIONS
The Project site is within the boundaries of two historical resources as defined by CEQA, the Old Pasadena Historic District and Hotel Green. The Project involves two activities that were analyzed for potential impacts on the identified historical resources, demolition and new construction. The demolition of the existing improvements on the Project site would not result in a substantial adverse change to either historical resource. The improvements do not contribute to the significance of the Hotel Green or the Historic District. The Project does not propose any physical alterations to any of the contributing buildings in the Historic District, including the Hotel Green. However, the Project would alter the immediate surroundings of Hotel Green because it would involve the construction of a new six-story plus mezzanine mixed-use building. As the new building complies with Standards #9 and #10 it is compatible with, but distinguishable from the Hotel Green. The new building would not reduce the integrity of the Hotel Green or Historic District to the degree they would be materially impaired. They would both continue to convey the significance that justified their inclusion in the national, state, and local registers of historical resources. As the Project would have no significant adverse impacts on historical resources, no mitigation is recommended or required.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena 30
6. SOURCES
Architectural Resources Group. Central Park Apartments, 86 S. Fair Oaks, Pasadena, CA, Updated Concept Design Review Submittal.
California Code of Regulations, California Office of Administrative Law, State of California Government.
City of Pasadena. “California Historical Resources Inventory Database.” Accessed November 13, 2018. http://pasadena.cfwebtools.com.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, United States Government.
Gadski, Mary Ellen, Alson Clark, and Genevieve Graydon. “National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Hotel Green, Pasadena.” 1979.
Grimes, Teresa. “National Register of Historic Places Nomination: Old Pasadena Historic District (Boundary Increase/Decrease/Additional Information), Pasadena.” 2007.
National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 2002,
National Register Bulletin #16: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.
Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997.
National Register Bulletin #21: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties Form.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997.
Sanborn Map Company. Pasadena, Various Dates. Accessed November 13, 2018, http://sanborn.umi.com.ezproxy.lapl.org/splash.html.
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena Appendix A Appendix A - Résumés
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena Appendix A TERESA GRIMES is a Principal Architectural Historian at GPA with over 25 years of experience in the field of historic preservation. She is widely recognized as an expert in the identification and evaluation of historical resources having successfully prepared dozens of landmark and historic district applications for a wide variety of property types. Teresa graduated from the University of California with a Master of Arts in Architecture, and has worked in the private, public, and non-profit sectors. She has led the GPA Historic Preservation team since 2009, skillfully supervising a wide array of projects throughout California. Teresa has extensive experience in the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for projects involving major landmarks as well as coordinated and reviewed documents for smaller-scale commercial, institutional, and residential property types throughout Los Angeles County. Teresa also participated in SurveyLA, the citywide historic resource survey of Los Angeles, from its inception, contributing to multiple sections of the citywide context statement and coordinating community plan area historic resources surveys.
Educational Background:
▪ M.A., Architecture, University of
California, Los Angeles, 1992
▪ B.A., Political Science, University of
California, Los Angeles, 1986
Professional Experience:
▪ GPA Consulting, Principal Architectural
Historian, 2009-Present
▪ Christopher A. Joseph & Associates,
Senior Architectural Historian, 2006-2009
▪ Teresa Grimes/Historic Preservation,
Principal, 1999-2005, 1993-1994, 1991-
1992
▪ Historic Resources Group, Architectural
Historian, 1994-1998
▪ Getty Conservation Institute, Research
Associate, 1992-1993
▪ Los Angeles Conservancy, Preservation
Officer, 1988-1991
Qualifications:
▪ Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards
for history and architectural history
pursuant to the Code of Federal
Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix
A.
Professional Activities:
▪ Pasadena Heritage Board Member,
2008-2012
▪ West Hollywood Cultural Heritage
Advisory Board Member, 1990-1994
Selected Projects:
▪ Los Angeles County Museum of Art Master
Plan, Los Angeles County, CEQA Historical
Resource Report, 2018-2019
▪ Vine/Afton/DeLongpre, Los Angeles CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2018-2019
▪ Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2018-2019
▪ Figueroa & Flower, Los Angeles, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2017-2019
▪ 913 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Report, 2017
▪ Olympic & Hill, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Report, 2017
▪ City of Hope Master Plan, Duarte, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2015-2016
▪ Farmers Insurance Building, Los Angeles,
CEQA Historical Resource Report, 2016
▪ John Anson Ford Theatres, Los Angeles
County, CEQA Historical Resource Report,
2011-2015
▪ LA Biomed Master Plan, Torrance, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2014
▪ May Company, Laurel Plaza, Los Angeles,
CEQA Historical Resource Report, 2014
▪ United Artist Theater, Los Angeles, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2013
▪ Claremont Graduate University Master Plan,
CEQA Historical Resource Report, 2013
▪ Hillcrest Motors Building, Hollywood, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2013
▪ Max Factor Building, Hollywood, CEQA
Historical Resource Report, 2012
Historical Resource Technical Report – 86 S. Fair Oaks Boulevard, Pasadena Appendix B Appendix B - National Register of Historic Places Nominations :orm No 10-300 REV. (9/77)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTE^tOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Eenotification/80 Amendments
1979
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC: PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION
SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS _________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ ,NAME
HISTORIC
Hotel Green
AND/OR COMMON
Castle Green Apartments
LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER
99 South Raymond Avenue .NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CITY, TOWN
Pasadena
STATE
California
VICINITY OF
CODE
06 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
22nd. District
COUNTY
Los Angeles
CODE
O2>:?-
UCLA SSIFI c ATI ON
CATEGORY
—DISTRICT
.XBUILDING(S)
—STRUCTURE
_. .SITE
—OBJECT
OWNERSHIP
—PUBLIC
^.PRIVATE
—BOTH
PUBLIC ACQUISITION
—IN PROCESS
—BEING CONSIDERED
STATUS
X.OCCUPIED
—UNOCCUPIED
—WORK IN PROGRESS
ACCESSIBLE
X.YES: RESTRICTED
— YES: UNRESTRICTED
_ NO
PRESENT USE
—AGRICULTURE
—COMMERCIAL
—EDUCATIONAL
—ENTERTAINMENT
—GOVERNMENT
—INDUSTRIAL
—MILITARY
—MUSEUM
—PARK
-XPRIVATE RESIDENCE
—RELIGIOUS
—SCIENTIFIC
—TRANSPORTATION
—OTHER:
OWNER OF PROPERTY
NAME
See continuation sheet 1 for a list of the "beneficial owners
STREET & NUMBER
CITY, TOWN STATE
VICINITY OF
LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Office of County Recorder of Los Angeles, California
COURTHOUSE.
REGISTRY OF DEEDS.ETC
STREET & NUMBER
227 North Broadway
CITY. TOWN
Los Angeles_______
STATE
California
REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS
TITLE
Pasadena's Architectural and Historical Inventory, Survey Area 7 DATE
October 29 , 1978 -FEDERAL _STATE —COUNTY ^LOCAL
DEPOSITORY FOR
SURVEY RECORDS
CITY. TOWN
Pasadena
Pasadena .
luu iNortn Gfarrie venu
._Goj iion f City Hall
STATE
CA 91109
DESCRIPTION
CONDITION
—EXCELLENT
-XGOOD
_FAIR
—DETERIORATED
—RUINS
_UNEXPOSED
CHECK ONE
—UNALTERED
-XALTERED
CHECK ONE
-XDRIGINALSITE
—MOVED DATE.
DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The "building known as Castle Green is sited with its long axis running north/south and its main facade parallel to Raymond Avenue.
It is set back approximately 100 feet from Raymond Avenue and 3° feet from Dayton Street, affording ample space for a fine garden consisting of lawns, shrubs, pathways, a pool with fountain, and mature plantings of magnolias, bananas, varieties of palms and other trees. To the south of Dayton Street, there is a large public park of nearly ten acres. Thus, while located in the urban context of downtown Pasadena, the Castle Green enjoys an oasis of surrounding greenery. On its north side, the 1903 expansion of the Hotel Green (now a H.U.D. housing facility for senior citizens) adjoins the Castle Green. Within the L created by this junction of two buildings are located parking lots, garages, and other service facilities.
The Castle Green is a six-storey, flat-roofed building with various architectural features that rise to a seventh storey and create a varied and picturesque roofline. It is a steel-framed, brick structure, finished with rough-cast stucco (probably hand-troweled) of a dull brown color. Above the sixth storey perimeter of the building is a gently sloping shed roof of red, Spanish-style, semi-cylindrical ceramic tile. The eave overhang of approximately thirty inches is carried by 4x6" rafters, band-sawn at their ends.
Each rafter tail is completely sheathed with copper, and the underside of the eaves is plastered.
The large scale of the building is relieved by a great variety of treatments in its massing, fenestration and exterior ornamentation.
The central section of the main facade rises to a seventh storey penthouse that formerly accommodated a ballroom. The loggia of this top storey is flanked by two square towers with flat roofs, from which domes rise. These domes on plain drums are roofed with metal sheets in a manner reminiscent of Islamic domes. The eaves of the flat roofs are carried on 4x6" rafters, exposed from below, to which a fascia board, ornamented by simple, square openings, has been applied. The open gallery of the loggia is carried slightly forward by a cantilevered, concrete balcony of extremely simple design, which is repeated in the two flanking towers.
Access to the tower balconies is provided by means of three simply arched windows divided by slender columns, which echo the design of the loggia. Above the towers' windows is an elaborate plaster ornamentation executed in a diapered pattern. Within the diamond shapes created by the diagonals is a fleur-de-lis type design.
The fifth and sixth storeys of the central section of the main facade are also tripartite in design. Below the loggia, the FHR-8-300A
(11/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
CONTI NU ATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE
George Holtz; 14702 Gledhill, Panorama City, CA 94102
Harry Creekmore; 99 S. Raymond, #107, Pasadena, CA 91105 Robert & Phyllis Hull; 99 S. Raymond, #201, Pasadena, CA 91105 Mrs. B. Suter; 99 S. Raymond, #202, Pasadena, CA 91105
J. Shapiro; 1500 N. Delta, S. San Gabriel, CA 91177
Mrs. Alice Angel; 99 S. Raymond, #204, Pasadena, CA 91105 Doris Young & Rosaline Carrol; 99 S. Raymond, #203, Pasadena, CA 91105 Virginia Morrison; 99 S. Raymond, #303, Pasadena, CA 91105 L. Coon; 99 S. Raymond, #207, Pasadena,CA 91105
Tom Carpenter; 99 S. Raymond, #208, Pasadena, CA 91105
Hermione Poirier; 99 S. Raymond, #210, Pasadena, CA 91105 Royal Dean; 234 S. Westgate, Los Angeles, CA 90049
Gertrude Flinn; 2301 James, Topeka, Kansas 666l4
Christena Andreson; 1675 E. Orange Grove Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91104 Stella Salveson; 99 S. Raymond, #305, Pasadena, CA 91105 Genevieve Graydon; 99 S. Raymond, #308, Pasadena, CA 91105 Buelah Liggett; 5648 Berkshire Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90032 Virginia Dwyer; 11.479 Rose Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90066 Mrs. Williamette Foster; 99 S. Raymond, #401, Pasadena, CA 91105 Herb Winters; 3938 Cumberland, Los Angeles, CA 90027
Mrs. Rudd Brown; 702 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91106 W.V. Rader; 99 S. Raymond Ave., Pasadena, CA 91105
Grace Parker; 99 S. Raymond Ave., #405-06, Pasadena, CA 91105 Edna Graham; 99 S. Raymond Ave., #410, Pasadena, CA 91105 Adelle Shinn; 99 S. Raymond Ave., #501, Pasadena, CA 91105 Denise Forbush; 125 Cambou Drive, San Francisco, CA 94132 Ann Marie Duffy; 370 Arroyo Terrace, Pasadena, CA 91103 Edna Graham £ Helen Lambert; 99 S. Raymond, #410, Pasadena, CA 91105 Laura Throckmorton; 99 S. Raymond, #506, Pasadena, CA 91105 Mildred Killam; 99 S. Raymond, #508, Pasadena, CA 91105 Olive Tosch; 99 S. Raymond, #509, Pasadena, CA 91105
Marian Nelson; 99 S. Raymond, #510, Pasadena, CA 91105
R. Snider; 6348 Spar Way, Magalia, CA 95954
Robert McKee; 99 S. Raymond, #603, Pasadena, CA 91105
Grace Cassidy; 753 W. Duarte Rd., Arcadia, CA 91009
Robert Hopper; 99 S. Raymond, #605, Pasadena, CA 91105
Ann Garbarine; 99 S. Raymond, #607, Pasadena, CA 91105
E. Mercanet; 6353 Hespeuia Ave., Reseda, CA 91335
T. Kendrick; 1005 E. Parkman, Altadena, CA 91001
Doris Faust; 99 S. Raymond, #610, Pasadena, CA 91105
Green Hotel Apartments; 15233 V*ntura Blvd., #8l6, Sherman Oaks] CA 91403 FHR-8-300A
(11/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
INVENTOR Y - NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET 2 ITEM NUMBER___? PAGE 1
sixth floor's elevation is composed of three bays, each divided into three windows with plaster ornamentation between. The fifth storey exhibits three loggias, each tripartite, with slender columns that exhibit capitals in floral patterns. These arches, like those of the seventh storey towers, are "Moorish" in design, in that the spring line of the horseshoe arch occurs considerably above the capital. Much of the mid-Eastern character that the architect intended for his design is derived from this simple stylistic device. Further linking the design of the fifth and sixth storeys are the richly ornamented spandrels between the two storeys' windows.
Between the fourth and fifth storeys, a cornice-like string course occurs and extends around the entire building. Deep, stepped corbels are surmounted by delicate mouldings. This string course demarcates two zones of the exterior: below this line, fenestration consists of simple, rectangular openings and no ornamentation occurs. There are several French doors with simple iron balconies.
A verandah, which was considered a necessary feature of a nineteenth century hotel, was built at ground level along the center of the main facade. Its shed roof was covered in the same Spanish-style red tile. Contrasting strongly with the described slender columns that divide window arches, the Doric columns of the verandah are of heavy proportion with pronounced entasis.
Extending from the center of the main elevation to the west curb of^Raymond Avenue is the remaining section of an enclosed pedestrian bridge that once spanned the street and linked the two buildings of the Hotel Green complex. Only two spans still remain, and the truncated bridge now terminates with what formerly served as a central observation pavilion. The elevated bridge allowed guests to cross between the two buildings at the second storey level.
The structure now serves as a pleasant, arcaded marquee sheltering the front entranceway to the Castle Green. Between the flattened arches, the paired piers that support the bridge have pairs of buttresses that lend character to the design. The enclosed walkway above (now used as an architectural office) is lighted by continuous bands of arched windows, between which are slender columns of the same type employed in the main facade. The terminal pavilion, which is octagonal in plan, has a hipped, tile roof from FHR-8-300A
(11/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET 3
ITEM NUMBER PAGE
which a metal-clad dome with finial rises,
is reminiscent of those of Turkish kiosks.
This picturesque roof
Terra cotta ornament embellishes the spandrels of the octagonal bridge pavilion, its eaves and the surrounds of its main windows.
This ornament is perhaps the most notable feature of the exterior design. Interlocking circular and elliptical motifs are combined with graceful, linear patterns based on plant forms. These designs do not appear to have been taken from the standard pattern books of the late nineteenth century on ornament, but rather may be considered as original contributions of the architect. This ornament strongly suggests the influence of architect Louis Sullivan, whose work may have inspired other architectural features of the building, such as the tower domes and the loggia balcony.
The south facade of the Castle Green undoubtedly was considered as important to the design impact of the building as was its main facade. Perhaps the most prominent feature of the building were the two seven-storey towers, semi-circular in plan, that are attached to the two corners of the south end. The close placement of these two towers, which are separated by a single bay, calls to mind the towers of numerous medieval castles and fortifications of Europe. This factor is probably responsible for the popular name "Castle Green," by which the building is now known. Above the main six-storey block of the building, the towers are capped by gently sloping conical roofs of red ceramic tile. The roofs are carried on a series of cast-concrete columns with "Moorish" capitals that exhibit leaf-pattern ornament. The open galleries, which add charm to roof-top promenades, actually disguise the presence of the original seventh storey water holding tanks.
Below the galleries, the same type of noteworthy ornament as described above occurs. At ground level, a one-storey, glassenclosed sun porch projects from the south facade. The flat roof deck is surrounded by a low balustrade of concrete, pierced by openings of an Islamic pattern.
The original north facade of the building now forms a party wall with the 1903 addition to the former Hotel Green complex. Because there^were no towers originally built at the north end of the building, it appears that eventual expansion from this end of the FHR-8-300A
(11/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET ^ ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE
hotel was previewed as early as 1898. Photographs of the building before 1903 show the north end to have been rectangular in form.
Like the other facades, the north facade exhibited arched windows above the cornice-like string course and plain rectangular openings below. The design of the 1903 addition contrasts strongly with the imaginative and eclectic style of the Castle Green. Deliberately designed to be "twentieth century in type of architecture" (according to a 1902 account), the later wing has no arched windows, galleries, balconies or other features similar to those of the 1898 building.
Despite the hotel's conversion into apartments over fifty years ago, the interiors of the Castle Green still retain much of their late nineteenth century character. The public rooms of the ground floor remain nearly in their original condition, only minor, decorative changes having been made during the twentieth century.
The building's main entrance leads to the large lobby and stairhall to the second floor. Among the notable architectural features of this space are: the mosaic tile of the main floor and stair landings, the wide flights of marble steps, the intricately ornate cast-iron stair balustrade and newel, and the wainscoting and wall treatments of simulated onyx. (Throughout the building, slate has been marbleized to achieve the wax-like luster of the stone onyx.) Just north of the entrance is a cage elevator of late nineteenth century manufacture. This ornate metal lift, with its distinctive grills and screens, still communicates with all seven storeys and terminates at the penthouse, formerly used as a ballroom. The transom over the wide entranceway to the south parlors is an ornate metalwork screen that repeats an important decorative element of the lobby.
The room known as the main salon is the largest of the south parlors. Perhaps its most distinctive feature is its coffered ceiling, the reveals of which have been decorated with a colorful, low-relief ornament. The main salon extends into the space of the southeast tower, and the unusual plan of the room is reflected in the semi-circular line of the coffered ceiling. An immense fireplace in the character of a baronial hall comprises the west wall of^the room. The mantle shelf has been placed at an exaggerated height; above it, a mirror has been set within an overmantel FHR-8-300A
(11/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET 5 ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE
of the coffered hardwood panels. Double doors south of the fireplace lead to the glass-enclosed sun porch. This room has been uniformly painted white, masking much of its former character. The capitals of the piers between the windows, which are very similar to capitals in the main salon and lobby, are noteworthy.
The suite of three rooms to the west of the main parlor are the most interesting and unusual of the entire building, and of these, the "Moorish parlor" (historic and present name) is by far the most significant. Craftsmanship, rich surface decoration, and opulence of material distinguish this exotic room, which appears to have survived intact. The focal point of the room is the fireplace wall, set at a diagonal between the wide entranceways to the main salon and the card room. A colorful, mosaic tile fireplace surround (of exaggerated height) is composed of chevron patterns, bordered by a contrasting chain pattern. Gilded elements highlight the design. A wood mantel shelf is again placed high on the wall, this time in simulated suspension from chains above. The tile work is surrounded by intricate woodwork and applied carvings in varied motifs such as elliptical sunbursts, plant forms and guilloche bands. The window treatment in the Moorish parlor is very unusual and evocative of Islamic architecture. The upper part of the window is accented by a bead-like screen, above which is a frieze of applied decoration that resembles mosques in section and horseshoe arches on columns. Also of interest in this room are the transom screens, in which a simply turned spindle is alternated to create a distinctive effect. The two other rooms of this suite repeat many of the themes presented in the Moorish parlor. Of special note are the ogive arch forms of the window screens in the card room.
FHR-8-300A
(11/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER 7
Although the hotel's interior was completely gutted during the recent rennovation, the building's exterior remains essentially unchanged.
Technically, the building survives as a group of three adjoining although architecturally distinct sections: 1) a north-east corner block, constructed in 1903, 2) a middle section to the west constructed in the same year and 3) the older Wooster Block, forming the west corner, dating from 1887. The entire building is of steel frame construction and covered with a cement plastered finish. The north-east block, a full seven stories in height, is the tallest of the building's sections.
It is covered by a low hip root of asphalt shingles with corbelled supporting brackets. Window and door openings of the block's lower five stories are austere and with little detailing. Paired sixth story windows, more reflective of the older Castle Green, are smaller and crowned by round arches. Eliptically shaped attic story windows are curiously reminiscent of those used by Louis Sullivan in some of his early commercial buildings, as is their surrounding ornamentation.
Prominant on the block's east facade is the one-story semi-circular projection of what was originally one of the hotel's lounges. The projection is flat roofed with buttressed walls. A large buttressed brick chimney appears on its eastern-most point. The south facade of the corner block is separated from the Castle Green by a narrow air space.
The north facade of the six-story middle section is covered by a very low shed roof of asphalt shingles carried on 4" x 6 rafters. Window and door openings are of the same austere detail as noted in eastern block although circular headed windows are used on the first floor.
Sixth-story windows are marked by the addition of fancyfull semicircular iron balconies. The south facade, with a shed roof of ceramic tile, is dominated by the one-story semi-circular projection of what was originally the hotel's dining room and by square towers at each of the sections! ends. The larger western tower is articulated by paired arched openings and covered by a metal dome. The eastern tower includes triparte arched openings and a simple flat, roof.
The older six-story Wooster Block stands most distinct from the later building. The building's wealth of detail, almost Romanesque in feeling, is handled in an individual way. The building is again covered by a low shed roof of ceramic tile carried on projecting rafters. Walls are articulated by numerous bays and arches. The west facade includes three two-story bays on the 2nd and 3rd stories. The The middle bay is semi-circular, the end bays slanted. The bays are crowned by a decorative connecting iron balcony. A slanted bay on the same story appears on the north facade of the building over its eastern FHR-8-300A
(11/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
CONTI NU ATION SHEET "7 ITEM NUMBER 7 PAGE
most entrance. A semi-circular tower, rising the building's full height, marks the north-west corner and entrance. Adding to the building's south facade is a small concrete balcony on the fifth floor with corbelled supporting brackets. Four octagonal columns support its overhanging tile roof. The building's first story of store fronts on the north and east facades is articulated by simulated rusticated stone work, as is the northeast tower to the third story. Romanesque arches appear over the building's north entrances.
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW
599
T1699
)-1799
500-1899
rgoo-
"RCHEOLOGY-PREHISTORIC
_J\RCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC
—AGRICULTURE
.^ARCHITECTURE
COMMERCE
COMMUNICATIONS
—COMMUNITY PLANNING
—CONSERVATION
—ECONOMICS
—EDUCATION
_ENGINEERING
^EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT
_INDUSTRY
_INVENTION
X-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
_LAW
—LITERATURE
—MILITARY
—MUSIC
—PHILOSOPHY
_POLITICS/GOVERNMENT
—RELIGION
—SCIENCE
_SCULPTURE
—SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN
_THEATER
—TRANSPORTATION
—OTHER (SPECIFY)
SPECIFIC DATES opening . Jan< l6> lgnn BUILDER/ARCHITECT Frederick L. Roehrig
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Called "by local historian Henry Markham Page "the first fine hotel in Pasadena" and estimated to have been one of the largest resort hotels in California in its time, the Hotel Green, as represented by the section now known as Castle Green, is one of the few grand nineteenth century hotels in the state to survive to the present day. As a contributing factor toward the settlement of Pasadena in the 1890s and early 1900s, the hotel also fostered the social, cultural and economic development of the city. The design of the building, which is a unique, imaginative blend of eclectic styles, should be considered as a significant statement in the architectural history of southern California.
The history of the Castle Green building began a decade before its construction. In 1887, Pasadena developer Edward C. Webster began building a hotel at the southeast corner of Raymond Avenue and Green Street (then Kansas Street). To promote the successful establishment of this new business venture, Webster erected a passenger terminal nearby for the Santa Fe Railroad. His donation of the building and lot to the railroad company was contingent upon their relocation to this new depot. With this move, Webster was assured that the proximity between hotel and rail station (and the obvious convenience that this afforded guests) would encourage the growth of his planned resort. However, Webster overextended his ventures, and when forced into insolvency, his unfinished hotel became the property of his friend and creditor, Colonel George G. Green.
Green had first come to Pasadena in the late 1880s to escape the winter^climate of his home town, Woodbury, New Jersey. Having made his fortune in the patent medicine business, Green was quick to realize the potential to attract other wealthy Eastern health seekers to the mild weather of southern California. He invested a^large sum to complete the hotel that Webster had started, and within a few years, it had gained the reputation of being one of the finest hotels in southern California. From its early years, it was considered a luxury hotel in the sense that it was wellfurnished and well-equipped to cater to the needs of wealthy guests.
In February 1893, work was begun on an addition to the south of Pasadena Daily News, May 6, November 15 and December 29.
January 1?, 1899; January 1, 1903- Pasadena. California:
Beautiful (Pasadena, CA: Star Publishing Co., r!902 D ). J.Vv, Pasadena, California; Historical and Personal (Pasadena, CA: Puo__^ by the author, 191?).Henry Markam Page, Pasadena; Its Early Years (Los Angeles, CA: L.L. Morrison, 1964).________________________ (JIM NUI VtKIHtU
QUADRANGLE SCALE 1 '. 24 OOP
JGEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY __^' acres
QUADRANGLE NAME Pasadena. California
UTM REFERENCES
AM.1I I 3I 9. *H 1, 0. Ol J3.7l7,8]5Mt
ZONE EASTING NORTHING
C| I I I I , I I , I I , I , I , . I
El i I I I . I . i i I i I I I . I I
fil , I I I I I I I I I i I I I i I I
i i
ZONE EASTING NORTHING i i . i ; l; ; it , i ;•!
F|___| I I . I . . I I . I , I . . I
Hi I I I I . I I .II.
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
See continuation sheetfl for the legal description
LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
STATE CODE COUNTY CODE
[JjFORM PREPARED BY Nominated fry: Genevieve Graydon
NAME/TITLE 7 <J*f-0lfK>
Mary Ellen Gadski, with the assistance of Alson Clark
ORGANIZATION
Pasadena Heritage
STREET & NUMBER
West Colorado. Boulevard
TELEPHONE
(213)
CITY OR TOWN
Pasadena
STATE
CA 9H05
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CERTIFICATION
THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS:
NATIONAL__ STATE___ LOCAL J$_
As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Service.
TITLE DATE
liiilil
CHIEF OF REGISTRATION
-HR-S-500A
Cll/78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT CF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
£gigi;i|ilk^i
CONTINUATION SHEET ^ ITEM NUMBER 8 PAGE
the hotel, which approximately doubled its original size. (Green had been planning this expansion for some time, but had waited until the completion of the city sewer system to proceed.) The Los Angeles architectural team of Strange and Carnicle designed a facade that reflected "Spanish, Moorish and Mexican styles," according to a contemporary newspaper account. Its eclectic architectural style was greatly admired by the public and contributed to its appeal as a resort hotel. Winter visitors journeying to a semi-tropical climate apparently found the fanciful mingling of styles to be appropriate to their surroundings. The newly expanded, two-hundred-room hotel was opened in early 1894.
During the 1890s, the Hotel Green became a social, and cultural center for Pasadena. Many balls and receptions for distinguished visitors to the city took place at the hotel, which was held in high esteem and was considered to be a civic showcase. The Valley Hunt Club began its annual ball here, and "society," as modeled on Eastern traditions, began to flourish. The hotel was also beginning to make a large contribution to the economic development of Pasadena. Many tourists attracted to the Hotel Green decided to become residents of the city, either on a permanent, year-round basis or during the winter months. Thus, home building was fostered, and many new businesses were established to meet the demands of a growing population. During the season of November 1897 to May 1898, it was estimated that the Hotel Green's guests, numbering nearly 3.000, had spent approximately $150,000 during their local stay. The injection of this large amount of money into a community of less than 10,000 people was a tremendous financial boon to Pasadena. Colonel Green and his manager, brotherin-law J. H. Holmes, also took active, personal roles in promoting the development of Pasadena, since the success of the hotel was so intricately linked with that of its community. They gave both moral and financial encouragement to civic projects such as grading roads and publicizing the city's attributes.
Because of^the tremendous demand for rooms (many guests reserved their lodgings a year in advance), Green planned to further expand his hotel through the construction of "The Annex," later to be known as the Castle Green. Colonel Green owned the parcel of land directly opposite his hotel on the west side of Raymond Avenue. In May 1897, the building contract for the annex was awarded, and work commenced soon thereafter. Although a significant part of the construction had been completed by mid-1898, the grand opening of the new annex was delayed until January 16, 1899 for the occasion of G. G. Green's birthday. The opening was hailed by the local press as "the most brilliant social event of the season" and was attended by 1,000 guests.
FriR-3-3004
C11 /78)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM \&&&^^
CONTZNUATJON SHEET ITEM NUMBER 8 PAGE 2
The architect of the new building, Frederick L. Roehrig, followed Strange and Carnicle's combination of eclectic styles so that the annex would bear some relationship to the existing hotel. Architectural elements of California's colonial antecedents were combined imaginatively with selected images from Islamic architecture. As one of Roehrig 1 s earlier works in a long career that extended to mid-1930s, the annex represents a pastiche of his personal architectural ideas, in tune with the historic eclecticism of the late nineteenth century.
The siting of the new annex proved to create an important attribute for both the hotel complex and the city of Pasadena. The building was set back approximately one hundred feet from Raymond Avenue, allowing an ample site for a garden. The original hotel had been built directly on the street line. The new garden thus served as a landscape feature for the two facing buildings of the hotel. Local historian Page related that the newly landscaped site was the only park in Pasadena at that time. Further enhancing the expanded hotel was an elevated pedestrian bridge, 200 feet long by 1^ feet wide, which ingeniously solved the problem of communication between the two buildings across Raymond Street. The bridge served as both an important social promenade and a lounge for guests.«
The interior appointments of the new annex caused a local newspaper reporter to comment on the "lavish expenditure of money" that distinguished the building from "the usual run of hotels. 11 Colonel Green indeed had invested a greater percentage of his money toward the interior enrichment of the annex than he had done for the earlier buildings. Nearly the entire ground floor was devoted to public spaces, which included: a large lobby, drawing rooms, a sun porch, a billiards hall, a gentleman's writing room, and most distinctive of all, a suite_of "Moorish" rooms. Atop the building, a large ballroom was located in the seventh storey penthouse. The open roof gardens that flanked the ballroom provided an excellent vantage point from which to enjoy a view of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north.
In the basement, a bowling alley catered to the recreational interests of guests. In contrast to many resort hotels of the era, not all attention was lavished on the public areas at the expense of the private rooms. Individual suites were of generous proportions and included individual closets, baths and lavatories. Furnishings were selected by manager Holmes, who toured the eastern United States for that purpose.
The early years of the twentieth century marked the heyday of the FHR-8-300A
(11/73)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ^
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NAIIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATSON SHEET __ 'A ITEM NUMBER Q PAGE 3__________ ___ Hotel Green. To further attract guests, the hotel owner developed a golf course with clubhouse that was easily accessible by means of an electric car line that ran on Raymond Avenue. The hotel was especially popular on New Year's Day due to its location along the former route of the Tournament of Roses parade. Because the parade passed directly under the pedestrian bridge on Raymond Avenue, this became one of the most desirable viewing points in town. A holiday edition of the January 1, 1903 Pasadena Daily^News proudly claimed that: "The Hotel Green has a world-wide reputation and is without doubt the most superb hostelry in the west." By this time, work had begun on yet another expansion of the hotel. Along Green Street, a building was connected at a right angle to the Castle Green and was adjoined to another existing building that was refurbished, the Wooster Block.
Architect Frederick L. Roehrig again designed this new building, which^was intended to be a more "modern" architectural statement.
Ambitious plans were made for another wing along Fair Oaks Avenue that would have created a U-plan structure with a central courtyard.
Financial limitations curtailed this expansion.
In 191*1-, the Hotel Green was purchased by Daniel M. Linnard. As the vacationing patterns of Americans eventually changed with the advent of the automobile and less dependence upon public transportation, the hotel began to lose the great popularity it had enjoyed.
The establishment of over four hundred rooms could no longer be managed on a profitable basis. Around 1920, the portion of the hotel east of Raymond Avenue was sold; this was renamed the Pasadena Hotel and later became the Park View. In 1929, the portion of the elevated bridge over Raymond Avenue was regarded as an impediment to traffic circulation and was torn down. The Hotel Green building on the east side of Raymond Avenue, which had been housing various civic offices, was demolished in 1935- Only a one-storey segment at the southeast corner of Green and Raymond now remains.
The 1897-1898 annex had come under separate management in the mid1920s and officially was organized as the Castle Green apartments in 1926. The establishment of a co-operative apartment house was an unusual venture for its time. Under a special trust arrangement with the Security Pacific National Bank (then Security Trust and Savings ^ Bank), those who purchased individual apartments were beneficial owners, rather than owners in fee. The conversion of the hotel into an apartment house was made feasible by the high quality of the building's initial construction and the existing proportions of^the large suites. There are now fifty-three apartments in the building, approximately half of them owner-occupied.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
CONTINUATION SHEET /£ ITEM NUMBER 8 PAGE
In recent years, the nearby film industry has taken advantage of Castle Green's distinctive architecture. Scenes from dozens of movies have been filmed here, perhaps most notable among them being the boxoffice hit, "The Sting." Interiors have been used as sets for scenes taking place in such disparate locations as Russian hotels and United States embassies.
Although architecturally and physically distinct from the Castle Green, the later annex to it, now called the Hotel Green, is closely associated with the hotel's and Pasadena's history. In February 1903, Col. Green announced his intention to expand his by-now famous hotel to provide even more luxurious accommodations for the wintering of Pasadena's wealthy Eastern visitors. The so-called north annex would stretch some 200 feet along Kansas Street (now Green Street) and embrace an existing structure, the Wooster Block, located at the south-east corner of Kansas and Fair Oaks Avenue. Noteworthy for its having once contained Throop College, predessor of the prestigious California Institute of Technology, the Wooster Block (c. 1887) had been purchased by Green in 1895, intending to transform it into a part of his hotel.
For his architect, Col. Green again employed the talents of Frederick L Roehrig, desiring that his new hotel present a more "modern"architectural statement. Construction of the annex was begun immediately after Green's announcement with the razing of a group of buildings along Kansas Street to the east of the Wooster Block. Construction progressed rapidly, and the new hotel festively opened on January 1, 1904. Containing some 176 lavishly appointed rooms, each with bath, and large public rooms similarly furnished, the new hotel was a handsome addition to Pasadena's fine hotels and enjoyed many years of popularity while at the same time promoting the growth of Pasadena itself. In the 1920's however, as the popularity of the hotel began to decline, the building fell into a state of disrepair, leading Pasadena City Planners in 1971 to recommend its destruction. The building was saved when purchased by Goldrich, Kest and Stein in 197%, who, with the aid of a H.U.D. grant, transformed the hotel into an apartment residence for senior citizens, that being its present use.
Cil/73
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE
r-iTG NATIONAL i$^i«MI& REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ^ij^piil^
••.•>.."•'•• : "'-- : '•'•'• '•'. ? ••••:'•'::'•'•'• ••'''/•'•'.':'. •%'.•'.'.'•;••.••••.•.•.. .'•/... v: ^-' : ':':'•"•• i.-' ..v-:. 1 -.•'.'•'.;''•'••.. ; - .\: -•. ..'•::••' '••••'•'--.-i : ; ;:---./' • .;:•• v'-:..: '-.•..• '•••• • >.'•/:;.:•.•.• "•.••• :•'•:• .-'.•.'.•::'..:-..'..:/•::".•;••/.'••.•-...•• ^-/ ;: ....'.-.- ••.:•':•/•••/. •^•>-:.' -.'•;-''•:..• •': •.'..;••'•/•.•••':-':4 •JQ^^'^^f: iit-j^w'"v: ^':-:'-'^:/^'^ ••;••::.:".':••:;:;•-'>.••/.:' :Kifi:<^&vJ;\Vfcfc*:.:: :'• :KV : :*.:V:.: -S •:«
CONTINUATION SHEET HITEM NUMBER J_Q f'AGE
The following described portion of Lot 2, Hotel Green replat, in the City of Pasadena, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as recorded in Map Book 1, page 77, Records of said Los Angeles, State of California.
The square block bounded by Raymond Avenue on the east, Green Street on the north, Fair Oaks avenue on the west and Dayton Street on the south.
See attached parcel map.
I -i-_
r1
•-J
m
m
rn
m
FAIR OAKS
5; ro Q
<*>
-
RAYMOND AVE.
r
NFS Form 10-900a 0MB No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
CONTINUATION SHEET
Section ___ Page __
SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD
NRIS Reference Number: 83001200/07001303 Date Listed: 3/25/2008 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Boundary Increase/Decrease/Additional Documentation)
Property Name Los Angeles CA
County State
N/A
Multiple Name
This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation.
Items in Nomination:
Date of Action
U. T. M. Coordinates:
The U.T.M. Coordinates presented in the original nomination are correct and are retained for the revised Additional Documentation. [The coordinates presented in the current AD do not circumscribe the nominated area.]
The U.T.M. Coordinates for the three specific Boundary Increase areas (noted as points A, B, and E on the new USGS map) are: [A] 11 394031 3778108, [B] 11 393820 3778440, and [E] 11 394031 3779000. [These points are effectively contained within the original four district coordinate points.] Verbal Boundary Description:
The Verbal Boundary Description for the new Boundary Increase and Decrease areas should refer to the map accompanying the new documentation. [The increase areas are limited to the lots historically associated with the properties at 108-1 12 South Delacey [#66], 80 West Dayton [#62], 130 -134 North Fair Oaks [#78], and 330 South Fair Oaks [#90]. The Boundary Decrease areas are described as the lots historically associated with the properties at 251 and 255 South Fair Oaks and the lot at NE corner of South Raymond and Del Mar Boulevard. The increase and decrease areas all total < one acre and represent no net change to the listed historic district. ]
These clarifications were confirmed with the CA SHPO office.
DISTRIBUTION:
National Register property file
Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment)
NFS Form 10-900
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form NA
RECEIVED 2280
MAR 1 2 2008
[.REGISTER OP HISTORIC PLA
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CES
OMBNo. 1024-0018
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individi atprupyillBU aflU Slstndts. bee ins ructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
1. Name of Property___________________________________________________ historic name Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)____ other names/site number _________
2. Location
street & number See Attached Map
city or town Pasadena
N/A f~| not for publication
___N/A D vicinity
state California code CA county Los Angeles code 37 zip code 91105
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this 03 nomination D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property S3 meets D does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant Q nationally D statewide iS locally. ( CD See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature' of Certifying official/Tifie "v" ' t5ate/
California Office of Historic Preservation
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property D meets D does not meet the National Register criteria. ( D See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that this property is:
3red in the National Register
D See continuation sheet.
Q determined eligible for the
National Register
D See continuation sheet.
Q determined not eligible for the
National Register
Q removed from the National
Register
D other (explain): _________
'
Signajwe of the Keeper
2£
Date of Action
3/2S/2
c:.c Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes^ Los Angeles. CA Name of Property————————————— County and State
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(Check as many boxes as apply)
£3 private
[X] public-local
D public-State
n public-Federal
Category of Property
(Check only one box)
n building(s)
[X] district
Dsite
n structure
n object
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.) N/A
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) Contributing Noncontributing
154__________40_______ buildings
1 park______________________ sites
____________________ structures
__________________________ objects
154__________40________ Total
Number of contributing resources previously listed in
the National Register
158
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
(Enter categories from instructions)
LANDSCAPE/park
COMMERCE/business, specialty store, financial
RECREATION & CULTURE/theater
RELIGION/reliqious facility
SOCIAL/meetinq hall
TRANSPORATION/rail related
DOMESTIC/multiple dwelling, hotel
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions)
LANDSCAPE/oark
COMMERCE/business, specialty store, financial
COMMERCE/Professional, restaurant
RECREATION & CULTURE/theater
RELIGION/reliqious facility
TRANSPORATION/rail related
DOMESTIC/multiple dwellinq, hotel
DOMESTIC/sinqle family
7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions)
LATE 19 & EARLY 20 CENTURY REVIVALS -
Beaux Arst. Mission/Spanish Colonial Revival_____
MODERN MOVEMENT- Moderne. Art Deco
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions)
foundation concrete
roof ceramic tile, other
walls wood, brick, stone, stucco
other
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.) Old Pasacene Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes^ Los Angeles, Name of Property————————————— County and State
CA
8. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for National Register listing)
1X1A Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
H3 B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
[>3c Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
D D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "X" in all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:
n A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.
n B removed from its original location.
D C a birthplace or a grave.
(H D a cemetery.
D E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
H] F a commemorative property.
D G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years.
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.
Areas of Significance
(Enter categories from instructions)
Commerce__________________
Architecture
Period of Significance
1886-1936
Significant Dates
1886 - Santa Fe Train Station constructed, auctioning
of the schoolhouse property, city incorporated______
1929-1939 - Colorado Boulevard street widening
Significant Person
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
N/A_____________________
Cultural Affiliation
N/A ___ ___
Architect/Builder
Bennet. Cyril; Haskell, Fitch: Ridgeway, Harry;
Strange, C.L.; Roehrig. Frederick, Hudson. Frank:
Buchanan, C.W.: Blick. J.J.; Parkinson, John:
Bergstrom, Edwin: Folland. Walter; de Puger Millar,
Louis: Neff. Wallace_________________
9. Major Bibliographical References__________________________ (Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.) Previous documentation on file (NPS):
[H preliminary determination of individual listing (36
CFR 67) has been requested.
03 previously listed in the National Register
CU previously determined eligible by the National
Register
[U designated a National Historic Landmark
JG recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
#_______________
Q recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record # _______
Primary Location of Additional Data
CH State Historic Preservation Office
C] Other State agency
CD Federal agency
[X] Local government
d University
D Other
Name of repository:
Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes ) Los Angeles, CA Name of Property————————————— County and State
10. Geographical Data__________________________________________ Acreage of Property
54.4 acres
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet) Northing Zone Easting Northing
D See continuation sheet.
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.) See attached map.
Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet.) See attached.
11. Form Prepared By
name/title Teresa Grimes
organization Christopher A. Joseph & Associates______________ date March 30. 2007 street & number 11849 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 101_________ telephone 310-473-1600 city or town Los Angeles_______________________ state CA zip code 90064 Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items
(Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner_______________________________________________ (Complete this item at the request of the SHPO or FPO.) name_____________________________________________________ street & number_________________________________ telephone __________ city or town_______________________________ state __ zip code Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 1 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Summary
The Old Pasadena Historic District contains 154 contributing and 40 noncontributing resources, which form the historic downtown of the City of Pasadena. Dating from 1886 through 1936, the buildings visually document the district's economic and social booms. Most of the buildings are two stories in height, although there are a few taller buildings of eight stories, particularly at intersections, and there are many one-story buildings along the district boundaries. Predominantly commercial in nature, the district also includes a few residential buildings, a train station, some light industrial concerns, several churches, and a park. The strong stylistic eras of Old Pasadena can be discussed using three streets within the district as examples: Fair Oaks Avenue - 1880s, Raymond Avenue - 1890-1915, and Colorado Boulevard 1929-30. Surrounding streets, especially Union Street and Green Street, offer small-scaled buildings, which reflect their industrial and service support to businesses along the major commercial streets. Since the district was originally listed in 1983, many of the contributing buildings have been extensively rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
A few contributing buildings were demolished, and several new noncontributing buildings have been constructed. Most of the new construction, however, occurred on vacant and surface parking lots and is compatible with the historic architecture of the district. Generally, bounded on the north by modern office buildings, on the east by the Civic Center and the Santa Fe railroad tracks, on the west by the Long Beach Freeway, and on the south by later industrial development, this district acts as an enclave from the past, which conveys the aspirations of the early residents of Pasadena.
District Description
Old Pasadena evolved from a small wood-frame store constructed on Colorado Boulevard near Fair Oaks Avenue in 1876, setting the pattern of Colorado Boulevard as the east-west artery and Fair Oaks Avenue as the north-south artery. A rate war between the two major railroads between 1885 and 1886 brought about a building boom in southern California that was not lost on Pasadena. The boom spurred the development of Colorado Boulevard between Delacey and Marengo Avenues and along Fair Oaks Avenue between Union and Green Streets. Constructed of brick, buildings remaining from this period utilize such common Victorian-era details as arched windows, decorative brickwork, and articulated cornices. According to historic photographs, projecting bays and Mansard roofs, common to Victorianera design once dominated Colorado Boulevard, although none remain within the district. The eastside of Fair Oaks Avenue, north of Union Street serves as the best remaining streetscape of Victorian-era commercial design within the district and all of Pasadena.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-66)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 2 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
The alleys of Old Pasadena provide not only a unique interior stret system, but also a view of the district's industrial and service uses. Arched windows, fading wall signs, exposed pipes, and heavy wooden or metal doors punctuate the simple brick facades. The alley setback pattern varies with the historic uses of the buildings, creating a hodge-podge type of space. Still in use today, the alley facades are often the only clues that buildings with 1929-30 street-facing facades date to the 1880s.
As Pasadena established itself as a resort town, catering to the upper class winter tourist trade, the northsouth artery shifted from Fair Oaks Avenue to Raymond Avenue. Anchored on its far north and south ends with major hotels and with the Santa Fe Train Station and Hotel Green in the middle, Raymond Avenue became the route between the hotels and downtown. The introduction of buff brick and cast stone ornamentation often associated with Beaux-Arts and Renaissance Revival design on Raymond Avenue buildings document the shift in the 1890s from Victorian to Classical tastes. The two tallest buildings within Old Pasadena, 26-30 and 91-93 North Raymond Avenue offer twin tower reinforced concrete images of window bands, typical of then contemporary Chicago architecture, rare in Pasadena and in the rest of southern California.
The widening of Colorado Boulevard by fourteen feet on each side in 1929 and 1930 created the present-day image of that street. Even though no unified design plan reached final adoption, the popularity of the Spanish Colonial Revival style influenced the design of a majority of the new facades.
Smooth plaster walls, tiled parapets, Churrigueresque ornamentation, and decorative wrought iron work are the most common Spanish Colonial Revival style elements within the district. Bennett and Haskell, leading local practitioners of the style, designed a number of the new facades. Some owners declined the revivalist mode and embraced Art Deco as a more modern image. Although different in idea and expression, both styles employed smooth finished surfaces and Classically derived ornamentation and mingle compatibility along the streetscape. 24-26 East Colorado Boulevard is one of several fine examples, which utilize cast stone relief for the source of decoration. 145 North Raymond Avenue is a rare example of the WPA Moderne style within Pasadena.
The simple one-and two-story buildings along Green and Union Streets document the need for industrial uses close to commercial thoroughfares. Early structures began as livery stables, either for personal transportation or for business deliveries. When the automobile became the predominant mode of transportation, existing liveries changed to automobile-related uses. Newly constructed auto service buildings did not differ in style from their antecedents. Usually brick and often with a stepped or gabled parapet, the building form became the design statement instead of applied ornamentation. While industrial buildings such as 150 South Raymond Avenue and 155 South Fair Oaks Avenue were located along busy streets, their more sophisticated design reflects this design. It is only along the side streets NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 3 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
that industrial buildings were permitted to reflect their function. Along 30-80 West Union Street, several buildings constructed between 1908 and 1925, exist as the most cohesive example of the vernacular design found on the side streets.
While the district is predominately commercial in character, several early houses remain, which document the once close proximity of the two uses. 221-231 North Raymond Avenue is the only remaining example of row house construction within the city. Row houses, more often associated with densely populated areas, were rare in Pasadena due to the availability of land to satisfy suburban desires. 45 East Green Street documents the adaptation of a residence to commercial use with a front yard addition, providing a consistent setback pattern with nearby commercial uses. Recently, several multifamily residential buildings have been constructed in the district, some of which include ground-floor commercial uses, and many more are planned for the industrial area to the south.
The streetscape improvements in the district are generally not original, but are respectful of the architectural and historical character. During the period of significance, the sidewalks were concrete scored and divided into squares ranging in size from 12 to 36 inches. While most of the sidewalks have been replaced, extensive segments of original sidewalks remain around Central Park and the Hotel Green. Historic photographs of the area show no street trees until after World War II. The existing street trees are relatively young and are planted in a uniform manner. Crape Myrtle and Tababuia are the two most common species and are found on Raymond Avenue, Fair Oaks Avenue, Holly Street, and Union Street. Colorado Boulevard has alternating Ginkos and Queen Palms, and Green Street has the oldest street trees with mature uniform Ficus. The first street lights in the district were gas-fed, Victorian style fixtures with several globes cascading from a single post. Those light standards were replaced with incandescent lamps. Other than Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, the streetlights are simple posts with white acorn-shaped lanterns. The streetlights on Fair Oaks Avenue have taller posts with double lanterns. Those on Colorado Boulevard also have double lanterns, but are even more decorative.
Precisely when the streetlights were installed is unknown. The ones present are similar to those seen in historic photographs of the district during the 1930s. Of course modern traffic lights and signs are also present.
The district remains relatively intact due to a shift in the community's economic and social forces further east along Colorado Boulevard. This shift, while scorned by shopkeepers and property owners from the 1930s through the 1980s, created a climate that did not encourage architectural change within Old Pasadena. While a few storefronts were modernized, most remained unchanged or fell into a state of disrepair. Interest in the revitalization of the area grew during the early 1980s. The construction of large public parking structures and the listing of the district in the National Register were the two main NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 4 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
catalysts for the district's rebirth. The public parking structures created a district-wide parking supply that benefited all businesses, allowing the area to compete with regional malls. A zoning overlay in 1985 protected the buildings from demolition, and the National Register listing provided tax benefits for the rehabilitation of buildings. Surrounded by high-rise construction and a freeway on three sides and smallscale industrial development to the south, the district acts as a cohesive entity that interprets Pasadena's past.
Contributing Resources
1. 35-45 North Arrovo Parkwav Constructed: 1924. Harold J. Bissner, architect aka 110-114 East Union
Broadway Building
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building is located on the eastern edge of the district at the corner of North Arroyo Parkway and East Union Street. The most interesting architectural feature of the building is the clipped corner and cast stone pediments over the second story windows. The building was the first work of local architect Harold Bissner, who is responsible for a number of Pasadena buildings.
2. 3. & 4. Central Park Constructed: 1902
I site and two buildings
Central Park is located at the south end of the district. The 10.73-acre site is bounded by South Raymond Avenue on the east, Dayton Street on the north, South Fair Oaks Avenue on the west, and East Del Mar Boulevard on the south. The Hotel Green is to the north and the Santa Fe Train Station is to the east.
Central Park and Memorial Park (in the Civic Center National Register District) are the oldest parks in the city, the land for both parks having been purchased in 1902. Many mature trees, broad lawns, and a few small buildings connected by winding paths form the general plan of the park. The park became a recreation ground for the tourists staying at the neighboring Hotel Green.
The park was originally designed by Thomas Chisholm, but mainly reflects a redesign by Cook &, Hall and Ralph Cornell in 1927. Most of the original footpath configuration of intersecting circles and ovals still exists, notably the large oval in the center. The National Humane Society donated the stone horse trough located in the northeast corner of the park in 1905. It is now used as a water fountain.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 5 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
At the southeast corner of the park are the Lawn Bowling Clubhouse and two bowling greens. Wealthy eastern gentlemen vacationing in Pasadena and staying in the area hotels, such as the Hotel Green, formed the club in 1921. The sport was apparently so popular that architect Wallace Neff was commissioned to design a clubhouse in 1929. The clubhouse is a one-story Spanish Colonial Revival style building with a red tile roof. It sits between two square-shaped bowling greens that are surround by fences.
Roque, a form of croquet played on clay courts, was also popular in the 1920s; thus six roque courts were constructed west of the south bowling green. They remained at least through the late 1960s, but are now gone.
Constructed in 1915, the Tourist Club sits at the south end of the park at 37 East Del Mar Boulevard.
When the stuccoed bungalow style Tourist Club was moved from the north end of the park to its present site in 1926, a new foundation as well as electricity and plumbing were added. It remains mostly unchanged except for the replacement of the original front doors.
The park retains a variety of mature trees including one or more Sago Palm, Bunya-Bunya, Flame Eucalyptus, California Bay, and Canary Island Palm.
The park is counted as one site and two buildings.
5. 1-11 East Colorado Constructed: 1904,
Colfair Building Altered: 1929, Balch and Stanberry, architects The building sits at the important intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Fair Oaks Avenue, and represents a fine example of the Art Deco style in the district. The five-story building is marked by zigzag Moderne chevron detailing, a decorative iron grille on the west side, a Classical pediment over the door (west side), and large water tower on the northeast corner of the roof. The mass is an important match-up with 2-10 West Colorado Boulevard diagonally across the corner. The windows and storefronts are arranged symmetrically along the Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard facades.
Matthew Slavin was the builder; he was responsible for constructing other buildings in the district. The building was rehabilitated in 1996 and retains a high level of physical integrity. Details include original storefronts on Fair Oaks with aluminum and copper display framing, marble bulkheads and black Carerra glass on storefront piers. The storefronts on Colorado have been replaced and the stepped parapet at the roofline was added to hide mechanical equipment.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval Ato 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 6 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
6. 12 East Colorado Constructed: 1887
Altered: 1929, Frederick Marsh, architect
The focal point of this two-story Art Deco style building is its frieze of stylized flowers between the first and second stories. On either side of the second story are fluted pilasters topped with an abstract shell design in relief. One of the original owners, J.W. Wood, was a well-known druggist, realtor, and author of Pasadena history.
7. 13-31 East Colorado Constructed: 1929, Cyril Bennett, architect Exchange Block
This one-story Classical building includes such decorative features as an elaborate projecting cornice and a cast iron frieze. Built on the site of the Carlton Hotel/Exchange Block, an early Pasadena landmark, some evidence of the former structure remain in the present building even though the former building was ostensibly demolished. A fire destroyed the interior of the building, but the fa9ade and granite bulkheads remain. The architectural features are marked with an abundance and mixture of classical motifs pressed into the relatively narrow space between windows and parapet. The Classical Revival style of the building stands in contrast to the Spanish Colonial Revival style that dominates Colorado Boulevard. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1990.
8. 14-16 East Colorado Constructed: 1896,
Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects
This two-story Spanish Colonial Revival building has stucco-over brick facades and a shed roof fit with red tiles. Architectural details include and elegant first story fa9ade framed by pilasters with scroll and leaf capitals, cut-corner display windows, and transom windows with ornamental iron grillwork over the recessed front entrance. Three large, casement windows are arranged symmetrically on the second story of the building. T he alley fa9ade is largely intact. The building is similar in original design to its neighbor, 18-20 East Colorado Boulevard. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1985.
9. 18-20 East Colorado Constructed: 1896
Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell. architects
This two-story Spanish Colonial Revival structure is tied to 14-16 E. Colorado Boulevard with its Mission tile shed roof and curved downspouts. Three large, single-pane windows are arranged symmetrically on the second story of the building. The architectural details are almost identical to 14-16 NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 7 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
East Colorado Boulevard. The capitals were restored and replaced during its certified rehabilitation in 1985.
10. 24-28 East Colorado Constructed: 1887
Fish Building Altered: 1929, Frederick Kennedy Jr., architect In marked contrast to the Spanish Colonial Revival facades on either side, this large two-story reinforced building has an Art Deco fa9ade. While some portions of the structure date from 1887, almost all of the recognizable elements of the building are from the 1929 Art Deco construction. Fluted pilasters and a band of relief abstract swirls, zig-zag, flower and wave patterns between the first and second floor make this building one of the best examples of the style within the district. All pilasters and the relief are of poured concrete. A transom runs above the length of the ground floor windows, accented with an Art Deco star-design grill above the center recessed entrance. The second story is marked by a horizontal ribbon of 13 double-hung windows more typical of the Moderne style. The interior of the building was remodeled in the 1980s, but the front fa9ade is intact.
11. 30-32 East Colorado Constructed: 1888
Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects
This one-story Spanish Colonial Revival building features two shop entrances delineated by two large arches resting on Classical Corinthian columns and a red tile shed roof. Architectural details include a miniature arch motif relief running across the front fa9ade of the building below the cornice. Both recessed, glass entrances are symmetrically arranged beneath each arch. The four, large display windows are arranged symmetrically on either side of each entrance. A contrasting, plain stucco panel occupies the space above the entrances and below the arches.
12. 33-35 East Colorado Constructed: 1916
Altered: 1929, M.P. Wilkinson, architect
Fluted pilasters capped by stylized rams heads in relief define this two-story poured concrete building in the Art Deco style. A zig-zag decorative molding runs above the second story windows, and the parapet is accented with a circular pattern. Five large, casement windows occupy nearly the entire second story fa9ade. An iron Art Deco style gate arranged between the two large glass display windows protects the recessed entrance. The sidewalk outside the storefront is accented with in-laid glass bricks. The building was rehabilitated in 1994. A rear addition to the building was demolished; however, this addition was not original and its design was incompatible with the original building.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 8 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
13. 34-36 East Colorado Constructed: 1890
Altered: 1929, H.H. Ruber, architect
This two-story stucco-over-brick building contains no embellishment except for an arch-and-bracket design in relief just below the parapet. An unadorned transom runs the entire length of the building just above the first story. The recessed front glass entrance is arranged between glass display windows on either side. Architectural details include a simple trim detail running below the flat roof and original black tile bulkhead with yellow accents. A balcony area on top of rear ground-floor flat roof is only visible to parking lot fa£ade. The building was rehabilitated in 1994.
14. 37-39 East Colorado Constructed: pre-1886
Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects
This one-story stucco-over-brick building has a false second story and a red tile shed roof in Spanish Colonial Revival style. Three panel friezes in a wreath and shield pattern flanked by a scroll pattern comprise the chief Spanish element. A horizontal trim runs just below the three panels. Two 6-inch diameter shell patterned elements are supported and decorative corbels on either side of the first-floor rectangular display windows. The recessed entrance retains the transom over the door and terrazzo flooring. Built for Craig and Hubbard Grocers, this was the first brick store building in Pasadena and predates any building records. The building was rehabilitated in 1996.
15. 38-44 East Colorado Constructed: 1893, Ridgeway and Klock, architects Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects
This two-story stucco-over-brick building is in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Architects, Bennett and Haskell designed other buildings in the district; this structure is very similar to 14-16 East Colorado Boulevard. The fa?ade is symmetrically organized about a centrally located entrance to the upper story.
The entrance sits in an arched opening topped by decorative relief work. Two each side are storefronts with brackets in the upper corners. Double-hung windows defined by wrought iron railings and twisted columns are arranged symmetrically on the second story. A wide decorative frieze sits below the shed roof, which is fit with red tiles. A contoured molding runs the length of the roofline and in between the two stories. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1984.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-B6)
United States Department of the interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 9 Old Pasadena Historic District
(Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
16. 43 East Colorado Constructed: 1892, C.W. Buchanan, architect Defriez Block Altered: 1919, Louis de Puger Millar
This two-story brick building with a glazed brick front fa£ade is neo-Renaissance in appearance. The most distinguishing feature of the fa9ade is a large Palladian window centered on the second story. The flat roofline is defined by a dentil course and two mock square capitals. At the ground level is a single storefront with a centrally located door flanked by display windows. This fa9ade may stem from the 1919 remodeling and appears to have been moved back on rails in 1922.
17. 45-47 East Colorado Constructed: 1919, Louis de Puger Millar This two-story building is the centerpiece in a series of three two-story Beaux Arts facades. Slender ionic columns separate the four one-over-one, double-hung second story windows. A decorative cornice runs above the columns and windows. A larger cornice and blank frieze framed by curved brackets and square capitals accent the parapet. Architectural details on the ground floor include transom windows above the recessed entrances and a larger three-panel transom running the length of the building. The building was rehabilitated in 1993.
18. 46-48 East Colorado Constructed: 1886
Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architect
This is a simple two-story, stucco-over-brick Spanish Colonial Revival building with a red tile shed roof. A wide frieze with a narrow cornice and decorated relief panels above the two plain second story double-hung sash windows provide the major decoration. A transom runs the length of the building above the display widows and recessed entrance. Simple pilasters and decorative capitals flank the ground-floor display windows. The building was rehabilitated in 1993, and further minor rehabilitations occurred in 2002.
19. 49-51 East Colorado Constructed: 1887
Altered: 1898, C.W. Buchanan, architect
Altered: 1928, Louis de Pugar Miller, architect
The two-story stucco-over-brick building is ornamented by second story pilasters and cast iron piers at the street level. In 1898, the building was remodeled by architect C.W. Buchanan to house employees of the Hotel Green. The front fa9ade is part of a 1928 remodeling. The Palladian type roofline is accented by a grey metal cornice with dentals and a bull's eye window in the arch of the roofline. Four pilasters NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. W24-001B
(B-B6)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 1Q Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
separate the four double-hung sash windows on the second story. The front fa9ade of the second story is made of ceramic tile in a brick pattern. A four-paneled transom widow and plain pilasters comprise the design details of the ground floor. The rear alley elevation of the building is one-story and is characterized by the arched windows and entrances. The building was rehabilitated in 1982.
20. 50-54 East Colorado Constructed: 1897
Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architect
This two-story stucco-over-brick Spanish Colonial Revival building is characterized by a decorative boxed cornice at the roofline, which runs just above an ornate frieze. Decorative moldings run above and below the three double-hung windows. Narrow pilasters separate the windows. Wide pilasters with decorative capitals frame the three-light glass panels that comprise most of the first story fa9ade. The recessed entrance is arranged asymmetrically on the far left corner of the street facade. The building was rehabilitated in 1994. The storefront is not original.
21. 55-61 East Colorado Constructed: 1889
Frost Building Altered: 1919, D.C. McCallum, builder
This two-story building was the original Pasadena store of Wetherby and Kayser, an old Los .Angeles shoe business owned by Eva Fenyes, a prominent local citizen. The simple fa9ade of white glazed brick is ornamented by a boxed cornice at the roofline and simple pilasters framing the street level entrance to the second story. Six single-pane windows are arranged asymmetrically on the second story. The alley fa9ade has arched windows and entrance, and a distinctive metal sliding door. Architectural details include leaded glass transoms, pressed metal cornices, and a decorative metal gate. The building was damaged in a fire, but underwent a certified rehabilitation in 2004.
22. 56-58 East Colorado Constructed: 1929, Marston and Maybury, architect This one-story stucco-over brick building was constructed while neighboring older buildings were refaced in 1929 for the widening of Colorado Boulevard. A plain cornice runs just under the flat roofline. The fa9ade is characterized by a plain fascia above the two storefronts, and the metal grillwork covering the transom that runs the length of the building. Black ceramic bulkheads support the glass display windows. The building was rehabilitated in 2001.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 11 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
23. 60-64 East Colorado Constructed: 1888
Stowell Block Altered: 1928, Bennett and Haskell, architects This two-story stucco-over-brick building anchors the southwest corner of the intersection of Raymond Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. The second story retains most of the original decorative elements from the 1928 remodel including a series of symmetrical scrolled ornaments projecting above the parapet, and a wide checkerboard frieze framed by two cornices just below the parapet. The multi-pane second story windows are accented by heavy lintels and mock pilaster capitals in a scroll-and-leaves design above each window, and a decorative false metal balcony below each window. An egg-and-dart patterned horizontal band separates the first and second stories. The first story includes plain pilasters with Doric capitals dividing multiple storefronts, large glass display windows, marble-faced bulkheads and a ribbon-windowr transom. The building is historically important as the long-time location of Vroman's bookstore and for its connection with Alexander Stowell, a prominent Pasadenean. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1982.
24. 63-65 East Colorado Constructed: 1896, Greene and Greene, architects Kinney-Kendall Block Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects The flat roofline of this three-story stucco-over-brick building is characterized by a series of scrolled consoles with acanthus leaves under the cornice. Multi-paned casement windows are arranged in sets along the Raymond fa9ade with large painted transoms above and separated by Doric pilasters. Large transoms, also accent pairs of casement windows arranged symmetrically on the Colorado Boulevard fa9ade. A horizontal band separates each story. The first story is fairly plain, and has suffered from alterations. The alley facade retains an arched entrance with rails on which sides of meat were transported into an early meat market. This building is important historically as the only existing commercial building by Greene & Greene. However the only remaining original Greene & Greene elements are the wooden doors, the newel post, and the balustrade in the Raymond Avenue entrance.
25. 87-89 East Colorado Constructed: 1929, Benjamin G. Horton, architect The one-story street fa9ade on this grey terra cotta building conceals the two-stories in the rear. A frieze with flower medallions separated by vertical blocks under the leaf-patterned cornice embellishes the flat roofline. Grooved pilasters and a horizontal band symmetrically divide the fa9ade into two storefronts.
Architectural details of the storefronts include black glass bulkheads, black-and-white checkered terrazzo floors, wide transoms, and recessed entrances. The building was rehabilitated in 1995.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 12 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
26. 95-99 East Colorado Constructed: 1902-1904
Altered: 1929, Benjamin G. Horton, architect
This two-story brick building is embellished with a mock balustrade at the parapet and a cornice with arched corbelling. The second story windows each feature a cement relief of a Byzantine leaf design. A band of small double dentils runs below the second story windows. The first story display windows are set in metal frames with granite bulkheads. The entrances are accented with patterned leaded-glass transoms. A penthouse structure set back from the street fa9ade above the second story was added in 1921. The building was formerly the location of Pasadena's F.W. Woolworth branch. The building was rehabilitated in 2005.
27. 96-104 East Colorado Constructed: 1896, Harry Ridgeway, architect Richardson Block Altered: 1929, Benjamin G. Horton, architect This large two-story brick-faced building is accented by classical details throughout. A heavy decorative shell and scalloped pattern comprise the ornamentation at the cornice, parapet, and central entrance. The second story casement windows with narrow transoms are arranged in groups of two and are separated by decorative vertical panels. These concrete panels depict an intricate flower, vase, and scroll design.
The same design is used to decorate the flat flush pilasters at the corners and entrances on the first story.
Wide transoms and recessed entrances mark the display windows on the first story. The grand, central, recessed entrance to the second story is elaborately decorated with the aforementioned classical frieze and the Richardson name. The building is historically important due to its connection with the Richardson family, a prominent Pasadena family. Harry Horton, the architect of the 1929 remodel, also designed neighboring buildings on the street. The building was rehabilitated in 2000, and again in 2004.
28. 109-125 East Colorado Constructed: 1906, John Parkinson and Chamber of Commerce Building Edwin Bergstrom, architects
This six-story, steel frame, and cream brick office building was one of the earliest of the Parkinson and Bergstrom partnership, and was hailed as the city's "most costly building" when constructed. The building housed Pasadena's most prestigious professionals. The flat roof features a wide overhanging cornice with painted medallions. The fa9ade is characterized by brown, green, and blue brick mosaiclike elements. This motif includes a band above the fifth story and a geometric element below the second story. A banded molding runs the length of the building above the second story and above the first story. Above the first story, an egg-and-dart motif runs adjacent to the molding. The corners of the building incorporate the mosaic-like design vertically. The double-hung sash windows are arranged in NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 13 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
groupings of different widths, with pairs of narrow windows flanked with two wider v/idows. The main recessed entrance includes large concrete decorative brackets, a cornice above the entrance, and an eggand-dart motif around the entrance ceiling. The multiple storefront display windows are separated from the transom by a narrow molding. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1985.
29. 1-11 West Colorado Constructed: 1930, Bennett and Haskell, architects This two-story Art Deco style building anchors the prominent intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Fair Oaks Avenue. The two street-facing elevations are symmetrically organized and divided into four bays by fluted pilasters that rise above the flat roofline. Zig-zag design that characterizes the style is utilized at the cornice and frieze. At the ground level are identical storefronts with marble bulkheads, recessed doors, and vertically divided transoms. At the second story are unusually large window openings. The entrance to the upper story is located in the northernmost bay on the Fair Oaks Avenue.
30. 2-10 West Colorado Constructed: 1902, J.J. Blick, architect Dodsworth Building Altered: 1930, Walter Folland, 1930
The four-story Dodsworth Building is situated at the prominent intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Fair Oaks Avenue. The original design was altered in 1930 by Walter Folland to take what was a simple building with Classical cornices and windows into the Spanish style.
While the building encompasses Classical, Spanish, and Moderne styles, it relates well to the building across Colorado Boulevard and to the neighboring buildings. The high parapet is embellished with an arched element and an egg patterned band. Wide flat pilasters separating the double-hung sash windows divide the fa9ade. The pilaster capitals project to the roofline, and are ornately designed in scroll pattern.
This ornate patterned relief is repeated at the corners of the building above and below the third story.
Decorative medallions support a horizontal band just above the first floor. The first floor includes traditional storefronts with vertically divided transoms; a cast stone arched entranceway, and a granite base.
31. 12-18 West Colorado Constructed: 1900-1901
Altered: 1929, J.KinseL architect
This two-story plaster-over-masonry building is one of the few examples of the Moderne style in the district. Plain flat pilasters divide the second story. A thick and a thin band run above the pilasters in the center of the building. The outer pilasters are capped by a simple geometric element. Two narrow units NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 1_4 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
flank the multi-paned windows. The ground level is divided into three storefronts by plain, flat pilasters.
Bulkheads, recessed entry ways, and vertically divided transoms define the storefronts. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1985.
32. 13-21 West Colorado Constructed: 1888, R.S. Cox, architect Arcade Building Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects This two-story building is an excellent example of Churrigueresque detailing, and one of the best examples of Spanish Colonial Revival style in the district. Details include ornate cast stone bas relief medallions featuring helmeted World War I soldiers, moldings, fmials and cornice supports. The doublehung windows on the second-story are arranged symmetrically and divided by plain pilasters. These same pilasters divide the sections of the cast stone bas relief running under the decorated cornice.
Ornament on the first floor facade includes cast iron posts, a grill frieze running across the building, copper storefront mullions on east storefront, and an upper and lower transom. The interior features a rare large art glass skylight, likely designed by Judson Studios. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1984.
33. 20-30 West Colorado Constructed: 1887
Altered: 1930. Raymond Harvey, architect
This three-story Mediterranean style office building served as a post office in the first decade of the century and relates well to the adjacent buildings. The arched side windows contrast nicely with the front fa9ade metal frames, indicating an earlier vintage of this and other Mills Alley buildings. The cornice is has an overhanging shed tile roof with exposed beams. The facades of the second and third stories are nearly identical; large multi-paned casement windows are arranged symmetrically along both street facades. Pilasters divide the storefronts and entrances on the first floor, and an upper transom runs above the glass storefronts. The glass double-door main entrance to the upper floors is recessed under an arch. Architectural details on the building include a decorative bracket on the corners of the third story, a thick horizontal band running between the first and second story and crescent shaped wrought-iron entrance gates on Colorado Boulevard. The building underwent rehabilitation in 1989.
34. 29-31 West Colorado Constructed: 1929, Finlayson and Haas, architects This one-story, flat-roofed commercial building is Art Deco in style. The fa?ade is plain except for a decorative panel of perforated terra cotta in an Art Deco design above the storefronts. A thick bulkhead NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 15 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
contrasts with the pilasters OR the ground level. The central entrance is recessed from the metal-framed, glass display cases. The building was rehabilitated in 1993.
35. 33-47 West Colorado Constructed: 1895
Altered: 1929, Bennet and Haskell, architects
This two-story structure was originally three individual stone masonry buildings constructed in 1895.
The three buildings were enlarged and joined by a common fa9ade designed by Bennett and Haskell in 1929. An ornate Churrigueresque decorative panel runs the length of the building just below the overhanging shed tile roof. Eight, large, multi-paned windows are arranged symmetrically along the second story. A horizontal band separates the second and first story. A Churrigueresque frieze similar in a pattern to the upper panel richly ornaments the central entrance. Storefronts with vertically divided transoms flank the central entrance. The building was rehabilitated in the 1992.
36. 42 West Colorado Constructed: 1886
Altered: 1929, Frederick Marsh, architect
This narrow two-story building is one of the most significant examples of the Art Deco style in the district. The fa9ade is characterized by cast stone frieze in an Art Deco pattern on the parapet, original cast stone recessed window spandrels in a stylized jazz age jungle motif, and a jagged decorative metal canopy above the entrance. Two narrow wood-framed windows with transoms are arranged symmetrically on the second story. The first story has undergone minor alterations, but the recessed entrance, tile bulkheads, entry tile, and metal canopy are intact. The architect also designed the Art Deco style building at 12 East Colorado Boulevard. The building was rehabilitated in the 1980s.
37. 49-51 West Colorado Constructed: 1903, W. Higgins
Salvation Army Building Altered: 1929, W. Higgins, architect This two-story commercial brick vernacular building compliments a smaller building at 53 West Colorado Boulevard. The fa9ade is sheathed in a light brown brick and trimmed with a darker brown brick. A very tall flat parapet sits above a denticulated course. At the second story are one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The first story contains a single storefront. The entrances to the storefront and the upper story are offset to the west.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 16 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
38. 50-54 West Colorado Constructed: 1924, Hudson and Munsell, architects Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects
This two-story stucco-over-brick Spanish Baroque style building was constructed in 1924 as a warehouse and remodeled in 1929 when Colorado Boulevard was widened. Major architectural features include a red tile shed roof, ornate classical bands above the second story windows, brackets below each window, and elaborate ornamental ironwork just above the ground floor storefronts. Cement pilasters with decorative capitals and original tile bulkheads frame each ground floor storefront. Original brick characterizes the rear fa9ade.
39. 53-55 West Colorado Constructed: 1912, Frohman and Martin, architects Dobbins Building
This two-story commercial building features a burnt-brick exterior and is one of the few moved in 1929 during the widening of Colorado Boulevard instead of being resurfaced. Consequently, the building provides a fine example of rarely found burned brick styling in the district. Three double-hung sash windows are arranged symmetrically on the second story above the ground floor storefront. Fa?ade details include cornice bands around the second story windows showing dentil and egg and dart details, molded brick trim below the windows, green and white tile in the entryway, and prism glass transoms set in metal frames above the storefront. Horace Dobbins, the original owner, is important to Pasadena's history as the builder of the cycleway to Los Angeles. The building was rehabilitated in 1992.
40. 59-75 West Colorado Constructed: 1910
Altered: 1929, Roth and Parker, architects
Located at the comer of Colorado Boulevard and Delacey Street, this substantial two-story building was constructed in 1910 and served as dune's Pasadena Theater. In 1929, it was remodeled and given its present Spanish Colonial Revival style facade. Like many of the corner buildings on Colorado, the original design is apparent on the side street elevation. The stuccoed fa9ade is topped by a shed roof fit with red tile. Multi-paned casement windows are evenly distributed along the second story. Along the considerable length of the ground level are display windows and storefronts.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. W24-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 17 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
41. 85-89 West Colorado Constructed: 1915, Louis du Pugar Millar Motor Car Agency
Originally the Chandler Motor Car Agency, this one-story building with plaster-over-brick surfaces utilizes a characteristic stepped parapet roofline, which surmounts a three-bay arrangement of plate glass windows. Plain pilasters with a horizontal banded capital separate the storefront bays. A paneled transom runs the length of the building. The building was rehabilitated in 1997.
42. 93-95 West Colorado Constructed: 1921, Paul Martin, architect This one-story Mission Revival style commercial building features a tiled shed roof jutting out over the single storefront. A multi-paned bank of high broad windows banded with heavy wood and a paneled transom dominates the storefront.
43. 103-111 West Colorado Constructed: 1908-25
These three older one-story commercial buildings have been incorporated into one. The fa9ade includes both stucco-over-brick and painted brick finishes. Although unified in the interior, the buildings remain visually separate due to such features as different parapets, window size and detailing variations. 111 West Colorado Boulevard features two large parapets stepped up in the center of the building. 105 West Colorado Boulevard is characterized by a large bank of wide storefront windows and a simple horizontal band above the transom. 103 West Colorado Boulevard is characterized by a flat roof and a virtually unadorned fa9ade. The rear fa9ades constitutes an important architectural feature of adjoining alley. The buildings were joined and rehabilitated in 1994.
44. 106 West Colorado Constructed: 1918
Altered: 1929, Marston and Van Pelt, architects
This two-story7 commercial building is Spanish Colonial Revival in style. The fa9ade is symmetrically organized about a centrally located entryway with a wood door, sidelights, and transom. Cast stone piers, bulkheads, and a cornice surround the storefront windows. Two pilasters capped with decorative urns on either side accent the tiled shed roof. A narrow window framed by cast stone blocks opens onto a wrought-iron balcony. To each side are two small round wood windows covered by decorative grills.
The building was rehabilitated in 1995.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-001B
(6-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page IS Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
45. 108-110 West Colorado Constructed: 1922-23, McCune and Spendt, Altered: 1929, Dale McCune, architect
This single-story Spanish Colonial Revival commercial building provides a strong linkage between its neighbors. A simple horizontal cornice just below the roofline accents the tiled shed roof. Simple cast stone parapets frame a heavy wood-framed arched transom. The storefront includes tile bulkheads and a recessed entrance.
46. 112-114 W. Colorado Constructed: 1895
Altered: 1929, E. Ehrenfield, C.H. Basore, architect
This two-story Spanish Colonial Revival commercial building features a single storefront set beneath a large arched transom. A tiled shed roof is anchored on each end by plain piers. Three rectangular double-hung sash windows are arranged symmetrically on the second story. Storefront features include simple pilasters without capitals on either side of the storefront and black tile bulkheads. The scale and details of the 1929 fa9ade echo those of 106 West Colorado Boulevard. The building was rehabilitated in the 1990s.
47. 117 West Colorado Constructed: 1925
This one-story Spanish Colonial Revival style commercial building is similar in scale and relates well to 103-111 West Colorado Boulevard. The tile parapet is framed on either side by decorative seashell moldings and pilasters topped with decorative urns at the roofline. A simple cornice runs just below the parapet. The unique arrangement of the storefront features a wood transom and decorative wood mullion. The building was rehabilitated in 1994.
48. 118-120 West Colorado Constructed: 1909
Altered: 1929, G.S. Bliss, builder
This simple two-story commercial building ties this side of the street to similar plain facades opposite.
The plaster fa9ade is characterized by as simple decoration on the cornice along the flat roofline, and a talk bank of Chicago-type windows below vertical painted panels. The entrance is asymmetrically arranged on the left of the large display windows, with a transom and grill over the glass double-door.
The building was rehabilitated in 1989, and again in 1994.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 1_9 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
49. 121 West Colorado Constructed: 1902
Altered: 1994, David Maman, architect
This one-story masonry commercial building was constructed in 1902, but completely remodeled in 1946 and 1959. When the district was originally listed it had a plain stucco fa9ade with two storefront openings that were bordered over and no design features. In the course of rehabilitating the building in 1994, portions of the original fa9ade were discovered and subsequently restored. The building once again features storefronts fit within two large rusticated stone arches and a pitched red tiled parapet.
50. 124-128 West Colorado Constructed: 1923, D.E. Postle, architect This single-story Spanish Colonial Revival style commercial building was constructed to conform to the future street widening. Ornamental scalloped parapets that accentuate the center storefront set off the tiled shed roof. Plain pilasters frame either side of the building, and decorative moldings outline each of the three storefronts. Other details include thick bulkheads, recessed storefront entrances, and scalloped transoms. The building was rehabilitated in 1998.
51. 132-134 West Colorado Constructed: 1919, R.E. Millsap, architect Altered: 1929, Leo Bachmann, architect
This two-story Churrisgueresque style commercial building features a tower element on the east end.
The tower is capped by a tiled roof and has two arched openings with multi-paned windows above the iron grille balcony and ground floor entrance. The main storefront is marked by large Baroque frieze of cast concrete depicting shield and portrait medallions topped with twelve finials. The storefront below the frieze has an expansive band of windows and a side entrance with a double-hung window arranged directly above the door. The painted brick rear fa9ade is composed of two windows and a door asymmetrically arranged. The exposed brick east fa9ade features six arched window openings. This building is in good condition and exhibits some of the exuberance of the Spanish Colonial with Baroque detailing. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1986, and was subsequently altered in 1997.
52. 133 West Colorado Constructed: 1905
This simple single-story building is almost completely devoid of ornamentation. The main design feature is a patterned brick cornice just under the flat roofline. A central entrance is arranged NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 20 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
symmetrically between the two storefront windows. The rear ally fa$ade includes a large paneled door and a multi-paned window. The building was rehabilitated in 1994.
53. 135-45 West Colorado Constructed: 1925, architect unknown This two-story commercial brick vernacular building has a textured brown and tan brick fa$ade that is symmetrically organized. There are three storefronts located at the ground level. They have a traditional configuration with a recessed entryway flanking display windows, paneled bulkheads, marble bases, and vertically divided transoms. Above are one-over-one double-hung sash windows set in pairs.
Architectural details include denticulated stringcourses at the parapet and below the second story windows. "Wood and Jones Printers" is written in gold leaf letters across the roofline. The rear of the building reveals the fact that it was formerly three separate buildings constructed in 1905, 1914, and 1925.
54. 144 West Colorado Constructed: 1910
Tanner Motor Liven Altered: 1929, Bennett and Haskell, architects This two-story Spanish Colonial Revival style building is topped by a tiled shed roof and sheathed in stucco. Constructed in 1910 for the Tanner Motor Livery, the original use is still evident from the two scored-concrete floor areas for washing horses. The fa9ade is symmetrically organized with three large openings on the ground level. The central one is wider than those to each side and originally accommodated the ingress and egress of carriages and then automobiles. Multi-paned wood casement windows are set in pairs on the second story. Cast stone relief work is used as a decorative frieze as well as panels between the windows. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1991.
55. 148-154 West Colorado Constructed: 1929, Wendell Warren, architect Built as shops for Eva Fenyes, and important member of the artistic community, this is a one-story stucco-over-brick building with three storefronts set beneath blind arches. The only ornamentation are four bas-relief sculptured medallions set between the arches. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1991.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 21 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
56. 161 West Colorado Constructed: 1903
Altered: 1936, Breo Freeman, architect
This one-story stucco-over-brick building has fluted columns at each end. Above the storefronts is a tall parapet with a blank panel framed by contoured molding, which is now used for signage. The building was one to the Crown City Automobile Company. The original garage door at the east end has been replaced by a modern storefront and entry way.
57. 163 West Colorado Constructed: 1921
This one-story stucco-over-brick building has two large arched openings offset to the east and a rectangular window to the west. A tiled shed roof contributes to the simple Spanish Colonial Revival style.
58. 166-68 West Colorado Constructed: 1930
Texaco Station
The former site of a Texaco service station, this property included two one-story Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings: one used as an office and the other used as a service building. The buildings were adaptively reused as a restaurant as part of a certified rehabilitation in 1985. The larger project was called "Tanner Market" and also included the buildings at 140-44 and 148-54 West Colorado Boulevard and 30-44 South Pasadena Avenue.
59. 24 West Dayton Constructed: 1922, J.H. Woodworth & Son Francisca Building
The original owner of this one-story commercial brick vernacular building was James T. Philips, a Black lawyer who used the building for his offices. Philips was a charter member of the NAACP and for many years the city's only Black attorney. The principal elevation is symmetrically organized. Two smaller arches and large rectangular windows flank a larger centrally located arched opening. The brick is exposed on the side and rear elevations, but is painted on the principal elevation. A simple molded cornice runs the length of the flat parapet.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 22 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
60. 37 West Dayton Constructed: 1889, C.W. Buchanan, architect Pasadena Fire Department
This two- and-one-half-story red brick building retains the only cast iron fa9ade in the district. Design features include new wood doors on the ground level, arched openings with groups of double-hung sash windows at the second story, and a decorative cornice along the flat roofline. Built in 1889 as the main station of the Pasadena Fire Department, which had organized in 1887. The original building comprised a narrow^ central bay with a bell tower and that portion to the west of it. Around the turn of the century, the eastern addition was made. At some point in time, the bell tower was removed. The station originally accommodated horses and horse-drawn equipment, until motorized units were purchased in 1909.
61. 51 West Dayton Constructed: 1902
Palace Livery
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building was originally constructed as the Palace Livery in 1902. By 1921. it had been converted into an automobile repair garage. Signs painted on the front of the building are fading, but still visible. Generally utilitarian in design, the primary elevation has a tall arched opening centered on the primary7 elevation that was originally used by carriages and then motor vehicles. The original stepped parapet has been reduced in size. The building under went a certified rehabilitation in 1994. At that time, the central opening was filled with a window, and a sign, which reads "Palace," was added at the peak of the parapet.
62. 80 West Dayton Constructed: 1925, Norman Foote Marsh, architect Friendship Baptist Church
Friendship Baptist Church was not included in the original application for the district, although it is located on the boundary. It was individually listed in the National Register in 1978 and is significant for its role in the history of African Americans in Pasadena as well as for the quality of its architecture.
Founded in 1893, it was the first African-American congregation in the city. As the congregation grew and prospered a larger edifice was required. The noted architect, Norman Foote Marsh, designed the existing building in 1924. The three-story building blends the Spanish Colonial and Mission Revival styles. The design features a distinctive tower at the corner of West Dayton Street and South Delacey Avenue and a Mission-style entrance centered between piers and topped by a shaped parapet. The building was rehabilitated in 2000. At that time, earthquake damage was repaired and the building was seismically reinforced. Restoration work included reestablishing the original color scheme and cast stone finishes on the exterior and period lighting.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 23 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
63. 34 North Delacey Constructed: 1924, R..F. Inwood, architect Salvation Army
This three-story commercial brick vernacular building was constructed for the Salvation Army in 1924.
The brown brick elevation facing North Delacey Avenue is symmetrically organized and is trimmed with white glazed brick. Five bays wide, there is and entrance to the old Salvation Army store in the center bay. Display windows flank it. In the outer bays are narrow doorways that lead to what were apartments on the upper floors. The windows are one-over-one double-hung sash set individually except in the second and fourth bays where they are in a group of three. The parapet accentuates the rhythm of the bays with an arched rise in the center and small gables at each end. Punctuating the center of the parapet is a cast stone sign for the Salvation Army. The rear (east) and north elevations of the building face Miller and Bonham Alleys respectively. They are more utilitarian in design with plain exposed red brick walls and one-over-one double-hung sash windows. Storefronts were added to the ground level of the rear elevation in 2000.
64. 35 North Delacey Constructed 1930, Bennett & Haskell, architects Perm Oil Building Alterations: 1956 and 1998
aka 100 West Union
This Art Deco building was constructed in 1930 for the Perm Oil & Supply Company. It consisted of a 47-foot tower with a one-story service wing at the corner of North Delacey Avenue and West Union Street. The open service bays along the street-facing elevations of the one-story wing were closed in 1956 when the building was converted into a printing and manufacturing facility. Designed by Bennett & Haskell, it is one of the most distinguished Art Deco style buildings in the district. In 1998, the building was adaptively reused for retail use. Changes at that time included the removal of the 1956 alterations, their replacement with display windows, and a second story addition that is set back from the wall plane. Despite the alterations, the building still retains enough physical integrity to be considered a contributing building. Significant architectural features include the tower element with recessed vertical bas relief panels and a stepped ziggurat roof, the original stucco clad surfaces on the street-facing elevations the stepped copping, the continuous frieze with zig-zag detailing, the wall spandrels, and the flared concrete wheel stops at the base of the piers. The south elevation facing Christensen Alley retains its original utilitarian design with plain red brick walls and steel sash windows.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 24 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
65. 42 South Delacey/39 Mills Place Constructed: 1910 and 1927 42 South Delacey Avenue is a single-story commercial brick vernacular building constructed in 1927 as an automobile repair garage. In 1968, it and the building at 39 Mills Place were combined into a single light manufacturing facility. The north side of both buildings forms a continuous brick wall along McCormick Alley. In 1984 the centrally located main entrance and flanking storefronts that had been closed were restored. And 1995 the parapet was restored. 39 Mills Place is a one-story painted brick building facing the alley. It was constructed as a garage in 1904. In 1995, the building was rehabilitated. Utilitarian in design, a denticulated molding and molded cornice define the flat parapet. The tall, narrow, multi-paned windows were restored. When the district was listed they were filled with brick. In what was a vehicular entrance, a storefront has been added.
66. 108-112 South Delacey Constructed: 1928
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building at the corner of South Delacey Avenue and West Dayton Street was constructed as an automobile repair garage. Simple in design, the brick exterior has been painted and there is tiled coping along the flat parapet. The West Dayton Street elevation is symmetrically organized with a vehicular entrance in the center flanked by large windows. The same type of windows are evenly spaced along the South Delacey Avenue where there is also a pedestrian entrance. The missing parapet was reconstructed in the 1990s. The building was not included in the original application for the district, although it dates for the period of significance and retains it physical integrity.
67- 30 East Del Mar Constructed: 1928, Bennett & Haskell, architects This one-story brick and concrete warehouse was originally used as storage and later, around 1940, housed the electric company. The building is located at the south end of the district, across the street from Central Park. The primary elevation is divided into three bays by engaged columns. In the central bay is the main entrance flanked by display windows. In the side bays are large plate glass display windows. Additional decorative features include ceramic tile bulkheads and multi-light transoms.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 25 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
68. 125 Electric Drive Constructed: 1909
The Little Church
The Little Church is a surprising remnant of former life on Electric Avenue. Constructed in 1909 for Dr.
James R. Patterson, the one-story stucco-over-brick church might be mistaken as a commercial building.
The flat roof has a parapet stepped in the center and anchored at each end by short columns. The sideby-side entrances flanked by the original Gothic-style stained glass windows reflect the fact that it originally housed two congregations.
69. 11-17 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1887, Harry Ridgeway, architect Plant Block
This three-story Victorian-era commercial building is a delightful and successful mixture of details. It displays a typical Gothic polychromatic fa9ade of deep red brick set off by white detailing. The straightsided arched windows of the second story suggest the Italianate. Other decorative features including ornamental terracotta friezes at the cornice and between each story. The wood windows are one-overone double-hung sash. When the district was listed the storefronts had been altered. They have since been rehabilitated, but the date is unknown.
70. 16-20 North Fair Oaks Constructed: ca. 1886
Originally owned by Fannie Bonham, this is a two-story commercial brick vernacular building. In 1947, the fa9ade was stuccoed and in 1953 the parapet was removed. The only remaining characteristics of the original front fa9ade are the three-over-one double-hung sash windows on the second story. Although extensively altered, this building is the oldest brick structure still standing in Pasadena. The building was rehabilitated in 1994. At that time, the existing storefronts were installed.
71. 19-25 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1894
Mary K. Bartlett Building
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building has a simple design ornamented by white glazed brick surrounding the second story windows and the peaked parapet creating a mosaic effect. Pasadena's "Model Grocery" got its start here in 1894 and remained at this site through the 1920s. "The" market in town - for some time almost an institution - this became a branch with construction of a new store building in 1910 on Colorado. In 1923, the upper floors were transformed into the Fair Oaks Hotel, and the lower story became the China Palace restaurant.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 26 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
72. 29-33 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1893
Built by Mathhew Slavin the same year as the adjacent building at 37-39 North Fair Oaks Avenue, this two-story commercial brick vernacular building is an integral component of the streetscape. Although simpler in design than 37-39, the building has a decorative brick cornice, which is stepped in the center and appears to be supported by brackets. The rear of these North Fair Oaks Avenue buildings forms the most significant alley space within the district. When the district was listed the storefronts had been altered. They have since been rehabilitated, but the date is unknown.
73. 37-39 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1893
Slavin Block
An elaborate parapet with arched corbelling on the cornice and "Slavin Block'" inscribed in brick in the center, are the focal points of this two-story commercial brick vernacular building. Contractor Matthew Slavin, an active and prominent panicipant in Pasadena's architectural and political life, constructed the building. It retains its original one-over-one double-hung sash windows. Like most commercial buildings in the district, the storefronts have been replaced but the date is unknown.
74. 45-47 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1887
This two-story brick commercial building features elaborate Renaissance Revival style detailing. The cast iron storefront configuration remains much as it did originally. Engaged pilasters that are treated differently at the first and second stories define the corners of the building, and appear to support a denticulated molding and parapet along the flat roofline. At the second story, a terracotta plaque ornament divides two large windowr openings with arched headers.
75. 72 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1904
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building utilizes several Classical features including a cornice belt with brackets and an egg and dart molding and a second story window header with dropped corners. The storefront and entrance has been moved back approximately ten feet from the face of the building to create outdoor seating.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval Nc 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 27 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
76. 76-82 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1904, G. Corwin-Keyes, architect This two-story brick building is one of the few remaining examples of the Mission Revival style in the district. Design features include a stepped cornice with tile shades over protruding bay windows framed by a stepped up window lintel.
Constructed: 1884
Marine Hotel Altered: 1904
The Marine Hotel is a two-story commercial brick vernacular building with tall, narrow windows, extended brick cornices, and a vintage neon sign. The second story remains virtually unaltered. The storefronts were rehabilitated in 1986.
78. 130-34 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1918, Buchanan & Brockway, Morrison Transfer & Storage architects
This one- and two-story commercial brick vernacular building housed the Morrison Transfer and Storage Office from 1919 to 1931. In 1988, the building was rehabilitated. At that time, the existing storefronts were installed.
79. 2-18 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1929, Walter Folland, architect This two-story commercial building sits at the important intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard and is one of the finest examples of the Spanish Colonial Revival style in the district. It was documented in the original application for the district as 2-18 East Colorado Boulevard. The building has strong tower elements at the north and south ends with the main entrance to the building located in the center of the Fair Oaks Avenue elevation. Design features include stucco walls, red tiled roofs, arched window openings, and cast stone ornamentation around the entrance, the frieze along the roof line, medallions, and columns. Ground floor storefronts retain the original vertically divided transoms.
The building was rehabilitated in 1994. At that time the bulkheads were retiled.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. W24-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 28 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
80. 19-25 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1886, Harry Ridgeway, architect Altered: 1923
This simple one-story commercial building has three storefronts. The most distinctive feature of the building is the Art Deco style parapet that consists of a zigzagging frieze.
81. 37-39 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1922
The original application for the district identified three buildings at 33-45 South Fair Oaks Avenue as a single non-contributor. They were united into a single building in 1946 by the Crown Mattress Co. and are still under a single ownership. Pursuant to a tax credit application in 1985. the National Park Service determined that the three buildings should be evaluated separately and that 33-35 and 43-47 South Fair Oaks Avenue are noncontributing, but that 37-39 is contributing. The one-story commercial building at 37-39 has two identical storefronts with painted brick exteriors, simple parapets with vents covered by turned wood balusters, and vertically divided transoms. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1994.
82. 84 South Fair Oaks Constructed: circa 1925
This small one-story commercial brick vernacular building seems to have been left out of the original application for the district. It sits just south of the Wooster Block of the Hotel Green. The building is covered with roughly textured stucco. The facade contains a single storefront with vertically proportioned openings and a decorative cornice.
83. 103-15 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1887
Doty Block Altered: 1924
This large three-story red brick building dominates its corner site. The principal fa9ade (along Fair Oaks Avenue) has eight bays defined by brick pilasters, accented at each story by massive blocks of grey rusticated stone tied together by narrow projecting bands of molding above the first and second stories.
Built during the boom of the late 1880s for James E. Doty, the Doty Block was one of the earliest substantial brick buildings in the city. Doty's carriage business was on of the largest in the San Gabriel Valley during the 1890s. The building originally had a corner tower and projecting bays, which were removed in 1924. In 1998 the building was rehabilitated. The work included the replacement brickwork that had been damage by abrasive cleaning and the replacement of the storefronts, except for the original cast-iron columns.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-861
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 29 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
84. 155 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1906, Hunt & Grey
Star Saddle Livery Altered: 1910, J.C. Hillman, architect A former saddle livery, this two-story plaster-over-brick building is in the Mission Revival style. A three-story tower on the north side and a two-story bay with a wide garage entrance on the south dominates the building. This southern bay, a 1910 addition was built on the site of a former corral. Built for Charles N. Post, a local banker, the livery served guests of the Hotel Green who were interested in pleasure riding. Similar to many liveries, the building became an auto repair shop in the 1930s. Original architectural elements include the pitched roofs fit with red clay tile, arched window headers, multipaned wood casement windows, and original hayloft doors on the rear. The storefronts replaced what were barn-style doors originally. The building was rehabilitated in 1991 and again in 1999.
85. 199 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1920, Buchanan & Brockway This single-story commercial brick vernacular building originally housed a bottling works. The plastered primary elevation is symmetrically organized with an arched entrance centered under a peaked parapet.
The entrance is slightly recessed and displays a fanlight above the door and a quioned surround. Similar fanlights are featured above the arched windows on either side of the entrance.
86. 203 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1922, Foss Design Co.
The original application for the district identified 203-207 as a single contributing building. 203 is a two-story commercial brick vernacular building. The second story fa9ade retains the original brown veneer brick, while the first story has been remodeled. Display windows flank the centrally located recessed entrance. The south elevation has segmental arched windows at the first story and a faded advertisement painted on the brick that reads "Western Plumbing and Tin Works."
87. 207 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1922, Foss Design Co.
The original application for the district identified 203-207 as a single contributing building. 207 is a single-stor}' commercial brick vernacular building containing a single storefront with an entrance located at the north end. The fa9ade is covered with a narrow red brick veneer. The space between this building and 203 is used as a passageway to the rear garden area that is distinguished by a very large camphor tree. A wooden double leafed gate covers the entrance to the passageway.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-OOW
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 30 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
217 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1922, Herbert Hamm, architect This single-story commercial brick vernacular building has a centrally located entrance flanked by display windows. Painted white brick trim adds entrance to an otherwise utilitarian design. The awning hides a Luxford glass transom. The New England Dry Cleaning and Hand Laundry originally used the building. The brick has been damaged by sandblasting.
89. 219 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1929
Thomas and Sons Grocery originally occupied this single-story commercial brick vernacular building. It has a centrally located main entrance consisting of a set of glazed double doors. To each side display windows are recessed and sit above a bulkhead of black subway tile. A vertically divided transom spans the entire assemblage. The secondary entrance has been added to the south side, which now faces a surface parking lot. The building was identified as 221 South Fair Oaks Avenue in the original application for the district. The parapet is missing and the brick has been damaged by sand blasting.
90. 330 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1926
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building anchors the south end of the district. The first and second story window openings are evenly stacked. The second story features one-over-one double-hung sash windows in groups of threes. The building was constructed as a factory and warehouse for W.F.
Dagget and Sons, Wholesale Notions.
91. 30 West Green Constructed: 1925, Lloyd T. Bowers, architect The Pasadena Automobile Radiator and Lamp Repair Company originally occupied this one-story commercial brick vernacular building. The design of the building was influenced by the Spanish Colonial Revival style with its stuccoed facade and red tile coping. Two recessed arched openings in the outer bays were probably the vehicular entrances. They now contain commercial storefronts. The two display windows in the central bay are original.
92. 33-37 West Green Constructed: 1905
Altered: 1926
A flat roof surrounded by a parapet with red tile coping caps this one-story commercial brick vernacular building. The stuccoed fa9ade is symmetrical in plan and consists of five bays. The parapet rises higher NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-OOW
(8-66)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 31 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
over the central bay than the rest of the building. An automobile entrance with a metal roll-up door is located in the central bay and pairs of large display windows occupy the two bays on either side. In 1926, the front twenty feet of the building were cut off and built anew in response to the widening of Green Street.
93. 40 West Green Constructed: 1923, Louis de Puger Miller, architect This one-story commercial brick vernacular building has a stuccoed facade and a triangular shaped parapet with red tile coping. The facade is symmetrically organized with a centrally located garage door opening. The outer bays feature large plate glass display windows. The doors in the outer bays flanking the garage door are not original.
94. 44 West Green Constructed: 1909
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building is a duplicate of the building at 40 West Green Street. The storefronts in the outer bays are original, while the original garage door in the central bay has been replaced with a modern commercial storefront.
95. 52-58 West Green Constructed: 1912
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building duplicates the design of the building at 40 and West Green Street with its stuccoed fa$ade and a triangular shaped parapet with red tile coping. The centrally located window has a segmented arched header. This window is original; however the two on each end appear to have been replaced.
96. 60 West Green Constructed: 1912
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building was original used as Miller's Transfer and Storage Company. A stepped parapet caps the painted brick fa9ade. The storefronts do not appear to be original.
97. 70 West Green Constructed: 1921
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building has a stepped parapet. The fa9ade is symmetrically organized with a central bay flanked by large display windows. The garage door in the central bay was replaced by a modern commercial storefront in 2005. The building was originally occupied by the Pasadena Auto Products Company.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 32 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
98. 80 West Green Constructed: 1908
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building was constructed for the Crown Service Auto Repair Company. The building occupies the southeast corner of Green Street and Delacey Avenue.
Four flat fluted pilasters divide the Green Street elevation into three bays. One pilaster on the Delacey Avenue elevation divides the stuccoed "front" portion of the building from the painted brick rear. All of the storefronts were installed in 1997 when the building was converted to a restaurant.
99. 101 West Green Constructed: 1912
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building has a stuccoed facade and a flat roof with a molding along the top. The building is now connected to the restaurant on the corner. There is a band of one-over-one double-hung sash windows on the second story. The windows and doors on the ground level are not original.
100. Ill West Green Constructed: 1925, Zeddy Burr Barker, architect This one-story commercial brick vernacular building seems to have been left out of the original application for the district. The brown brick facade has a stepped parapet and a symmetrical design.
Large multi-paned tripartite windows flank the recessed central entrance, which was originally occupied by a garage door. A pair of double, wood-framed glazed doors with single glazed transoms are now located within this central section.
101. 115 West Green Constructed: 1895
Altered: 1947, Glen Smith, architect
This one-story Queen Anne-influenced cottage is covered by a front-facing gabled roof with a fish-scale shingles and a semi-circular attic vent. A raised porch with a hipped roof is centered on the fa9ade and is supported by a single turned post. An addition made to the west end of the facade in 1947 has a utilitarian design. The building is counted as contributing because it is one of the very few turn-of-thecentury residential buildings remaining in the district and it is otherwise intact.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No - 1024-0018
(6-86)
United States Department of the interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 33 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
102. 119 West Green Constructed: 1922, George Tombleson, architect The design of this one-story commercial building was influenced by the Spanish Colonial Revival style.
The stuccoed fa9ade has a stepped parapet with red tile coping. Multi-paned wood-framed display windows flank a centrally located door.
103. 136 West Green Constructed: 1926, Trent Thomas, architect Werk Brothers Garage
The design of this one-story commercial building was influenced by the Classical and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. The stuccoed fa9ade is symmetrical in plan and is divided into three bays by pilasters with ornate scrolled capitals. Large fixed-paned display windows each with transoms flank the central garage entry. Tiled pent roofs with exposed rafter tails extend out over the window openings. The Werk Brothers Garage originally occupied the building. The existing sign is a reproduction of the original. 104. 2-20 East Holly Constructed: 1914
Holly Hotel
This two-stow commercial brick vernacular building sits at the corner of East Holly Street and North Fair Oaks Avenue. Designed as a hotel, dark burnt brick is used to decorate the cornice with woven patterns of open and closed spaces, while lighter bricks top the piers with a geometric arrangement. This building is important because it solidly defines the corner with an urban perspective. The storefront configurations are mostly original and have generously proportioned transoms above, which add to the height of the building.
105. 11-15 East Holly Constructed: 1924
Pierce Hotel
The design of this two-story commercial brick vernacular building features brown-yellow brick with a thin silver course. On the second story, one-over-one double-hung sash windows are set in pairs.
Between every two sets of windows are plaster medallions of the California Bear and the Pasadena Crown and Key. The transom area above the storefronts has been filled and stuccoed. The date of this alteration is unknown. The storefront configuration remains original with recessed centrally located entrances flanked by display windows. The material on the bulkheads, however, is not original. A twin to this building is located at the corner of East Colorado Boulevard and Mentor Avenue.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 34 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
106. 34-38 East Holly Constructed: 1910, C.W. Buchanan, architect This one-story commercial brick vernacular building contributes to the streetscape through its use of scale, color, and texture. It has a stepped parapet and a long vertically divided transom above four storefronts.
107. 40-46 East Hollv Constructed: 1904. W.Wathins, architect Altered: 1949
This two-story brick building with a partial third-story originally housed a blacksmith, carriage painter, and a wagon-manufacturing establishment. While the facade dates from 1949. the two alley elevations are intact and significantly contribute to the alley network that is unique to the district. 108. 110 East Holly Constructed: 1904
This simple brick building has an unusual shape with its east wall following the curve of the railroad right-of-way. Although only one-story in height, its walls are high to accommodate a hayloft over the east section. The original hayloft door is still visible at the rear. Unaltered, with original livery doors still in place, the old liven7 stable sites isolated on its lot next to the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Early maps indicated that it was used both for horses and for autos. As such it represents a phase in the transition to mechanized transportation. The building is individually listed in the National Register. 109. 22 Mills Place Constructed: circa 1923
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building has a stepped parapet. It sits behind the noncontributing building at 19-25 South Fair Oaks Avenue and faces the alley. Mills Place. The alley elevation is symmetrically arranged about a central entrance with flanking windows and topped by an attic vent.
110. 32-40 Mills Place Constructed: circa 1922
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building has a flat roof and a boxy shape. It sits behind the contributing building at 37-39 South Fair Oaks Avenue and faces the alley, Mills Place. It is mainly distinguished by large multi-paned steel casement windows. The entrances on the alley elevation have been modified.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 35 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
111. 30-34 South Pasadena Constructed: 1919
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building connects with 144 West Colorado Boulevard on the rear. The red brick exterior has a stepped parapet and a wide entrance flanked by two large windows with small divided lights. The building was originally used as an auto barn. South Pasadena Avenue forms the far western boundary of the district.
112. 20 North Raymond Constructed: 1901-02. C.W. Buchanan, architect Union Savings Bank Altered: 1929, Bennett & Haskell, architects This three-story tan brick building clearly reflects its two periods of development. The building was originally constructed in 1901-02 and was vernacular in style. That portion of the building is still visible on the west elevation, which has simple stringcourses between floors and traditional storefronts with rusticated stone bulkheads and prism glass transoms. When Colorado Boulevard was widened in 1929. the south elevation was redesigned in the Art Deco style with a slightly different brick and terra cotta ornamentation. The zig-zag parapet line is particularly noteworthy. One-over-one double-hung sash windows are used throughout.
113. 26-30 North Raymond Constructed: 1913
Central Building
This eight-story Chicago style building is somewhat of an anomaly in Pasadena. The reinforced concrete and steel frame office building has a denticulated frieze at the seventh story, a bracketed cornice, and wide window bays separated by slender piers. One-over-one double-hung sash windows are set in groups of two and three. The building has a twin at 91-93 North Raymond Avenue. Both were constructed by one of Pasadena's leading contractors, Matthew Slavin. The building is one of the earliest reinforced concrete and steel buildings in Pasadena. 114. 35-39 North Raymond Constructed 1904, C.W. Buchanan, architect Boston Building Altered: 1933, Henry Greene, architect
1936, E.J. Borgmayer, architect
2005, American General Constructors, architect
This two-story business block was constructed in 1904. It housed several retailers including Meyer's Department Store, Brenner & Wood Men's Furnishings, and Bon Accord Dry Goods Co. In 1933, the original commercial brick vernacular design was altered by Henry Greene, who added a mezzanine, new NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No W24-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 36 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
storefronts, two new entrances, and new floors, E.J, Borgmayer made subsequent changes in 1936. which included the existing horizontally scored plaster on the street-facing facades. Greene had an office in the building for many years after his brother Charles moved to Carmel. In 2005, the 1930s design was restored and three stories were added on the roof. The addition is setback from the streetfacing elevations of the original portion of the building and is clearly distinguishable as new. A series of shop windows with transoms above and terrazzo bulkheads below articulate the ground floor. Terrazzo is also used for planter boxes and doorframes. A flat canopy distinguishes the main entrance. The rear and side facades facing the alley network retain their original 1904 exposed brick walls and woodframed windows. This building was identified as a non-contributor when the district was originally listed, but is now7 contributing due to the fine quality of the recent work. 115. 61 -69 North Raymond Constructed: 1896. Seymour Locke, architect B.O. Kendall Building Altered: 1907, C.A. Buchanan, architect 61-69 North Raymond Avenue was identified as 57-71 North Raymond Avenue in the original application for the district. 61-65 North Raymond Avenue is a two-story brick commercial building at the corner of North Raymond Avenue and East Union Street. The two street facing elevations are covered with a tari brick veneer and feature Classical detailing. The most distinguishing elements of the design are the large second story Palladian windows. Other design features include a bracketed cornice, medallions set between the second story windows, and traditional storefronts with tiled bulkheads and transoms divided vertically by turned wood posts. Originally called the Auditorium Building, it housed T.W. Mather Dry Goods in 1913.
69 North Raymond Avenue was added by C.A. Buchanan in 1907. It is the same height as the original portion of the building, but three-stories. The bracketed cornice, stringcourse above the storefronts, and brickwork generally match the original portion of the building. On the second and third stories are oneover-one double-hung sash windows. 116. 60-64 North Raymond Constructed: 1905
Altered: 1922, J.J. Blick, architect
Constructed in 1905, a second story was added to this commercial brick vernacular building in 1922.
The plain fa9ade is relieved by a narrow light brick outline of windows and broad and narrow brick bands running below the parapet. Storefronts retain their original prism glass transoms.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval Nc. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 37 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
117. 75-77 North Raymond Constructed: 1914
Altered: 1927, T.P. Kellog, architect
Constructed in 1914, the second floor of this commercial brick vernacular building was added in 1927 when it was purchased by Piggly Wiggly. The front fa9ade has been altered through the years, but the rear fa9ade remains intact and significantly contributes to the Kendall-Hayes Alley network. There are three storefronts evenly spaces along the primal*}7 elevation writh six double-hung wood sash windows on the second story set between exposed brick. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1983. 118. 91-93 North Raymond Constructed: 1914
This eight-story reinforced concrete and steel frame office building matches that of 26-30 North Raymond Avenue, although its floor plan and general use differ. Matthew Slavin also constructed it.
None of the windows or storefronts is original. In 1981, the building was rehabilitated and unfortunately the windows were replaced at that time.
119. 95-97 North Raymond Constructed: 1895, J.J. Blick, architect Turner & Stevens Funeral Home Altered: 1914
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building sits at the corner of Raymond Avenue and Holly Street. Originally brick, it was stuccoed in 1914. The most distinctive features of the building are the stained glass transoms over the windows, though they do not appear to be original. The building was constructed for one of Pasadena's earliest funeral homes, Turner & Stevens. The building is also significant as one of Joseph J. Blick's earliest works. A local architect, he designed a large number of buildings and residences between 1895 and 1935.
120. 129 North Raymond Constructed: 1920, Cyril Bennett Jensen-Raymond Theater (aka Crown Theatre) Altered: 1948 & 1963 The four-story Crown Theatre dominates the block by virtue of its size and Federal Revival style. The reinforced concrete building is faced with brick and trimmed with Adamesque cast stone ornamentation.
The primary fa9ade is symmetrically organized into three bays. The original design has been comprised by a number of alterations. Recent restoration of the fa9ade restored the original glazed terra-cotta base, the plaster medallions in the recessed foyer, and the ticket windows and wood-and-glass doors. The tall arched windows on the fa9ade have also been restored. Corinthian pilasters divide the arches. The end bays consists of arched niches holding Grecian urns and topped by plaques decorated with a garland and NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 38 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
urn design cast in low relief. Additional ornamentation includes a frieze of urns cast in relief, an Italianate balustrade across the central section of the parapet, and a boxed cornice with two triangular pediments. Extensive restoration of the Raymond Avenue fa9ade occurred in 2005 including removal of the red paint from the original buff-colored tapestry brick.
One of the largest theaters of southern California in the 1920s, the theater continued to feature vaudeville along with films in the 1930s. In 1948 the theater was sold to the Crown Holding Corp. After a $100,000 modernization, it was reopened as the Crown Theatre. Construction is underway for conversion of the interior of the theater into a mixed-use project with housing and work-live units. The project also includes the construction of a new building on the parking lot to the south. 121. 145 North Raymond Constructed: 1932. Bennett & Haskell, architects National Guard Building (aka Armor}')
This two-story reinforced concrete building is an excellent example of the PWA Moderne style, which flourished in the 1930s. The primary elevation is symmetrically organized with a centrally located main entrance flanked by four sets of windows. Flat, fluted pilasters on each side of the double doors seem to support a relief of an American eagle, facing an olive branch, superimposed on a faint mountain background. A relief work frieze also extends along the flat parapet of the roof. Spandrel panels with vertical grooves divide the windows on the first and second stories. 122. 155-59 North Raymond Constructed: 1913
Altered: 2001
This is a one-story commercial brick vernacular building with three storefronts. The sand colored brick of the circular air vents and cornice contrast with the red brick facade. In 2001, the rear portion of the building was demolished and a three-story apartment building with subterranean parking was constructed. At that time, the original marble bulkheads were restored. The new addition is set back from the original fa9ade and is clearly distinguishable as new. 123. 221 North Raymond Constructed: 1901
Fannie Bonham Row Houses
This two-story, seven-unit row house is not a common building type in Pasadena, or southern California for that matter. The units were constructed with fireplaces and solar heaters. Primarily utilitarian in NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(6-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 39 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
design, the building has a flat roof, individual unit entrances, clapboard siding, wood-framed windows, and scroll-patterned friezes on the north and south elevations. 124. 273 North Raymond Constructed: 1927, Ross Montgomery, architect St. Andrews Catholic Church
The four-story tower of St. Andrews acts as a visual landmark defining the northernmost district boundary. Constructed in 1927. the Romanesque Revival style church embodies architectural qualities often found in northern Italy. Montgomery utilized a common basilica plan, with arch arcaded narthex and chapel arcade with Corinthian columns. The Venetian artist, Carlo Wostry, painted The Stations of the Cross and other murals. While the rectory is technically an intrusion due to its construction in 1958, the garden between the two buildings provides a peaceful contrast to the nearby freeway. 125. 26-38 South Raymond Constructed: 1894. Frank Hudson Vandervort Block
The Vandervort Block is a two-story commercial brick building with Renaissance Revival style elements. Symmetrically organized, the cream-colored brick fa?ade is three bays wide in a B-A-B pattern. The central bay contains the main entrance, recessed in an arched opening. Above are two narrow windows in arched openings. The side bays have two storefronts on the ground level, and oneover-one, double-hung sash windows on the second story. The most distinctive feature of the building is the bas relief frieze over the second story windows and the denticulated cornice. 126. 35 South Raymond Constructed: 1906, C.W. Brockway
Braley Building
This four-story beige brick commercial building features Chicago-style windows and Beaux Arts decorative elements. The primary fa9ade is five bays wide with a centrally located entrance flanked by two storefronts. The upper stow windows are one-over-one, double-hung sash set in groups of three.
Originally built for Edward R. Braley, the building has historic interest as the possible home of one of the earliest auto dealerships in Pasadena. The Braley Building is an excellent example of the work of C.W. Brockway, perhaps Pasadena's most prolific architects of the period.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-001B
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 40 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
127. 44 South Raymond Constructed: 1886, Ridgeway & Klock, architect Altered: 1929
Connected to the old Morgan Liver}' stable at the rear, this single-story brick building was constructed as an entrance to the livery. There are two storefronts divided by a cast iron pier. Cast iron piers are also on each end of the fa$ade and topped by round fmials connected by a simple denticulated cornice. The blank paneled parapet is now used for signage. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1984. 128. 48-58 South Raymond Constructed: 1887/98, C.W. Buchanan, architect Altered 1928
This three-story, stucco-over-brick building was originally constructed during the boom of the late 1880s. In 1898. C.W. Buchanan remodeled it to house employees of the Hotel Green. The primary fa$ade was remodeled again in 1928. Engaged pilasters divide the upper stories vertically. 129. 62-70 South Raymond Constructed: 1902
Altered: 1926
This three-story, plaster-over-brick building was originally constructed as a hotel, perhaps for employees of the Hotel Green. The widening of Green Street in 1926 caused the 20 feet of the south end of the building to be demolished. The ensuing remodeling also carried to the South Raymond Avenue fa9ade. 130. 80-82 South Raymond Constructed: 1887-90, Strange & Carnigle Webster Hotel/Hotel Green Altered: 1935
This one-story building at the corner of Raymond Avenue and Green Street is all that is left of the original portion of the Webster Hotel. Ed Webster sold his hotel to Colonel Green in 1891, who proceeded to build the annex across the street. In 1935, the original four-story hotel was demolished except for this fragment.
131. 99 South Raymond (Castle Green) Constructed: 1898, Frederick L. Roehrig architect 132. 50 East Green (Hotel Green) Constructed: 1887, C.L. Strange, architect aka 71 South Raymond Addition: 1903, Frederick L. Roehrig, architect NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 41 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Individually listed in the National Register, the Castle Green/Hotel Green occupy the entire block between Fair Oaks and Raymond Avenues on the west and east and Green and Dayton streets on the north and south.
The Castle Green, then called the Central Building, was constructed in 1898 and was connected to the original portion of the Hotel Green at the second story by a pedestrian bridge over Raymond Avenue. In 1903, an addition, then called the North Annex was constructed along the length of Green Street and connected to the Wooster Block, which was constructed in 1887. This portion of the building is now referred to as the Hotel Green.
In the 1920s the popularity of the hotel began to wane. Around this time, the original portion of the hotel east of Raymond was sold and the name was changed to the Pasadena Hotel. In 1926, the Castle Green was converted into a cooperative apartment building. In 1929, the bridge between the two buildings was torn down as it was no longer necessary and impeded the flow of traffic. In 1935, the original portion of the hotel was demolished except for a small portion at the corner of Green Street (80-82 South Raymond Avenue). The North Annex and the Wooster Block fell into a state of disrepair, but was converted into an apartment building for senior citizens in 1972. These are now two separate buildings that were counted as one in the original application for the district.
The Castle Green has a north-south orientation and sits approximately 100 feet from Raymond Avenue and 30 feet from Dayton Street, which provides space for a large garden. It is a six- and seven-story building that is eclectic in design with references to Spanish Colonial Revival and Islamic architecture.
The steel-framed and brick building has a rough stucco finish. The large scale of the building is relieved by a variety of treatments to its massing, roofline, fenestration, and exterior ornamentation.
The North Annex and the Wooster Block (now called the Hotel Green) extend along Green Street from Raymond to Fair Oaks Avenues. Although they were constructed at different times by different architects, they are joined internally and are both steel-framed structures sheathed in cement plaster. The North Annex was constructed in 1903 as an addition to the Castle Green. It was designed by Frederick L. Roehrig, who also designed the Castle Green. The seven-story east section is covered by a lowpitched hipped roof with corbelled supporting brackets, while the sex story middle section has a shed roof carried on overhanging eaves. The window and door openings have little detailing. A large buttressed brick chimney appears on the most eastern point. The south fa?ade is dominated by the semicircular projection of what was originally the hotel's dining room and by square towers at each end.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(B-B6)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 42 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
The six-story Wooster Block is distinct from the North Annex, having been constructed in 1887 according to plans by C.L. Strange. The building's wealth of detail is almost Romanesque in feeling. It is covered by a low shed roof that is characterized by overhanging eaves, exposed rafters, and clay tiles.
The street-facing elevations are articulated by numerous bays and arches. In 1987 the North Annex and the Wooster Block underwent a certified rehabilitation.
The Hotel Green under went a certified rehabilitation in 1987. 133. 150 South Raymond Constructed: 1920, John C. Smith, architect This two-story industrial brick building was original!}" designed as a factory. The utilitarian design features large window openings stacked vertical!}' and spaced evenly on all four sides. Arched headers top the openings, which are filled with multi-paned wood sash. 134.164-70 South Raymond Constructed: 1897
Hotel Green Heat <fe Light Plant and Laundry Altered: 1902 A single-story brick building, the Hotel Green Heal & Light Plant and Laundry represents the kind of industrial buildings needed to keep a large resort hotel functioning smoothly. The building is covered by a hipped roof. The east facade displays a large arched doorway and two matching arched windows as well as two rectangular windows. At the south end of the building is a rectangular flat-roofed section that was added in 1902. The construction of the west annexes in 1898 and 1903 with their own boilers in the basement ended a need for the old plant. The building served for some time as a garage for the hotel, but was later sold, probably during the original hotel's demolition in 1935. 135. 182 South Raymond Constructed: 1922
Wilkinson Building
Known historically as the Wilkinson Building, this one-story brick building with a stuccoed fa£ade sits well back from the street. Brick trim enhances the building by outlining the edges of the fa$ade, doorways, and windows as well as by creating a frieze-like panel across the front. The rear entrance fronts on the railroad tracks.
136. 222-50 South Raymond Constructed: 1935, H.L. Oilman, architect Santa Fe Train Station
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 43 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
The Santa Fe Train Station is a one-story Spanish Colonial Revival style building that was incorporated into a larger mixed-use project with a light rail stop in 2005. The building was moved from its original site in 1994 and stored in Central Park, while the light rail line and subterranean parking for the project were being constructed. It was returned to the site in 2004 and rehabilitated. It now sits in approximately in the same location, but closer to the street and on a podium over subterranean parking. The woodframed building has a cement-plaster exterior and an irregular plan. The main wing of the building has a north-south orientation that matches the train tracks to the rear. Gabled roofs fit with red tile cover the various wings. A heavy post and lintel portal marks the street-facing entrance, while the trackside entry presents an arched opening in a loggia to the disembarking passengers. Gabled wings extend from both sides of the street-facing entrance. Wood casement windows set in deeply recessed openings. The rehabilitation work included the restoration of the exterior cement-plaster based upon an original fragment exposed during relocation. The original surfaces had been textured coated. The interior has also been restored. There were some changes as well to the grade and the rise of the baggage-handling and freight platforms above grade, but the overall integrity is good.
Construct: 1913
Emergency Hospital
This one-story brown and tan brick commercial building is three bays wide with storefronts in the two eastern bays. Display windows have vertically divided transoms above and green and brown glazed tile bulkheads beneath. At the rear of a previous location of the City Hall, Police Department, and City Jail, this building housed the Emergency Hospital. The original garage door in the western bay has been replaced by two sets of double doors. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1989. 138. 33-37 East Union Constructed: 1910
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building has front and rear stepped parapets. The building housed C.D. Haime Gas Stoves, Willis Business College, and the Union Athletic Club in the 1920s and in the 1930s the City Light Department and meeting rooms for the Eagle Lodge and Loyal Order of Moose. The ground floor has a centrally located entrance flanked by two storefronts featuring tiled bulkheads and prism glass transoms. A1994 rehabilitation included the replacement of the original second story windows.
139. 39-45 East Union Constructed: 1895
G.W. Shipley Saddle Livery Altered: 1924
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(6-86}
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 44 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
This two-story commercial brick vernacular building began as a one-story building in 1895. Low arched windows and a wide arched doorway opening onto Kendall Alley are evidence of the original use, the G.W. Shipley Saddle Livery. In 1924, the first floor area was enlarged and a second story was added.
The primary painted brick fa$ade has simple stringcourses at the cornice, below7 the second story windows, and above the ground level storefronts. There are two storefronts with recessed entrances, flanking display windows, tiled bulkheads, and prism glass transoms. On the second story are one-overone, double-hung sash windows. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1983. 140. 99 East Union Constructed: 1923
This is a simple one-story brick commercial building. For many years the office of Kendall Auto Company, this is one of the many Pasadena buildings connected with the prominent property owner, B.O. Kendall, who owned a number of buildings on North Raymond Avenue. Small in scale and unaltered, it continues the 1920s feeling on the north side of East Union Street. 141. 109-121 East Union Constructed: 1911, J.J. Blick, architect Union Building
Known as the Union Building, this two-story commercial brick vernacular building is located on the east side of the district. The unusual curved shape of the west fa9ade, dictated by the railroad right-of-way, adds interest to the building. Decorative elements include a wide metal cornice with metal dentils below and pale brick in a quoin pattern around second story windows. The building was home to the Pasadena Hardware Co., Pasadena's oldest hardware store, from 1924 until 1984. The building retains a high level of physical integrity that includes original storefronts with prism glass transoms. 142. 26-32 West Union Constructed: 1902, W.B. Edwards, architect Altered: 1928
Constructed in 1902, the building at 26 is a single-story commercial brick vernacular building designed by architect William B. Edwards. The building was originally occupied by the Dunn Tin & Cornice Shop and later became a candy and tobacco store. Alterations to the fa?ade were made in 1928 when the structure was joined with neighboring building at 30-32. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1985.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 45 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
143. 34-36 West Union Constructed: 1905, W.B. Edwards, architect Model Grocery Stables
Built for Mark K. Bartlert, this two-story painted brick livery stable housed horses and delivery vans for the Model Grocery, located on North Fair Oaks Avenue. Termed "one of the finest stables that has ever been planned for Pasadena'' in a contemporary newspaper account (Pasadena Evening Star, February 24, 1905. p.l.) The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1984. 144. 62-64 West Union Constructed: 1888-1900
Schneider & Black Blacksmith Shop
Known as the Schneider & Black Blacksmith Shop, this one- and two-story brick building was constructed in two phases. The two-story portion of the building has a single arched opening on the ground floor that now contains a door, sidelight, and transom assemblage. Above single wood sash windows, all of which have arched headers, flank paired wood sash windows. The single story portion of the building extends along the alley. The roof now forms a terrace, which is covered by a loose awning. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1985. 145. 70 West Union Constructed: 1920
James Black Garage
Constructed for blacksmith, James Black as a garage, this single-story commercial brick vernacular building has been converted to retail use. In 1982, the building was rehabilitated and the original windows were removed. The building was rehabilitated again 1993. At that time a recessed doorway replaced the garage entrance, which is offset to the east, and the windows were replaced again within the original openings.
146. 78 West Union Constructed: 1919
Detroit Battery & Supply Company
James Black, partner of Schneider & Black, Blacksmiths, built this single-story commercial brick vernacular building as a battery service station. The former garage entrance located off the corner of Union Street and Delacey Avenue is now filled with a full-length frameless glass storefront system. The multi-paned, double-hung wood sash windows with arched headers on the Delacey Street elevation add interest to the utilitarian design. The building underwent a certified rehabilitation in 1985.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(B-861,
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 46 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
147. 114-20 West Union Constructed: 1924
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building was originally used as a garage. The building served as the pressroom for a local newspaper, the Pasadena Independent, from 1939 to the 1950s when the printing industry began to concentrate in this area. Originally the building had two service bays accessed by garage doors in the center of the fa9ade. Two gabled roofs that were hidden by a tall stepped parapet covered the bays. The original parapet has been removed, revealing the side-by-side gabled roofs. The garage doors were probably filled with wood storefront systems when the building was converted to a printing facility. They have since been replaced by be modern storefront systems.
Flanking the garage openings are single doors and multi-paned windows. 148. 130 West Union Constructed: 1925, J.C. Wheeler, architect Originally a blacksmith's shop, this single-story commercial brick vernacular building was later converted into a store, Beeds Auto Parts, to serve the needs of the burgeoning automobile population. 149. 132 West Union Constructed: 1904
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building was originally a blacksmith's shop. 150. 136 West Union Constructed: 1923
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building was originally a store, but in 1924 it was converted into a garage requiring the entrance to be enlarged.
151. 140 West Union Constructed: 1923
Built originally as an ornament and sheet metal works, this two-room, single-story commercial brick vernacular building became an auto repair shop in 1927 and then a pottery factory in the 1940s. 152. 42 East Walnut Constructed: 1931, Paul C. Benner, architect Pasadena Labor Temple Altered: 1953
The Pasadena Labor Temple is a simple, two-story, ochre-colored brick building. Fine detailing in the wrought iron ornamentation, the stair riser tiles, and in the carved stone plaque, fmials and pilasters of the fa9ade attests to the craftsmanship of the building. Built in 1931, at a time when the labor movement was gaining increasing recognition in this country, the Labor Temple stands as a reminder of the growth NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 47 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
of the labor movement in that era as well as its place in civic life today. The building features a vintage sign projection over the centrally located entrance on the primary fa9ade. Basement level and first-story windows are steel sash. In 1953, an additional wood-framed story was added to the roof, but set back from the original wall planes. In 1994, the building was rehabilitated and incorporated a larger, new housing project. The sign is designated as a significant object under the local historic preservation ordinance.
153. 47-51 East Walnut Constructed; 1914, Bennett & Haskell Altered: 1989
This two-story brick commercial building relates well to the older brick buildings in the district. The symmetrical design of the front fa9ade utilizes brick in a herringbone pattern above the second-story and below the first-story windows. A stuccoed, rooftop addition was constructed in 1989. It is setback from the front fa?ade and clearly distinguishable as new.
154. 55 East Walnut Constructed: 1922
Altered: 1929, Bennett & Haskell, architects
A one-story commercial building in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, this building received a new stucco fa9ade in 1929. The fa9ade, designed by Bennetl & Haskell. is similar to others remodeled by the architectural team during the widening of Colorado Boulevard in the same year.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 48 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Noncontributing Resources
155. 95 North Arrovo Parkway Constructed: 1925, Glen Elwood Smith, architect Altered: 1947
This two-story reinforced concrete building is a combination of late Moderne and International styles due to the 1947 remodeling and second floor addition. Originally a gas station and garage, the lot and building are triangular in shape, conforming to the adjacent railroad tracks. 156. 80 East Colorado Constructed: 1894. Harry Ridgeway. architect Masonic Temple Altered: 1929, Walker & Eisen. architects Historically one of the most important buildings on East Colorado Boulevard, the Masonic Temple Block was designed by Harry Ridgeway, Pasadena's most prominent Victorian architect. Old photographs reveal the building to be a fine exercise in Richardsonian Romanesque, traces of which still remain in the form of the large arched windows on the second floor. In 1929, the front was moved back on rails and retied to the sidewalls. At the same time, the original three stories were reduced to two stories with a portion of the rear demolished. Unfortunately, the stuccoing of the building has completely covered the original pressed brick walls and the rough dressed brown stone surrounding the windows and doors.
157. 40 West Colorado Constructed: 1990
Addition: 1990, Architects Consortium
Jake's Diner was misidentified as a contributing building in the original National Register application because it post-dated the period of significance. More importantly, in 1990, Jake's was completely rebuilt and a two- and three-story addition was made to the south (rear) and west. Although the rebuilt diner remains, it is now a small appendage (300 sq. ft.) to a much larger building (20,000 sq. ft.). 158. 46 West Colorado Constructed: 1922
Addition: 1999, Dahl Architects
This one-story masonry warehouse building was originally used as storage for the Crown Mattress Co.
Access to the warehouse was from the alley and a painted wall sign for the company still exists.
Originally, the building was setback from Colorado Boulevard fifty feet. As such, it left an awkward opening in the street wall. In 1999, an addition was made to the front of the building to create a NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 49 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
continuous street wall. The addition is two stories in height and compatible with the adjacent historic buildings.
159. 64 West Colorado Constructed: 2005, McKently Malak Architects This property was a vacant lot that has been developed twice since the district was listed. In 1986, a United Artist Theater was constructed on the site. It was recently demolished and in 2006 a large retail building with four distinct stores was constructed. The two stores to the east are one-story in height and evocative of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The corner store has an Art Deco inspired design with a taller corner element. The store facing Delacey Avenue is two-stories in height and has more in common with the commercial brick vernacular buildings along Green Street. 160. 86 West Colorado Constructed. 2006, RSA .Architecture This property was occupied by a single-story building that was pan of a larger noncontributing building (86-90 West Colorado Boulevard), which was demolished in 1996. The east end of the building remained until 2006 when it was demolished. The new building is two-stories in height, flat-roofed, and mostly clad in a red brick,
161. 90 West Colorado Constructed: 1996
Remodeled: 2006, RSA Architecture
In 1996, this multi-story commercial building was constructed. The site was formerly occupied by a noncontributing building (86-90 West Colorado Boulevard) and a surface parking lot to the west. Only the west end of the noncontributing building was demolished. The east end at the corner of Delacey Avenue remained as a separate building. In 2006, the building was remodeled. 162. 127 West Colorado Constructed: 1887
Altered: 1995, Seaton Wilson Architects
This two-story building combines two commercial brick vernacular buildings from the late nineteenth century. In 1940, the buildings were combined and stripped of all their details. In 1995, the building was rehabilitated. The second story has double-hung sash windows spaced evenly along the stuccoed facade, while the lower story features a contemporary version of historic storefronts. The building is now more compatible with the architecture of the district, but remains noncontributing because it lacks physical integrity.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 50 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
163. 169 West Colorado Constructed: 1917
Altered: 1950s
This single-story building was constructed in 1917, and remodeled in 1930 for Pep Boys. Although it now has a Modern fa9ade, it contributes to the scale and massing of the adjacent buildings. "Baker Iron Works. L.A., Calif" is visible on bumpers at the entrance to what was a garage accessed from the side elevation on Pasadena Avenue. The storefronts were altered in 1950 and the parapet was altered in 1953. 164. 21 West Dayton Constructed: 1923
A one-story brick warehouse of utilitarian design, the front fa9ade has been stuccoed. The garden area on the west side; however, reveals the original brick wall and arched window openings. 165. 45 South Delacev Constructed: 1987
This large, three-story public parking structure was constructed in 1987. It has ground floor retail space at the corner of South Delacev Avenue and the alley. The site was formerly occupied by a contributing building at 41 South Delacey Avenue as well as a surface parking lot. 166. 86-90 North Fair Oaks Constructed: 1916
Altered: 1988-90
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building is much altered. The rear portion of the original building was damaged by fire in 1970 and replaced with a one-story addition between 1988 and 1990.
The street-facing elevation is stuccoed and divided into three bays by brick piers. The central bay is a passageway to the courtyard at the year, which was originally a parking area. To each side are storefronts. The parapet was restored and the storefronts were remodeled, although the vertically divided transoms are original.
167. 33-35 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1922
Altered: 1946, 1985
The original application for the district identified three buildings at 33-45 South Fair Oaks Avenue as a single non-contributor. They were united into a single building in 1946 by the Crown Mattress Co. and are still under a single ownership. Pursuant to a tax credit application in 1985, the National Park Service determined that the three buildings should be evaluated separately and that 33-35 and 43-47 NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 51 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
South Fair Oaks Avenue are noncontributing, but that 37-39 is contributing. The one-story commercial building at 33-35 was rehabilitated in 1994 and is now7 more compatible with the historic character of the district, but remains noncontributing because it lacks physical integrity. 168. 43-47 South Fail" Oaks Constructed: 1885-86, Harry Ridgeway, architect Altered: 1926, 1946,2006
This two-story commercial building has office spaces above a ground floor restaurant. It has been repeatedly remodeled, most recently in 2006 for the existing restaurant. The building was originally constructed for A. F. Mills. It was purchased by the Crown Mattress Co. in 1946, which also owned four adjacent buildings.
169. 145 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1990. SATA Collaborates, architect Fire Station #31
Fire Station #31 was constructed in 1990 on the site of a former surface parking lot. It is a two-story concrete block structure with garage doors for three fire engines. 170. 165 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1911
Altered: 1945, Hiliman & Nowell. architects
The two buildings at 165 and 175 South Fair Oaks were identified as a single noncontributing building in the original application for the district. The one-story commercial building at 165 was constructed in 1911 by the same owner and architect as the neighboring Star Saddle Livery, and used for garage space.
The building was altered in 1945 and no longer retains its physical integrity. 171. 175 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1945, Hilman & Nowell, architects This single story commercial building was constructed in 1945. 172. 300 South Fair Oaks Constructed: 1907, C.W. Buchanan, architect Union Garage Company Altered: 1928
Constructed for the Union Garage Company, this one-story building was considered one of the most complete garages on the West Coast. The building was originally Mission Revival in style and included a plaster exterior, a decorative shaped parapet, arched window and door openings on the north (Del Mar) NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 52 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
elevation, and storefronts on the east (Fair Oaks) elevation. The building was remodeled in 1928; however, what that entailed in unknown. Based upon historic photographs, the parapet was removed at the time. Much later, the plaster was removed thereby exposing the underlying brick construction and the storefronts were replaced.
173. 33 East Green Constructed: 1986, Vitro Architects
This is a large public parking structure with ground floor retail plus two levels of parking above. It occupies a site that was formerly a surface parking lot. 174. 22 West Green Constructed; 2003. Togawa & Smith, architects This four-story mixed-used building was constructed in 2003. It is clad in stucco and red brick veneer.
The site was formerly occupied by a noncontributing building at 77 South Fair Oaks Avenue and another noncontributing building at 20 West Green Street. 175. 45 West Green Constructed: 1920
This small one-story stucco building does not contribute to the district, as its scale and setback are not compatible. It also appears to have been remodeled, although the date is unknown. 176. 55 West Green Constructed: 1925 & 1928
Altered: 1951
The one-story brick building was constructed in 1928. The warehouse to the rear was added in 1928.
The only remaining design feature is the glass display window in the front. 177. 63-65 West Green Constructed: 1965, Serge Kolesoff, architect This two-story cinderblock building is similar in design to the building at 75 West Green Street, which was designed by the same architect. It has offices above ground floor storefronts. The upper story has been stuccoed and there is a shaped parapet.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 53 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
178. 75 West Green (aka 50 S. Delacey) Constructed: 1965, Serge Kolesoff, architect This two-story cinderblock building is located at the northeast corner of West Green Street and South Delacey Avenue. It has offices above ground floor storefronts. The upper story as been stuccoed and there is a shaped parapet.
179. 85 West Green Constructed: 1994
The Twin Palms Restaurant was constructed in 1994. The site was formerly occupied by a contributing gas station. The mostly outdoor dining area is surrounded by a lowr, stucco wall with arched openings and covered by a tent-like structure fanning out from two Canary Island date palms. 180. 125-31 West Green Constructed: 1954, Serge Kolesoff, architect Built as a factory and storage area, this building now serves as office space. It is a one- and two-story structure of reinforced concrete brick. There is a surface parking lot in the front setback, which is deeper than the other buildings on the street.
181. 139-45 West Green Constructed: 1991, CHCG Architects This two-story mixed-use building was constructed in 1991. The site was formerly occupied by a contributing building at 135 West Green Street.
182. 26 Mills Place Constructed: circa 1922
This one-story commercial brick vernacular building has a flat roof and a thick plaster finish. It sits behind the noncontributing building at 33-35 South Fair Oaks Avenue and faces the alley, Mills Place.
The alley elevation is symmetrically arranged about a central entrance with flanking one-over-one double-hung sash windows. The entrance and the windows have arched headers. 183. 48 North Raymond Constructed: 1989, Jean Cramer, architect This large, three-story parking structure was built on the former site of a surface parking lot. Constructed in 1989, the building has a stucco exterior and a ground floor retail space that faces North Raymond Avenue as well as East Union Street.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 54 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
184. 70 North Raymond Constructed: 1903
Home Telephone Company Building Altered: 1955
This two-story building once housed the Home Telephone Company, one of two phone companies serving the Pasadena during the early part of the 20th century. Although built in the Mission Revival style, the front facade of this stucco-over-brick building has been altered. The facade is symmetrically organized with a centrally located arched entrance flanked by storefronts. Four windows are evenly spaced across the second story, which is divided from the first story by a course. A cornice caps the flat roof.
185. 80 North Ravmond Constructed: 1992. Pedersen, Beckhard, Wesley & Stice, architects
This is a multi-family residential building on the site of a former surface parking lot. Three-stories in height, the units are townhouse style with individual entrances off North Raymond Avenue and East Holly Street. Balconies with French doors are positioned over the entrances. One-over-one, double-hung sash windows are generally set in pairs.
186. 171 North Ravmond Constructed: 1999
Constructed in 1999, on the site of a former surface parking lot, this large six-level parking structure backs up to the Marriott Hotel, which faces North Fair Oaks Avenue (180). 187. 22 South Ravmond Constructed: 2006, Glen De Veer, architect This two-story commercial building is of contemporary design. 188. 110 South Ravmond Constructed: 1940, Gerald Marsac, architect The two buildings at 110 and 120 South Raymond Avenue w7 ere identified as a single non-contributor in the original application for the district. The single-story utilitarian building at 110 has a reinforced brick structure covered by a truss roof. The building was used as a garage through the 1950s. 189. 120 South Ravmond Constructed: 1940
A Lamella dome roof covers this single-story reinforced brick building.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 55 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
190. 202 South Raymond Constructed: 2006, Moule & Polyzoides, architects This is a six-story apartment building just north of the train station. 191. 1 East Union Constructed: 2005, Rothenberg Sawasy, architects Located at the northeast corner of East Union Street and North Fair Oaks Avenue, this two-story commercial building occupies a former surface parking lot. The building has a strong corner element, over hanging eaves and brackets that are evocative of the Mission Revival style. 192. 20 East Union Constructed: 1986, Charles Kausen, architect This large, four-story parking structure was constructed in 1986. The site was formerly occupied by a surface parking lot as well as a contributing building at 24 East Union Street. The building has a red brick exterior and ground floor retail facing East Union Street as well as North Raymond Avenue. 193. 40 West Union Constructed: 1991
This large three-story structure was constructed in 1991 for the Marketplace project. The site was formerly occupied by a contributing building. The building has a simple brick exterior with segmented arched openings on the second story, rectangular openings on the third story, and a layered denticulated cornice. The project also involved the rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the entire block and the creation of a courtyard in the center. The 40 West Union building contains a cineplex and restaurant that are accessed from the courtyard. Many of the historic buildings on Colorado Boulevard were given new secondary entrances on the rear, courtyard-facing elevations. 194. 40 East Walnut Constructed: 1996, Bahr, Vermeer & Haecker This is a four-story, multi-family residential project at the corner of East Walnut Street and North Raymond Avenue. Constructed in 1996, the site was formerly occupied by a Texaco Gas Station at 195 North Raymond Avenue, which was a contributor to the district. The apartment building is reminiscent of the Beaux-Arts style with a three-part horizontal organization, side-by-side casement windows, and stucco exterior. The project incorporates the 1931 Pasadena Labor Temple building, which is identified as contributing to the district.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 7 Page 56 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Vacant Lots
5713-007-025
5713-021-008
5713-008-005
5713-020-001
5722-001-002
5722-010-005
5722-010-007
5722-011-003
5723-021-020
5723-021-019
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 57 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Summary
The Old Pasadena Historic District is significant in local history under National Register Criteria A and C. As the historic commercial center of Pasadena, the district documents the economic development of the city and its various phases of growth between 1886 and 1936. The period of significance begins in 1886, when several key events occurred that stimulated the development of Pasadena, and ends in 1936 when the commercial activity began to dissipate. The district also contains an important record of the evolution of architectural design in southern California as well as the work of many prominent regional architects. The district imparts a strong sense of past time and place and retains its design integrity from the period of significance.
Statement of Significance
Pasadena's beginning dates to 1873 when a group of settlers from Indiana formed the San Gabriel Orange Grove Association, and purchased land in the area of the old Rancho San Pasqual from Benjamin Wilson. As surveyed in 1874. the Association lands were bounded by the Arroyo Seco to the west, Wilson Avenue to the east, Villa Street to the north, and Mission Street to the south. The original center of Pasadena was the intersection of Orange Grove Avenue and California Boulevard where several churches of different denominations were located, as well as a small number of stores. The intersection was in the midst of agricultural tracts, which were cultivated by gentleman farmers and their families. Between Fair Oaks Avenue and the edge of the Arroyo Seco to the west, the land was divided from north to south by Orange Grove Avenue with land held in east-to-west rectangular tracts by approximately two-dozen owners. These long, rectangular properties were all bisected by Orange Grove Avenue.
The relocation of the school and the subdivision of a large tract of land by Benjamin Wilson shifted the geographic focus of the growing town to the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.
In 1876. a general store and post office were established at this new location, along with the town school. The approximate boundaries of this generally rectangular subdivision were Villa Street on the north, Raymond Hill on the south, and Wilson Avenue on the east, and Fair Oaks Avenue on the west.
The size of the tract was between two and one-half miles from north to south, and less than one and onehalf miles from east to west. One third of the tract lay to the north of Colorado Boulevard (originally Street), and two-thirds lay to the south. The Lake Vineyard tract became the subdivision that would lead to the creation of an urban environment that became the commercial center of Pasadena.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 58 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
While Pasadena prospered as a local marketplace, the development of the town as a tourist mecca elevated Pasadena to national attention. The first of the city's hotels were established in 1883, the Pasadena House and the Los Angeles House, respectively. These inns were located at the center of town, but larger resort hotels such as the Huntington, the Vista del Arroyo, and the Raymond, still exerted a force upon the downtown. Carriages routinely carried guests to Colorado Boulevard for shopping and business and the street began to cater to the tourist class with fine shops and professional offices.
The coming of the railroad to Pasadena, as in many communities, was the catalyst for a different scale and type of development. The Southern Pacific connected Los Angeles to the rest of the country by way of San Francisco in 1876. The Atchinson, Topeka, and Santa Fe route through the southwest was extended to Los Angeles and then through Pasadena in 1885. A vicious rate war between the two railroads ensued and eventually sent people west from Kansas City for one dollar. Throngs of emigrants took advantage of the special offer and moved to southern California. The population of Pasadena grew from 2,000 to 12,000 during the 1886-88 period, which accounts for the tremendous amount of new commercial construction.
Edward C. Webster, a particularly shrewd hotel operator purchased land on the east side of Raymond Avenue between Green Street and Del Mar Avenue in 1886 and constructed the Santa Fe Train Station at his own expense. The train tracks that run mid-block between South Raymond Avenue and Arroyo Parkway generally form the eastern boundary of the district. The Richardsonian Romanesque train station operated for nearly fifty years, until 1935, when the plans for the new station were announced and the old station was demolished. The 1935 station was completely restored in 2005 and incorporated into a transit-oriented mixed-used development.
In 1887, Webster began the construction of the hotel north of the station, which he named after himself.
However, financial troubles forced him to sell the hotel to an associate, Colonel George G. Green. The hotel was officially renamed the Hotel Green after New Year's Day, 1891. Green carried out Webster's plan to expand the hotel further north to Green Street. In 1898, the hotel was expanded again, this time across the street. The new building (then called the Central Building and now referred to as the Castle Green) was connected to the original building (sometimes referred to as the East Building) by a pedestrian bridge over Raymond Avenue. The Wooster Block at the corner of Fair Oaks Avenue and Green Street was purchased and incorporated into the hotel, and was referred to as the West Building.
The original portion of the hotel (the East Building) was demolished in 1935. All that remains of the four-story building is a one-story fragment at 80-82 South Raymond Avenue, which is now used as part of a floral supply store. The Castle Green and the Wooster Block at (99 South Raymond Avenue) serve NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 59 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
as visual reminders of the heyday of resort hotels in Pasadena. Occupying the entire block between Raymond and Fair Oaks Avenues and Green and Dayton Streets, they are individually listed in the National Register. Also, many of the industrial buildings along South Fair Oaks and Raymond Avenues began as laundries, stables, and worker housing for the Hotel Green. Of particular note is the building at 196-70 South Raymond Avenue, which was constructed as the heat plant and laundry for the Hotel Green. Several smaller hotels with separate ground floor retail businesses on East Holly Street and North Fair Oaks Avenue represent the type of lodgings that were designed to accommodate tourists of more modest means. They include the Holly Hotel (1914), the Piece Hotel (1924), and the Marine Hotel (1884,1904).
The auction of the schoolhouse property in 1886 (the block bounded by Colorado, Raymond, Green, and Fair Oaks) also prompted large-scale development and speculation. Substantial brick buildings replaced early wood-framed structures and almost every prominent family participated in some aspect of the "boom'' development. Several remnants of that earl}' heyday remain: the former City Hall building at 45 North Fair Oaks Boulevard; the Old Firehouse at 37 West Dayton Street; the Plant Block at 11-17 North Fair Oaks Avenue; and the Doty Block at 103-115 South Fair Oaks Boulevard. In addition, the alley facades and configurations offer a different view of this era. The alley network of the block bounded by West Colorado Boulevard, North Fair Oaks Avenue, West Union Street, and North Delacey Avenue is the best remaining example within the district, but within every block some vestiges of an alley network remain.
Colorado Boulevard has always been accorded special attention due to its importance as a main thoroughfare, the Rose Parade route, and its historic role as the western gateway to Pasadena. As early as 1900, traffic congestion prompted local citizens to consider widening Colorado Boulevard. In 1919, the City Council approved the expenditure of $2,000,000 to widen Colorado Boulevard between Orange Grove Boulevard and Delacey Avenue. The project took ten years to complete and was soon followed by the widening of another three blocks from Delacey to Broadway (now Arroyo Parkway). When the project was completed in 1930, the City's main thoroughfare was 100 feet wide and most of the adjoining buildings were given new facades.
Colorado Boulevard also played a role in the national transportation network, which further enhanced its status as the primer commercial street in the city. In 1914, the Automobile Club of Southern California posted a sign at the corner of Colorado Boulevard and Fair Oaks Avenue marking the National Old Trails Route. The route was conceived and implemented by the organization and involved the posting of signs along 3,000 miles of roadway directing travelers from New York to Los Angeles. In 1926, the National Old Trails Route became part of Route 66, the first interstate highway. The original Route 66 NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 60 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
entered Pasadena on the east on Foothill Boulevard, traveled west to Hill Street, turned south on Hill to Colorado Boulevard, west on Colorado Boulevard to Fair Oaks Avenue, and then proceeded south on Fair Oaks Avenue to South Pasadena and beyond.
Most construction in Pasadena during the 1920s, whether residential, commercial, or civic bore some relationship to Spanish Colonial Revival images. The construction of Pasadena's Civic Center (listed in the National Register) in the 1920s, promoted Spanish Colonial Revival design and other styles from the Mediterranean region. The association of this style with the upper class, due to its prolific use for houses of the period, symbolized Pasadena's image of itself as a wealthy locale. The 1920s remain the "Golden Age" of Pasadena's economic and cultural history and the fine design along Colorado Boulevard attests to the commitment of local enterprises to portray their city in its best light. While the buildings along Colorado Boulevard do not bear the exuberance of large-scaled Spanish Colonial Revival design, they do offer some of the finest example of the style in a restrained urban setting. Some of the buildings are individually important for their balance of detail and massing but the chief significance is due to the collection as a whole. Relatively unaltered, the almost four-blocks of Colorado Boulevard still provide a glimpse of the unit}7 of purpose and enthusiasm, which guided the residents to go beyond a problematic street widening and attempt a cohesive urban design.
The stylistic images of Old Pasadena can be attributed to the talents of over thirty-five architects and numerous builders. Many of these architects achieved regional and statewide recognition through extensive coverage in such trade journals as Architect and Engineer and Architectural Record. Many other regionally acknowledged architects, who are not represented on the roster of Old Pasadena architects, lived in Pasadena which created an environment that demanded design excellence.
Harry Ridgeway, the first major architect to practice in Pasadena, designed many of the "boom" commercial buildings of which only 11-17 North Fair Oaks Avenue remains. He is recognized as the premiere Pasadena Victorian-era architect. The two phases of the Hotel Green demonstrate the talent of two major turn of the century architects, C.L. Strange (82 South Raymond Avenue, the remains of the first hotel) and Frederick Roehrig (99 South Raymond Avenue, the Central Building). Strange also design the Doty Block (103-15 South Fair Oaks Avenue) and is best known for his Old Orange County Courthouse in Santa Ana. The Castle Green is Roehrig's best large-scale work as his is predominantly known for his residential designs. The Vandervort Block (26-38 South Raymond Avenue) may be the first southern California work of Frank Hudson who achieved notoriety as a partner in the Los Angeles firm of Hudson and Munsell. His most notable Los Angeles buildings include the County Hall of Records (demolished) and the Museum of Natural History in Exposition Park. Frederick Kennedy Jr., recognized primarily for his ecclesiastical designs (First Baptist Church and Trinity Lutheran Church, NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 8 Page 61 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
both in Pasadena) has one commercial design within the district, 24-28 East Colorado Boulevard. In addition to designing seventeen buildings or facades within Old Pasadena, the firm of Bennett and Haskell also designed the Pasadena Civic Auditorium (a local landmark and a contributing building in the Civic Center National Register District) with Edwin Bergstrom. While Bennett trained in the offices of Greene and Greene, Haskell had a classical architect's education at Harvard, MIT, and the Ecole de Beaux Arts. Haskell also worked with McKim, Mead & White in New York before coming to Pasadena in the early 1920s. Although the firm of Marston and Van Pelt has only one representative in Old Pasadena (106 West Colorado Boulevard) they enjoyed popular acclaim due to their other Pasadena buildings including the Grace Nicholson Building, the Pasadena Athletic Club, and the Civic Center YMCA.
The business and cultural focus of the community shifted east along Colorado in the 1920s and 1930.
The 1929-30 street widening and resultant facade program was seen by many as a last ditch attempt to revive commerce at this end of Colorado. The construction of the Civic Center and the Maryland Hotel (just three blocks east of the district in the 1920s began this shift which was cemented with the development of South Lake Avenue as a shopping avenue in the 1940s. Despite this shift, merchants continued their business, accommodating a different clientele. The lack of investment in the district saved it from the "modernization" which hit most other downtowns after World War II.
In conclusion, the Old Pasadena Historic District is historically significant as the commercial center of Pasadena. The district represents the major phases of development in the local community from the 1880s through the 1930s. The district is architecturally significant as the largest intact assemblage of commercial buildings in Pasadena, containing numerous individually distinguished buildings and the works of many notable architects. Collectively, the assemblage documents the evolution of commercial architecture in Pasadena.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 9 Page 62 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Sources
Books and Articles
Carew, Harold, History? of the San Gabriel Valley, California. Pasadena, CA: Clarke Publishing Company, 1930.
Chapin, Lon ¥., Thirty Years in Pasadena. Pasadena. CA: Southwest Publishing Company, 1929.
English, Scan, Pasadena Fire Department. Pasadena. CA: Firemen's Relief Association, 2002.
Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Los Angeles: and Architectural Guide. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publisher,. 1994.
Gleye. Paul. The Architecture of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Rosebud Books. 1981.
Heckman, Marlin L., Pasadena in Vintage Postcards. Chicago, IL: Arcadia Press. 2001.
Reid, Hiram, History of Pasadena. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena Historical Society, 1895.
Schied, Ann, Pasadena: Crown of the Valley. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1986.
Pasadena Community Book. (Ralph Arnold Edition). Pasadena, CA: A.F. Cawston, 1955.
Pasadena, In Southern California, Between the Mountains and the Sea. Pasadena, CA: Chamber of Commerce and Civic Association, 1926.
Pasadena Saving & Loan Association, Valley of the Hahamog-na: Pasadena Through Two Centuries.
Pasadena, CA: Cole-Holmquist Press, 1952.
Reports and Surveys
Old Pasadena Historic District, National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, January, 1983, Pasadena Heritage.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 9 Page 63 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Central District Historic Resource Survey, 2000-2004, Planning Consultants Research (PCR) Corp. and the City of Pasadena
Primary Materials
Building Permit Records, various dates
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, various dates
City Directories, various dates
Address Files - These files at the City of Pasadena Planning Department often include historic resource inventor}' forms from the 1980s, copies of old building permits and newspaper articles, and correspondence, plans, and photographs related to proposed alterations since the 1980s.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 10 Page 64 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Boundary Justification
The heart of the district is the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Fair Oaks Avenue. The district emanates from that point in an irregular manner and includes the densest concentration of buildings associated with the historic business district of Pasadena. The vast majority of the buildings in the district are commercial; however, there are a few residential buildings, churches, and social halls. The district is generally bounded on the north by modern office buildings and the 210-Foothill Freeway, on the east by the Civic Center and the Santa Fe railroad tracks, on the west by the Long Beach Freeway, and on the south by later industrial development.
The boundaries are generally the same as those in the original application for the district. They have been adjusted slightly for two reasons: first to include contributing buildings that were inadvertently left out of the original application and second to exclude new noncontributing buildings on the edge of the district. The boundaries have been adjusted to exclude noncontributing and include contributing buildings on the edge of the district.
Four buildings on the edge of the old boundary have been picked up as new contributors to increase the boundaries of the district. Each was constructed during the period of significance, reflect the historic context, and retain their physical integrity. 130-134 North Fair Oaks (#78) was rehabilitated in 1988. and is now considered a contributor to the district. The inclusion of this building extends the northwestern edge of the district boundary. 80 West Dayton (#62) was individually listed in the National Register in 1978, and 108-112 South Delacey (#66} retains its physical integrity. As such, both buildings are now? considered contributors to the district, and the southwestern boundary of the district has been extended to reflect this. Finally, 330 South Fair Oaks retains its physical integrity and is considered a contributor to the district, extending the southern boundary of the district.
The boundary changes also reflect new non-contributors along the boundaries, which slightly decrease the district boundaries. The property at the southwest corner of the Orange Place and South Fair Oaks is now7 a non-contributor; therefore, the southwestern boundary of the district is drawn to exclude this property. In a similar manner, a new non-contributing building is located on the northeaster corner of Del Mar and South Raymond; the southeastern boundary now excludes this area.
It should also be noted that eleven of the original contributing buildings have been demolished. They include:
41 South Delacey
NPS Form 10-900-a
(8-86)
OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 10 Page 65 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
101 South Fair Oaks
251 South Fair Oaks
255 South Fair Oaks
85 West Green
135 West Green
26 South Pasadena
195 North Raymond
130 South Raymond
24 East Union
40 WTest Union
Four of the original noncontributing buildings have been demolished. They include:
25-27 West Colorado
86-90 West Colorado
77 South Fair Oaks
20 West Green
One building at 300 South Fair Oaks had been included as contributing is now considered noncontributing due to a lack of physical integrity.
Although the boundaries have been adjusted only slightly, there are now more resources in the district for two reasons. First the old application sometimes counted multiple side-by-side buildings as one building with a range of addresses. For example, two buildings at 165-175 were counted as one building, but arc now counted as two at 165 and 175. Another example is 33-45 South Fair Oaks. These three buildings \vere originally counted as one noncontributing building. They are now counted as two noncontributing buildings (33-35 and 43-47) and one contributing building (37-39). Second, about twenty noncontributing buildings have been constructed within the district, mostly on vacant and surface parking lots thai were identified in the old application. There are now very few surface parking lots remaining in the district.
NFS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018
(8-86)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section number 1Q Page 66 Old Pasadena Historic District (Additional Documentation/Boundary Changes)
Los Angeles County, California
Photographs
The following is the same for all of the photographs:
City: Pasadena
County: Los Angeles
State: CA
Photographer: Teresa Grimes
Date: February 2008
1. South Fair Oaks Avenue, looking northeast toward 300 (#1 72) and 330 (#90).
2. Central Park (#2), looking northwest toward the Lawn Bowling Clubhouse (#3).
3. Central Park (#2), looking southwest toward the old horse trough.
4. Dayton Street, looking north toward the Castle Green (#131).
5. South Raymond Avenue, looking north with the Castle Green (#131) on the left and #188 and #189 on the right
6. East Colorado Boulevard and South Raymond Avenue, looking northeast at Union Savings Bank (#112).
7. North Raymond Avenue, looking northwest at the B.O. Kendall Building (#115).
8. East Colorado Boulevard, south side of the street, looking southwest toward the intersection with Fair Oaks Avenue.
9. 40 West Colorado Boulevard (#157), looking southwest.
10. Mills Place, looking south, #109, #182 & #110 on the left.
11. West Colorado Boulevard, looking north, Arcade Building (#32) on right and #34 on left.
A non-contributing building was demolished to create the passageway to the interior of the block.
12. West Colorado Boulevard, north side of the street, looking northwest toward the intersection with Delacy Avenue.
13. West Colorado Boulevard, south side of the street, looking southeast toward #159, a new noncontributing building.
14. 40 West Union Street (#193), looking southeast.
15. North Delacey Avenue, looking northwest toward Perm Oil Building (#64).
16. Christiansen Alley, looking southwest toward the rear of #127.
17. Friendship Baptist Church (#62), looking southeast.
18. South Delacey Avenue and West Dayton Street, looking northeast toward #66.
19. Pasadena Fire Department (#60), looking northeast.
20. South Fair Oaks Avenue, west side of the street, looking northwest toward the intersection at Colorado Boulevard.
Historic District Boundary
Non-Contributing Buildings
Vacant and Parking Lots
Contributing Building
CHESTNUT STREET
WALNUT STREET
.j-, ""\ HOLLY STREET
1 108 ' m '
•140 I UNION STREET
CD I
COLORDO BOULEVARD
GREEN STREET
CORDOVA STREET
DEL MAR BOULEVARD
n Source: Cily of Pasadena and Christopher Joseph and Associates. June 2006.
CHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Planning and Research
Q___150 ————""c;—— 300 450 600 ""
Feet
Old Pasadena
National Register Historic District
LONG BEACH FREEWAY
_ __
^
_.__i
——
T
ijl-
^
L
. _
L
^
-tfiV.
(i
LJ
i'ft
"~ Ji
-L
n
^
RA
1 .,,1
YMOND A
1 /W
IUE
1 $
111
1 -^.
— "— M
i—u~v
"ris
^> | WALNUT STREET
D
q i ——— 1
| CHESTNUT STREET 1
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) 0MB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 1 -31 -2009) United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Name of Property
County and State
Section number ____ Page ____ Name of multiple property listing (if applicable)
OLD PASADENA HISTORIC DISTRICT (ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION) Pasadena, Los Angeles County, CALIFORNIA
83001200
Accept Additional Documentation
/ Keeper of/the National Register
Date/
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 8/2002) 0MB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 1 -31 -2009) United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Name of Property
County and State
Section number _____ Page _____ Name of multiple property listing (if applicable)
OLD PASADENA HISTORIC DISTRICT (BOUNDARY INCREASE/DECREASE) Pasadena, Los Angeles County, CALIFORNIA
07001303
Accept Boundary Increase and Decrease
Keeper eft tHe National Register
^
Date
The Boundary Decrease effectively removed two contributing buildings from the edge of the original nomination district that had been demolished and replaced by a non-contributing building, and removed a lot at the edge of the boundary now occupied by a large non-contributing building. The Boundary Increase added four (4) contributing buildings at various points around the perimeter of the district, which were either left unaddressed in the original nomination or received subsequent rehabilitation that removed nonhistoric features (108-112 South Delacey [#66], 80 West Dayton [#62], 130 -134 North Fair Oaks [#78], and 330 South Fair Oaks [#90]). The total area of changes represents less than one acre. 37 78
OLD PASADENA HISTORIC DISTRICT
Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California
LJ A. 11/394280/3779330 B. 11/394270/3778100
'^ C e 11/393670/3778100 D. 11/393670/3779330
j^ssMf jir%": l> f | / lRe4°ir t, "' » w :\ i -\
34°07'30"
>R—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. RESTON, VIRGINIA- 1975
395
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
Heavy-duty —————— Light-duty
Medium-duty
3ggOOOm.£ 118°07'30"
^
^V
*&,
\CALIF
IRANGLE LOCATION
Unimproved dirt = = =
U. S. Route State Route
.JLc: L y i \GUVc
PASADENA, CALIF.
N3407.5—Wl 1807.5/7.5
1966
PHOTOP£V!S!fD Iiv./r
AMS 2352 II NW-SERIES V895
- n hr ift.1 bi./4:
/ 15-
/267 MILS
' MAGNETIC NORTH
ENTER OF SHEET
Central Park Apartments 19
ATTACHMENT B
Central Park Apartments 20
TERESA GRIMES | Historic Preservation [email protected] 323-868-2391
Teresa Grimes has 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation. She is widely recognized as an expert in the identification and evaluation of historical resources having successfully prepared dozens of landmark and historic district applications for a wide variety of property types. Teresa graduated from the University of California with a Master of Art degree in Architecture and has worked in the private, public, and non-profit sectors. Teresa has extensive experience in the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act including the identification of historical resources, analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and development of mitigation measures. Her many projects throughout Southern California include the Art Center College of Design Master Plan, Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza, Cinerama Dome Entertainment Center, City of Hope Master Plan, Claremont Graduate University Master Plan, Claremont McKenna College Master Plan, John Anson Ford Theatres, Oakwood School Master Plan, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Times Mirror Square, Sunset Las Palms Studios, and Sunset Bronson Studios.
Educational Background Professional Experience
• M.A., Architecture, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1992
• B.A., Political Science, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1986
• Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation,
Principal, 2020 - Present
• GPA Consulting, Principal Architectural
Historian, 2009-2020
• Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Senior
Architectural Historian, 2006-2009
• Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation,
Principal, 1999-2005, 1993-1994, 1991-1992
• Historic Resources Group, Architectural
Historian, 1994-1998
• Getty Conservation Institute, Research
Associate, 1992-1993
• Los Angeles Conservancy, Preservation
Officer, 1988-1991
Qualifications
• Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for
history and architectural history pursuant to
the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part
61, Appendix A.
Professional Activities
• Pasadena Heritage Board Member,
2008-2012
• Highland Park Heritage Trust, Board Member,
1996-1998
• West Hollywood Cultural Heritage Advisory
Board, 1990-1994
1 Takeda, Michi
From: Carole <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2021 8:34 PM
To: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: Hotel Green
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>. ------------------------
Hi
I am totally opposed to the development that blocks the Castle Green. Pasadena’s beauty is being destroyed by overdevelopment and this is a prime example. I have lived and paid taxes here my entire adult life. My grandparents came out from Chicago and stayed at that hotel, I have many happy memories.
Please reconsider
Carole Abelmann
Sent from my iPhone
1 Letter I-1
1 Johnson, Kevin
From: John Adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 3:48 PM
To: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: Castle Green
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>. ------------------------
Please do not approve the development that would obscure this old Pasadena landmark. This city which my grandfather moved to in 1895, in which my father was born in 1905 and in which I was born in 1933 has steadily been divested of its historical identity. What is left MUST be fought for and retained. SAVE OUR CITY.
JOHN ADAMS
380 Glenullen Drive
Pasadena CA 91105
[email protected]
323/254-5814
Sent from my iPad
1 Letter I-2
1 Letter I-3
1 Johnson, Kevin
From: Lorraine Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2021 5:42 PM
To: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: Fwd: Castle Green
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more.... ------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lorraine Anderson <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:45 AM
Subject: Castle Green
To: <[email protected]>
Dear Mr Johnson, I am absolutely horrified at the thought of the reprehensible idea of constructing a huge new building complex so incredibly near the beautiful and historic Castle Green!! This is one of the worst things that could possibly be done to my beloved city. It is DESECRATION of the first order. It would ruin one of the most visible and valuable jewels in the crown of our city. I urge and implore YOU to VETO this huge and terrible blight on Pasadena. I know there are other sites where this monstrosity could be built, without RUINING our city.
Lorraine Anderson
1 Letter I-4
1 Takeda, Michi
From: Mark Archer <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 12:10 PM
To: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more.... ------------------------
Hi Kevin,
I work at 15 S. Raymond, and received the Notice to Public Comment for the property listed at 86 S. Fair Oaks Avenue. I also live in the Westgate Residences on De Lacey.
This proposed project is absolutely incredible, and it would be unfortunate if nimby's cause it to be shelved. As a resident and someone that works nearby, please give my name to the list of people that approve of this project.
Thank you,
Mark Archer
818-486-0880
1 Letter I-5
1 Johnson, Kevin
From: Aimee Brazeau <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2021 4:19 PM
To: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: SCEA - Central Park Apartments
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>. ------------------------
Dear Kevin,
As a lifelong Pasadena resident, I must tell you that I am thoroughly dismayed by the continual development of large scale projects throughout the city. Years ago when Bill Bogaard campaigned for his first term as an elected mayor, he promised that infrastructure would be developed to handle the explosion of multi-family housing and that his wife Claire would step down from her position with the city since it would be a conflict of interest for both of them having voting rights on projects. The infrastructure discussed included the expansion of one way streets, and better timing of traffic signals. Neither of those promises came through, and Claire never stepped down from her position. Instead, residents were subjected to a continual concrete and population explosion in the city, along with horrendous traffic jams.
Unfortunately, Pasadena suffered because of false lip service given by its city leaders.
Now the city is considering building a multi-level apartment structure adjacent to the historic Green Hotel, in an area already congested with vehicle traffic. Aside from the traffic congestion, it appears there is no regard to how this historic structure will fare through the construction process, and the beautiful mountain views enjoyed by the residents and guests of this building will be replaced with concrete and stucco. Where is the consideration for historical significance for many of our buildings? And where is the water coming from to serve this new multi-level apartment building. There has been much discussion recently, as well as in the past few years, that the Colorado River is not sustainable to the growing population it serves. Will the water question even be addressed by the city? Our city touts itself as a green city, but it is not. The carbon footprint made by our city is sickening, and only getting worse, and fossil fuel is being burned and wasted at every street corner because the city has not figured out how to time its traffic signals. I have traveled to many cities across the United States for my job, and I can tell you that Pasadena is nowhere near becoming the green city it believes it is.
I ask that the Central Park Apartment project either be denied or reduced substantially in scale. It is high time our city leaders take an environmental approach to doing business, and hand back the developer payments that are carried in the city's back pockets.
Sincerely,
Aimee Brazeau
1 Letter I-6
Kevin Johnson
City of Pasadena
Senior Planner
175 N. Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
Dear Mr. Johnson,
My name is Kathy Brown. I live in Pasadena’s Historic Castle Green. I moved to Pasadena 9 years ago from Agoura, CA and immediately fell madly in love with this city as if I were born and raised here. I stumbled upon Castle Green quite by accident just after I moved here while walking my dog. I saw it from afar and was gobsmacked as people generally are. I spent 2 years finding a way to live there and I can happily say I have been a resident now for 6 wonderful years.
I can imagine you know why I am writing you. I am just your average citizen. I don’t know a lot about city planning but what I do know is how much Castle Green means to the citizens of Pasadena. I know how much the history of the building is part of the fabric of this City. As a resident and one of the many fans of the Castle Green, I can tell you that Colonel Green is a legend here. The documented history of Colonel Greens vision is legendary within these walls and we have all seen the plans he laid out for the future many times. I know there are those that can speak at length about the plans the Colonel had back in 1898 for the historic recreation portion of the Castle Green/Hotel Green site located at the corner of Dayton St. and Fair Oaks Ave. but I only know them from the images. The breathtaking images that for some of us would be a dream come true if they were ever realized. I understand this is just a dream.
I know that there is no stopping progress. I understand that. But with every plan presented over the years, most currently by the developer, Goldrich Kest, there is no care being taken for the historic nature of this property. The last time they presented a plan to the city back in 2015 their project had 64 units and 2 subterranean parking levels. As I understand it the City sent them back to the drawing board and now, they have come back with a plan that has 84 Units and 4 subterranean parking levels. I realize that this is just scraping the surface of the issues with their new plan. The negative impact that their current proposal would have on traffic on Dayton would be unimaginable. This is the street that runs along the Castle and the proposed project site on one side and Central Park on the other. It is very narrow and as it exists now and is very congested. 2 cars can barely pass each other. I already worry a lot about the children playing so close to that street in the park or a dog that may break free of its leash as there are so many cars there is not much visibility as it is. This would also be the street that these 84 proposed unit’s residents would enter and exit. It seems impossible! 1 Letter I-7
I know there are many other people reaching out. Those which much more experience in these matters and can speak intelligently about the legalities. I know that dollars are all that matter to the developers and I am hoping that you see through that and can withstand what I can only imagine is immense pressure to make progress. I looked at the developer’s website that claims to be fulfilling Colonel Greens plans for the property and that is not the truth.
Overall, I am writing to implore you to listen closely to the many experts who want to protect this historic site. I know I speak not only for myself but for many residents of Castle Green as well as Hotel Green. Many who are elderly and all of us who will literally be feet away from this project. This current proposal is entirely too ambitious for Old Pasadena and the Historical land.
I hope you will help us protect it.
I will end with the view from my Castle Green Balcony at Sunset that looks out over the proposed building site. All of this will be destroyed with the current developer’s proposal. I am not at all opposed to a sensitive and respectful project. I hope that ultimately that can be accomplished.
Thank you very much for taking the time to hear my concerns. Kathy Brown
99 S. Raymond Ave. #302
Pasadena, CA 91105
805Ͳ990Ͳ5008
1 Letter I-7
1 Takeda, Michi
From: Eric Brubaker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2021 9:05 PM
To: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: Castle Green
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more...<https://mydoit.cityofpasadena.net/sp?id=kb_article_view&sysparm_article=KB0010263>. ------------------------
Kevin
If you're going to mess with historical landmarks. Replace city hall with condos I being sarcastic. It's that same thing with Castle Green there are to many housing developments in the city that aren't 100% capacity. We're going to mess with historical landmarks what's next to Rosebowl City Hall Langham JPL? This developer is not doing the right thing for Castle green and the surrounding area all he wants is money it's all about money. There are reasons why properties become historical landmarks leave the historical landmarks alone.
That's my 2 cents
Eric Brubaker
Sent from my iPhone
1 Letter I-8
1 Takeda, Michi
From: Shirin Caiola <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2021 3:42 PM
To: Johnson, Kevin
Subject: Central Park Apartments project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more.... ------------------------
Dear Mr. Johnson,
As I was playing with my daughter at the playground of Central Park, I was informed by a lady that you plan on building apartments right across from Central Park, where hundreds of children come to daily.
I strongly oppose this plan that will not only severely impact parking across the playground, but even worse congest the area further bringing danger to the air quality we breathe due to the much higher traffic.
Thank you for hearing the voices of the Passdena community and doe working together with us to make a better suggestion.
Shirin Caiola
1 Letter I-9
1 Letter I-10