AR 10 Attachment C - IS MND — Pasadena City Council, July 15, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # P-19-184688 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
P1. Other Identifier: N/A
*P2. Location: ☒ Unrestricted
*a. County: Los Angeles
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Wilson, Calif. Date: 1995 T 1N; R 12W; Rancho Santa Anita; San Bernardino Base Meridian S.B.B.M c. Address: 2914 East Walnut Street; 2926 East Walnut Street; 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue City: Pasadena Zip: 91107 d. UTM: Zone 11S, 399490mE/ 3779073mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN 5748-036-001; APN 5748-036-002; APN 5748-036-032 *P3a. Description:

This two-story brick building is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East Walnut Street and North Sunnyslope Avenue in Pasadena, California with the addresses 2914 East Walnut Street; 2926 East Walnut Street, and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue (Photograph 1). Constructed in 1929 as a furniture manufacturing facility, the building at 2914 East Walnut Street has a generally rectangular footprint set on a concrete foundation.

The sawtooth roofline, comprising three clerestory risers, is largely obscured from view by a low brick parapet wall at the roof edge. The primary north façade facing East Walnut Street and the broad, secondary elevation facing North Sunnyslope Avenue are separated into full-height bays by simple brick pilasters (Photograph 1–Photograph 3). Fenestration consists of original multi-pane, steel-sash windows spanning the width of each bay (Photograph 4). The main entrance is the original opening at the center of the façade facing East Walnut Street, which contains a replacement metal-frame glazed door with rectangular sidelights and a transom (Photograph 1). The secondary entrance is located within the third bay of the façade facing North Sunnyslope Avenue. The entry is recessed within a stepped brick surround and features what appears to be an original or older replacement metal-frame, glazed door with single transom (Photograph 5). The southwest corner of the original building extent includes a garage entry with a roll-up metal door (Photograph 2). A two-story addition constructed in 1973—numerically identified as 2926 East Walnut Street—is attached to the east wall of the original factory building. This addition constructed of concrete blocks is fenestrated with aluminum-frame windows and a recessed garage entry at its northeast corner (Photograph 6). A much larger, single-story addition constructed in 1979—identified as 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue—adjoins the southern terminus of the original factory building and the south end of the addition constructed in 1973. This addition is sheathed in clay tiles that evoke the appearance of bricks (Photograph 7). A detached garage building built in 1997—2929 Nina Street—is located directly east of this addition (Photograph 8).
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP8. Industrial Building
*P4. Resources Present: ☒ Building
P5b. Description of Photo:

Photograph 1: Main façade north, view north from
East Walnut Street. October 28, 2021.
(See Continuation Sheet for additional photos)
P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
☒ Historic
1929 (City of Pasadena 1929)
*P7. Owner and Address:

PRFT, LLC
PO Box 70589
Pasadena, CA 91117
*P8. Recorded by:

Aisha Fike and Frankie Tong
Michael Baker International
2729 Prospect Park Drive, #220
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
*P9. Date Recorded:

October 28, 2021
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive Pedestrian
*P11. Report Citation: Van Meter, Michelle and Kholood Abdo. 2022. “Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project, City of Pasadena Planning and Community Development Department, Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California.” Rancho Cordova, CA: Michael Baker International.
*Attachments: ☒Building, Structure, and Object Record ☒Location Map ☒Continuation Sheet P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects)
Photograph 1: See P5b for caption.
*NRHP Status Code 6Z

Page 2 of 21 ends

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # P-19-184688 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
B1. Historic Name: Swanson and Peterson, Cabinet Makers; Swanson and Peterson Inc. Furniture Manufacturers B2. Common Name: ArtWorks
B3. Original Use: Furniture Factory B4. Present Use: Non-Profit Art Center *B5. Architectural Style: Daylight Factory
*B6. Construction History:

Manfred Magnusson, contractor, constructed the subject factory building at 2914 East Walnut Street in 1929 using a design prepared by architects McNeal Swasey and Benjamin Hayne (City of Pasadena 1929; Pasadena Post 1929a, 1929b, 1929c). The original 76-foot by 137-foot footprint of building is visible on the 1930 Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map for the area (Sanborn Map Company 1930). The property was expanded in 1973 with an addition of a two-story concrete building added to the east wall of the original building (City of Pasadena 1973). The address for the addition is 2926 East Walnut Street. The property was expanded again in 1979 with a large one-story building to the south (City of Pasadena 1979). By 2013, the small, detached garage building built in 1997 at 2929 Nina Street became part of the larger property (City of Pasadena 1997; Historicaerials.com 2021). The original main entry door on the original building was replaced at an undetermined date. *B7. Moved? ☒No Date: N/A Original Location: N/A
*B8. Related Features: N/A
B9a. Architect: McNeal Swasey and Benjamin Hayne b. Builder: Manfred Magnusson *B10. Significance: Theme: Industrial Development; Architecture Area: Pasadena, California Period of Significance: 1929-1969 Property Type: Industrial Applicable Criteria: N/A Industrial Development of Pasadena and Lamanda Park
The City of Pasadena experienced a tremendous period of growth following its incorporation during the late nineteenth century (City of Pasadena 2021; HRG 2007). By the second decade of the century, the City began annexing the towns east of Pasadena. The area around the subject property was part of the former community named Lamanda Park, which was founded in 1885 and annexed to the City in December 1920. During its early history, Lamanda Park was a predominantly working and middle-class neighborhood of tradesmen, small farmers, and citrus packers (see Continuations Sheets).

B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References: (see Continuation Sheet)
B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator:

Michelle Van Meter, Architectural Historian
Michael Baker International
2729 Prospect Park Drive, #220
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
*Date of Evaluation: February 18, 2022
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
(This space reserved for official comments.)

Page 3 of 21 ends

*Map Name: Mt. Wilson, Calif. *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 1995

DPR 523J (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # P-19-184688 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial

Page 4 of 21 ends

Industrial Development of Pasadena and Lamanda Park (continued) Pasadena experienced a building boom of commercial and industrial facilities after World War I and through the 1920s. In 1910, approximately 500 Pasadenans were employed in 88 industrial establishments. That number grew to 191 companies by 1920, employing some 1,000 people (PRM Design Group et al. 2003; City of Pasadena 1993). During this period, the primary industrial zones were centered around the railroad tracks—between Fair Oaks Avenue and Marengo Avenue—and along present-day Arroyo Parkway (City of Pasadena 1993). The Lamanda Park area, by comparison, experienced a slightly more sporadic industrial expansion pattern concentrated around East Walnut Street and East Colorado Boulevard. Sanborn Map Company fire insurance atlases dating to the 1930s and the 1950s show that the built environment surrounding the subject property consisted of a mix of residences, commercial enterprises, light industrial facilities, and even some vacant, undeveloped lots through the mid-twentieth century (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Great Depression prompted a steep decline in industrial activities as the approximately 191 industrial establishments in 1920 were reduced to 150 in 1930 and then quite dramatically to 83 by 1933 (PRM Design Group et al. 2003; City of Pasadena 1993).

Figure 1: 1930 Sanborn Map Company fire insurance atlas showing the predominantly residential use of the blocks bound by East Walnut Street, North Sunnyslope Avenue, and East Colorado Boulevard. The subject property is located at the intersection of East Walnut Street and North Sunnyslope Avenue (Sanborn Map Company 1930). The red outline denotes the approximate present footprint of 2914 East Walnut Street, 2926 East Walnut Street, and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue.

Page 5 of 21 ends

Arts and Crafts Movement in Pasadena
Numerous creative, entrepreneurial architects and artisans arrived in Pasadena around the turn of the twentieth century and brought with them an appreciation of the indigenous cultures and local materials of the region. Influenced by the English Arts and Crafts movement of the late nineteenth century, the Southern California adaptation of the Arts and Crafts philosophy began to take shape in Pasadena with this group. At the forefront of this campaign were brother architects Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene. The Greene brothers came to Pasadena in 1893 from apprenticeships in Boston. As professional partners, Greene and Greene began crafting artful California Craftsman “bungalows” in Pasadena beginning in 1903, and completed many of their most well-known projects, including the Blacker House and Gamble House, within the decade. The bungalow emerged as a simple, garden-oriented house distinctively suited to the warm climate and lifestyle of the area with an emphasis on indoor-outdoor living spaces. Natural materials like wood, stone, and brick were often highlighted in designs. The horizontality of the facades was emphasized by moderately pitched, broad roofs with wide eave overhangs over a deeply recessed porch that provided much needed shade in the hot climate. The designs of Greene and Greene and their contemporaries gained popularity through features in magazines such as House Beautiful, Good Housekeeping, and Architectural Record. In turn, numerous small-scale, affordable adaptations appeared in nationally circulating pattern books and mail-order house catalogs. Because of its widespread popularity and the availability of ready-made kit plans, the Craftsman architectural style became synonymous with early suburbanization prior to the Great Depression. Identifying features of the style include low-slung, horizontal massing; low-pitch gable roofs; overhanging open eaves; exposed rafters, beams, and braces; full and partial-width covered front porches; heavy, often battered, columns and piers; and prolific use of wood, stone, stucco, and other local building materials to evoke connectivity and harmony with the natural environment (City of Pasadena 1993; HRG 2007; McAlester 2013).

Arts and Crafts Furniture Industry in Pasadena
Wood as a material was emphasized not only in Craftsman architecture—its integration in interior furnishings was equally important.

Craftsman furniture of the early twentieth century was expressed through “severely rectilinear, overengineered forms made from thick-

Page 6 of 21 ends

Swanson and Peterson Manufacturing Company
David Swanson was born in Sweden in 1888 and immigrated to the United States in 1907, settling in Pasadena where he became employed by the Halls as a cabinet maker. In 1908, while at Hall Manufacturing, Swanson, along with colleague Bror Kohn, built the Gamble House bedroom and guest bedroom furniture designed by the Greene brothers (Figure 3). In 1913, Swanson left Hall Manufacturing with colleague Anton Erickson for Binderheim Studios, an interior decoration manufacturing firm. By 1920, Swanson and Erickson left Binderheim Studios to go into a brief partnership, which would be superseded by Swanson and Erik Peterson’s partnership in 1924 (Ancestry.com 2021b; Cooke 1993; Gregory 2019).

Erik W. Peterson was born in Sweden 1883 and immigrated to New York in 1903, making his way to Pasadena by 1915 where he found employment at the Hall Manufacturing Company. Peterson established himself as a renowned cabinet and chair maker while working for the Halls and produced the chair prototypes that the Hall shop copied and produced. He went into business with Swanson in 1924 (Ancestry.com 2021c; Cooke 1993). Their first location for the Swanson and Peterson Furniture Cabinet Makers company, later renamed Swanson and Peterson Furniture Manufacturing, was at 920 South Raymond Avenue. This original factory is no longer extant (Los Angeles Times 1929; Southwest Builder and Contractor 1920).

In 1929, the partners relocated to their second manufacturing facility and showroom at the subject property at 2914 East Walnut Street in Pasadena (Los Angeles Times 1929). With the decline in popularity of Craftsman-style custom residential furnishings, Swanson and Peterson began catering to new stylistic preferences and product demands, namely office furniture (Cooke 1993). In 1935, the company designed and built the furniture for the Art Deco-style Los Angeles Times building (Los Angeles Times 1934). By 1940, the company’s adverts began to distinguish itself as “manufacturers of store, bank and office fixtures,” cementing their target market (Pasadena Post 1940). However, they continued offering a range of other manufacturing and repair services, and their custom work was featured in an advert in a 1959 issue of Architectural Digest (Figure 4) (Architectural Digest 1959; Los Angeles Times 1941). By and large, though, most of their work during this period appears to have been small projects for a local clientele. While a handful of mentions of the company were found in magazine vignettes of furnished residential rooms, these mentions were brief and included alongside the furniture designers and photographers. No formal write-ups on Swanson and Peterson, in specific, were located during research.

Swanson and Peterson remained connected to the Greene brothers, in a limited capacity, through the 1940s. A letter from Henry Greene to his client Mrs. Gould, dated April 20, 1944, discussed commissioning new shelves for a bedroom in her house. Greene stated that if his preferred craftsman who had worked on Mrs. Gould’s house in 1938 was not available, Greene would have Swanson and Peterson build the piece. This demonstrates that Greene primarily worked with other woodworkers, and for this project, Swanson and Peterson were an alternative choice. In reference to the finished furniture piece, Greene also stated that Swanson and Peterson “did not know, nor do I what is the best way to ship it” and asked Mrs. Gould “if you know of a company that ships to Ventura let him know who it is, please” (Greene 1944). This implies Swanson and Peterson did not have a large sales area or a widespread customer base, if they did not know how to arrange shipping from Pasadena to Ventura, only approximately 75 miles away. In summary, no sources were revealed during research that indicated that Swanson or Peterson, as partners or individually, maintained any sort of professional relationship with the Greenes as a preferred manufacturer following the closure of the Hall Manufacturing Company and the dissolution of the Greene and Greene firm.

Additionally, Swanson and Peterson appear to have had a service market that did not extend far beyond the Los Angeles metropolitan area.

Page 7 of 21 ends

Unger-Fuss expanded the square footage of the subject property by adding a two-story concrete building addition on the east side of the factory in 1973, followed by a larger single-story addition to the south in 1979 (City of Pasadena 1973, 1979) (Figure 5–Figure 7). The Unger-Fuss Company vacated the site during the late 1980s (Los Angeles County Assessor 2021; Department of Consumer Affairs 2021).

Beyond the few sources that referenced the Unger-Fuss Company in association with the property, no other relevant primary source materials were identified through targeted searches on Ancestry.com or Newspapers.com that would suggest that they were significant within the field of furniture manufacturing during the 1970s and 1980s while they occupied the factory.

Figure 3: Chiffonier for bedroom of the
Gamble House designed by Charles and Henry
Greene and built by Swanson and Bror Kohn,
prior to the formation of the Swanson and
Peterson firm (Cooke 1993).

Figure 4: Swanson and Peterson advertisement
(Architectural Digest 1959).

Page 8 of 21 ends

Figure 6: Aerial photograph, dated March 4, 1976, showing the addition of 2926 East Walnut Street, constructed in 1973. The red outline denotes the approximate present footprint of 2914 East Walnut Street, 2926 East Walnut Street, and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue (UCSB 1976).

Page 9 of 21 ends

Industrial Daylight Factory Property Type
The subject property, in its original form, is most closely aligned with the industrial daylight factory property type. An article in the Pasadena Post (1929b) describing the building in 1929 highlighted that the space would provide “plenty of light for the workmen,” and would increase manufacturing capabilities. For much of the nineteenth century, industrial factories were almost entirely dependent on natural light to illuminate interior production areas. Load-bearing brick exterior walls, however, could not easily accommodate large, wood-sash windows.

Around the turn of the twentieth century, advances in steel technology resulted in new window types that coupled narrower steel frames and larger glazing. Large expanses of window units arranged in large bands, curtain walls, and skylights became common in factory designs, nationwide, by about 1910. Such buildings with steel-sash windows came to be known as daylight factories. Beyond their hallmark fenestration, character-defining features of daylight factories include one or two-story massing, sawtooth, butterfly, and monitor rooflines, and oversized bays. With the proliferation of fluorescent lighting in ensuing decades, few daylight factories were constructed after the 1940s (SurveyLA 2011).

Architect
The subject property constructed in 1929 was designed by architects McNeal Swasey and Benjamin Hayne (Pasadena Post 1929a, 1929b; Los Angeles Times 1929). Swasey was a prominent Los Angeles-based architect known for Spanish-influenced residence designs and ornate commercial designs. He was born in Missouri in 1891 to William Swasey, an Australian-born architect practicing in St.

Louis. Swasey worked as a draftsman for his father’s New York City office while attending Yale University before serving in World War I. After the war, he worked as a project manager for Pasadena architect Myron Hunt from 1919 to 1922. While at Hunt’s firm, Swasey co-designed and oversaw the construction of the Ambassador Hotel and the Huntington Library. By 1922, he established himself as principle in his own firm and designed a number of buildings, including the Mediterranean Revival-style Constance Hotel building in Pasadena (Figure 8), which has been found eligible for local listing as a Pasadena landmark, and several commercial properties in Los Angeles. Swasey partnered with two other architects, first with Henry McAfee to develop the Arrowhead Village Plan, the Arlington Lodge, and the Norman Village at Lake Arrowhead between 1922 to 1923 (HRG 2010; PCAD 2021a; Vaught 2012). He then worked with architect Benjamin S. Hayne to design the notable Bank of America branch buildings in Bakersfield and Redlands in 1928, and several residences including the McKee residence in Montecito and the Newcomb residence in Bel-Air in 1930 (HRG 2010; PCAD 2021a, 2021b; Architectural Digest 1930). Hayne was born in San Francisco in 1897 and by the mid-1920s had moved to Los Angeles to continue his work as an architect (Ancestry.com 2021d). As partners, Swasey and Hayne did not typically design industrial buildings, and the subject property is not an excellent representation of the often high-style work that they produced during the 1920s and 1930s.

Page 10 of 21 ends

Page 11 of 21 ends

*Recorded by: Aisha Fike and Frankie Tong, Michael Baker International *Date: October 28, 2021 ☒ Continuation DPR 523L (9/2013)
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary# P-19-184688 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Evaluation History
The subject property was surveyed by S. DeWolfe as part of the citywide Unreinforced Masonry Building Survey and recorded on a DPR 523 form set in June 1990, at which time it was assigned NRHP resource status code 6, indicating that the resource was ineligible. The property was reevaluated by Leonard Kliwinski and James C. Wilson in February 1994 as part of the survey associated with the East Pasadena Specific Plan, at which time it was assigned resource status code 5S3. The associated survey report defined this code as meaning that the resource was not eligible for separate listing or designation under the existing local ordinance, but could be eligible for special consideration in local planning, and that the rating included individually ineligible resources that could contribute to a thematically related grouping linked by design, type, plan, or physical development. With specific regard to 2914 East Walnut Street, the property was noted as having “limited local significance” as one of the few remaining factory buildings along the former East Walnut Street industrial corridor (Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 1994). The BERD list for Los Angeles County assigns this resource the status code 6L, indicating that the resource was determined ineligible for local listing or designation through the local government review process, but may warrant special consideration in local planning. Nearly three decades have passed since the previous survey, and a current evaluation of this property is provided below.

California Register of Historic Resources and Pasadena Landmark Eligibility Evaluations The following includes an evaluation of the property at 2914 East Walnut Street, 2926 East Walnut Street, and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue for its eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The following also evaluates its eligibility for listing as a City of Pasadena landmark, the criteria for which are outlined in Title 17, Article 6, Chapter 17.62.040(A)and(D)(2) of the City of Pasadena Municipal Code.

California Register Criterion 1/Pasadena Landmark Criterion A – Research did not demonstrate that this property is associated with events significant to the broad patterns of our history at the local, state, or national level. No demonstrably significant events are known to have occurred at the property or as a result of its presence in the community, and it does not appear to be singularly important within the context of industrial development in Pasadena. The Lamanda Park area, annexed by Pasadena prior to the construction of the subject property, was not a particularly early or noteworthy industrial hub relative to the timeline and nature of industrial development citywide. Until recent decades, the immediate vicinity of the subject property consisted of a mix of residences, commercial establishments, and a few manufacturing facilities, indicating that this neighborhood was not a predominantly industrial corridor at any point during the early or midtwentieth century. The property is not known to have ushered in any new or influential industrial practices or to have made a significant contribution to other broad patterns of local, regional, state, or national culture and history. Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 or as a Pasadena landmark under Criterion A.

California Register Criterion 2/Pasadena Landmark Criterion B – Source materials consulted during research failed to support that Swanson and Peterson were prominent, prolific master artisans within the context of American furniture manufacturing, particularly during the years in which they occupied the subject property. Prior to forming their partnership, Swanson and Peterson had both been employed by the Hall Manufacturing Company, during which time they worked on multiple high-profile furniture-making projects for famed architect brothers Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene, who were pioneers of the Craftsman architectural style. On the whole, it appears that Swanson and Peterson carried out much of their most noteworthy work during this early period. The dissolution of the Greene and Greene firm and the closure of the Hall Manufacturing Company occurred during the early 1920s, well before Swanson and Peterson occupied the property in question. Swanson and Peterson formally partnered in 1924 and first began production in a factory at 920 South Raymond Avenue. By the time the factory at 2914 East Walnut Street was completed in 1929, the popularity of Craftsman architecture and related custom-made furniture had rapidly declined. As such, any significant association that Swanson and Peterson had with the Greene brothers and Craftsman furnishings predates the development of the subject factory by several years. From the 1930s onward, Swanson and Peterson largely transitioned to producing office furniture and offering furniture repair services. In 1935, the company designed and built the furniture for the Art Deco-style Los Angeles Times building, but no other post-1930 projects of such caliber could be linked to them through research.

Beyond advertisements in local newspapers and a few architectural magazines, little information was revealed about Swanson and Peterson’s work during the years in which they operated their business at the subject property, suggesting they were not widely known or regarded as significant masters of their trade during that period. For this reason, the subject property is recommended not eligible under California Register Criterion 2 or Pasadena Landmark Criterion B.

California Register Criterion 3/Pasadena Landmark Criterion C – The original building of the subject property was designed by renowned and master Los Angeles-based architect McNeal Swasey during his professional partnership with architect Benjamin Hayne. Swasey was well known during his tenure for his Spanish and Mediterranean-influenced period revival designs. A prolific architect, he co-designed many Los Angeles-area landmarks while working as a project manager for celebrated architect Myron Hunt, and went on to design many residential, civic, and commercial buildings in the greater Los Angeles area. However, the subject property is a modest, unexemplary representation of Swasey’s broader body of work. The building lacks striking architectural elements and high artistic value, and it is not one of the notable buildings designed by Swasey and Hayne during their partnership. Beyond the original building permit and a single mention

Page 12 of 21 ends

As a property type, the original building at 2914 East Walnut Street can be characterized as an industrial daylight factory. The SurveyLA citywide historic context statement “Industrial Development, 1850-1980” describes important examples of this property type as being significant because they embody a unique historical method of construction. Industrial daylight factories, most of which were constructed between 1910 and 1940—a period bookended by the introduction of steel-sash windows followed by the proliferation of fluorescent lighting—utilized large windows and distinctive roof forms to maximize interior light. The subject building is not an excellent example of the type. While it incorporates some defining characteristics of an industrial daylight factory, it is relatively simple in comparison to other more representative examples in Pasadena. For instance, it has industrial steel-sash windows, but they are not arranged in continuous or oversized bays. It has a partial sawtooth roofline, but the majority of the roof is flat. In September 2021, City of Pasadena staff determined another former furniture manufacturing building, located at 403-421 South Raymond Avenue (Figure 9 and Figure 10), to be eligible for listing as a landmark under Pasadena Landmark Criterion C as a significant example of an industrial daylight factory (Reyes 2021). When comparing the subject building and the facility at 403-421 South Raymond Avenue, which was built five years earlier, it is clear that the latter factory is a more distinct example of the type in terms of its scale, its expansive steel-sash windows, and its dominant sawtooth roof.

In this vein, the subject property is recommended not eligible under California Register Criterion 3 or Pasadena Landmark Criterion C because it does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction.

Figure 9: East elevation of the daylight factory on South Raymond Avenue, showing expansive window bays (Reyes 2021).

Page 13 of 21 ends

California Register Criterion 4/Pasadena Landmark Criterion D – The property is not likely to yield valuable information which will contribute to our understanding of human history because the property is not and never was the principal source of important information pertaining to significant events, people, or architectural style. Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible for listing under California Register Criterion 4 or Pasadena Landmark Criterion D.

Integrity – This property retains integrity of location, but it no longer retains integrity of setting because modern infill and commercial development have supplanted much of its formerly industrial surroundings along East Walnut Street. The property also no longer retains integrity of association because it no longer serves an industrial manufacturing purpose. Although the original brick building has undergone some exterior modifications and the footprint of the facility has been greatly expanded on its south and east sides, the property generally retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling to its initial period of construction. However, the property lacks significance under any of the California Register or Pasadena Landmark criteria, and is therefore not eligible for listing in either register.

Conclusion – Lacking significance under any of the above listed criteria, the subject property is recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources nor as a City of Pasadena landmark. It is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a).

Page 14 of 21 ends

Photograph 2: North and east sides of the factory building, showing portions of the east and south additions. Camera facing southeast, October 28, 2021.

Photograph 3: West exterior wall facing North Sunnyslope Avenue. Camera facing northeast, October 28, 2021.

Page 15 of 21 ends

Page 16 of 21 ends

Page 17 of 21 ends

Photograph 7: Addition constructed in 1979 at 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue. Camera facing northeast, October 28, 2021.

Page 18 of 21 ends

Page 19 of 21 ends

Ancestry.com. 2021a. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995: Pasadena. 1929-1970. Online database. Accessed February 2022. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2469/.
———. 2021b. “David C. Swanson.” United States Federal Census 1920-1940; U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards 1917-1918.

Online database. Accessed November 2021. www.ancestry.com. ———. 2021c. “Erik W. Peterson.” United States Federal Census 1930-1940; California, Federal Naturalization Records, 1843-1999; California, Voter Registration, 1900-1968; California, Death Index, 1940-1997. Online database. Accessed November 2021. www.ancestry.com.
———. 2021d. “Benjamin Hayne,” United States Federal Census 1910-1940; California, Death Index, 1940-1997. Accessed November 2021, www.ancestry.com.

Architectural Digest. 1930. “Residence of Mr. and Mrs. Henry S. McKee, Montecito – McNeal Swasey, Architect; Benjamin S. Hayne, Associate.” Vol. 7, Issue 4. Accessed November 2021. https://archive.architecturaldigest.com/article/1930/1/residence-of-mr-andmrs-henry-s-mckee-montecito---mcneal-swasey-architect-benjamin-s-hayne-associate. ———. 1959. “Swanson and Peterson Inc.” Vol. 16, Issue 4. Accessed November 2021. https://archive.architecturaldigest.com/issue/19590301/print.

City of Pasadena. 1929. Permit 550-E. Provided to Michael Baker International by the City of Pasadena. ———. 1973. Permit 44347. Provided to Michael Baker staff by City of Pasadena. ———. 1979. [Permit illegible, 70 North Sunnyslope Avenue]. Provided to Michael Baker International by the City of Pasadena. ———. 1993. “Architecture/Historical Development of the City of Pasadena: Historic Context/Property Type Report.” Prepared by Pamela O’Conner, Urban Conservation Section, Planning Division of City of Pasadena. Accessed October 2021. http://pasadena.cfwebtools.com/search.cfm?display=search. ———. 1997. Permit 97-00659. Provided to Michael Baker International by the City of Pasadena. ———. 2010. “Resource Summary: 940 E. Colorado Blvd.” Accessed February 2022. http://pasadena.cfwebtools.com/search.cfm?res_id=5847&display=resource. ———. 2021. “Heritage: A Short History of Pasadena.” Accessed July 2021. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/about-pasadena/historyof-pasadena/.

Cooke, Edward S. 1993. “Scandinavian Modern Furniture in the Arts and Crafts Period: the Collaboration of the Greenes and the Halls.” In American Furniture. Accessed October 2021. http://www.chipstone.org/article.php/388/American-Furniture-1993/ScandinavianModern-Furniture-in-the-Arts-and-Crafts-Period:-The-Collaboration-of-the-%E2%80%A61/26.

Department of Consumer Affairs. 2021. California Contractors State License Board, License 274189, Unger-Fuss Company. Accessed November 2021. https://www2.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicenseII/LicenseDetail.aspx?LicNum=274189.

Greene, Henry M. 1944. Letters to Mrs. Gould. April 20 and 27, 1944. Accessed January 2022. http://www.gouldresidence.com/correspondence.htm.

Gregory, Tim. 2019. “1014 Palm Terrace.” Provided to Michael Baker International by Pasadena Heritage.

Google Earth. 2021. “2914 East Walnut Street.” Aerial photograph. February 20, 2021.

Google Street View. 2019. “Constance Hotel.” Photograph. January 2019.

Historicaerials.com. 2021. “2914 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA.” 2012, 2014. Accessed October 2021. http://www.historicaerials.com.

HRG (Historic Resources Group and Pasadena Heritage). 2007. Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report, City of Pasadena. Prepared for the City of Pasadena. Accessed October 2021. https://www.laconservancy.org/sites/default/files/community_documents/Recent%20Past%20context%20statement%2C%202007.p df.
———. 2010. Cultural Resources Technical Report, Colorado at Lake Development Project, Pasadena, California. Prepared for Park Place Commercial, LP and the City of Pasadena. Accessed November 2021. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/wp-

Page 20 of 21 ends

Los Angeles County Assessor. 2021. APN 5748-036-001; APN 5748-036-002; APN 5748-036-032. Accessed October 2021, https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/parceldetail/.

Los Angeles Times. 1929. “Factory to be erected in Pasadena.” May 12, 1929. E7. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/.
———. 1934. “Construction of ‘Times’ Home Was Largest Project Here.” Charles C. Cohan. Oct. 17, 1934. 39. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/.
———. 1941. “Furnished French House Open for Inspection.” March 23, 1941. 41. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/.
———. 1970. “Employment Opportunities: Cabinet Makers, Unger-Fuss Co.” Sept. 30, 1970. 82. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. 2013. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Pasadena Post. 1929a. “New Factory to be Built in Pasadena.” 21. May 4, 1929. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/.
———. 1929b. “Swanson, Peterson Firm to Construct New Factory.” 13. June 20, 1929. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/.
———. 1929c. “Building Permits.” 21. June 20, 1929. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/. ———. 1940. “Swanson & Peterson.” 9. June 26, 1940. Accessed November 2021. https://www.newspapers.com/.

PCAD (Pacific Coast Architecture Database). 2021a. “McNeal Swasey (Architect).” Accessed November 2021. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/1924/.
———. 2021b. “Swasey and Hayne, Architects (Partnership).” Accessed November 2021. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/3109/.

PRM Design Group, Kimley Horn and Associates, and Natalson Company, Inc. 2003. East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan.

Prepared for the City of Pasadena. Accessed November 2021. https://www.cityofpasadena.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/EastColorado-Specific-Plan.pdf.

Reyes, David M. 2021. Director of Planning and Community Development, City of Pasadena. Letter to Michael J. Rogerson. Notice of Determination: Historic Resource Evaluation, 403-421 S. Raymond Avenue. DHP2021-00121. September 13, 2021. Provided to Michael Baker International by the City of Pasadena.

Sanborn Map Company. 1930. “Pasadena, California.” Vol. 7, Sheet 924. New York, NY: Sanborn Map Company. Accessed February 2022. https://www.lapl.org/.
———. 1950. “Pasadena, California.” Vol. 7, Sheet 924. New York, NY: Sanborn Map Company. Accessed February 2022. https://www.lapl.org/.

Southwest Builder and Contractor. 1920. “Pasadena Permits: Shop, 920 S Raymond Ave.” Accessed November 2021. https://books.google.com/books.

SurveyLA. 2011. “Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Context: Industrial Development, 1850-1980.” Prepared for the City of Los Angeles. Revised 2018.

UCSB (University of California, Santa Barbara). 1944. “Flight DDF-1944, Frame 8-124, December 7, 1944.” Aerial photograph by Fairchild Aerial Surveys. Available at UCSB Geospatial Collection. Accessed February 2022. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.
———. 1976. “Flight TG-7600, Frame 13-19, March 4, 1976.” Aerial photograph by Teledyne Geotronics. Available at UCSB Geospatial Collection. Accessed February 2022. https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/.

Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 1994. “East Pasadena Specific Plan, Historic Architectural Resources Inventory.” Prepared for the City of Pasadena. Provided to Michael Baker International by the City of Pasadena.

Vaught, Steve. 2012. “R.I.P. Old Spaghetti Factory Building 1924-2012.” Accessed November 2021.

Page 21 of 21 ends

Additional Sources and Databases Consulted:

Ancestry. Accessed October 2021-February 2022. Online database. https://www.ancestry.com/.

Architectural Digest. 1954, 1955, 1961, 1962. Accessed January 2022. https://archive.architecturaldigest.com/search?QueryTerm=Swanson+and+Peterson.

Bosley, Edward R. 2003. Greene & Greene. New York: Phaidon Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=rIdOAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Swanson.

Columbia University. n.d. Greene & Greene Architectural Records and Papers Collection, ca. 1896 – ca. 1963. Accessed January 2022. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/archives/avery/greene/.

Furniture Forum: a handbook of contemporary design. 1949-1975. Accessed January 2022. https://books.google.com/books.

Internet Archive. Accessed October 2021-February 2022. https://archive.org/.

HathiTrust. Accessed October 2021-February 2022. https://www.hathitrust.org/.

Lancaster, Clay. 2012. The American Bungalow 1880-1930. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. Accessed January 2022. https://archive.org/details/americanbungalow0000lanc.

Lang, Robert. 2006. Shop Drawings for Greene & Greene Furniture: 23 American Arts and Crafts Masterpieces. Mount Joy, PA: Fox Chapel Publishing. Accessed January 2022. https://www.amazon.com/Shop-Drawings-Greene-FurnitureMasterpieces/dp/1892836297/ Long, Christopher. 2014. Kem Weber, Designer and Architect. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Accessed January 2022. https://www.amazon.com/Weber-Designer-Architect-Christopher-Long/dp/0300206275?.

Makinson, Randell. 1982. Greene & Greene, Furniture and Related Designs. Layton, UT: Peregrine Smith. Accessed January 2022. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Greene_Greene/twJQAAAAMAAJ.

Newspapers.com, Accessed October 2021-February 2022, https://www.newspapers.com/.

Smithsonian National Museum of American History. 1988. American Furniture Industries Survey Collection 1977-1980. Accessed January 2022. https://sova.si.edu/record/NMAH.AC.0286.

Winter, Robert, ed. 1997. Toward a Simpler Way of Life: The Arts & Crafts Architects of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Accessed January 2022, https://archive.org/details/towardsimplerway0000unse.

Appendix D.1:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

This page intentionally left blank
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, California
Prepared For:

Rusnak Group
Pasadena, California
November 4, 2021
Project No. 2E-2110004
November 4, 2021
Rusnak Group
337 W. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attention: Mr. John Beed
Chief Financial Officer
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004
Dear Mr. Beed:

In accordance with your request and subsequent authorization, we have completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment on the above referenced property. Findings and conclusions are discussed in detail within the accompanying report.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If there are any questions regarding the information contained herein, or if we can be of any additional service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Very truly yours,
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Monica L. Sell, P.E. Steven C. Thuemling
Project Engineer II Corporate Manager- Phase I Services Distribution: Rusnak Group
Attn.: Mr. John Beed (email: [email protected])
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

RUSNAK PORSCHE
2915 AND 2965 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2E-2110004
Section No. Description Page

1. SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 1

2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 3

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................. 3

3.1. Scope of Services............................................................................................... 3

3.2. Limitations and Exceptions ................................................................................. 4

4. OWNER/USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................. 4

4.1. User Questionnaire............................................................................................. 4

4.2. Recorded Land Title Records.............................................................................. 5

4.3. Previous Environmental Reports......................................................................... 5

5. SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION......................................................................... 8

5.1. Setting and Location ........................................................................................... 8

5.2. Surrounding Area................................................................................................ 8

6. SUBJECT PROPERTY OBSERVATIONS..................................................................... 8

6.1. Current Property Use and Activity ....................................................................... 8

6.2. Observations....................................................................................................... 9

7. INTERVIEWS................................................................................................................10

8. HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION ..............................................................................10

8.1. Aerial Photographs ............................................................................................10

8.2. City Directories ..................................................................................................11

8.3. Fire Insurance Maps ..........................................................................................19

8.4. Chain-of-Title/Environmental Lien ......................................................................20

9. PHYSICAL SETTING INFORMATION..........................................................................20

9.1. USGS Topographic Map....................................................................................20

9.2. Geologic Conditions...........................................................................................20

10. ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW......................................................................21

10.1. Local Sources ....................................................................................................21

10.2. State Sources ....................................................................................................25

10.3. Federal Sources ................................................................................................29

11. VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING ....................................................................31

12. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ..........................................................................................32

13. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................35

14. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................36

15. DATA GAPS.................................................................................................................36

16. GENERAL COMMENTS...............................................................................................36 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Project No. 2E-2110004
Section No. Description Page
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

FIGURES
Figure 1 Subject Property Location..................................................................................8a Figure 2 Surrounding Property Usage..............................................................................8b

APPENDICES
Appendix A Important Information about Your Geoenvironmental Report Appendix B Resumes
Appendix C User Questionnaire
Appendix D Previous Environmental Reports
Appendix E Photographs
Appendix F Aerial Photographs
Appendix G Environmental Records
Appendix H ERIS Database Report
GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

RUSNAK PORSCHE
2915 AND 2965 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2E-2110004

1. SUMMARY
The summary is provided solely for purposes of overview. Any party who relies on this report must read the full report. The summary omits a number of details, any one of which could be crucial to the proper application of this report.

Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (Giles) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-13 for the property located at 2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard, in the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California (subject property). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 3.2. Pertinent information relative to this assessment is enclosed within Appendix A.

We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

This assessment has revealed evidence of the following business environmental risks:
• The storage of petroleum products, which is common to the auto service industry, on the subject property does pose a potential material threat of a future release if not properly maintained or managed.

This assessment has revealed evidence of the following recognized environmental conditions:
• The potential for soil, groundwater, and soil gas impacts from the former dry cleaner located on the subject property.
• The potential for soil gas impacts to be present on the subject property from the former gasoline station located approximately 85 feet west.

In addition, the following historic recognized environmental conditions were identified:
• In 1977, a 1,000-gallon waste oil underground storage tank (UST) and a 2,000- gallon gasoline UST were installed on the subject property. The USTs were removed under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 2 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Works (LADPW) in March 1987. Soil sampling collected from beneath the USTs was tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), fuel hydrocarbons, and gasoline. Laboratory analysis did not detect any significant contamination problems and the LADPW issued a “no further action” letter on July 29, 1987. • A Phase I ESA report and a Phase II Environmental study were reportedly conducted on the subject property by Dames & Moore in July 1996. Over thirty soil borings were advanced in the vicinity of the hydraulic lifts, former USTs, product piping, and in the auto spray booth area. Soil samples from eleven of the borings contained low levels of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH). Low levels of solvents were also detected in two areas. Additional testing was completed in the areas with known contamination and analytical test results indicated acceptable levels of TRPH contamination. The City of Pasadena issued a “no further action” closure letter on January 30, 1997.

Based on the findings and conclusions of this assessment, additional environmental investigation of the subject property is considered warranted at this time. A Limited Phase II is recommended to assess the potential impacts to the soil, groundwater, and soil gas of the subject property from the aforementioned recognized environmental conditions.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 3 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

2. INTRODUCTION
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) has been completed by Giles on the Rusnak Porsche property located at 2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard, in the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California (subject property). The assessment was performed at the request of Mr. John Beed of the Rusnak Group.

This report is an instrument of service prepared for the exclusive use of the Rusnak Group and may not be reproduced or distributed without written authorization from Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. and the Rusnak Group.

The purpose of a Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (as defined by ASTM) in connection with the subject property. This Phase I ESA is intended to permit the user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for innocent landowner defense, contiguous property owner or bona fide prospective purchaser (collectively Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs)) for limitations on CERCLA liability as stated in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 USC § 9601(35), 9601 (40), 9607(b), 9607 (q) and 9607 (r)).

Ms. Monica Sell conducted reconnaissance activities on October 29, 2021. Resumes of environmental professionals directly responsible for this assessment are enclosed within Appendix B.

3. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS

3.1. Scope of Services
The Phase I ESA has been performed in general accordance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13. The scope of services included:
• A visual reconnaissance of the subject property and a cursory evaluation of adjoining properties;
• Interviews of existing and/or former owners and/or operators of the subject property, and individuals who have knowledge of the subject property and surrounding areas; • A review of available federal, state, tribal, county, and local registries of known environmental concerns;
• A review of available and applicable building inspection, permitting, and other environmental records maintained by county and/or local agencies, and interviews with agency representatives;
• A review of available aerial photographs, city directories, fire insurance maps, geological maps, hydrogeological maps, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps;
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 4 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
• Complete a limited Tier 1 and Tier 2 Vapor Encroachment Screening of the subject property; and
• An evaluation of the information collected and the preparation of this report summarizing the scope of services and the resulting conclusions and recommendations.

3.2. Limitations and Exceptions
The limitations of this Phase I ESA included:
• Preparation and review of a chain-of-title and environmental lien search was not requested.
• "Non-Scope Considerations" such as asbestos containing material, radon, leadbased paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, endangered species, indoor air quality, and high-voltage power lines were not included as part of this assessment.

4. OWNER/USER PROVIDED INFORMATION

4.1. User Questionnaire
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment User Questionnaire (ESA Questionnaire) was submitted to the client (user). The ESA Questionnaire was completed by the user, and is enclosed in Appendix C. The following is a summary of information provided in the ESA Questionnaire:

4.1.1. Reason for Performing the Phase I ESA
The user indicated that the Phase I ESA was requested for new construction.

4.1.2. Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information The user of the report indicated that the subject property is currently owned by Rusnak Daimler Chrysler Center, Inc. The site contact is Mr. John Beed of the Rusnak Group.

4.1.3. Environmental Liens and Activity and Land Use Limitations The user of the report was unaware of any environmental liens or activity use limitations associated with the subject property.

4.1.4. User's Knowledge of Contamination on the Subject Property The user was not aware of any environmental concerns associated with the subject property. The user indicated that the subject property was currently occupied by a car dealership.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 5 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

4.2. Recorded Land Title Records
No recorded land title records for the subject property were provided for review.

4.3. Previous Environmental Reports
The following previous environmental reports were reviewed:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Dated April 10, 2012 A Phase I ESA dated April 10, 2012, was previously performed on the subject property by Orswell & Kasman, Inc. At the time of this previous Phase I, the subject property was occupied by a large automotive service and office building with roof-top parking, three additional commercial buildings, four industrial buildings, a residence, a private garage, two vacant lots, and paved parking areas. The subject property was utilized by Rusnak Pasadena Auto Outlet, ONYX Architects, Dent-Masters, a mobile body works business, and Artworks, a youth art center.

Based on a review of building permit records, historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, and historical city directories, Orswell & Kasman determined that the existing auto sales buildings and smaller offices were constructed over 40 years ago.

The industrial buildings in the northwest corner of the subject property were constructed over 80 years ago, and the residence and vacant commercial building were constructed in the 1940s. Prior to the current development, the site was previously occupied by a large industrial building, multiple commercial buildings, and several residences.

The following recognized environmental conditions were identified by Orswell & Kasman, Inc. in connection with the subject property:

The subject property is occupied by Rusnak Pasadena Auto Outlet, an automobile dealership and automotive repair facility. The businesses repair vehicles on the premises and large quantities of automotive fluids such as motor oil, transmission fluid, and antifreeze are stored and used on the site. In addition, waste oil, used oil filters, and waste antifreeze are generated by the business activities. The hazardous materials and hazardous wastes appeared to be properly stored and managed and no significant spills or leaks were observed on the premises.

The east side of the subject property and the adjacent property to the east were identified by the State of California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL-EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as an inactive or abandoned hazardous waste site. According to the DTSC Cal-Site database, the properties were previously owned by the United States Government and precision tools, aircraft components, hydraulic brakes, and scientific instruments were manufactured on the site.

The site was sold to Vard Inc. in 1948. The site was placed in “Inactive – Needs evaluation” status in July 2005.

Page 6 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
spray booth area. The soil samples were analyzed for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). Low levels of TRPH were identified in soil samples from eleven of the borings. Low levels of solvents were also detected in two areas.

Additional testing was completed in the areas with known contamination and analytical test results indicated acceptable levels of TRPH contamination. The City of Pasadena issued a “no further action” closure letter on January 30, 1997. Since no significant impacts were identified during the subsurface soil studies, it was not likely that the former United States Government manufacturing activities had an adverse effect on the subject property.

Three additional offsite locations were identified as potential risks or threats to the subject property. According to the data, the sites were not located in the near vicinity and there was no indication that contaminants from these sites migrated onto the subject property.

In addition, one historical recognized environmental condition was identified in connection with the subject property:

In 1977, a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST and a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST were installed on the subject property. The USTs were removed under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LADPW) in March 1987. Soil sampling collected from beneath the USTs was tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), fuel hydrocarbons, and gasoline. Laboratory analysis did not detect any significant contamination problems and the LADPW issued a “no further action” letter on July 29, 1987.

Orswell & Kasman concluded that based on the results of this assessment, no further environmental studies were recommended for the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Dated July 10, 2019 A Phase I ESA dated July 10, 2019, was previously performed on the subject property by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. At that time, the eastern portion of the subject property was occupied by a large Rusnak automotive service facility with roof-top parking. Several other buildings associated with the Rusnak auto facility were located on the southern portion of the subject property, including a large vacant building previously used for a showroom and offices. The northwestern portion of the subject property was occupied by several industrial buildings, a vacant space that appeared to be used for gardening, a garage, and other vacant lots/parking areas. Most of the industrial buildings were vacant or used for storage. One building in the northwestern corner of the property was used by Artworks, a youth art center.

Page 7 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
manufacturer, rubber mat manufacturer, and one other large commercial building were illustrated on the northern portion of the subject property. A restaurant and dry cleaner were depicted on the southern portion of the subject property. A building labeled “hydraulic brake shop” was illustrated on the eastern portion of the subject property.

This building was part of the Hydra-Control Vard Inc. site.

The previous Phase I ESA identified the following business environmental risks:
• An abandoned waste oil aboveground storage tank (AST) was observed in the vacant northern portion of the subject property.
• The presence of drums of petroleum products stored in the service area of the subject property. The products appeared to be properly stored, with no signs of leaking.

The following recognized environmental conditions:
• The potential for soil, groundwater, and soil gas impacts from the former dry cleaner located on the subject property.
• The potential for soil gas impacts to be present on the subject property from the former gasoline station located approximately 85 feet west.

In addition, the following historic recognized environmental conditions were identified:
• In 1977, a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST and a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST were installed on the subject property. The USTs were removed under the supervision of the LADPW in March 1987. Soil sampling collected from beneath the USTs was tested for TPH, fuel hydrocarbons, and gasoline. Laboratory analysis did not detect any significant contamination problems and the LADPW issued a “no further action” letter on July 29, 1987.
• A Phase I ESA report and a Phase II Environmental study were reportedly conducted on the subject property by Dames & Moore in July 1996. Over thirty soil borings were advanced in the vicinity of the hydraulic lifts, former USTs, product piping, and in the auto spray booth area. Soil samples from eleven of the borings contained low levels of TRPH. Low levels of solvents were also detected in two areas. Additional testing was completed in the areas with known contamination and analytical test results indicated acceptable levels of TRPH contamination. The City of Pasadena issued a “no further action” closure letter on January 30, 1997.

Based on the findings and conclusions of this assessment, additional environmental investigation of the subject property was considered warranted at this time. A Limited Phase II was recommended to assess the potential impacts to the soil, groundwater, and soil gas of the subject property from the aforementioned recognized environmental conditions.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 8 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Copies of these previous environmental reports are enclosed in Appendix D.

5. SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

5.1. Setting and Location
The subject property is located at 2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard, in the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California. The subject property is situated at latitude

34.147º north, longitude -118.090º west. The following Figure 1 illustrates the generalized location of the subject property.

5.2. Surrounding Area
Northwest, North: East Walnut Street, Home Depot
Northeast: East Walnut Street, Home Depot
East: Ganahl Lumber
Southeast: East Colorado Boulevard, El Nido Plaza, The District Plaza South: East Colorado Boulevard, Poly Language Institute, Office Building, Residential
Southwest: Intersection of North Sunnyslope Avenue and East Colorado Boulevard, KFC, Personal Auto Group, Ace Motel
West: North Sunnyslope Avenue, Multi-Tenant Retail, Super 8, Essence Linen, KIS Consultant, Residential, Advanced Technology Company
The subject property and surrounding area land uses are illustrated on the following Figure 2. Photographs of the subject property and surrounding area are enclosed within Appendix E.

6. SUBJECT PROPERTY OBSERVATIONS
Ms. Monica Sell conducted the reconnaissance activities on October 29, 2021. The visual and physical reconnaissance of the subject property and surrounding area was completed in a systematic approach, including walking the perimeter of the subject property and a walk-through of the buildings located on the subject property. Weather conditions at the time of the assessment were sunny, with temperatures around 80ºF.

6.1. Current Property Use and Activity
The eastern portion of the subject property is currently occupied by a large Rusnak showroom and automotive service facility with roof-top parking. Several other buildings associated with the Rusnak auto facility are located on the southern portion of the subject property, including a large vacant building previously used for a showroom and offices. The northwestern portion of the subject property is occupied by several industrial buildings, a vacant space that appears to be used for gardening, a garage, and other vacant lots/parking areas. Most of the industrial buildings are vacant or used for Source: USGS Mt. Wilson, California 7.5-Minute Series (topographic) Quadrangle Map (1966, photorevised 1988).

Scale: 1:24,000
Contour Interval: 40 Feet
FIGURE 1

SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION
Rusnak Porsche
2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004
Subject Property
(2965)
E. COLORADO BLVD.

NINA ST.

E. WALNUT ST.S. EL NIDO AVE. N. SUNNYSLOPE AVE.

SUBJECT

PROPERTY
HANAHL
LUMBER
(3003)
(2982)
(2990)

THE DISTRICT
PLAZA
(3016) EL NIDO
PLAZA
OFFICE

BUILDING
(2956)

RESIDENTIAL

INSTITUTE
(2900)

POLY LANGUAGE KFC
(2896) PERSONAL

AUTO GROUP
(2880)
ACE
MOTEL
(2870)
MULTITENANT
RETAIL
(2879 - 2897)
SUPER 8
(2863)

ESSENCE
LINEN
(2895) RESIDENTIAL

ADVANCED

TECHNOLOGY

COMPANY
(2863)

KIS CONSULTANT
(2888) (2858)
(2870)
(2915)
(AST, SWEEPS, UST)
(FORMER PASADENA

SUZUKI YAMAHA)
(RCRA GEN)
(RCRA GEN)
(RCRA GEN, HIST MANIFEST,

HAZNET, EMMISIONS,

HIST TANK, HHSS, LA HMS,

CUPA LA COUNTY, RCRA NONGEN,

ALT FUELS, CERS TANK,

AST SWRCB, SWEEPS UST)
(FORMER DRY

CLEANERS)

PARKING LOT

EATON WASH

THE HOME DEPOT
(2881)

PARKING
GARAGE

MULTI-TENANT

INDUSTRIAL
(FORMER AVON

DISTRIBUTION CENTER)
(2940)
(FORMER CHEVRON /

RALPH'S STANDARD STATION)
(2885)
DATE
CAD No.
11-03-21
PROJECT NO.: 2E-2110004

DESIGNED
MLS

DRAWN SCALE
approx. 1"=140'

REVISED
2E2110004-sp
--

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA

SURROUNDING PROPERTY USAGE
FIGURE 2
1965 N. MAIN STREET
ORANGE, CA 92865 (714)279-0817
NOTES:

1.) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM A 2018 AERIAL.

LEGEND:
(2915) CURRENT ADDRESSES
(LUST) LISTINGS (IN ORANGE) REPRESENT

SITES INCLUDED IN REVIEWED

ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE

RUSNAK PORSCHE
2915 AND 2965 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD
ILES NGINEERING SSOCIATES, INC.
www.gilesengr.com
0 70' 140'

APPROXIMATE
SCALE
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 9 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
storage. One building in the northwestern corner of the property is used by Artworks, a youth art center. Portions of the subject property are landscaped with trees and shrubs.

The topography of the subject slopes slightly to the south.

6.2. Observations
• Hazardous Substances................................................................................ Observed Several different types of automotive fluids are stored on the subject property. • Petroleum Products ..................................................................................... Observed New motor oil is stored in an aboveground storage tank in the service area located in the eastern portion of the subject property.
• Pipelines.............................................................................................None Observed • Storage Tanks
Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)...................................................... Observed Two aboveground storage tanks containing used antifreeze and new motor oil were observed outside of the service area located in the eastern portion of the subject property. These ASTs were sitting on concrete and only minor stains around the ASTs were observed.

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs).............................................None Observed • Odors................................................................................................... None Detected • Pools of Liquid....................................................................................None Observed • Drums or Other Containers.......................................................................... Observed Several drums used for the storage of automotive fluids are located in the service area on the property.

There were no signs of leaks/spills
• Potential Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) sources
Electrical Equipment .............................................................................. Observed One pole mounted transformer was observed on the western portion of the subject property. The transformer appeared to be in fair condition, with no signs of leaking.

Hydraulic Equipment.............................................................................. Observed Aboveground hydraulic lifts were observed in the service area of the subject property. • Waste Water
Surface Water Discharge..............................................................None Observed Process/Sanitary Discharge..........................................................None Observed The subject property is reportedly connected to the municipal sewer system.

Septic Systems .............................................................................None Observed Industrial Wastewater Treatment ..................................................None Observed Holding Tanks...............................................................................None Observed • Potable Water Supply
Municipal ............................................................................................... Observed The subject property is reportedly connected to the municipal water system.

Page 10 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
• Pits, Ponds or Lagoons.......................................................................None Observed • Stained Soil or Pavement ............................................................................ Observed De Minimis staining from automobiles was observed in the parking areas of the subject property. • Stressed Vegetation ...........................................................................None Observed • Solid Waste
Storage.................................................................................................. Observed Several dumpsters were observed on the subject property.

On-Site Disposal...........................................................................None Observed • Heating/Cooling .......................................................................................... Observed The heating and cooling system for the Rusnak facility is located on the roof of the service building. The heating and cooling system for the industrial buildings was not observed. • Staining or Corrosion................................................................................... Observed De Minimis staining from automobiles was observed in the parking areas of the subject property. • Drains or Sumps ......................................................................................... Observed Floor drains were observed in the service area of the subject property.

7. INTERVIEWS
Giles contacted Mr. John Beed, the site contact listed on the User Questionnaire and inquired about the presence or knowledge of any environmental concerns associated with the subject property or any environmental reports available. Mr. Beed had previously provided the environmental report discussed in section 4.3 of this report. He stated that there were some underground tanks associated with the 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard property approximately 25 to 30 years ago. He also stated that the buildings on the property were originally constructed on various dates from 1930 to 1970. He indicated that the eastern portion of the site has been used as an auto dealership since 1970.

8. HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION

8.1. Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs of the subject property and general vicinity, dated 1928, 1938, 1944, 1949, 1952, 1960, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1987, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 were obtained from the National Agriculture Information Program, U.S.

Page 11 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
and south in the locations of present-day East Walnut Street, North Sunnyslope Avenue, and East Colorado Boulevard. A roadway was also noted cutting through the middle of the subject property from east to west, in the location of present-day Nina Street. 1944, 1949, 1952, 1960, and 1964 (1”=500’)
The subject property appeared to be developed with several additional structures from the previous photograph, including a large commercial building in the southeastern property corner. Significant additional development was noted on the surrounding properties. A large commercial structure was first observed adjacent to the north in the 1949 photograph. A structure similar in appearance and with features typical of a gasoline station was observed adjacent to the southwestern property corner beginning in the 1964 photograph.
1972, 1980, 1987, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 (1”=500’) The subject property and surrounding properties generally appeared throughout this time period as they do today. Buildings similar in appearance and location as the existing buildings on the subject property were first observed in the 1972 photograph. Some structures that are no longer present were also noted in the southwestern portion of the subject property until the 1994 photograph. The apparent gasoline station previously observed adjacent to the southwestern property corner was no longer evident beginning in the 1980 photograph.

Copies of portions of the reviewed aerial photographs are enclosed within Appendix F.

8.2. City Directories
The 1923, 1928, 1933, 1937, 1942, 1947, and 1951 editions of the Los Angeles Directory Co. Directory of Pasadena, California, the 1956 and 1962 editions of the R.L.

Polk & Co. Directory of Pasadena, California, and the 1973, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1991, 1996, 2000-01, 2006-07, and 2010-11 editions of Haines Los Angeles East Suburban Directory were obtained from Historical Information Gatherers Inc. Earlier and later directories were not reasonably ascertainable. The following is a summary of listings for the subject property and surrounding properties:

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
28 N Sunnyslope Avenue
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
A Henne
Not Listed
A Henne
Vacant
Not Listed
1923
1928
1933
1937-1951
1956-1962
1973-2010/11
34 N Sunnyslope Avenue
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Mrs. Urann
Not Listed
J Cuellar
B Gash
Earl Burns
Not Listed
1923
1928
1933
1937
1942-1951
1956-1962
1973-2010/11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 12 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
40 N Sunnyslope Avenue
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
L Woods
Not Listed
Maude Hudson
Roy Riggins
Vacant
Not Listed
1923
1928
1933
1937-1951
1956
1962
1973-2010/11
60 N Sunnyslope Avenue
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
W Griffin
Not Listed
Vacant
Mabel Phillips
B Van Meter
Mrs. Beulah Matthews
Mrs. Regino Keely
Not Listed
Juan Castells, Greg Worthley
Not Listed
-Your Place, Hobby Center, Variations, Time Square,
Tamara Gifts, Suns Luggage & Purse, Shabnams
Video Games, Seramark, Sam’s Place, Romers
Electronics, Pasadena Indoor Swap Market,
Marshalian Jewelry, Lucy Records, Hair & Etc.,
Enterprise Fashion, Jenny Chang, Casas Boutique,
A&K Jewelry
Not Listed
1923
1928
1933
1937-1942
1947
1951
1956
1962
1973
1976
1981-1986
1991
1996-2010/11
66 N Sunnyslope Avenue
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
H Fink
Not Listed
Shelton Shoptaugh
J Williams
S Harshbarger
Chase Krug
M Mitchell
Juan Castells
Not Listed
1923
1928
1933
1937
1942
1947-1951
1956-1962
1973
1976
1981-2010/11
74 N Sunnyslope Avenue
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
M Hartmann
Vacant
H Berry
W Reld
Mrs. Grace Reid
Not Listed
1923
1928-1933
1937
1942
1947-1951
1956-1973
1976-2010/11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 13 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
96 N Sunnyslope Avenue
(Subject Property)
Not Listed
Swanson & Peterson Furniture Manufacturers
Not Listed
Swanson & Peterson Furniture Manufacturers
Dunbar Furniture
Not Listed
Unger Fuss Co.

Not Listed
Devin Co. Inc.

Wiltec
-Security Concepts, Penn Hamilton Group, Pacific
Bank Technology
Penn Security Systems, Pacific Bank Technology,
Inform, Hamilton Pacific
Pacific Bank Technology, Hamilton Pacific Bank
The Admark Group, Onyx Architects
1923-1928
1933-1937
1942
1947
1951
1956-1962
1973-1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2914 East Walnut Street
(Subject Property)
Not Listed
Swanson & Peterson Furniture Manufacturers
-Swanson & Peterson Furniture Manufacturers, K
Nelson Upholstery
Swanson & Peterson Furniture Manufacturers
Dunbar Furniture
Swanson & Peterson Furniture Manufacturers
Not Listed
John Kelly
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933-1937
1942
1947
1951
1956-1962
1973-1996
2000/01
2006/07-2010/11
2915 E Colorado Boulevard
(Subject Property)
Not Listed
Gwinn’s Drive-In
-Gwinn’s Restaurant & Drive-In, Business Men’s
Association of East Pasadena, Civitans Club, Kiwanis
Club, Rotary Club
Not Listed
Bengie’s Restaurant
Not Listed
Daniel Wang
Not Listed
1923-1947
1951-1956
1962
1973
1976-1986
1991-1996
2000/01
2006/07-2010/11
2922 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
W Hudson
J Reilly
Robert Hudson
C Earle
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933-1937
1942
1947
1951
1956-2010/11
2924 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Kenneth Sloop
J Mueller
Mrs. Emerson
Mrs. McNair
Mrs. Emerson
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933
1937
1942
1947
1951
1956-2010/11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 14 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
2925 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Frank Duryee
Not Listed
Frank Duryee
Mrs. Cora Duryee
Aaron Wilterding
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933-1947
1951
1956
1962
1973-1976
1981-2010/11
2926 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
B Hindman
L Stocks
Harvey Freeman
W Sheppard
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933
1937
1942-1947
1951
1956-2010/11
2926 East Walnut Street
(Subject Property)
Not Listed
E Roan Printer
Mrs. Holman, E Roan Printer
Bonzi Pottery
Michael Vernon
Vacant
Not Listed
Michael Clayton
Not Listed
1923
1928-1937
1942
1947-1951
1956
1962
1973-1996
2000/01
2006/07-2010/11
2928 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Reverend John Roberts
B Thomas
Everett Conklin
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933-1937
1942-1947
1951
1956-2010/11
2929 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Paul Schuster
Franks Roberts
No Return
Not Listed
Dan Mathews, Doug Chapman
Donald Chesshir
Not Listed
1923-1947
1951
1956
1962
1973-1976
1981
1986
1991-2010/11
2932 East Walnut Street
(Subject Property)
Not Listed
Mathieu Machinery & Rubber Goods
Mathieu Melvin Co., Witte Tool & Machinery
Mathieu Melvin Co.

Mathieu Melvin Co., Hubert Honanie
Hubert Honanie
Not Listed
PAS Paving Co.

Page 15 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
2941 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
David Cleveland
Nick Klein
Not Listed
1923-1951
1956
1962
1973-2010/11
2942 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
R Miller
R Wilkeson
Samuel Smith
Vacant
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933
1937
1942
1947
1951-2010/11
2943 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Alice Camber, Loyzelle White
Alice Camber, E Reynolds
Alice Camber, A Couchie
F Garrett
Fenton Walker, Myrtle Minkler
Mrs. Pearl Nelson
John Mesopp
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933
1937
1942
1947
1951
1956
1962
1973-2010/11
2945 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
S Nevins
Mrs. Marie Kubat
Cecil Maranville
William Miller
Not Listed
1923-1933
1937-1956
1962
1973
1976
1981-2010/11
2947 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Earl Davison
Not Listed
1923-1973
1976-1986
1991-2010/11
2948 East Walnut Street
(Subject Property)
Not Listed
A Spencer Organ Builder
A Spencer Organ Builder, Pasadena Refrigerator
Manufacturing Co.

Not Listed
BW Molded Plastic
Not Listed
Vacant
Not Listed
-John McConaghy & Associates, Lytle Roofing Co.,
F&W Roofing Co.

Lytle Roofing Co., F&V Roofing Co.

Lytle Solar, Lytle Roofing Co.

Rigid Roofing, Lytle Roofing Co.

Lytle Roofing Co.

Carl Outzen. Lytle Roofing Co.

Outzen Roofing Co.

Not Listed
1923
1928-1933
1937
1942-1947
1951
1956
1962
1973
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2951 E Colorado Boulevard
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Mr. Bottle Liquors
Not Listed
1923-1947
1951
1956-2010/11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 16 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
2955 E Colorado Boulevard
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Model Cleaners & Dyers
R Stepp Clothes Cleaners
Spotless Cleaners & Dyers
Not Listed
Dynametric Inc.

Not Listed
1923
1928-1937
1942
1947-1951
1956
1962
1973-2010/11
2955 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Mrs. Emma Boise
Not Listed
1923-1951
1956-1962
1973-2010/11
2956 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
B Cook
A Contreras
Benjamin Van Deavender
Vacant
Luverne West
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933-1937
1942-1947
1951
1956
1962
1973-2010/11
2958 Nina Street
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
B Cook
H Foster
J Bon Durant
Frank Carathers
H Staggs
Benjamin Van Deavender
Not Listed
1923-1928
1933
1937
1942
1947
1951
1956-1962
1973-2010/11
2961 E Colorado Boulevard
(Former Subject Property)
W Hill
Donald Hall
Vard Inc.

Not Listed
Hycon Manufacturing Co.

Not Listed
1923-1933
1937
1942
1947
1951-1956
1962-2010/11
2965 E Colorado Boulevard
(Subject Property)
Not Listed
Pasadena Chrysler Plymouth, Anchor Leasing Corp.

Pasadena Chrysler Plymouth, Spar Development
Pasadena Chrysler Plymouth, Pasadena Daihatsu
Pasadena Chrysler Plymouth, Daihatsu, Jeep Eagle
Rusnak Chrysler Plymouth, Thrifty Car Rental
Rusnak Chrysler Plymouth Jeep, Andrew Arizmendi
Not Listed
1923-1973
1976
1981-1986
1991
1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2981 E Colorado Boulevard
(Former Subject Property)
Not Listed
Vard Inc.

Vard Division of Royal Industries Airplane Parts
Not Listed
1923-1947
1951-1956
1962
1973-2010/11
2858 East Walnut Street
(west of subject property)
Not Listed
Advanced Technology
Onena Tool Co., Advanced Technology
Advanced Technology
1923-1973
1976
1981
1986-2010/11
2863 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
Vagabond Motor Hotel
Vagabond Motor Hotel, Robert Rearick
Vagabond Inn
Ace Motel, Vagabond Sales Department
Super 8 Motel
1923-1973
1976
1981
1986-1991
1996
2000/01-2010/11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 17 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
2870 East Walnut Street
(west of subject property)
Not Listed
Global Van Agency, Curl & Williams
Not Listed
Cal Temp Supply Co.

All Set Printing
Jill Lewis
Not Listed
Not Listed
1923-1962
1973-1976
1981-1986
1991
1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2870 E Colorado Boulevard
(southwest of subject
property)
Not Listed
Ace-Hi Motel, Mrs. Hannah Johnson
Ace-Hi Motel
Not Listed
Ace Motel
Fuji Japanese Restaurant
Ace Motel
Not Listed
1923-1947
1951-1956
1962
1973
1976-1991
1996
2000/01-2006/07
2010/11
2879 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
Fuji Japanese Restaurant
Action Auto Repairs
Fuji Japanese Restaurant
1923-1976
1981-1991
1996
2000/01-2010/11
2880 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the southwest)
Not Listed
Zimmerman Geo Used Cars
Howland Sales Used Cars
Not Listed
Willis Auto Sales
Subaru of Pasadena
Avon Rent a Car
Ugly Duckling Pasadena, Action Auto Sales/Towing
William Nolan, Action Auto Sales
Action Auto Sales
Personalized Auto Group
1923-1947
1951
1956-1962
1973
1976
1981-1986
1991
1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2883 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
International Grandway Travel
1923-2006/07
2010/11
2885 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
Ralph’s Standard Gas Station
Not Listed
U Haul Co., Chevron Standard Station
Not Listed
Maros Alterations
Sunshine Acupuncture, Intl Grandway Travel
Not Listed
1923-1956
1962
1973
1976
1981-1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2887 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Clarence Williams
Not Listed
Seventy Eight Co.

Not Listed
Instant Signs
Dong Lee, Instant Signs
Not Listed
1923-1962
1973-1976
1981
1986
1991-1996
2000/01
2006/07-2010/11
2888 East Walnut Street
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
-Supreme Products, Molded Rubber Specialties,
Crown Rubber Co.

Crown Rubber Co.

Not Listed
Fred Stuh Animation, C Stein
Apartments
1923-1962
1973-1976
1981-1986
1991
1996
2000/01-2010/11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 18 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
2889 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
JC Fashions
Not Listed
Delmy’s Family Hair Salon
1923-1976
1981
1986-2000/01
2006/07-2010/11
2891 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
Pas Tropical Fish
Video Biz
Quality Plant & Gift
Crystal Nails
1923-1976
1981
1986
1991
1996-2010/11
2893 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
Red House
Fast Boat to China
Canton Café
1923-1976
1981
1986
1991-2010/11
2895 Nina Street
(adjacent to the west)
H Preston
C Walrod
Frank Hansley
C Hoglund
B Price
Mrs. Helen Price
B Price
D&M Products
American Professional Business Bureau
Essence Linen
1923
1928
1933
1937
1942-1951
1956
1962
1973-1981
1986
1991-2010/11
2896 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the southwest)
Not Listed
B Anderson Dentist
C Hayden Dentist, H Telling Physician
L Covey Dentist
L Covey Dentist, Albert Haugen Physician
Albert Haugen Physician
Not Listed
KFC
1923-1928
1933-1942
1947
1951
1956
1962
1973
1976-2010/11
2897 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the west)
Not Listed
Handi Mart
Golden Liquor Mart
1923-1976
1981
1986-2010/11
2900 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the south)
Not Listed
Pasadena Suzuki
Cheung Loon Furniture, Yiu Bing
ATV
Poly Languages, Coffee Cantata, ATV
1923-1976
1981-1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2956 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the south) Not Listed 1923-2010/11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 19 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Address Occupant Year(s) Listed
2982 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the south)
Not Listed
-Southland Consulting, El Nido Market, Nail Slicks,
Kopy King Printers, Electrolux
-Thorpe Beauty & Barber Supply, Social Vocational
Services, Elizabeth Scott MD, Poppy Cleaners, Pas
Tropical Fish, Nail Slicks, Labor Ready, Kopy King
Printers, Kids Kuts Salon, Enterprise Rent a Car,
Electrolux, De Glamour Beauty Salon, Advance
Medical Group
-Social Vocational Services, Pas Tropical Fish, Labor
Ready, Klean Pups, Kingdom Cleaners, Kids Kuts,
J’s Jewelry & Watch Repair, Hart Employment
Services, Essence Health Spa, De Glamour Beauty
Salon, The Coffee Barrel
-Social Vocational Services, Pas Tropical Fish, Labor
Ready, Kingdom Cleaners, J’s Jewelry & Watch
Repair, Hart Employment Services, Essence Health
Spa, Dina’s Nail Art, De Glamour Beauty Salon, The
Coffee Barrel
1923-1991
1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
2990 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the southeast)
Not Listed
-Southland Consulting, Target Mortgage Inc., Vince
Herboian, Cefco National Claims Adjusters
-Yasmini Atacador DDS, Target Mortgage, State
Farm Insurance, Milanos Deli, Vince Herboian,
Electrolux, Bowtie Market & Deli, Aerus Electrolux,
A&K Medical Supplies
Isaac Haddad MD, Electrolux
1923-1996
2000/01
2006/07
2010/11
3003 E Colorado Boulevard
(adjacent to the east)
Not Listed
Jack Wall Chevrolet/Used Cars/Body Shop
Jack Wall Chevrolet
Roni Deutch Tax Center
1923-1973
1976
1981-2006/07
2010/11

8.3. Fire Insurance Maps
The 1930-1931 (updated 1950) edition of the Sanborn® Fire Insurance were publically accessible through ProQuest, LLC, and reviewed for the area in the vicinity of the subject property. Digital Sanborn® Maps (1867-1970) are under exclusive license of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Copyright restrictions prevent their reprinting or reproduction in commercial investigations. Additional Sanborn Maps with coverage in the vicinity of the subject property were not reasonably ascertainable. The following was noted for the subject property and adjoining properties:
1930-1931
Twenty-two dwellings and several garages were depicted on the subject property. In addition, a furniture manufacturer, printing company, and organ manufacturer were illustrated on the northern portion of the subject property. A dry cleaner and clothes cleaner were depicted on the southern portion of the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 20 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Dwellings were noted adjacent to the west. The properties adjacent to the north and south were illustrated as vacant. Perins Furniture Factory was depicted adjacent to the southeast. East Walnut Street, North Sunnyslope Avenue, and East Colorado Boulevard were illustrated adjacent to the north, west, and south, respectively. Nina Street was depicted cutting through the middle of the subject property. Eaton Canyon Wash was illustrated to the east.
1950 Update
Twenty-one dwellings and several garages were depicted on the subject property. In addition, a furniture manufacturer, pottery manufacturer, rubber mat manufacturer, and one other large commercial building were illustrated on the northern portion of the subject property. A restaurant and dry cleaner were depicted on the southern portion of the subject property. A building labeled “hydraulic brake shop” was illustrated on the eastern portion of the subject property. This building was part of the Hydra-Control Vard Inc. site. Apartments and a metal fixture manufacturing building were depicted adjacent to the southeast. Used auto sales properties were illustrated adjacent to the south and southwest.

8.4. Chain-of-Title/Environmental Lien
We were not authorized to prepare or review a chain-of-title or environmental lien search for this project.

9. PHYSICAL SETTING INFORMATION

9.1. USGS Topographic Map
The USGS Mt. Wilson, California, 7.5-minute series (topographic) map (1966, photo revised 1988) was reviewed. The subject property and adjacent properties to the west and south appeared to be developed in the 1966 illustration. The properties adjacent to the east and north were illustrated as developed with large commercial buildings in the 1988 revision. Colorado Boulevard, North Sunnyslope Avenue, and East Walnut Street were illustrated adjacent to the south, west, and north, respectively. Nina Street was depicted running through the middle subject property.

A portion of the USGS Mt. Wilson, California, 7.5-minute series (topographic) map is provided as the previously referenced Figure 1.

9.2. Geologic Conditions

9.2.1. Soil Type and Permeability
According to the United States Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service online Soil Survey of the Southeastern Part of Los Angeles County, California, the type of soil found on the subject property was the Urban landPalmview-Tujunga complex. Palmview and Tujunga soils were both formed in discontinuous human-transported material over alluvium derived from granite.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 21 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Palmview soils are well drained, have a very low runoff class, and a moderately high to high capacity to transmit water. Tujunga soils are somewhat excessively drained, have a negligible runoff class, and a high capacity to transmit water.

9.2.2. Regional Geology
According to the California Department of Conservation- California Geological Survey, Geologic Map of the Mt. Wilson and Azusa Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California (1998), the subject property is located in an area of alluvial fan gravel and sand derived from the San Gabriel Mountains.

9.2.3. Groundwater Flow Direction
Based on review of the USGS Mt. Wilson, California 7.5-minute series quadrangle map and on visual observations, the local topography slopes to the southeast. Groundwater flow is inferred to be to the southeast in the area of the subject property.

10. ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW

10.1. Local Sources

10.1.1. Building Permit/Inspection Department
Building records for the subject property were requested from the City of Pasadena – Building Department. The following records were provided:
2915 East Colorado Boulevard
07/10/1947 Restaurant inspection
05/09/1956 Alteration to Gwinn’s Restaurant
10/01/1958 Building permit for car shelter
02/26/1964 Building permit to remodel dining area
07/09/1967 Sign permit for “Gwinn’s Restaurant”
08/04/1971 New parking for restaurant
08/25/1971 Plumbing permit for Twohey’s restaurant
06/05/1972 Tenant improvement to Bengie’s restaurant
12/17/1992 Demolish restaurant building
02/20/2019 Building permit to demo existing buildings on site, vacate deadend section of Nina Street, remove asphalt from parking lots, grade and construct new sales, leasing, service, and parts building
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 22 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
2965 East Colorado Boulevard
12/18/1969 Building permit for new 37,584 s.f. auto sales and service building 01/13/1971 Building permit for auto sales and service building 03/10/1971 Sign permit for Pasadena Chrysler Plymouth
06/22/2015 Tenant improvement (36,055 s.f.), addition (10,208 s.f.), add service drive canopy (2,064 s.f.), partial demo (938 s.f.), and remodel service shop (2,722 s.f.)
08/11/2015 Grading permit for existing auto dealership – cut 431 cubic yards, fill 179 cubic yards, export 252 cubic yards
05/29/2019 Remodel existing auto sales, services, and parts area for Audi dealership
2961 East Colorado Boulevard
08/14/1934 Building permit to have rest home for 5 patients 12/02/1959 Add AC to 1st and 2nd floor offices
28 North Sunnyslope Avenue
07/09/1924 Application to erect frame building
01/28/1936 Move porch to rear of house
06/04/1959 Permission to use existing single-family dwelling for storage purposes and erect transformer building south of existing garage 07/30/1964 Permission to use existing buildings on property for storage purposes – granted for 5 years
07/22/1971 Demolish garage
40 North Sunnyslope Avenue
05/08/1928 Permit to add glassed-in porch
60 North Sunnyslope Avenue
12/09/1998 Reroof warehouse
70 North Sunnyslope Avenue
10/08/1989 Convert loading docks to decks
96 North Sunnyslope Avenue
06/17/1993 Fill in existing door openings with masonry and brick veneer (vacant tenant)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 23 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
02/11/1999 Upgrade URM commercial building
07/21/2010 Request for 4 suite assignments in building
2914 East Walnut Street
05/03/1973 Add 6,170 s.f. storage area
2916 East Walnut Street
08/28/1989 Tenant improvement
2926 East Walnut Street
02/23/1973 Demolish building
07/22/1993 Tenant improvement including stairs to existing lift 2932 East Walnut Street
08/20/1947 Building permit for machine shop
10/12/1949 Addition to existing building
07/28/1953 Addition to existing machine shop
07/21/2012 Demolish 1,200 s.f. commercial building
2940 East Walnut Street
02/19/1964 Repair residence and garage
12/07/1979 Demolish damaged house
05/04/2007 Seismic upgrade to industrial building
2948 East Walnut Street
05/04/2007 URM seismic retrofit of industrial building
08/19/2011 Demolish URM building
2925 Nina Street
08/25/1948 Alter residence
03/05/1979 Demolish building
2929 Nina Street
02/11/1997 New construction of 2-car garage
08/20/2012 Demolish 900 s.f. house
2945 Nina Street
10/13/1937 Building permit for residence
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 24 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

10.1.2. Fire Department
A request for information regarding the subject property was submitted to the City of Pasadena Fire Department. To date, we have not received a response.

Should any pertinent information become available from this source at a later date, an addendum to this report will be prepared.

However, the following records from the City of Pasadena Fire Department were obtained during the previous Phase I ESA discussed in section 4.3 of this report:
• The previous occupants of the subject property used and stored hazardous materials at the site which included paint, welding gases, water-based cleaning solvents, motor oil, and antifreeze. Hazardous wastes generated by former business operations included waste oil and waste anti-freeze which were collected and transported offsite. As of 2006, the former occupants were listed as out of business and no violations were on file.
• In 1977, a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST and a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST were installed on the subject property. The USTs were removed under the supervision of the LADPW in March 1987. Soil sampling collected from beneath the USTs was tested for TPH, fuel hydrocarbons, and gasoline. Laboratory analysis did not detect any significant contamination problems and the LADPW issued a “no further action” letter on July 29, 1987.

10.1.3. Planning/Zoning Department
According to the information provided by the City of Pasadena Planning Department, the subject property is zoned East Pasadena Specific Plan subarea d1 limited commercial district – general industrial (EPSP-d1-IG) and East Colorado Specific Plan Chihuahuita area – general commercial (ECSP-CG-6).

10.1.4. Department of Health /Pollution Control /Water Quality A request for information regarding the subject property was submitted to the Los Angeles County Public Health Department. The following record was provided:
01/17/2018 Facility Information Report – Rusnak Pasadena: no violations observed
In addition, we used Geotracker (an online database system of The California State Water Resources Control Board) to search for environmental information for the subject property and adjacent properties. No records of USTs, hazardous waste, spills, or cleanups were on file from Geotracker for the subject property or surrounding properties.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 25 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

10.1.5. Tax Assessor's/Appraisal/Auditor Department
According to information provided by the Los Angeles County Assessor, the subject property is located on Parcel No. 5748-036-001, 5748-036-002, 5748- 036-003, 5748-036-004, 5748-036-005, 5754-005-007, 5748-036-028, 5748-036- 029, and 5748-036-032. No additional information was provided.

10.1.6. OTHER
According to a search of the California Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) website, no oil or gas wells are located within 1.0 mile of the subject property. A search was made of the Department of Toxic Substances Control ENVIROSTOR online database. The subject property is included on the list:

Vard Inc. – 2961 East Colorado Boulevard (subject property and property adjacent to the east)
A Categorical Exclusion and Ineligible Findings Form was reviewed. According to this form, the plant was constructed in 1942 by the Defense Plant Corporation.

This plant occupied the subject property and the property adjacent to the east.

The facility included a guardhouse, combination of manufacturing and office buildings, and punch press building used for the production of precision tools, aircraft components, and scientific instruments. The plant was sold to Vard Inc. in December 1945. The site is listed as inactive and needing evaluation as of July 1, 2005.

Copies of supporting environmental documents are enclosed in Appendix G.

10.2. State Sources
We used ERIS to identify state sites of known environmental concern. A copy of the ERIS Database Search Report, queried on October 26, 2021 is enclosed within Appendix H. Some terms utilized in the ERIS report may differ from actual state identification listings. The following is a summary of information provided.

10.2.1. State/Tribal NPL Sites
The California National Priorities List (NPL) was reviewed. The subject property is not included on this listing. In addition, no State NPL sites are reported within

1.0 mile of the subject property.

10.2.2. State/Tribal CERCLIS Sites
The Envirostor- Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database was reviewed. The subject property is not included on this list. However, the following State CERCLIS sites are reported within 1.0 mile of the subject property:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Vard Inc.

Pasadena, CA *0.27 mile north-northwest Inactive – Needs evaluation, 2005 Kinneloa Avenue Property
175 South Kinneloa Avenue 0.28 mile southeast Certified O&M – Land use restrictions only, 2001 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 26 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Naval Information Research
Foundation
3202 East Foothill Boulevard

0.34 mile east-northeast Active, 2015
NIRF (Undersea Center)
Pasadena, CA 0.38 mile east-northeast Inactive – Needs evaluation, 2016 150 Most Cleaners
2308 East Colorado Boulevard 0.73 mile west Closed
150 Most Cleaners
2308 East Colorado Boulevard 0.73 mile west No action required, 2011 *Site actually encompasses the subject property and the property adjacent to the east Further information regarding the Vard Inc. site is discussed in section 10.1.6 of this report.

10.2.3. State/Tribal Solid Waste Landfill
The California Integrated Waste Management Board Solid Waste Information System database (SWL) was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing. In addition, no SWL sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.2.4. State/Tribal Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
The listing of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and the spills, leaks, and investigation and cleanup cost recovery (SLIC) databases were reviewed.

The subject property is not included on these lists. However, the following LUST or SLIC sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Thrifty #024
2800 East Foothill Boulevard 0.25 mile northwest Closed, 2006 Mobil #17-HNL
284 S. San Gabriel Boulevard 0.45 mile south-southwest Closed, 2001 Tosco S.S. #2248
3275 East Foothill Boulevard 0.49 mile east-northeast Closed, 2006

10.2.5. State/Tribal Storage Tanks
The California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) State Registered Underground Storage Tanks Database, the Certified Unified Program Agency databases of underground storage tanks, and the Indian Lands Underground Storage Tanks List, as maintained by the USEPA Region 9 (REG UST/AST), were reviewed. The subject property is not included within these listings. However, the following adjoining property is included on the REG UST/AST or County UST lists:

Facility Name/Address
Number/Size of
Tanks
(in Gallons)
Type of Tank Contents Status
3003 East Colorado Blvd
(adjacent to the east) 3,701 gallons AST Unknown Unknown Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 27 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

10.2.6. State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites
The Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites (VCP) database was reviewed. The subject property is not included on this list. However, the following VCP sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Kinneloa Avenue Property
175 South Kinneloa Avenue 0.28 mile southeast Certified O&M – Land use restrictions only, 2001 Naval Information Research
Foundation
3202 E Foothill Boulevard

0.37 mile east-northeast Active, 2015

10.2.7. State/Tribal Brownfield Sites
The US Brownfield database was reviewed. The subject property is not included on this list. In addition, no Brownfield sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.2.8. Local Lists of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites The Waste Management Unit Database System (WMUDS) and Soil and Waste Assessment (SWAT) databases were reviewed. The subject property is not included within these listings. In addition, no WMUDS or SWAT sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.2.9. Local Lists of Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Sites The School (SCH) database was reviewed. The subject property is not included on this list. In addition, no SCH sites are reported within 0.25 mile of the subject property.

10.2.10.Other Tanks
The California Facility Inventory Database (FID) and the Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST) databases were reviewed. The subject property is included on this database. In addition, the following SWEEPS UST site is reported adjacent to the subject property:

Facility Name/Address
Number/Size of
Tanks (in
Gallons)
Type of
Tank Contents Status
Pasadena Chrysler
Plymouth
2965 E Colorado Blvd
(Subject Property)
0 Tanks UST Unknown Active
Jack Wall Chevrolet
3003 East Colorado Blvd
(adjacent to the east)
One 550 gallon
One 10,000-gallon
One 1,050-gallon
One 2,000-gallon
UST
Petroleum
fuel, waste
oil
Inactive; all
tanks removed

10.2.11.Local Land Records
The Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Facility Sites with Deed Restrictions and Hazardous Waste Management Program Facility Sites with Deed/Land Use Restriction (DEED) was reviewed. The subject property is not included on this database. In addition, no DEED sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 28 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

10.2.12.OTHER
The OTHER database was reviewed. The subject property is included on the Historical Hazardous Waste Manifest Data (HIST MANIFEST), Hazardous Waste Manifest Data (HAZNET), Certified Unified Program Agency Los Angeles County Records (CUPA LA COUNTY), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act NonGenerators (RCRA NON GEN), Alternative Fueling Stations (ALT FUELS), California Environmental Reporting System Tanks (CERS TANK), State Water Resources Control Board Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST SWRCB), Toxic Pollutant Emissions Facilities (EMISSIONS), Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information Facility Summary (HIST TANK), Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information (HHSS), and Los Angeles County Hazardous Materials System (LA HMS) databases:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
2915 East Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA Subject Property
Created 1992, Inactive 2000; 0
tons of asbestos containing
waste
1X Daniel Wang
2915 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property Created 1992, Inactive 2000 Rusnak Rolls Royce/Bentley
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property
Chemical Storage
Facility/Hazardous Waste
Generator; No violations found
Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property Facility ID: 5005 Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property Facility ID: 5005 Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property Facility ID: 5005 Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property
2 tanks installed in 1977;
2,000-gallon tank containing
waste and 1,000-gallon tank
containing waste oil
Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property
3 tanks installed in 1970;
1,900-gallon tank containing
unleaded motor vehicle fuel,
unknown capacity tank
containing waste, and
unknown capacity tank
containing waste oil
2965 East Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA Subject Property Underground storage tank equipment removed Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property 3 containers Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property 2 containers Rusnak Pasadena Rolls
Royce/Bentley
2965 E Colorado Boulevard
Subject Property Facility ID: FA0007961
Rusnak Group
2965 E Colorado Boulevard Subject Property No violations or enforcement actions on file Audi Rusnak
2965 E Colorado Boulevard Subject Property Electric Station – Open 2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 29 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Rusnak Pasadena Audi
2965 E Colorado Boulevard Subject Property
Aboveground petroleum
storage; Hazardous waste
generator; Chemical storage
facility
Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property Listing 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 Pasadena Chrysler-Plymouth
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property Listing 2003 In addition, the following CLEANUP and DRYCLEANER sites are reported within

0.5 mile of the subject property:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Kingdom Cleaners
2982 E. Colorado Blvd, Ste. 104 0.08 mile south Created 2006, Inactive 2017 Naval Information Research
Foundation
3202 East Foothill Boulevard

0.37 mile east-northeast Open – Inactive
Naval Information Research
Foundation
3202 East Foothill Boulevard

0.41 mile east-northeast Open – Site assessment

10.3. Federal Sources
We used ERIS to identify federal sites of known environmental concern. A copy of the ERIS Database Search Report, queried on October 26, 2021 is enclosed within Appendix H. The following is a summary of information provided.

10.3.1. Federal NPL
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Priorities List (NPL) was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing.

In addition, no NPL sites are reported within 1.0 mile of the subject property.

10.3.2. Federal Delisted NPL
The USEPA Delisted NPL was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing. In addition, no Delisted NPL sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.3.3. Federal CERCLIS
The USEPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing. In addition, no CERCLIS sites are reported within

0.5 mile of the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 30 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

10.3.4. Federal CERCLIS NFRAP
The USEPA CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing. In addition, no CERCLIS NFRAP sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.3.5. Federal RCRA TSD
The USEPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRA) Treatment, Storage and/or Disposal Facilities (RCRA TSD) was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing. However, the following RCRA TSD sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Anabi Oil Corp DBA Colorado
Shell
2716 E Colorado Boulevard

0.24 mile west-southwest No violations or enforcement
actions on file
Regina & Thomas Parola
Meyers
2740 E Del Mar Boulevard

0.38 mile southwest No violations or enforcement
actions on file
Finish Master Branch #209
2591 E Foothill Boulevard 0.44 mile west-northwest No violations or enforcement actions on file Ion Media of Los Angeles, Inc.
2531 Nina Street 0.46 mile west
No violations or enforcement
actions on file

10.3.6. Federal RCRA COR
The USEPA RCRA Corrective Action Sites (RCRA COR) was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing. However, the following RCRA COR site is reported within 1.0 mile of the subject property:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
150 Most Cleaners
2308 East Colorado Boulevard 0.73 mile west
Small quantity generator of
hazardous waste; no violations
or enforcement actions on file

10.3.7. Federal RCRA GEN
The USEPA RCRA – Large and Small Quantity Generators (RCRA GEN) was reviewed. The subject property is included within this listing. In addition, the following RCRA GEN sites are located adjacent to the subject property:

Facility Name/Address Location Status
Rusnak Pasadena
2965 East Colorado Boulevard Subject Property
Small quantity generator of
hazardous waste; no violations
or enforcement actions on file
Pasadena Suzuki Yamaha
2900 East Colorado Boulevard Adjacent to the south
Small quantity generator of
hazardous waste; no violations
or enforcement actions on file
Colorado Auto & Tire Center
2880 East Colorado Boulevard Adjacent to the southwest
Small quantity generator of
hazardous waste; no violations
or enforcement actions on file

10.3.8. Federal ERNS
The USEPA Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) was reviewed.

The subject property is not included within this listing.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 31 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

10.3.9. Federal IC and EC Brownfield Management System
The USEPA Brownfield Management System (BMS) of sites with IC and EC was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this listing.

10.3.10.Federal TRI PFAS
The USEPA Toxic Release Inventory of Facilities Using Perfluorinated and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this database. In addition, no PFAS TRI or PFAS NPL sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.3.11.Federal SEMS
The USEPA Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) was reviewed.

The subject property is not included within this database. In addition, no SEMS sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.3.12.Federal SEMS ARCHIVE
The USEPA SEMS Archived Site Inventory was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this database. In addition, no SEMS ARCHIVE sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property.

10.3.13.Federal SUPERFUND ROD
The USEPA Superfund Records of Decision was reviewed. The subject property is not included within this database. In addition, no SUPERFUND ROD sites are reported within 0.5 mile of the subject property

11. VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING
Giles conducted a limited Tier 1 and Tier 2 Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) at the subject property to determine if a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) exists. While Giles used the ASTM Standard E 2600-15, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, published December 2015, as a general guideline, this limited VES is not intended to constitute a full Tier 1 or Tier 2 VES as described in the ASTM E 2600-15 standard. A VEC is defined as the presence or likely presence vapors from chemical(s) of concern (COC) in the subsurface of the subject property, caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater either on or in the vicinity of the subject property.

A former drycleaner (Model Cleaners & Dyers, R Stepp Clothes Cleaners, Spotless Cleaners & Dyers) was located on the southern portion of the subject property from at least 1928 through 1951. Based on the former use of the subject property as a drycleaner, a vapor encroachment condition does exist.

A former gasoline station (Ralph’s Standard/Chevron Standard Station) was located approximately 85 feet west and inferred to be hydraulically cross-gradient of the subject property. Based on Giles’s experience, a vapor encroachment critical distance for the subject property is estimated to be approximately 200 feet from a gasoline station property. In our opinion, due to the close proximity to the subject property, a vapor encroachment condition does exist.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 32 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

A former drycleaner (Poppy Cleaners/Kingdom Cleaners) was located approximately 325 feet south and inferred to be hydraulically down gradient of the subject property.

Based on Giles’s experience, a vapor encroachment critical distance for the subject property is estimated to be approximately 300 feet from a drycleaner property. In our opinion, based on the distance from the subject property, a vapor encroachment condition does not exist.

No other facilities that presented a vapor encroachment condition were identified within approximately 300 feet of the subject property.

12. FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
• The eastern portion of the subject property is currently occupied by a large Rusnak showroom and automotive service facility with roof-top parking. The northwestern portion of the subject property is occupied by several industrial buildings, a vacant space that appears to be used for gardening, a garage, and other vacant lots/parking areas. Most of the industrial buildings are vacant or used for storage. One building in the northwestern corner of the property is used by Artworks, a youth art center.

The Rusnak facility repairs vehicles on the premises and large quantities of automotive fluids such as motor oil, transmission fluid, and antifreeze are stored and used on the site. In addition, waste oil, used oil filters, and waste antifreeze are generated by the business activities. The hazardous materials and hazardous wastes appeared to be properly stored and managed and no significant spills or leaks were observed on the premises.

A review of Sanborn maps showed that in 1930-1931, twenty-two dwellings and several garages were depicted on the subject property. In addition, a furniture manufacturer, printing company, and organ manufacturer were illustrated on the northern portion of the subject property. A dry cleaner and clothes cleaner were depicted on the southern portion of the subject property. A 1950 Sanborn Map depicted twenty-one dwellings and several garages on the subject property. In addition, a furniture manufacturer, pottery manufacturer, rubber mat manufacturer, and one other large commercial building were illustrated on the northern portion of the subject property. A restaurant and dry cleaner were depicted on the southern portion of the subject property. A building labeled “hydraulic brake shop” was illustrated on the eastern portion of the subject property. This building was part of the Hydra-Control Vard Inc. site.

According to a review of information for the Vard site on the DTSC Envirostor website, the plant was constructed in 1942 by the Defense Plant Corporation. This plant occupied portions of the subject property and the property adjacent to the east.

The facility included a combination manufacturing and office building, punch press building, and guardhouse used for the production of precision tools, aircraft components, and scientific instruments. The plant was sold to Vard Inc. in December 1945. The site is listed as inactive and needing evaluation as of July 1, 2005.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 33 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

A Phase I ESA report and a Phase II Environmental study were reportedly conducted on the subject property by Dames & Moore in July 1996. Over thirty soil borings were advanced in the vicinity of the hydraulic lifts, former USTs, product piping, and in the auto spray booth area. The soil samples were analyzed for TRPH, VOCs, and BTEX. Soil samples from eleven of the borings contained low levels of TRPH. Low levels of solvents were also detected in two areas. Additional testing was completed in the areas with known contamination and analytical test results indicated acceptable levels of TRPH contamination. The City of Pasadena issued a “no further action” closure letter on January 30, 1997. Since no significant impacts were identified during the subsurface soil studies, it was not likely that the former United States Government manufacturing activities had an adverse effect on the subject property. The low levels of soil contamination on the subject property that was investigated in 1996 constitutes a historic recognized environmental condition.

In 1977, a 1,000-gallon waste oil UST and a 2,000-gallon gasoline UST were installed on the subject property. The USTs were removed under the supervision of the LADPW in March 1987. Soil sampling collected from beneath the USTs was tested for TPH, fuel hydrocarbons, and gasoline. Laboratory analysis did not detect any significant contamination problems and the LADPW issued a “no further action” letter on July 29, 1987. The USTs previously removed from the subject property constitute a historic recognized environmental condition.

The subject property is listed on the RCRA GEN, HIST MANIFEST, HAZNET,

SWEEPS UST, CUPA LA COUNTY, RCRA NON GEN, ALT FUELS, CERS TANK, AST SWRCB, SWEEPS UST, EMISSIONS, HIST TANK, HHSS, and LA HMS databases. During the on-site visit, an abandoned tank labeled “waste oil” was observed on a vacant lot in the northern portion of the subject property. i The former use of the subject property as a dry cleaner constitutes a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property, and a vapor encroachment condition exists.
• The former Ralph’s Standard/Chevron Standard gasoline station was located approximately 85 feet west of the subject property. This property was occupied by a gasoline station from at least 1962 through 1976. In our opinion, due to the close proximity to the subject property, a vapor encroachment condition exists and constitutes a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property.
• The former Poppy Cleaners/Kingdom Cleaners property was located approximately 325 feet south of the subject property. This property was occupied by a dry cleaner from at least 2000 through 2017. The property is listed on the DRYCLEANER database. Based on the distance from the subject property, a vapor encroachment condition does not exist and the site does not constitute a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 34 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
• The 3003 East Colorado Boulevard (Ganahl Lumber) property is located adjacent to the east. This property is listed on the SWEEPS UST and AST database with a 3,701 gallon capacity on the AST database and four former USTs which have been removed on the SWEEPs UST database. No leaks associated with this property have been reported. In our opinion, the site does not constitute a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property. • Two additional RCRA GEN site are located adjacent to the subject property. The RCRA GEN sites are not included on the other reviewed environmental databases.

Neither of these RCRA GEN sites had violations or enforcement actions on file.

Based on the no violation status, the RCRA GEN sites do not present a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property. • The remaining surrounding properties were observed with commercial and residential uses. Historically, these areas were developed for primarily commercial or residential uses. The remaining surrounding properties are not listed on the reviewed federal or state databases. No indications of environmental concerns were noted on the remaining surrounding properties at the time of the on-site visit. As such, the remaining surrounding properties do not constitute a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property. • Five additional state CERCLIS sites are located between 0.28 and 0.73 mile of the subject property. One of these state CERCLIS sites is inactive, one is certified, one is active, one is closed, and one has attained no action required status. Based on the distance and status, the state CERCLIS sites do not present a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property. • Three LUST sites are located between 0.25 and 0.49 mile of the subject property.

All of these LUST sites have attained closure status. Based on the distance and status, the LUST sites do not present a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property.
• Two VCP sites are located between 0.28 and 0.37 mile of the subject property. One of these VCP sites is certified and one is active. Based on the distance or status, the VCP sites do not present a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property.
• Three CLEANUP sites are located between 0.37 and 0.41 mile of the subject property. All of these CLEANUP sites are open. Based on the distance, the CLEANUP sites do not present a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property.
• One RCRA COR is located approximately 0.73 mile west of the subject property.

This RCRA COR site is listed as a small quantity generator of hazardous waste with no violations or enforcement actions on file. Based on the distance and status, the RCRA COR site does not present a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 35 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
• Four RCRA TSD sites are located between 0.24 and 0.46 mile of the subject property. None of these RCRA TSD sites have any violations or enforcement actions on file. Based on the distance and status, the RCRA TSD sites do not present a recognized environmental condition with respect to the subject property.

13. CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13 of the property located at 2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard, in the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California, the property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described within Section 3.2.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 36 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

14. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions of this assessment, additional environmental investigation of the subject property is considered warranted at this time. A Limited Phase II is recommended to assess the potential impacts to the soil, groundwater, and soil gas of the subject property from the aforementioned recognized environmental conditions.

15. DATA GAPS
No historical documentation was available prior to 1923. However, based on the research completed for this report, the lack of historical documentation prior to 1923 is not considered a significant data gap.

16. GENERAL COMMENTS
No environmental site assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. ASTM International’s Standard Practice E 1527-13 is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property, and recognizes reasonable limits of time and cost.

The term recognized environmental condition means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not recognized environmental conditions.

The term de minimis condition means a condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

The term historical recognized environmental condition means a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).

The term controlled recognized environmental condition means a recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 37 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).

The term business environmental risk means a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of a parcel of commercial real estate, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice (Phase I ESA ASTM E1527-13). Consideration of business environmental risk issues may involve addressing one or more non-scope considerations.

The term hazardous substance is a substance defined as hazardous pursuant to CERCLA 42 USC § 9601(14), and as interpreted by USEPA regulations and the courts.

The term petroleum products is defined as those substances included within the meaning of the petroleum exclusion to CERCLA 42 USC § 9601(14), as interpreted by the courts and USEPA, that is: petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under Subparagraphs (A) through (F) of CERCLA 42 USC § 9601(14), natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, and synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas).

The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices and in accordance with the practices and service scope elements recommended by ASTM International for a Phase I ESA.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. These services were performed consistent with our agreement with our client. This report is solely for the use and information of our client or as otherwise noted. Any unauthorized use of this report is strictly prohibited and we assume no liability for any such use.

We prepared this report to aid in the evaluation of recognized environmental conditions of the subject property located at 2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard, in the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California. Conclusions presented in the report are based on available information that pertained to the subject property at various points in time. The information may have been provided to us by others or acquired through discussions with various governmental or agency personnel. We must rely on the credibility of others and do not independently verify or warrant the accuracy of information or test results they supply. Any alteration in the documentation, facts, or verbal information we obtained may result in a modification or redirection of the conclusions presented in this report.

Conclusions in this report are based on visual field observations performed within the property boundaries and our record review at a specific point in time. Environmental conditions may exist at the subject property that could not be identified by visual observation, including potential hazardous substances present within undocumented fills on the subject or adjoining properties. Where subsurface work and/or laboratory testing was performed, our professional opinions are based in part on the interpretation of data obtained from discreet sampling locations. The sampling may not have depicted actual Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
Pasadena, California
Project No. 2E-2110004

Page 38 ends

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
environmental conditions at non-sampled locations elsewhere on the subject or adjoining properties. We are not responsible for any errors in the professional opinions presented within this report that result from subsequently occurring events or inaccuracies due to sampling or services provided by subcontracted testing laboratories. © Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 2021

APPENDIX A
Important Information about This Geoenvironmental
Report
Geoenvironmental Report
Geoenvironmental studies are commissioned to gain
information about environmental conditions on and beneath the surface of a site. The more comprehensive the study, the more reliable the assessment is likely to be. But remember:

Any such assessment is to a greater or lesser extent based on professional opinions about conditions that cannot
be seen or tested. Accordingly, no matter how many data are developed, risks created by unanticipated conditions will always remain. Have realistic expectations. Work with your geoenvironmental consultant to manage known and
unknown risks. Part of that process should already have been accomplished, through the risk allocation provisions you and your geoenvironmental professional discussed and included in your contract’s general terms and conditions.

This document is intended to explain some of the concepts that may be included in your agreement, and to pass along information and suggestions to help you manage your risk.

Beware of Change; Keep Your
Geoenvironmental Professional Advised
The design of a geoenvironmental study considers a variety of factors that are subject to change. Changes can undermine the applicability of a report’s findings, conclusions,
and recommendations. Advise your geoenvironmental
professional about any changes you become aware of.

Geoenvironmental professionals cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because a report fails to consider conditions that did not exist when the study was designed. Ask your geoenvironmental professional about the types of changes you should be particularly alert to. Some of the most common include:
• modification of the proposed development or
ownership group,
• sale or other property transfer,
• replacement of or additions to the financing entity,
• amendment of existing regulations or introduction
of new ones, or
• changes in the use or condition of adjacent property.

Should you become aware of any change, do not rely on a geoenvironmental report. Advise your geoenvironmental
professional immediately; follow the professional’s advice.

Recognize the Impact of Time
A geoenvironmental professional’s findings,
recommendations, and conclusions cannot remain valid
indefinitely. The more time that passes, the more likely it is that important latent changes will occur. Do not rely on a geoenvironmental report if too much time has
elapsed since it was completed. Ask your environmental
professional to define “too much time.” In the case of
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), for
example, more than 180 days after submission is generally considered “too much.”
Prepare To Deal with Unanticipated
Conditions
The findings, recommendations, and conclusions of a Phase I ESA report typically are based on a review of historical information, interviews, a site “walkover,” and other forms of noninvasive research. When site subsurface conditions are not sampled in any way, the risk of unanticipated conditions is higher than it would otherwise be.

While borings, installation of monitoring wells, and
similar invasive test methods can help reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions, do not overvalue the effectiveness of testing. Testing provides information about actual conditions only at the precise locations where samples are taken,
and only when they are taken. Your geoenvironmental
Important Information about This
professional has applied that specific information to develop a general opinion about environmental conditions. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ (sometimes
sharply) from those predicted in a report. For example, a site may contain an unregistered underground storage tank that shows no surface trace of its existence. Even conditions in areas that were tested can change, sometimes suddenly, due to any number of events, not the least of which include occurrences at adjacent sites. Recognize, too, that even some conditions in tested areas may go undiscovered, because the tests or analytical methods used were designed to detect only those conditions assumed to exist.

Manage your risks by retaining your geoenvironmental
professional to work with you as the project proceeds.

Establish a contingency fund or other means to enable your geoenvironmental professional to respond rapidly, in order to limit the impact of unforeseen conditions. And to help prevent any misunderstanding, identify those empowered
to authorize changes and the administrative procedures that should be followed.

Do Not Permit Any Other Party To Rely
on the Report
Geoenvironmental professionals design their studies and prepare their reports to meet the specific needs of the clients who retain them, in light of the risk management methods that the client and geoenvironmental professional agree to, and the statutory, regulatory, or other requirements that apply. The study designed for a developer may differ sharply from one designed for a lender, insurer, public agency...or even another developer. Unless the report specifically states otherwise, it was developed for you and only you. Do not unilaterally permit any other party to rely on it. The report and the study underlying it may not be adequate for another party’s needs, and you could be held liable for shortcomings your geoenvironmental professional was powerless to
prevent or anticipate. Inform your geoenvironmental
professional when you know or expect that someone else— a third-party—will want to use or rely on the report. Do not permit third-party use or reliance until you first confer with the geoenvironmental professional who prepared the report. Additional testing, analysis, or study may be required and, in any event, appropriate terms and conditions should be agreed to so both you and your geoenvironmental
professional are protected from third-party risks. Any party who relies on a geoenvironmental report without the express written permission of the professional who prepared it and the client for whom it was prepared may be solely liable for any problems that arise.

Avoid Misinterpretation of the Report
Design professionals and other parties may want to rely on the report in developing plans and specifications. They need to be advised, in writing, that their needs may not have been considered when the study’s scope was developed,
and, even if their needs were considered, they might
misinterpret geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Commission your geoenvironmental
professional to explain pertinent elements of the report to others who are permitted to rely on it, and to review any plans, specifications or other instruments of professional service that incorporate any of the report’s findings,
conclusions, or recommendations. Your geoenvironmental
professional has the best understanding of the issues
involved, including the fundamental assumptions that
underpinned the study’s scope.

Give Contractors Access to the Report
Reduce the risk of delays, claims, and disputes by giving contractors access to the full report, providing that it is accompanied by a letter of transmittal that can protect you by making it unquestionably clear that: 1) the study was not conducted and the report was not prepared for purposes
of bid development, and 2) the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations included in the report are based
on a variety of opinions, inferences, and assumptions
and are subject to interpretation. Use the letter to also advise contractors to consult with your geoenvironmental professional to obtain clarifications, interpretations, and guidance (a fee may be required for this service), and
that—in any event—they should conduct additional studies to obtain the specific type and extent of information each prefers for preparing a bid or cost estimate. Providing access to the full report, with the appropriate caveats, helps prevent formation of adversarial attitudes and claims of concealed or differing conditions. If a contractor elects to ignore the warnings and advice in the letter of transmittal, it would do so at its own risk. Your geoenvironmental professional should be able to help you prepare an effective letter.

Do Not Separate Documentation
from the Report
Geoenvironmental reports often include supplemental
documentation, such as maps and copies of regulatory
files, permits, registrations, citations, and correspondence with regulatory agencies. If subsurface explorations were performed, the report may contain final boring logs and copies of laboratory data. If remediation activities occurred on site, the report may include: copies of daily field reports; waste manifests; and information about the disturbance
of subsurface materials, the type and thickness of any fill placed on site, and fill placement practices, among other types of documentation. Do not separate supplemental
documentation from the report. Do not, and do not permit any other party to redraw or modify any of the supplemental documentation for incorporation into other professionals’ instruments of service.

Understand the Role of Standards
Unless they are incorporated into statutes or regulations, standard practices and standard guides developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and
other recognized standards-developing organizations
(SDOs) are little more than aspirational methods agreed to by a consensus of a committee. The committees that develop standards may not comprise those best-qualified to establish methods and, no matter what, no standard method can
possibly consider the infinite client- and project-specific variables that fly in the face of the theoretical “standard conditions” to which standard practices and standard guides apply. In fact, these variables can be so pronounced that geoenvironmental professionals who comply with every
directive of an ASTM or other standard procedure could
run afoul of local custom and practice, thus violating the standard of care. Accordingly, when geoenvironmental
professionals indicate in their reports that they have
performed a service “in general compliance” with one
standard or another, it means they have applied professional judgement in creating and implementing a scope of service designed for the specific client and project involved, and which follows some of the general precepts laid out in the referenced standard. To the extent that a report indicates “general compliance” with a standard, you may wish to
speak with your geoenvironmental professional to learn
more about what was and was not done. Do not assume a
given standard was followed to the letter. Research indicates that that seldom is the case.

Realize That Recommendations
May Not Be Final
The technical recommendations included in a
geoenvironmental report are based on assumptions about
actual conditions, and so are preliminary or tentative.

Final recommendations can be prepared only by observing actual conditions as they are exposed. For that reason, you should retain the geoenvironmental professional of record to observe construction and/or remediation activities on site, to permit rapid response to unanticipated conditions.

The geoenvironmental professional who prepared the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that professional is not retained to observe relevant site operations.

Understand That Geotechnical Issues
Have Not Been Addressed
Unless geotechnical engineering was specifically
included in the scope of professional service, a report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or
recommendations about the suitability of subsurface
materials for construction purposes, especially when site remediation has been accomplished through the removal,
replacement, encapsulation, or chemical treatment of on-site soils. The equipment, techniques, and testing used by
geotechnical engineers differ markedly from those used by geoenvironmental professionals; their education, training, and experience are also significantly different. If you plan to build on the subject site, but have not yet had a geotechnical engineering study conducted, your geoenvironmental
professional should be able to provide guidance about the next steps you should take. The same firm may provide the services you need.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Geoenvironmental studies cannot be exact; they are based on professional judgement and opinion. Nonetheless, some clients, contractors, and others assume geoenvironmental reports are or certainly should be unerringly precise. Such assumptions have created unrealistic expectations that have led to wholly unwarranted claims and disputes. To help
prevent such problems, geoenvironmental professionals
have developed a number of report provisions and contract terms that explain who is responsible for what, and how risks are to be allocated. Some people mistake these for “exculpatory clauses,” that is, provisions whose purpose is to transfer one party’s rightful responsibilities and liabilities to someone else. Read the responsibility provisions included in a report and in the contract you and your geoenvironmental professional agreed to. Responsibility provisions are not “boilerplate.” They are important.

Rely on Your Geoenvironmental
Professional for Additional Assistance
Membership in the Geoprofessional Business Association
exposes geoenvironmental professionals to a wide array
of risk management techniques that can be of genuine
benefit for everyone involved with a geoenvironmental
project. Confer with your GBA-member geoenvironmental
professional for more information.
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2015 by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, copying, or storage of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only GBA-Member Firms may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geoenvironmental report. Any other firm, individual, or entity that so uses this document without being a GBA-Member Firm could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

APPENDIX B
Resumes

Page 1 of 1 ends

Monica Sell, P.E. Project Engineer II – Los Angeles, CA Regional Office Education
• B.S. Civil Engineering
University of California, Irvine, 2014
Professional Registr ation and Certifications
• Professional Engineer – California
Qualifications
Environmental Assessments - Evaluation of past and current on-site operations to identify potentially contaminated sites including historical record research and regulatory agency file review.

Subsurface Investigations – Subsurface exploration experience including direct-push and hollow-stem drilling. Projects involving preparation of work plans, installation of soil borings, sample collection methods, mapping of sites, evaluation of subsurface contaminants in accordance with regulatory requirements, and preparation of reports.

Industrial Hygiene - Inspections and abatement for asbestos-containing materials and leadbased paint, as well as microbial sampling/analysis.

Health and Safety - Recognition and assessment of potential chemical and physical hazards and associated risks in field operations and selection of appropriate personal protective equipment.

Project Management – Preparation of proposals, project budgets, scheduling, coordination/interfacing with regulatory agencies, supervision/oversight of contractors (drilling crews, equipment operators), analytical report writing, and presentations.

Steven C. Thuemling
Corporate Manager – Phase I Services
Education
 AAS, Computer Engineering, Milwaukee School of Engineering, 1985 Professional Registration and Certification
 OSHA 40-Hour Health and Safety Waste Site Worker Training and Annual Refresher (29CFR1910.120(e)8)
 U.S. EPA AHERA Asbestos Building Inspector
Experience & Background
Mr. Thuemling has 30 years of experience with Giles Engineering in the environmental consulting industry conducting Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), managing site investigations, developing site-specific work plans, and overseeing site remediation on commercial, industrial and residential properties. He understands client objectives; develops project scope, schedules and budgets; and acts as client/regulator liaison. Also, he mentors staff and provides technical review of project documentation. He combines his expertise to evaluate cost-effective investigation, remedial and closure solutions to a variety of environmental scenarios for industrial and commercial clients. His responsibilities include client management and the review of data and preparation of technical reports for environmental studies, including Phase I ESAs, asbestos sampling and analysis, lead-based paint studies and radon gas surveys. His project experience includes:

Environmental Site Assessments
 Prepared and/or managed more than 3,000 residential, commercial and industrial Phase I ESAs for due diligence for refinancing and property transfers throughout the United States.  Conducted over 150 asbestos inspections of institutional, commercial and residential buildings.  Project manager for multi-unit development clients including management of more than 400 Phase II ESAs throughout the United States.

Stormwater Management
 Implemented sampling strategies to comply with stormwater and sanitary sewer discharge permits for industrial properties in Wisconsin, as well as properties in Illinois and Texas.  Implemented stormwater management plans for development of the Lake Express Ferry Terminal site, and expansion of the Howard Avenue Water Treatment facility.

Underground Storage Tank Management and Tank Removal Services  Project manager for the removal of USTs, including on-site supervision, and oversight management for over 75 projects, through out the United States.

Investigations Services
 Served as project manager and negotiated with regulatory agencies the closure of over 150 contaminated properties. Responsibilities include conducting long-term groundwater monitoring, evaluating the natural attenuation of contaminants, conducting active remedial actions, applying the use of institutional controls such as filing of deed/use restrictions, conducting health risk-based evaluations, or any combination of the aforementioned closure methods.

Remediation Services
 Designed and implemented over 100 subfloor passive/active vapor mitigation systems for a variety of commercial building concepts constructed on historic fill sites with high methane gas conditions and/or petroleum hydrocarbon vapor conditions.

APPENDIX C
User Questionnaire

APPENDIX D
Previous Environmental Reports

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Rusnak Porsche
2915 and 2965 E. Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, California
Prepared For:

Rusnak Group
Pasadena, California
July 10, 2019
Project No. 2E-1906002

GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

RUSNAK PORSCHE
2915 AND 2965 E. COLORADO BOULEVARD

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2E-1906002
Section No. Description Page