AR 10 Attachment C - IS MND — Pasadena City Council, July 15, 2024 (part 1 of 5)

3760 Kilroy Airport Way Ste. 270
Long Beach, California, 90806
Contact: Jennifer Wu, [email protected]
DRAFT

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Rusnak Porsche Pasadena Project
Prepared for:

City of Pasadena
Planning & Community Development Department
175 North Garfield Ave
Pasadena, California 91101
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 Section 2 Project Description ....................................................................................................2 Section 3 Environmental Issues ............................................................................................... 24

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: .............................................................................. 25

3.2 Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency): ............................................................ 26

3.3 Environmental Factors (Issue Areas): ......................................................................................... 27 I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 27 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ..................................................................................... 32 III. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 34 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 50 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 54 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................... 62 VII. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 70 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 75 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 82 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 89 XI. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 95 XII. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 99 XIII. Noise ............................................................................................................................... 100 XIV. Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 112 XV. Public Services................................................................................................................. 113 XVI. Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 116 XVII. Transportation ................................................................................................................ 117 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 124 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 129 XX. Wildfire ........................................................................................................................... 135 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 137 Section 4 Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 140 Section 5 List of Preparers and Contributors .......................................................................... 144 Section 6 References ............................................................................................................. 145

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location ...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2 Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3 Existing Project Area Photographs .......................................................................................... 11 Figure 4 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5a Conceptual Rendering ............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5b Conceptual Rendering ............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 6 Building Elevations and Materials ........................................................................................... 19 Figure 7 Proposed Landscape Plan ........................................................................................................ 21

LIST OF TABLES
Table III-1. State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards ........................................................................ 35 Table III-2. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status .................................................................................. 36 Table III-3. SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................ 39 Table III-4. Short-Term Construction Emissions .......................................................................................... 42 Table III-5. Long-Term Operational Air Emissions ....................................................................................... 44 Table III-6. Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ..................................................................... 48 Table V-1. Summary of Project Area Cultural and Historic Resources ....................................................... 55 Table V-2. Summary of Cultural and Historic Resources Within a Quarter Mile of the Project Site .......... 56 Table VI-1. Project and Countywide Energy Consumption ......................................................................... 66 Table VI-2. Climate Action Plan Consistency............................................................................................... 69 Table VIII-1. Consistency with Climate Action Plan Sustainable Development Actions ............................. 77 Table VIII-2. Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................... 80 Table XIII-1. City of Pasadena Land Use Compatibility Matrix .................................................................. 102 Table XIII-2. Existing Traffic Noise Level .................................................................................................... 105 Table XIII-3. Noise Measurement ............................................................................................................. 106 Table XIII-4. Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment .............................. 107 Table XIII-5. Existing and Project Traffic Volumes..................................................................................... 108 Table XIII-6. Typical Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots ................................................................... 110 Table XIII-7. Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .......................................................... 111 Table XVII-1. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy ................................................................................................... 120 Table XVII-2. Transit Facilities Hierarchy ................................................................................................... 121 Table XVII-3. City of Pasadena CEQA Thresholds of Significance .............................................................. 122 Table XVII-4. Transportation Performance Metrics Summary .................................................................. 122 Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Page iii

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Conceptual Plan Set
Appendix B.1: Air Quality and GHG Emissions Calculations Appendix B.2 CAP Consistency Checklist
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Report
Appendix D.1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix D.2: Limited Phase II Investigation
Appendix E: Noise and Vibration Assessment
Appendix F: Traffic Impact Assessment
Appendix G: Draft Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Page iv
This page intentionally left blank

Page 1 ends

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Project consists of the construction and operation of a Porsche automotive dealership on approximately 192,331 square feet (4.4 acres) on eight parcels located in the City of Pasadena (City). The Project site is located southwest of Interstate 210 (I-210), and is bordered by East Walnut Street to the north, East Colorado Boulevard to the south, North Sunnyslope Avenue to the west, and the existing Rusnak Audi Dealership to the east. The northern portion of the Project site is located in the East Pasadena Specific Plan while the southern portion of the Project site is located in the East Colorado Specific Plan.

This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is a public document that assesses the environmental effects of the proposed Project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 5000 et seq.). It serves as an environmental document to be used by the lead agency, the City of Pasadena, in the decisionmaking process.

DOCUMENT FORMAT
This IS/MND is organized into six sections as follows:
 Section 1, Introduction: This introduction provides an overview of the CEQA environmental documentation process.
 Section 2, Proposed Project: Section 2 provides a description of the project location and setting, project components, and proposed construction.
 Section 3, Environmental Issues: Section 3 identifies the environmental factors potentially affected, presents the completed Environmental Checklist for all impact areas, and addresses mandatory findings of significance. The section includes discussion of the impact evaluation and identifies applicable mitigation measures.
 Section 4, Acronyms: Section 4 provides the definition of acronyms used in this document.  Section 5, List of Preparers and Contributors: This section lists preparers and contributors who were involved in preparation of this document.
 Section 6, References: This is a list of references used in preparation of this document.

Page 2 ends

SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Project Title
Rusnak Porsche Pasadena Project

2. Lead Agency Name & Address
City of Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department 175 North Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101

3. Contact Name & Information
Beilin Yu
Principal Planner
(626) 744-6726

4. Project Location
The Project site is approximately 192,331 square feet (4.4 acres) and consists of eight parcels, located north of East Colorado Boulevard, south of East Walnut Street, and east of North Sunnyslope Avenue:

APN: 5748-036-001
APN: 5748-036-002
APN: 5748-036-003
APN: 5748-036-004
APN: 5748-036-005
APN: 5748-036-032
APN: 5748-036-028
APN: 5748-036-029

5. Project Applicant’s Name and Information
Rusnak/Pasadena
P.O. Box 70489
Pasadena, CA 91117

6. General Plan Designation
The northern portion of the Project site is designated as R&D Flex Space, and the southern portion of the Project site is designated as Low Mixed Use.

7. Zoning
The northern portion of the Project site is zoned as EPSP-d1-IG (East Pasadena Specific Plan, Subarea d1, [East Foothill Industrial District], General Industrial). The southern portion of the Project site is zoned as ECSP-CG-6 (East Colorado Specific Plan-General Commercial) within the Chihuahuita sub-area.

8. Description of Project
Project Summary
The Rusnak Porsche Pasadena Project (Project) includes the construction and operation of an automotive dealership and service center on a 192,331-square-foot (4.4 acre) site located on eight parcels. The Project

Page 3 ends

consists of demolishing the existing on-site buildings and developing 65,360 square feet of building area, comprising a 60,230 square-foot two-story dealership, a 4,832 square-foot car wash building, and a 298 square-foot electric vehicle battery storage building. The Project would also include vacating the existing dead-end section of Nina Street, asphalt removal from the existing parking lot area, and installing a new paved parking lot.

As shown on Figure 1, Regional Location, the Project site is located approximately 590 feet to the south and southwest of I-210 in the City. As shown on Figure 2, Project Location, the Project site is bound by North Sunnyslope Avenue to the west, East Walnut Street to the north, and East Colorado Boulevard to the south. The northern portion of the Project site is located in the East Pasadena Specific Plan zoning district, while the southern portion is located in the East Colorado Specific Plan zoning district.

Existing Site Conditions
The Project site is approximately 192,331 square feet (4.4 acre) and has been fully developed, as shown on Figure 2. Figure 3, Existing Project Area, depicts photographs of the Project site and surrounding area.

The Project site property is bisected by Nina Street, which is accessible from North Sunnyslope Avenue from the western portion of the site and dead-ends toward the eastern portion of the site. North of Nina Street, the site is occupied by commercial buildings, a garage structure, surface parking, and a vacant lot.

South of Nina Street, the site is occupied by a commercial building and surface parking that is currently in use by the automotive dealership to the east of the Project site. There are three driveways into the site on Nina Street, two driveways on East Walnut Street, one driveway on East Colorado Boulevard, and one driveway south of Nina Street on North Sunnyslope Avenue. The site is surrounded in the northeast and along the northeastern and southeastern frontages of Nina Street by chain-link fencing. The remainder of the site south of Nina Street is surrounded by a mixture of a low masonry wall and stanchion and chain link fence. Landscaping on the site consists of 48 trees located primarily along streets surrounding the site and ruderal growth in the site’s northeastern portion.

Under the proposed Project, all existing buildings, all driveways except one (located south of Nina Street on North Sunnyslope Avenue), and 28 trees would be removed.

Proposed Development
The proposed Project would include the construction and operation of a 60,230-square-foot, two-story automotive dealership that would consist of showrooms, offices, a service area, and parts storage. See Figure 4, Site Plan, for the proposed Project’s site plan. The proposed dealership building would be surrounded by surface parking designed for inventory display and customer parking. The southwestern corner of the Project site would contain a display pad and a pylon brand sign.

The dealership building would be at the center of the Project site, be two levels, and have a total of 60,230 square feet. The first level would be occupied by the showroom, offices, a service area, and parts storage as well as having a canopied service drive on the southeastern side. The primary customer entrance would be located in the southwestern corner of the building. Access to the second floor would be via stairs or elevator located along the western or eastern side of the building. The second level of the building would be occupied by a display in the southwestern corner, offices, and a parking deck that would comprise the northern portion of the building. Vehicle access to the second level, as well as to the roof, would be via a ramp in the northern portion of the building. The roof would contain parking and would also have stair access.

Page 4 ends

The dealership building would range in height from 35.5 feet to 36 feet (plus appurtenances). The design of the dealership building would be modern with a façade that would be a mixture of composite, perforated, and corrugated metal panels, as shown in Figure 5A and 5B, Conceptual Renderings. As shown on Figure 6, Building Elevations and Materials, the composite metal panels would be silver and the perforated metal panels and corrugated metal panels would be black. Additionally, both clear and obscured glass would be used on the exterior.

The 4,832 square-foot car wash building would be located in the northeastern portion of the site and would have a height of 20 feet. The building would consist of an automated car wash system that would serve cars from the existing adjacent Audi automotive dealership (east of the Project) and cars from the proposed Project itself. Cars from the existing dealership would enter the car wash from the north and exit to the south along the eastern portion of the building. Cars from the proposed Project would enter from the south and exit to the north through the central portion of the building. The western portion of the building would be reserved for car detailing bays. The 298-square-foot EV battery storage building would have a height of 16 feet, and would be located at the eastern portion of the site, between the Project dealership building and the existing adjacent Audi dealership building to the east. The building would include an outside loading area and would be used to store EV batteries. Refer to Figure 3 and Figure 6, showing the car wash and EV battery storage buildings.

The dealership building would be surrounded by surface parking intended for both customer parking and vehicle display. In combination with the parking provided in the second and rooftop levels of the dealership building, the Project would provide 342 parking spaces, including spaces for electric car charging. Bicycle parking would be provided at the north end of the covered canopy on the eastern side of the building.

As shown on Figure 7, Landscape Plan, the perimeter of the site would be landscaped with trees and other plantings. The current property site areas include 48 existing trees both within the Project site and along East Walnut Street, North Sunnyslope Avenue, Nina Street, and East Colorado Boulevard. Approximately 28 trees will be removed in accordance with the City’s Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance (Ordinance No. 6896), and 40 trees would be planted around the perimeter of the site, along the vehicle entry off Colorado Boulevard as well as throughout the surface parking area.

There are existing utilities at and surrounding the Project site; new connections, including sewer, water, gas, electric, and telecommunications, would be installed on-site. An existing water main and an existing sewer main, both located on the portion of Nina Street to be vacated, would be removed. Both the sewer main and water main would be cut and plugged along the western edge of the Project site with a 2-inch water meter service to be installed at the new end of the water main and a sewer lateral to be installed at the new end of the sewer main. There is an existing public storm drain located on North Sunnyslope Avenue, just north of East Colorado Boulevard. In compliance with Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements for water quality, a new on-site storm drain system would be installed to retain storm flows on-site either via infiltration or storage and treatment. As part of the proposed Project, an on-site stormwater retention basin would be installed in the southwestern portion of the site.

Construction
Project construction is estimated to last for approximately 18 months, from September 2022 to March 2024. The construction phases consist of demolition occurring over approximately 5 weeks; site

Page 5 ends

preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching activities occurring over approximately 4 weeks; exterior building construction occurring over approximately 16 months; and building interior buildout, architectural coating, and paving activities occurring over 8 weeks. In accordance with the City of Pasadena Municipal Code for Noise Restrictions (Chapter 9.36), construction would be conducted Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. If required, work on Saturdays would occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Approximately 2,561 cubic yards of soil would be excavated, with approximately 7,172 cubic yards required for fill, resulting in a net need for 4,611 cubic yards of fill.

Page 6 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

File: 186254Figures.indd

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Project Regional Location
Figure 1 Source: ArcGIS Online, Caltrans
Project Regional Location
Figure 1
° 0 1.5 3
Miles
11/24/2021 JN H:\pdata\186254\GIS\APRX\Rusnak_Porsche_Auto_Dealership\Rusnak_Porsche_Auto_Dealership.aprx

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: ArcGIS Online, Caltrans
^
Los Angeles
County
Legend
Project Location
Map Detail
Project Regional Location
Figure 1
° 0 1.5 3
Miles
11/24/2021 JN H:\pdata\186254\GIS\APRX\Rusnak_Porsche_Auto_Dealership\Rusnak_Porsche_Auto_Dealership.aprx

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: ArcGIS Online, Caltrans
^
Los Angeles
County
Legend
Project Location
Map Detail

Page 8 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 10 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

File: 186254Figures.indd

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: Goree Whitfield, September 23, 2021
Existing Project Area Photographs
Figure 3
2915 East Colorado Boulevard
36 EXISTING SITE IMAGES

KEY PLAN

E COLORADO BLVD

WALNUT ST

N SUNNYSLOPE AVE
EXISTING SITE - IMAGE 01: WALNUT ST. LOOKING EAST
EXISTING SITE - IMAGE 03: N. SUNNYSLOPE AVE. LOOKING NORTH EXISTING SITE - IMAGE 05: E. COLORADO BLVD. LOOKING NORTH EXISTING SITE - IMAGE 02: N. SUNNYSLOPE AVE. LOOKING SOUTH EXISTING SITE - IMAGE 04: E. COLORADO BLVD. LOOKING EAST EXISTING SITE - IMAGE 06: E. COLORADO BLVD. LOOKING NORTH AT AUDI LOT 03 05
02 04
01 06

KEY PLAN

E COLORADO BLVD

WALNUT ST

N SUNNYSLOPE AVE
AST EXISTING SITE - IMAGE 02: N. SUNNYSLOPE AVE. LOOKING SOUTH 03 05
02 04
01 06
Photograph 01: View at the intersection of Walnut Street and North Sunnyslope Avenue facing east along Walnut Street, at the northwest corner of the Project site (on the right).

Photograph 03: View at the intersection of East Colorado Boulevard and North Sunnyslope Avenue facing north along North Sunnyslope Avenue showing the southwestern area of the Project site (on the right) and adjacent uses (left).

Photograph 05: View along Colorado Boulevard facing north showing the Project area and adjacent existing automobile dealership.

Photograph 02: View at the intersection of Walnut Street and North Sunnyslope Avenue facing south along North Sunnyslope Avenue showing the western property line of the Project site (on the left) and adjacent uses (right).

Photograph 04: View at the intersection of East Colorado Boulevard and North Sunnyslope Avenue facing east along East Colorado Boulevard showing the southwestern area of the Project site.

Photograph 06: View along Colorado Boulevard facing north showing the adjacent existing automobile dealership directly east of the proposed Project.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 12 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

File: 186254Figures.indd

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: Goree Whitfield, 4/1/2022
Site Plan
Figure 4

C O F F E E M AK E R
SITE PLAN LEGEND:

PROPOSED BUILDING

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACKS

PROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

PROPOSED ADA TRUNCATED DOMES

PROPOSED PAVING

PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE

FIRE LANE
GENERAL NOTE:
i. OUTDOOR PARKING AREEA LIGHTING SHALL NOT EXCEED 18 FEET

IN HEIGHT, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE DESIGN

COMMISSION OR OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEW AUTHORITY, AND

EXCEPT WHEN LOCATED WITHIN CITY PARKS
ii. IN GENERAL, THE LIGHTING FIXTURES USED SHALL BE DESIGNATED

TO CONFINE EMITTED LIGHT TO THE PARKING AREA, AND THE LIGHT

SOURCE SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE AREA
iii. WHERE IMPORTANT ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS INDICATE

THE DESIRABILITY OF FIXTURES WHICH EXPOSE THE LIGHT SOURCE

TO VIEW FROM BEYOND THE PARKING AREA, THE FIXTURES AND

LIGHTING SHALL BE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE DESIGN

COMMISSION OR OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEW AUTHORITY
iv. LOTS WITHIN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. MAXIMUM

AVERAGE ILLUMINATION AT GROUND LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED

THREE-FOOT CANDLES WHEN TEH PARKING LOT IS LOCATED

WITHIN A NONRESIDENTAIL ZONING DISTRICT
2 A.102
1 A.102

PROPOSED

CARWASH &

DETAIL BAYS EV BATTERY

STORAGE

PROPOSED

DEALERSHIP

BUILDING

DISPLAY DISPLAY DISPLAY

DISPLAY
CUSTOMER (7)

INVENTORY

INVENTORY
SERVICE CUSTOMER (24)
CUSTOMER (2)
4' - 1 1/8"
18' - 0" 24' - 0" 10' - 0" 17' - 0" 24' - 0"
10' - 0"
17' - 0" 24' - 0"
CLR.
25' - 6"
17' - 0" 26' - 9" 17' - 0"
8' - 6" 26' - 0" 18' - 0" 5' - 0" ADA
17' - 0" 24' - 0" 17' - 0"
EXT. FINISH
30' - 0"
24' - 6"
(N) DRIVEWAY
28' - 6" 10' - 7"
5' - 0"
78' - 0"
158' - 0"
(N) DRIVEWAY
26' - 0"
(N) DRIVEWAY
24' - 8"

RAMP UP

N O R T H S U N N Y S L O P E A V E N U E

E A S T C O L O R A D O B O U L E V A R D

E A S T W A L N U T S T R E E T

N I N A S T R E E T
40 40' - 0" ' - 0" 55' - 0" 45' - 0"
30' - 0" 30' - 0"

EXISTING AUDI

DEALERSHIP
0° 36' 53"
589.00'
N E
89° 36' 08"
456.30'
N E
0° 36' 52"
275.40'
N E 0° 36' 52"
253.60'
N E
89° 36' 13"
456.31'
N E

EXISTING
AUDI
BLDG.
002
008
014
006
011 TYP.
003
004
011
013
005
013

SERVICE DRIVE
19 SPACES @ 8' - 6"
161' - 6"
8' - 6" 11' - 0"
5' - 0" 9' - 0"
5' - 0"
9' - 0"
5' - 0"
9' - 0"
8' - 0"
9' - 0" 25' - 6"
009 005
007
010
010
001

SHOWROOM SERVICE
BAYS
PARTS

STORAGE

SHIPPING &

RECEIVING
023 TYP.
001
002
008
016
015
017
012
015
018
018
018
006
10' - 0"
17' - 0" 24' - 0" 15' - 9"
10' - 2"
019 TYP.

LOADING
002
008
014
020
020
020
80' - 0"
60' - 0"
100' - 0"
010
009
A.101
1 A.101
6 021

INVENTORY
022
001
024
024
5 SPACES @ 8' - 6"
42' - 6"
F.F. @ 710.75"
2914 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 1
APN: 5748-036-001
137.70'
276.57'

30.00' 30.00'
100.04'
N00°36'53"E 144.54' N00°36'53"E 109.05'
2926 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 2
APN: 5748-036-002
2932 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 3
APN: 5748-036-003
2940 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 4
APN: 5748-036-004
2948 E. WALNUT ST.

LOTS 5 & 6
APN: 5748-036-005
2929 NINA ST.

LOTS 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
APN: 5748-036-0032
2965 E. COLORADO BLVD.

APN: 5754-005-007
2915 E. COLORADO BLVD.

LOTS 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26
APN: 5748-036-0029
2965 E. COLORADO BLVD.

LOTS 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
APN: 5748-036-0028
176.53'
N89°36'22"E 276.57'
024 025

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK PORSCHE

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORADO

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 91107
A100
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GROUP
267-337 W. COLORADO BLVD.

PASADENA, CA 91105
CONTACT: JOHN BEED
[email protected]

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Commercial Development Resources (CDR)
695 Town Center Drive, Ste. 110, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Principal: Aaron M. Albertson
E: [email protected], O: (949) 610.8997 x 704
ASLA Landscape Architecture
630 S. El Camino #B4, San Clemente, CA 92672
Designer: Aaron Sevilla
E: [email protected], P: (949) 444.9468

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

NEW PORSCHE DEALERSHIP
ELD 2021
N
PROPOSED SITE PLAN KEYNOTES 001 PROPERTY LINE
002 NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH
003 PYLON BRAND SIGN BY SIGN VENDOR
004 DISPLAY PAD
005 LINE OF COVERED OVERHANG
006 LANDSCAPE AREA
007 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
008 PROPOSED SWINGING GATE WITH KNOX BOX
009 PROPOSED SLIDE GATE WITH KNOX BOX
010 PROPOSED 8' - 0" HIGH FENCE
011 SITE LIGHTING @ MAX. 18' - 0" PER CITY STANDARD
012 BICYCLE PARKING
013 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL
014 ENHANCED PAVING
015 EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN
016 EXISTING CHAIN LINK SWING GATE TO REMAIN
017 EXISTING CHAIN LINK SLIDE GATE TO REMAIN
018 EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
019 10' X 20' LOADING ZONE
020 EASEMENT. SEE CIVIL
021 UNDERGROUND STORMWATER BMP. SEE CIVIL
022 PROPOSED DCDA LOCATION. SEE CIVIL
023 PROPOSED CATCH BASIN. SEE CIVIL
024 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT. SEE CIVIL
025 PORTION OF EXISTING AUDI BUILDING TO BE REMOVED

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: DESCRIPTION:
1 1" = 30'-0"

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

C O F F E E M AK E R
SITE PLAN LEGEND:

PROPOSED BUILDING

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACKS

PROPOSED ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

PROPOSED ADA TRUNCATED DOMES

PROPOSED PAVING

PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE

FIRE LANE
GENERAL NOTE:
i. OUTDOOR PARKING AREEA LIGHTING SHALL NOT EXCEED 18 FEET

IN HEIGHT, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE DESIGN

COMMISSION OR OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEW AUTHORITY, AND

EXCEPT WHEN LOCATED WITHIN CITY PARKS
ii. IN GENERAL, THE LIGHTING FIXTURES USED SHALL BE DESIGNATED

TO CONFINE EMITTED LIGHT TO THE PARKING AREA, AND THE LIGHT

SOURCE SHALL NOT BE VISIBLE FROM OUTSIDE THE AREA
iii. WHERE IMPORTANT ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS INDICATE

THE DESIRABILITY OF FIXTURES WHICH EXPOSE THE LIGHT SOURCE

TO VIEW FROM BEYOND THE PARKING AREA, THE FIXTURES AND

LIGHTING SHALL BE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE DESIGN

COMMISSION OR OTHER APPLICABLE REVIEW AUTHORITY
iv. LOTS WITHIN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. MAXIMUM

AVERAGE ILLUMINATION AT GROUND LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED

THREE-FOOT CANDLES WHEN TEH PARKING LOT IS LOCATED

WITHIN A NONRESIDENTAIL ZONING DISTRICT
2 A.102
1 A.102

PROPOSED

CARWASH &

DETAIL BAYS EV BATTERY

STORAGE

PROPOSED

DEALERSHIP

BUILDING

DISPLAY DISPLAY DISPLAY

DISPLAY
CUSTOMER (7)

INVENTORY

RAMP UP

N O R T H S U N N Y S L O P E A V E N U E

E A S T C O L O R A D O B O U L E V A R D

E A S T W A L N U T S T R E E T
0 40' - 0" ' - 0" 55' - 0" 45' - 0"
30' - 0"

EXISTING AUDI

DEALERSHIP
0° 36' 53"
589.00'
N E
89° 36' 08"
456.30'
N E
0° 36' 52"
275.40'
N E 0° 36' 52"
253.60'
N E
89° 36' 13"
456.31'
N E

EXISTING
AUDI
BLDG.
002
008
014
006
011 TYP.
003
004
011
013
005
013

SERVICE DRIVE
19 SPACES @ 8' - 6"
161' - 6"
8' - 6" 11' - 0"
5' - 0" 9' - 0"
5' - 0"
9' - 0"
5' - 0"
9' - 0"
8' - 0"
9' - 0" 25' - 6"
009 005
007
010
010
001

SHOWROOM SERVICE
BAYS
PARTS

STORAGE

SHIPPING &

RECEIVING
023 TYP
001
002
008
016
015
017
012
015
018
018
018
006
10' - 0"
17' - 0" 24' - 0" 15' - 9"
10' - 2"
019 TYP.

LOADING
002
008
014
020
020
020
80' - 0"
0"
100' - 0"
010
009
A.101
1 A.101
6 021

INVENTORY
022
001
024
024
5 SPACES @ 8' - 6"
42' - 6"
F.F. @ 710.75"
2914 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 1
APN: 5748-036-001
137.70'
276.57'

30.00' 30.00'
100.04'
N00°36'53"E 144.54' N00°36'53"E 109.05'
2926 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 2
APN: 5748-036-002
2932 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 3
APN: 5748-036-003
2940 E. WALNUT ST.

LOT 4
APN: 5748-036-004
2948 E. WALNUT ST.

LOTS 5 & 6
APN: 5748-036-005
2929 NINA ST.

LOTS 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
APN: 5748-036-0032
2965 E. COLORADO BLVD.

APN: 5754-005-007
2915 E. COLORADO BLVD.

LOTS 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26
APN: 5748-036-0029
2965 E. COLORADO BLVD.

LOTS 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
APN: 5748-036-0028
176.53'
N89°36'22"E 276.57'
024 025
24691 Del Prad
Dana Point, CA
949 -234 -19
www.goreewhitfie

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

STAMP / SIGNATURE

CONSULTANTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. ALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY STANDARDS AND WITH THE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE. ALL OUTDOOR LIGHTING

FIXTURES SHALL COMPLIMENT THE OVERALL PROJECT THEME AND SHALL BE

DIRECTED, ORIENTED, AND SHIELDED TO PREVENT LIGHT AND GLARE FROM

CASTING ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES

2. ALL BUILDING SIGNAGE WILL BE REVEIWED UNDER A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL. ALL

SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIT AND COMPLY WITH CITY STANDARDS

3. ALL CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE PARKING SAPCES ARE TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE USE OF SIGNAGE OR PAINT. DETAILS OF THE SPACES

AND/OR SIGNAGE SHALL BE INCLUDED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND

WILL BE INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SITE WORK GENERAL NOTES:

RUSNAK POR

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORA

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 911
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GRO
267-337 W. COLORA
PASADENA, CA 911
CONTACT: JOHN BE
JBEED@RUSNAKG
Commercial Development R
695 Town Center Drive, Ste. 110,
Principal: Aaron M. Albertson
E: [email protected], O
ASLA Landscape Architectu
630 S. El Camino #B4, San Cleme
Designer: Aaron Sevilla
E: [email protected], P: (949) 44
CIVIL

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

NEW PORSCHE DE
PROPOSED SITE PLAN KEYNOTES 001 PROPERTY LINE
002 NEW DRIVEWAY APPROACH
003 PYLON BRAND SIGN BY SIGN VENDOR
004 DISPLAY PAD
005 LINE OF COVERED OVERHANG
006 LANDSCAPE AREA
007 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
008 PROPOSED SWINGING GATE WITH KNOX BOX
009 PROPOSED SLIDE GATE WITH KNOX BOX
010 PROPOSED 8' - 0" HIGH FENCE
011 SITE LIGHTING @ MAX. 18' - 0" PER CITY STANDARD
012 BICYCLE PARKING
013 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PER CIVIL
014 ENHANCED PAVING
015 EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN
016 EXISTING CHAIN LINK SWING GATE TO REMAIN
017 EXISTING CHAIN LINK SLIDE GATE TO REMAIN
018 EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN
019 10' X 20' LOADING ZONE
020 EASEMENT. SEE CIVIL
021 UNDERGROUND STORMWATER BMP. SEE CIVIL
022 PROPOSED DCDA LOCATION. SEE CIVIL
023 PROPOSED CATCH BASIN. SEE CIVIL
024 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT. SEE CIVIL
025 PORTION OF EXISTING AUDI BUILDING TO BE REMOVED

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: D
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 14 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

File: 186254Figures.indd

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: Goree Whitfield, September 23, 2021
Conceptual Rendering
Figure 5a
2915 East Colorado Boulevard
Design Packet 18
BUILDING AT PROPOSED LOCATION:

PERSPECTIVE - CORNER OF E. COLORADO AND N. SUNNYSLOPE
2915 East Colorado Boulevard
Design Packet 19
BUILDING AT PROPOSED LOCATION:

PERSPECTIVE - E. COLORADO AT AUDI LOT
View facing northeast at the intersection of East Colorado Boulevard and North Sunnyslope Avenue showing the display parking in the foreground, the showroom and main entrance in the middleground, and the attached service parking and bays.

View facing northwest while traveling west along East Colorado Boulevard showing the southeastern extent of the Project, consisting of display parking, the main showroom, and service parking and bays.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 16 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

File: 186254Figures.indd

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: Goree Whitfield, September 23, 2021
Conceptual Rendering
Figure 5b
2915 East Colora
Design P

EXTERIOR (DAY)
Dusk and nighttime illumination at a comparable dealership project in Palm Springs, California. EXTERIOR (NIGHT) The proposed Project’s building materials and lighting would be similar to this example.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 18 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

File: 186254Figures.indd

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: Goree Whitfield, 2022
Building Elevations and Materials
Figure 6
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
3 A.210 EP-1 CP-2 MPMP--11
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
CP-1 MP-1

OPEN SERVICE DRIVE
CP-1

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 9006 WHITE ALUMINUM
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND:

CP-2

PERFORATED METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM METAL PANEL SYSTEM
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EP-1

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: MATCH RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM
PAINTED EP-1
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOREFRONT

FRONT LOADED BUTT-JOINTS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

DARK GRAY ANODIZED FRAME

PROJECT

OWNER IN

ISSUE DA

GOREE PR

KEY PLAN

STAMP / S

CONSULT

PROJECT
RUS
PAS
2915
BOUL
PASA
04/01
2019-
RUSN
267-3
PASA
CONT
JBEE
Comme
695 Tow
Principal
E: AAlbe
ASLA L
630 S. E
Designe
E: aaron
CIVIL
LANDSC
NEW
3 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH

ISSUE HIST
DATE:

CP-1 MP-1 EP-1 SF-2 MP-1 MP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 CP-1 MP-1 EP-1 SF-2
2 A.211
CP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
RVICE FOR THIS PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF GOREE ARCHITECTS, INC. ANY USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, DATA AND DESIGNS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED, WRITTEN PERMISSION OF GOREE WHITFIELD, INC. IS PROHIBITED.

MATCHLINESEE AREA A EL.SEE AREA B EL.

LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
3 A.210 MP-1 EP-1 CP-2 MP--11
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
3 A.210 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 MP-1

OPEN SERVICE DRIVE
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

DARK GRAY ANODIZED FRAME

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK PORSCHE

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORADO

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 91107
A.200
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GROUP
267-337 W. COLORADO BLVD.

PASADENA, CA 91105
CONTACT: JOHN BEED
[email protected]

PROPOSED EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS

NEW PORSCHE DEALERSHIP
© GOREE WHITFIELD 2021
3 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH
4 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: DESCRIPTION:

MP-1 EP-1 CP-2 MP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
CP-1 MP-1

OPEN SERVICE DRIVE

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE
2915 EAST CO

BOULEVARD

PASADENA, C
A.
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUT
267-337 W. CO

PASADENA, C
CONTACT: JO
JBEED@RUSN

PROPOSED E

ELEVATIONS
3 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH
4 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK:

LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
3 A.210 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1

OPEN SERVICE
3 1/8"
PR
4 1/8"
PR
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
MP-1 EP-1 CP-2
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
3 A.210 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1
OPEN
3 4
NORTH
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
3 A.210 MP-1 EP-1 CP-2 MP--11
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
3 A.210 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 MP-1

OPEN SERVICE DRIVE

DARK GRAY ANODIZED FRAME

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK PORSCHE

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORADO

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 91107
A.200
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GROUP
267-337 W. COLORADO BLVD.

PASADENA, CA 91105
CONTACT: JOHN BEED
[email protected]

PROPOSED EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS

NEW PORSCHE DEALERSHIP
© GOREE WHITFIELD 2021
3 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH
4 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: DESCRIPTION:

MP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
CP-1 MP-1

OPEN SERVICE DRIVE

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUM

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE
A
04/01/2022
2019-0011

PROPOSED

ELEVATION
3 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH
4 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK:

LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
SF-2 CP-1 MP-1

OPEN SERVICE DRIVE

ISSUE DATE

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN
A
04/01/20
PROPOS
ELEVAT
3 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH
4 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: M
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
3 A.210 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1

OPEN SER
3 4
MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 SOUTH
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
2 A.211 MP-1 O-G EP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"

FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 MP-1 EP-1 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 SF-2

DIMENSION FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"
CP-1

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 9006 WHITE ALUMINUM
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND:

CP-2

PERFORATED METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM METAL PANEL SYSTEM
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EP-1

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: MATCH RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM
PAINTED EP-1
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOREFRONT

FRONT LOADED BUTT-JOINTS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

DARK GRAY ANODIZED FRAME
COPYRIGHTED DOCUMENT: THIS DRAWING AND THE BIM/CAD FILE FROM WHICH IT HAS BEEN GENERATED ARE PROVIDED AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF GOREE ARCHITECTS, INC. ANY USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, DATA AND DESIGNS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED, WRITTEN PERMISSION OF GOREE WHITFIELD, INC. IS PROHIBITED. 24691 Del Prado Ave
Dana Point, CA 92629
949 -234 -1950
www.goreewhitfield.com

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

CONSULTANTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK PORSCHE

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORADO

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 91107
A.201
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GROUP
267-337 W. COLORADO BLVD.

PASADENA, CA 91105
CONTACT: JOHN BEED
[email protected]

PROPOSED EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
Commercial Development Resources (CDR)
695 Town Center Drive, Ste. 110, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Principal: Aaron M. Albertson
E: [email protected], O: (949) 610.8997 x 704
ASLA Landscape Architecture
630 S. El Camino #B4, San Clemente, CA 92672
Designer: Aaron Sevilla
E: [email protected], P: (949) 444.9468
CIVIL

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

NEW PORSCHE DEALERSHIP
© GOREE WHITFIELD 2021
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA B
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST OVERALL
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA A
MATCHLINESEE AREA B EL.SEE AREA A EL.

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: DESCRIPTION:

MP-1 EP-1 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 SF-2
2 A.211 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"

FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 SF-2 CP-1 SF-2

DIMENSION FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"
CP-1

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 9006 WHITE ALUMINUM
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND:

CP-2

PERFORATED METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM METAL PANEL SYSTEM
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EP-1

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: MATCH RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM
PAINTED EP-1
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOREFRONT

FRONT LOADED BUTT-JOINTS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

DARK GRAY ANODIZED FRAME
24691 Del
Dana Point
949 -23
www.goreew

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

CONSULTANTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK PO

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLO

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 9
A.2
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO G
267-337 W. COLO
PASADENA, CA 9
CONTACT: JOHN
JBEED@RUSNA

PROPOSED EXT

ELEVATIONS
Commercial Developme
695 Town Center Drive, Ste.

Principal: Aaron M. Albertson
E: [email protected]
ASLA Landscape Arch
630 S. El Camino #B4, San C
Designer: Aaron Sevilla
E: [email protected], P: (94
CIVIL

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

NEW PORSCHE
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA B
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST OVERALL
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA A
MATCHLINESEE AREA B EL.SEE AREA A EL.

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK:
2 A.211 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"

FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 SF-2 CP-1 SF-2

DIMENSION FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 9006 WHITE ALUMINUM
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
CP-2

PERFORATED METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM METAL PANEL SYSTEM
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EP-1

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: MATCH RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM
PAINTED EP-1
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOREFRONT

FRONT LOADED BUTT-JOINTS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

DARK GRAY ANODIZED FRAME
24691 Del Prad
Dana Point, CA
949 -234 -19
www.goreewhitfie

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

CONSULTANTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK POR

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORA

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 911
A.20
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GRO
267-337 W. COLORA
PASADENA, CA 911
CONTACT: JOHN BE
JBEED@RUSNAKG

PROPOSED EXTER

ELEVATIONS
Commercial Development R
695 Town Center Drive, Ste. 110,
Principal: Aaron M. Albertson
E: [email protected], O
ASLA Landscape Architectu
630 S. El Camino #B4, San Cleme
Designer: Aaron Sevilla
E: [email protected], P: (949) 44
CIVIL

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

NEW PORSCHE DE
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA B
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST OVERALL
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA A
MATCHLINESEE AREA B EL.SEE AREA A EL.

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: D

MATCHLINE SEE WEST AREA B

WEST AREA A
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
2 A.211 MP-1 O-G EP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"

FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 MP-1 EP-1 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 SF-2

DIMENSION FROM LOWEST GRADE OF SITE
50' - 11"
43' - 6"
CP-1

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 9006 WHITE ALUMINUM
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND:

CP-2

PERFORATED METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM METAL PANEL SYSTEM
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EP-1

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: MATCH RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM
PAINTED EP-1
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOREFRONT

FRONT LOADED BUTT-JOINTS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

CONSULTANTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK PORSCHE

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORADO

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 91107
A.201
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GROUP
267-337 W. COLORADO BLVD.

PASADENA, CA 91105
CONTACT: JOHN BEED
[email protected]

PROPOSED EXTERIOR

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

NEW PORSCHE DEALERSHIP
© GOREE WHITFIELD 2021
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA B
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST OVERALL
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST AREA A
MATCHLINESEE AREA B EL.SEE AREA A EL.

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: DESCRIPTION:

MATCHLINE SEE WEST AREA A
MP-1 O-G EP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
1 A.211 MP-1 EP-1 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 SF-2
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSE
2 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOS
MATCHLINESEE AREA B EL.SEE AREA A EL.

LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
1 A.211 MP-1 EP-1 MP-1 SF-2 CP-1 SF-2
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSE
2 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROPOS
MATCHLINESEE AREA B EL.SEE AREA A EL.

WEST AREA B
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 CP-1 MP-1 EP-1 SF-2 MP-1 MP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
2 A.211
CP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1 O-G
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0" T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
CP-1

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 9006 WHITE ALUMINUM
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND:

CP-2

PERFORATED METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM METAL PANEL SYSTEM
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EP-1

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: MATCH RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM
PAINTED EP-1
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOREFRONT

FRONT LOADED BUTT-JOINTS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST AREA A
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST AREA B
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST OVERALL
MATCHLINESEE AREA A EL.SEE AREA B EL.

MATCHLINE SEE EAST AREA B
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 CP-1 MP-1 EP-1 SF-2
CP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
OLE PROPERTY OF GOREE ARCHITECTS, INC. ANY USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, DATA AND DESIGNS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED, WRITTEN PERMISSION OF GOREE WHITFIELD, INC. IS PROHIBITED.

MATCHLINESEE AREA A EL.SEE AREA B EL.

EAST AREA A
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0"
1 A.211 CP-1 MP-1 EP-1 SF-2 MP-1 MP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
2 A.211
CP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1 O-G
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SHOWROOM
36' - 0" T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
CP-1

ALUMINUM COMPOSITE METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 9006 WHITE ALUMINUM
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND:

CP-2

PERFORATED METAL PANELS
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM METAL PANEL SYSTEM
COLOR: RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
FINISH: NON-REFLECTIVE
EP-1

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: MATCH RAL 7021 BLACK GREY
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM
PAINTED EP-1
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOREFRONT

FRONT LOADED BUTT-JOINTS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E CLEAR GLASS
O-G

OBSCURE GLASS

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT ADDRESS

OWNER INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE

GOREE PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET NUMBER

SHEET NAME

KEY PLAN

STAMP / SIGNATURE

CONSULTANTS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

RUSNAK PORSC

PASADENA
2915 EAST COLORADO

BOULEVARD
PASADENA, CA 91107
A.202
04/01/2022
2019-0011

RUSNAK AUTO GROUP
267-337 W. COLORADO
PASADENA, CA 91105
CONTACT: JOHN BEED
JBEED@RUSNAKGROU

PROPOSED EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
Commercial Development Resour
695 Town Center Drive, Ste. 110, Costa M
Principal: Aaron M. Albertson
E: [email protected], O: (949) 6
ASLA Landscape Architecture
630 S. El Camino #B4, San Clemente, CA
Designer: Aaron Sevilla
E: [email protected], P: (949) 444.9468
CIVIL

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

NEW PORSCHE DEALER
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST AREA A
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST AREA B
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST OVERALL
MATCHLINESEE AREA A EL.SEE AREA B EL.

ISSUE HISTORY
DATE: MARK: DESCRIPT
CP-1 EP-1 MP-1 EP-1 O-G
1 A.211 MP-1 MP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
2 A.211
O-G
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
FINISH: NON
MP-1

TRAPEZIUM
COLOR: RA
FINISH: NON
EP-1

EXTERIOR P
COLOR: MA
EIFS-1

EXTERIOR I

PAINTED EP
SF-2

EXTERIOR S

FRONT LOA
COLOR: LOW
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW
O-G

OBSCURE G

DARK GRAY
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST AREA A
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST OVERALL
MATCHLINESEE AREA A EL.SEE AREA B EL.
1 A.211 MP-1 MP-1
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
T.O.P. SERVICE
35' - 6"
2 A.211
O-G
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
SF-2

EXTERIOR STOR

FRONT LOADED
COLOR: LOW-E C
GL-1
GLASS
COLOR: LOW-E C
O-G

OBSCURE GLAS

DARK GRAY ANO
2 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST AREA A
1 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST AREA B
3 1/16" = 1'-0"

PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST OVERALL

MATCHLINE SEE EAST AREA A

EAST AREA B
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 20 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

File: 186254Figures.indd

RUSNAK PORSCHE AUTO DEALERSHIP PROJECT

PASADENA, CA
Source: ASLA Landscape Architecture, 3/28/2022
Proposed Landscape Plan
Figure 7

PROPOSED

CARWASH &

DETAIL BAYS EV BATTERY

STORAGE

PROPOSED

DEALERSHIP

BUILDING

DISPLAY DISPLAY

DISPLAY

DISPLAY
CUSTOMER (7)

INVENTORY

INVENTORY
SERVICE CUSTOMER (24)
CUSTOMER (2)

RAMP UP

N O R T H S U N N Y S L O P E A V E N U E

E A S T W A L N U T S T R E E T

EXISTING AUDI

DEALERSHIP
89° 36' 08"
456.30'
N E
0° 36' 52"
275.40'
N E 0° 36' 52"
253.60'
N E
89° 36' 13"
456.31'
N E

EXISTING
AUDI
BLDG.

SERVICE DRIVE

SHOWROOM SERVICE BAYS
PARTS

STORAGE

SHIPPING &

RECEIVING

PLAN VIEW
1"=20'-0"
PROJECT SUMMARY:

NEW PLANTING AREAS: ±11,480 SF
MULCH NOTE:

ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 3" OF DECORATIVE BARK
MULCH (DARK BROWN COLOR).

PRELIMINARY

LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLP-1

FOCAL TREE

VERTICAL ACCENT
IRRIGATION NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS:

THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE THE
FOLLOWING IRRIGATION SYSTEM:

LOW PRECIPITATION SHRUB DRIP SYSTEM AUTOMATICALLY PROGRAMMED WITH AN ELECTRICAL CONTROLLER. SYSTEM COMPONENTS WILL INCLUDE A

BRASS GATE VALVE (IN VALVE BOX) AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION, BACK

FLOW DEVICE (PER LOCAL CODES), ELECTRICALLY OPERATED REMOTE CONTROL VALVES AND DRIP SYSTEM IN SHRUB BEDS, ALL SUPPLIED BY PVCSCHEDULE 40 MAINLINE AND LATERAL LINES SIZED ACCORDING TO HYDRAULIC CALCULATION. CIRCUITS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOLAR ORIENTATION AND PLANTING AREA. 100% COVERAGE SHALL BE ACHIEVED THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM. SEPARATE VALVE INCLUDED FOR TREES 48" AND ABOVE.

EXISTING STREET TREES

TO REMAIN AND ARE NOT TO BE

DISTURBED DURING ALL PHASES OF
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION.

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME (COMMON NAME) BOX SIZE WUCOLS

TRISTANIA CONFERTA (BRISBANE BOX) M
QTY.
8 SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME (COMMON NAME)

TREE LEGEND SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER LEGEND

INGRESS

ARBUTUS MARINA (STRAWBERRY TREE)LAGERSTROMIA INDICA (CRAPE MYRTLE)

LAURUS NOBLIS (BAY LAUREL)MAGNOLIA SPECIES (MAGNOLIA)
L 14

RHUS LANCEA (AFRICAN SUMAC)

GEIJERA PARVIFLORA (AUSTRALIAN WILLOW)

ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'TRUE GREEN' (CHINESE ELM)PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR (FERN PINE) L -
AS|LA
1"=20'-0"
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA (COAST LIVE OAK) L 2
48" BOX

STANDARD
36" BOXCOLUMNAR
48" BOX MIN.

MULTI BRANCH
CARISSA MACROCARPA 'GREEN CARPET' (NATAL PLUM) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS (TRAILING LANTANA) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. L RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA' (INDIAN HAWTHORNE) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES (STAR JASMINE) 5 GAL 3' O.C. M AGAVE SPECIES (AGAVE) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. LALOE SPECIES (ALOE) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. LDIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV' (FLAX LILY) 5 GAL 3' O.C. M HEMEROCALLIS SPECIES (DAYLILY) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M
LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS (TRAILING LANTANA) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. L AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS (LILY OF THE NILE) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M CALLISTEMON 'BETTER JOHN' (DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH) 5 GAL 4' O.C. M CARISSA MACROCARPA 'GREEN CARPET' (NATAL PLUM) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M HEMEROCALLIS SPECIES (DAYLILY) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M
PHORMIUM SPECIES (NEW ZEALAND FLAX) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M
48" BOX L 16

STANDARD

PARKING LOT TREE

SIZE/SPACING/WUCOLS

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

CAD FILE

DESIGNED

DATESCALE

PORSCHE PASADENA
03/28/2022
PROJECT NAME:

PORSCHE PASADENA

NEW AUTO DEALERSHIP
2915 EAST COLORADO BLVD.

PASADENA, CA 91362
REVISIONS:

DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET DESCRIPTION:SHEET NUMBER:

THESE PLANS ARE PROPERTY OF AARON SEVILLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC. AND ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, OR USED FOR ANOTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF AARON R. SEVILLA.

NDSC
C
l , L R
N .
v i i c
A
A APE
T
.

I
589
CE
Signature
8 T
o
H
DE E
S
T R
R
I
a r
E
o
G R
A
S
. L
e
I A Date
R

F CAL I FO N

T S ETA O
Exp. 10/31/22
n
la
IN COLLABORATION WITH:

AS
LA
EGRESS

INGRESS

INGRESS
EGRESS

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

VEHICLE

DISPLAY
40'
Scale: 1" = 20'
0 10' 20'
MARCH 28TH, 2022

SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME (COMMON NAME)

SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER LEGEND

SIZE/SPACING/WUCOLS

PERIMETER TREE
M -M
DIETES VEGETA (FORTNIGHT LILY) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M
LIGUSTRUM JAPONICA 'TEXANUM' (WAXLEAF PRIVET) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M PITTOSPORUM 'VARIEGATA' (VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'MAJESTIC BEAUTY' 5 GAL 3' O.C. M
(INDIAN HAWTHORNE)
M
--

ENHANCED PAVING

AT VEHICULAR ENTRY
(PAVERS, STAMPED CONCRETE).

ENHANCED PAVING

AT VEHICULAR ENTRY
(PAVERS, STAMPED CONCRETE).

M -M

EXISTING STREET
TREES

TO REMAIN AND ARE

NOT TO BE

DISTURBED DURING

ALL PHASES OF
FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION.

ENHANCED PAVING

AT BUILDING
ENTRANCE. FINAL

MATERIAL TO BE
DETERMINED.

DISPLAY

DISPLAY
CUSTOMER (7)
R (24)
CUSTOMER (2)

NG AUDI
ERSHIP
89° 36' 08"
456.30'
N E
0° 36' 52"
253.60'
N E
IVE
M
PROJECT SUMMARY:

NEW PLANTING AREAS: ±11,480 SF
MULCH NOTE:

ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 3" OF DECORATIVE BARK
MULCH (DARK BROWN COLOR).

PRELIMINARY

LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLP-1
IRRIGATION NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS:

THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE THE
FOLLOWING IRRIGATION SYSTEM:

LOW PRECIPITATION SHRUB DRIP SYSTEM AUTOMATICALLY PROGRAMMED WITH AN ELECTRICAL CONTROLLER. SYSTEM COMPONENTS WILL INCLUDE A

BRASS GATE VALVE (IN VALVE BOX) AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION, BACK

EXISTING STREET TREES

TO REMAIN AND ARE NOT TO BE

DISTURBED DURING ALL PHASES OF
FUTURE CONSTRUCTION.

INGRESS
AS|LA
1"=20'-0"
S (LILY OF THE NILE) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M
OHN' (DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH) 5 GAL 4' O.C. M
GREEN CARPET' (NATAL PLUM) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M
(DAYLILY) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M
W ZEALAND FLAX) 5 GAL 2' O.C. M

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

CAD FILE

DESIGNED

DATESCALE

PORSCHE PASADENA
03/28/2022
PROJECT NAME:

PORSCHE PASADENA

NEW AUTO DEALERSHIP
2915 EAST COLORADO BLVD.

PASADENA, CA 91362
REVISIONS:

DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET DESCRIPTION:SHEET NUMBER:

THESE PLANS ARE PROPERTY OF AARON SEVILLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC. AND ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED, OR USED FOR ANOTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF AARON R. SEVILLA.

NDSC
C
l , L R
N .
v i i c
A
A APE
T
.

I
589
CE
Signature
8 T
o
H
DE E
S
T R
R
I
a r
E
o
G R
A
S
. L
e
I A Date
R

F CAL I FO N

T S ETA O
Exp. 10/31/22
n
la
IN COLLABORATION WITH:

AS
LA
EGRESS

INGRESS

ADA PATH OF TRAVEL

VEHICLE

DISPLAY
40'
Scale: 1" = 20'
0 10' 20'
MARCH 28TH, 2022

MMON NAME)

R LEGEND

SIZE/SPACING/WUCOLS
GHT LILY) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M
EXANUM' (WAXLEAF PRIVET) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M
TA' (VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE) 5 GAL 3' 0.C. M
AJESTIC BEAUTY' 5 GAL 3' O.C. M

ENHANCED PAVING

AT VEHICULAR ENTRY
(PAVERS, STAMPED CONCRETE).

ENHANCED PAVING

AT VEHICULAR ENTRY
(PAVERS, STAMPED CONCRETE).

EXISTING STREET
TREES

TO REMAIN AND ARE

NOT TO BE

DISTURBED DURING

ALL PHASES OF
FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION.

ANCED PAVING

AT BUILDING
RANCE. FINAL

ATERIAL TO BE
DETERMINED.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project ________________________________________________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 22 ends

This page intentionally left blank.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 23 ends

9. City of Pasadena Required Permits and Approvals
The proposed Project site is located within the ECSP-CG-6 (East Colorado Specific Plan, Chihuahuita area) zoning district in the southern portion of the site, and EPSP-d1-IG (East Pasadena Specific Plan, subarea d1, General Industrial District) zoning district in the northern portion of the site. It is anticipated that approvals required for the Project would include, but may not be limited to, the following:
a. Conditional Use Permit – Required for the construction of a project over 25,000 square feet in size, and for the establishment of a vehicle sales land use. b. Minor Variances – Required to deviate from required setbacks along North Sunnyslope Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.
c. Street Vacation of Nina Street – To allow the vacation of the portion of Nina Street located east of Sunnyslope Avenue, to be incorporated as part of the project site. d. Design Review: Design Commission will review the project’s consistency with the design-related policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan.

10. Surrounding Land Uses
As shown on Figure 2, the Project site is bordered by an existing automotive dealership to the east; commercial uses to the south across from East Colorado Boulevard with residential uses farther south; commercial, motel, restaurant, and residential uses to the west with the two nearest residences to the west being non-conforming uses; and commercial uses to the north. The surrounding buildings on East Colorado Boulevard, North Sunnyslope Avenue, and East Walnut Street vary from one to three levels.

The Project site is located in the vicinity of several transit facilities. Specifically, the nearest bus stop is a Metro bus stop located at the northwest corner of East Colorado Boulevard and North Sunnyslope Avenue, approximately 100 feet from the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is approximately

0.47 miles west-southwest of the Metro Gold Line Sierra Madre Villa Station.

11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
This document covers all approvals by government agencies that may be needed to construct, implement, and/or operate the proposed Project. The City is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the proposed Project. At this time, no discretionary approvals from public agencies other than the City are known or expected to be required for the Project.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 24 ends

SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
This section presents the Environmental Checklist, evaluates the potential impacts of the project relative to 20 environmental issue areas, and presents mandatory findings of significance required under CEQA.

The analysis begins with a summary delineation of the environmental factors (issue areas) addressed in the checklist and whether any potentially significant impacts have been identified in the analysis, followed by an explanation of the environmental factors potentially affected, including an evaluation of, and significance findings for construction and operation of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project is evaluated in the context of the existing regulatory and environmental setting.

Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. A social or economic change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.”
Impacts are separated into the following categories:
 No Impact. This category applies when a project would not create an impact in the specific environmental issue area. A “No Impact” finding does not require an explanation when the finding is adequately supported by the cited information sources (e.g., exposure to a tsunami is clearly not a risk for projects not near the coast). A finding of “No Impact” is explained where the finding is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).  Less Than Significant Impact. This category is identified when the project would result in impacts below the threshold of significance, and would therefore be less than significant.  Less Than Significant After Mitigation. This category applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The mitigation measures are described along with a brief explanation of how they would reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
 Potentially Significant Impact. This category is applicable if there is substantial evidence that a significant adverse effect might occur, and no feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. There are no such impacts for the proposed project.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 25 ends

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources and
Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 26 ends

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 7/5/22 7/5/22
Prepared By Date Reviewed By Date
Jennifer Wu John Bellas, Environmental Coordinator
Printed Name Printed Name
Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on:

Adoption attested to by:

Signature Date

Printed Name
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 27 ends

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (ISSUE AREAS)
I. AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is generally defined as a vantage point with a broad and expansive view of a significant landscape feature (e.g., a mountain range, lake, or coastline) or of a significant historic or architectural feature (e.g., views of a historic tower). The Pasadena General Plan EIR identifies views of the San Gabriel Mountains, San Rafael Hills, the Arroyo Seco corridor, and Eaton Canyon as the most prominent scenic vistas in the City (City of Pasadena 2015). Also, Angeles Crest Highway (SR-2) in the extreme northern portion of the City is a designated state scenic highway, and State Route 110 from central Pasadena to downtown Los Angeles is designed a Federal Scenic Byway. As stated above, a portion of the Project site is located within the East Colorado Specific Plan area, with the remaining portion located within the East Pasadena Specific Plan area. Neither of these two specific plans have officially designated scenic views/vistas that could be impacted by construction of the proposed Project and are not in the vicinity of either the Angeles Crest Highway or State Route 110.

The Project site and surrounding area are highly urbanized with commercial, institutional, and/or residential uses. Existing views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north are limited due to the flat topography of the site as well as surrounding development and mature landscaping. Vehicles and pedestrians traveling northbound on North Sunnyslope Avenue on the west side of the Project site, as Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 28 ends

well as vehicles and pedestrians looking north from East Colorado Boulevard, would have views of the San Gabriel Mountains. However, these views are obstructed by mature street trees along North Sunnyslope Avenue, as well as existing development. These obstructed views are not unique to the Project site as many roadways with a north-south orientation provide obstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains; however, these obstructed views are not a scenic vista with a broad and expansive view.

The proposed Project would not change the topography of the Project site and surrounding area but would remove existing small-scale warehouse structures on the northwest corner of the Project site and introduce three new structures, which would be 36 feet, 20 feet, and 16 feet in height. The existing limited north-facing views of the San Gabriel Mountains available from North Sunnyslope Avenue would not be further obstructed by the proposed development on the Project site. While the Project would further obstruct views of the San Gabriel mountains from East Colorado Boulevard, existing views are fleeting and only available through glimpses that would remain available by looking across the developed Project site to the north. Therefore, the proposed Project would not adversely obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains from streets surrounding the Project site; the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The only state scenic highway in the City designated by the California Department of Transportation is the Angeles Crest Highway (State Highway 2), which is located north of Arroyo Seco Canyon in the extreme northwest portion of the City. As the Project Site is over 7 miles southeast of State Highway 2, the Project site is not within the viewshed of the State Highway 2. Likewise, the Project site is not within the viewshed of State Route 110, the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway Scenic Byway, which is more than 3 miles west of the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact in this regard.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? As described in the response to threshold I(a) above, the Project site is in an urbanized area of the City of Pasadena. The visual character includes a range of land uses (i.e., commercial, institutional, residential, and office uses) and architectural styles that represent a variety of building types, styles, construction years, and building materials. The surroundings include primarily commercial and institutional uses along East Colorado Boulevard, such as low-rise commercial buildings, motel, and a restaurant south of the Project site, and large home improvement stores to the east and north (Ganahl Lumber to the east and Home Depot across East Walnut Street to the north). Across North Sunnyslope Avenue to the west is a variety of uses, including a single-story, strip commercial building and motel at the northwest corner of North Sunnyslope Avenue and West Colorado Boulevard; single-family residential uses at the northwest Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 29 ends

corner of Nina Street and North Sunnyslope Avenue; and single-story commercial structures at the southwest corner of North Sunnyslope Avenue and East Walnut Street. The existing uses at the site consist of a surface parking lot that is currently being used for the adjacent luxury car dealership between Nina Street and East Colorado Boulevard, as well as a single-story commercial building located between Nina Street and East Walnut Street. The adjacent luxury car dealership and service center is located immediately east of the Project site and is characterized by glass walls and silver and metal accents/paneling. The existing car dealership parking lot on the south side of the Project site is secured by a low masonry wall along Nina Street and by steel posts connected by chains along North Sunnyslope Avenue and East Colorado Boulevard.

As stated above, the Project would include construction and operation of an automotive dealership that would include a dealership building that would consist of showrooms, offices, a service area, and parts storage, a car wash building, and an EV battery storage building. The main dealership building would rise to a maximum of 36 feet and would be clad in a mixture of composite, perforated, and corrugated metal panels, as well as glass panels showcasing the vehicles on the first and second floors of the structure. As shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6, the proposed dealership building’s main entrance would face southwest, oriented toward the intersection of North Sunnyslope Avenue and East Colorado Boulevard. The main entrance would include decorative features, such as “lamellas,” which are scalloped panels above the main entrance resembling gills that transition from nearly vertical panels at the roofline to nearly horizontal panels over the building’s entrance. Additionally, the Porsche crest and name would be applied on a light-colored column to the right of the main entrance and a sign with the name “Porsche” would be placed on the building’s southern elevation, facing East Colorado Street. The new building would be designed to be visually compatible with the existing car dealership to the east and would be smaller in scale to the large home improvement and lumber stores to the east and north of the Project site. Further, the structure would be designed on the Project site so that it is not visually intrusive to users of East Colorado Boulevard. Specifically, the structure would be constructed approximately 120 feet from East Colorado Boulevard right-of-way, and 51 feet from North Sunnyslope Avenue right-of-way, which would reduce the visible mass of the structure from users of these streets. Surface parking used for displaying cars for sale would be located along the East Colorado Boulevard and North Sunnyslope Avenue frontages, with visitor parking provided on the south, east, and west sides of the proposed dealership building.

The proposed building materials and details of the car wash and detailing building would complement the proposed showroom and would be located in the northern portion of the Project site (Figure 6). Proposed landscaping would include decorative ground cover and 48-inch box perimeter trees located along the southern, northern, and western Project site boundaries and vertical accent trees along the Project site’s eastern boundary with the Audi car dealership to the east. Additionally, the Project’s proposed landscape plan (see Figure 7) includes two large coast live oak trees, to be placed at the Project site’s northwest and southeast corners.

Additionally, Section 17.61.0, Design Review, of the City’s Municipal Code, sets forth ordinances governing the design of new construction to ensure it meets the City’s design goals and policies found in the City’s General Plan or specific plans. The Project would be required to demonstrate consistency with designrelated policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as well as the design guidelines in the East Colorado Specific Plan and the East Pasadena Specific Plan. The Project site is located within the East Foothill Industrial District of the East Pasadena Specific Plan area, which encourages the area’s continued use as an industrial district with moderate amounts of additional office and commercial development. The Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 30 ends

southern half of the Project site is located within the East Colorado Specific Plan Area, which has a series of design guidelines identified in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan. These design guidelines include promoting compact development patterns, making facilities unobtrusive, respecting surrounding character, and designing structures to be pedestrian-scaled and inviting. The Project would meet these guidelines by placing vehicle service bays, the proposed car wash building on the north end of the Project site, and the EV battery storage building at the middle of the east side of the site, away from East Colorado Boulevard.

Further, the Project’s orientation and design with plentiful use of glass panels would provide visibility into the structure, and its placement on a site currently used for surface parking would result in a more compact development pattern in the Project vicinity. Other details, such as decorative ground cover and perimeter trees along the southern and western Project site boundaries, the stamped concrete details of the Project site’s two ingress and egress points, and the vehicle display area surrounded by decorative groundcover at the southwest corner of the Project site, enhance the Project’s interface with pedestrians on East Colorado Boulevard and North Sunnyslope Avenue. Prior to Project approval, the City’s Design Commission would review the Project design through the lens of the above-mentioned design standards to ensure consistency. Adherence to design review requirements would ensure the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As such, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Finding of Significance: Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Light impacts are typically associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours. Glare may be a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass and reflective cladding materials, and may interfere with the safe operation of motor vehicles on adjacent streets. Daytime glare generation can occur in urban areas and is typically associated with mid- to high-rise buildings with exterior façades largely or entirely made of highly reflective glass or mirror-like materials. Nighttime glare is primarily associated with bright point source lighting that contrasts with existing low ambient light conditions.

The proposed Project is located in an urban area with existing sources of lighting, including building lighting, overhead parking lot lighting, traffic signals, streetlights, and traffic. There is some existing lighting associated with existing uses at the Project site. As is typical of a car dealership parking lot, the existing surface parking lot includes a number of overhead lights illuminating the parking area to showcase the vehicles for sale and for security purposes. The proposed Project would generate new interior and exterior lighting from interior building lighting visible through the glass panels on the first floor, building accent lighting, overhead security lighting illuminating parking areas and driveways, lighting signage on the building’s southern elevation, and red linear building accent lighting that would wrap around the southern and western building elevations (see Figure 5b for this lighting displayed on a similar project in Palm Springs, California). Considering that the Project site is currently characterized by a car dealership with overhead lights illuminating the existing surface parking lot, the proposed car dealership would be similar to existing nighttime lighting levels and would be consistent with the existing lighting sources in the area. Therefore, the Project would not represent a substantial change in the levels of ambient lighting in the immediate site vicinity.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 31 ends

While the proposed showroom would be clad in metal, perforated, and glass panels, the treatment of these materials would reduce reflections that could be sources of glare. The proposed Project would not contribute to increased levels of ambient lighting and glare near the site or create a substantial change in the existing lighting conditions.

Additionally, the proposed Project would adhere to the City’s lighting standards outlined in the City’s Code of Ordinances, Section 17.40.080. Requirements of Section 17.40.080 include exterior lighting to be energy efficient, limited to moderate intensity and scale, devoid of flashing or high-intensity lights, and directed away from adjoining properties or public right-of-way. Further, Section 17.40.220, Outdoor Parking Area Lighting, includes lighting standards, such as limiting lighting to a maximum of 18 feet in height, and ensuring that light sources (i.e., the fixtures) are not visible from outside of the parking area so that the light remains confined to the parking lot as much as possible. This would limit the lighting intensity and spillover onto adjacent properties and surrounding streets and sidewalks. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, the proposed Project would not represent a substantial change in ambient lighting over existing conditions and the Project would have a less than significant impact.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 32 ends

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The City is a developed urban area that is classified as “urban built-up land” by the California Important Farmland Finder from the California Department of Conservation (California Department of Conservation 2020). The Department of Conservation defines Urban Built-Up Land as having a “building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel … and is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.” The City contains no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as shown on the California Important Farmland Finder.

Therefore, no impacts to farmland would occur as a result of the proposed Project.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 33 ends

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The City has no land zoned for agricultural use other than commercial growing areas. Commercial growing is permitted in the CG (General Commercial), CL (Limited Commercial), and IG (General Industrial) zones and conditionally in the RS (Residential Single-Family) and RM (Residential Multi-Family) districts.

Commercial growing is also permitted within certain specific plan areas. The northern portion of the Project site is zoned as EPSP-d1-IG (East Pasadena Specific Plan, Subarea d1, General Industrial District), which permits commercial growing. The southern portion of the Project site is zoned as ECSP-CG-6 (East Colorado Specific Plan-General Commercial) within the Chihuahuita sub-area. The proposed Project would include an automobile dealership and car wash and would not conflict with the existing zoning. As previously described, there is no land subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
The proposed Project is located in a developed area in an urbanized part of the City. The Project site is not zoned as forestland or timberland and would not result in any changes that would affect zoning for forestland or timberland, or otherwise result in the conversion of forestland or timberland to non-forest land/timberland use. No impacts would occur to forestland or timberland resources and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? As discussed under Issue II(c), above, the proposed Project is located in a developed area in an urbanized part of the City. No impacts would occur to forestland.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed under Issue II(a, c) above, the proposed Project is located in a developed area in an urbanized part of the City. No impacts would occur to farmland or forestland.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 34 ends

III. AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

BACKGROUND
The following analysis is based in part on the information contained in the Air Quality Technical Memorandum prepared by Michael Baker International, dated April 26, 2022. This report, hereinafter referred to as the AQ Memo, is included as Appendix B.1 of this IS/MND.

The Project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB, Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, the SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that state and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. The health effects associated with criteria pollutants upon which attainment of state and federal quality standards is measured are described in Table III-1. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, SCAB is classified as being in attainment or nonattainment, as summarized in Table III-2.

SCAB is designated as nonattainment for the federal and state 1-hour and 8-hour O3 standards, the state PM10 standards, and the federal and state PM2.5 standards, which are provided in Table III-1. The Los Angeles County portion of SCAB is also designated as nonattainment for federal lead standards. Thus, SCAB currently exceeds national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and state ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these pollutants. The SCAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to acceptable standards. This nonattainment status is a result of several factors, primarily the naturally adverse meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants, the limited capacity of the local airshed to eliminate air pollutants, and the number, type, and density of emission sources within SCAB. The SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that includes a strategy for the attainment of state and federal air quality standards (SCAQMD 2016).

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 35 ends

TABLE III-1. STATE AND FEDERAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT STANDARDS Air
Pollutant
Concentration / Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects
California
Standards
Federal Primary
Standards
Ozone (O3) 0.09 ppm / 1-hour

0.07 ppm / 8-hour 0.070 ppm, / 8-hour
(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (e) Vegetation damage; and (f) Property damage.

Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)

20.0 ppm / 1-hour

9.0 ppm / 8-hour

35.0 ppm / 1-hour

9.0 ppm / 8-hour
(a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; and (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses.

Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)

0.18 ppm / 1-hour

0.030 ppm /
annual
100 ppb / 1-hour

0.053 ppm / annual
(a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes; and (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration.

Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)

0.25 ppm / 1-hour

0.04 ppm / 24-hour
75 ppb / 1-hour

0.14 ppm/annual
(a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma.

Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
50 µg/m3
/ 24-hour
20 µg/m3 / annual 150 µg/m3
/ 24-hour (a) Exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory or cardiovascular disease; (b) Declines in pulmonary function growth in children; and (c) Increased risk of premature death from heart or lung diseases in elderly.

Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3
/ 24-hour
12 µg/m3 / annual
Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24-hour No Federal
Standards
(a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; and (f) Property damage.

Lead 1.5 µg/m3 / 30-day 0.15 µg/m3
/3-
month rolling
(a) Learning disabilities; and (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction.

Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Extinction
coefficient of 0.23
per kilometer -
visibility of ten
miles or more due
to particles when
relative humidity is
less than 70
percent.

No Federal
Standards
Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent.

Source: California Air Resources Board. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 36 ends

TABLE III-2. SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Criteria Pollutant Standard Averaging Time Designation Attainment Date 1-Hour O3
NAAQS 1979 1-Hour
(0.12 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 2/6/2023 (revised deadline) CAAQS 1-Hour (0.09 ppm) Nonattainment N/A
8-Hour O3
NAAQS 1997 8-Hour (0.08 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 6/15/2024 NAAQS 2008 8-Hour (0.075 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 7/20/2032 NAAQS 2015 8-Hour (0.070 ppm) Nonattainment (Extreme) 8/3/2038 CAAQS 8-Hour (0.070 ppm) Nonattainment Beyond 2032
CO
NAAQS 1-Hour (35 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 6/11/2007 (attained) CAAQS 1-Hour (20 ppm)
8-Hour (9 ppm) Attainment 6/11/2007 (attained)
NO2
NAAQS 2010 1-Hour (0.10 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment N/A (attained) NAAQS 1971 Annual (0.053 ppm) Attainment (Maintenance) 9/22/1998 (attained) CAAQS 1-Hour (0.18 ppm)
Annual (0.030 ppm) Attainment ---
SO2
NAAQS 1-Hour (75 ppb) Designations Pending (expect
Unclassifiable/ Attainment) N/A (attained)
NAAQS 24-Hour (0.14 ppm)
Annual (0.03 ppm) Unclassifiable/ Attainment 3/19/1979 (attained) PM10
NAAQS 1987 24-hour
(150 µg/m3
) Attainment (Maintenance) 7/26/2013 (attained)
CAAQS 24-hour (50 µg/m3
)
Annual (20 µg/m3) Nonattainment N/A
PM2.5
NAAQS 2006 24-Hour (35 µg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2019 NAAQS 1997 Annual (15.0 µg/m3) Attainment 8/24/2016
NAAQS 2012 Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Nonattainment (Serious) 12/31/2025 CAAQS Annual (12.0 µg/m3) Nonattainment N/A
Lead NAAQS 3-Months Rolling
(0.15 µg/m3) Nonattainment (Partial) 12/31/2015
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S) CAAQS 1-Hour
(0.03 ppm or 42 µg/m3) Attainment ---
Sulfates CAAQS 24-Hour
(25 µg/m3) Attainment ---
Vinyl Chloride CAAQS 24-Hour
(0.01 ppm or 26 µg/m3) Attainment ---
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Criteria Pollutants
The Clean Air Act requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set the NAAQS for six common air pollutants (also known as "criteria air pollutants"). These pollutants are found all over the United States, and can both harm individual health and the environment, and cause property damage (EPA 2016).

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 37 ends

Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of CO.

Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the Earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” O3 layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOX, and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOX are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOX) is a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain.

NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza. The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.

Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (Senate Bill 25).

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 38 ends

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both state and federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the EPA announced new PM2.5 standards.

Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards. On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates SCAB as a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient PM air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current state standards during some parts of the year, and the statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 is often used interchangeably with sulfur oxides (SOX) and lead. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints.

Exceptions to the VOC designation include CO, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOC is not considered a criteria pollutant; however, it is a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. Due to the role VOC plays in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. The SCAQMD uses the terms VOC and ROG (see below) interchangeably.

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOC, ROG are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and NOx react in the presence of sunlight. ROG is not considered a criteria pollutant; however, it is a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. The SCAQMD uses the terms ROG and VOC (see above) interchangeably.

The SCAQMD has developed regional air quality significance thresholds that establish quantitative emission thresholds for both construction and operations to determine if a project would have a significant project-level or cumulative impact on regional ambient air quality. Table III-3 summarizes the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 39 ends

TABLE III-3. SCAQMD REGIONAL AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Air Pollutant1
Mass Daily Emission Threshold (lb/day)
Construction Operation
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Source: SCAQMD 2019
Key: CO = carbon monoxide; lb/day = pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = directly emitted particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns; PM2.5 = directly emitted particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns; SOX = oxides of sulfur; VOC = volatile organic compounds.

Notes:

1. SCAQMD also provides mass daily emission thresholds for lead of 3 lb/day for both construction and operation. However, lead is not a pollutant of concern in this study because the proposed Project would not produce substantial lead emissions.

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans? The City is located within SCAB. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction in SCAB, which has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded.

Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of the air pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.

In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP, which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state and federal air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the EPA.

The 2016 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant cumulative impacts. While SCAG has recently adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), SCAQMD has not released an updated AQMP that utilizes information from the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

SCAQMD released a draft AQMP for public comment in May 2022, which is expected to go through a revision and adoption process involving multiple agencies and the public. As such, this consistency analysis is based on the currently adopted 2016 AQMP and 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 40 ends

Criterion 1:

With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations?
Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of a project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency.

As discussed in the responses to Issues III(b) and (c), below, the Project’s short-term construction emissions, long-term operational emissions, and localized concentrations of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would result in less than significant impacts during Project construction and operations.

Therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. Further, because ROGs are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for ROGs. Due to the role ROGs play in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. It is noted that emission of ROGs as a result of the proposed Project would not exceed the regional emissions threshold; refer to Issue III(b) below. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed below in the responses to Issues III(b) and (c), the proposed Project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds for regional and localized emissions.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
As discussed in the responses to Issues III(b) and (c), the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during Project construction and operation. As such, the proposed Project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2016 AQMP interim emissions reductions.

Criterion 2:

With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether the proposed Project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP. Determining whether a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2016 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion analyzes each of these criteria.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 41 ends

a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
A project is consistent with the 2016 AQMP in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the 2016 AQMP. In the case of the 2016 AQMP, five sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions:
the City’s General Plan, the East Pasadena Specific Plan, the East Colorado Specific Plan, SCAG’s regional growth forecast, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth.

The Project proposes the construction of approximately 65,360 square feet of building area, comprising a two-story automotive dealership and service center, a single-story car wash building, and an EV battery storage building on a 4.4-acre site, which is an FAR of approximately 0.35. The northern portion of the Project site is designated as R&D Flex Space with a maximum FAR of 1.25 and the southern portion is designated as Low Mixed Use with a maximum FAR of 1.0 by the General Plan, with the East Colorado Specific Plan identifying auto dealers as a primary use in the Project site and the East Pasadena Specific Plan identifying commercial use as a primary development. The Project would not differ from the General Plan or Specific Plan designations.

Therefore, the proposed Project is considered consistent with the General Plan, and is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity.

As discussed in the responses to Issue XIV(a), the proposed Project would not substantially induce population growth due to the increase in on-site employees. Therefore, the Project would not cause the City’s General Plan buildout population forecast to be exceeded. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would be consistent with the projections.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? The proposed Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Compliance with all feasible emission reduction rules and measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Issues III(b) and III(c). Specifically, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which requires excessive fugitive dust emissions controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures and Rule 1113, Architectural Coating, which regulates the ROG content of paint. As such, the proposed Project meets this 2016 AQMP consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? As discussed above, the Project is an infill development and would be consistent with the land use envisioned in the General Plan and the two Specific Plans. Furthermore, the Project would not cause SCAG’s population forecast to be exceeded and the population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. Additionally, SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP. Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2016 AQMP are primarily based on the Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 42 ends

2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. As such, the proposed Project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.

In conclusion, the determination of 2016 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in SCAB. The proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet state and federal air quality standards. Also, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2016 AQMP for control of fugitive dust; refer to Issue 3(b).

As discussed above, the proposed Project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the SCAQMD’s and SCAG’s goals and policies and is, therefore, considered consistent with the 2016 AQMP.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment (PM10, PM2.5, and O3 precursors [NOX and VOC]) under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Short-Term Construction
The Project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. The Project would be constructed over approximately 19 months. Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the program defaults of the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared using CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix B.1 for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table III-4, Short-Term Construction Emissions, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.

TABLE III-4. SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction-Related Emissions2
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Related Emissions2
Year 1 5.17 66.24 40.64 0.14 8.78 4.31
Year 2 1.97 16.33 20.32 0.04 2.14 1.06
Year 3 26.00 24.94 35.30 0.07 2.97 1.53
Maximum Daily Emissions 26.00 66.24 40.64 0.14 8.78 4.31 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. Winter emissions represent the worst-case scenario.

2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which requires: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

Source: Refer to Appendix B.1, for detailed model input/output data.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 43 ends

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from demolition, grading, and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon Project completion. It should be noted that most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.

Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants.

PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and SOX combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.

Construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 would greatly reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. It should be noted that these reductions were applied in CalEEMod. As depicted in Table III-4, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, construction-related air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions (e.g., NOx and CO) from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the Project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. As presented in Table III-4, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions would be below the established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts from equipment and vehicle exhaust emission would be less than significant.

ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. As required, all architectural coatings for the proposed Project structure would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulating the ROG content of paint. ROG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant with compliance to Rule 1113; refer to Table III-4.

Total Daily Construction Emissions
In accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines, CalEEMod was utilized to model construction emissions for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. As indicated in Table III-4, criteria pollutant emissions during Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 44 ends

construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction-related air emissions would be less than significant.

Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by state, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.

Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the Project area. Thus, there would be no impact in this regard.

Long-Term (Operational) Emissions
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from Project-related traffic, and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. The total operational emissions are shown in Table III-5, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions, and discussed in more detail below. It should be noted that long-term operational emissions shown in Table III-5 do not account for emissions from existing uses on-site in order to be more conservative.

TABLE III-5. LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL AIR EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)1, 2
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Winter Emissions
Area Source3 2.40 >0.01 0.03 0.00 >0.01 >0.01
Energy Source4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 1.14 1.11 10.01 0.02 2.14 0.58
Total Emissions 3.54 1.11 10.03 0.02 2.14 0.58
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Proposed Project Summer Emissions
Area Source3 2.40 >0.01 0.03 0.00 >0.01 >0.01
Energy Source4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 1.17 1.03 10.04 0.02 2.14 0.58
Total Emissions 3.57 1.03 10.07 0.02 2.14 0.58
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 45 ends

TABLE III-5, CONTINUED
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0.

2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.

3. Area source emissions account for the Project design feature of using all electric landscape equipment.

4. Energy source emissions account for Project design features, including 5 percent more energy efficient than 2019 Title 24 standards and using energy-efficient appliances.

Source: Refer to Appendix B.1 for detailed model input/output data.

Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated from consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. The Project would use all electric landscape equipment as a Project design feature, which has been incorporated in CalEEMod. As shown in Table III-5, area source emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5.

Energy Source Emissions
Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of natural gas associated with the proposed Project. However, according to the Project applicant, there would be no natural gas usage on-site.

Additionally, criteria pollutants emissions from electricity use were not quantified since criteria pollutants emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is off-site. Therefore, onsite energy source emissions would be zero and would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds; refer to Table III-5. As such, there would be no impact in this regard.

Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.

Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5); however, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated vehicle emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Based on the 2915 East Colorado Porsche Transportation Impact Analysis Outside CEQA Evaluation Final Report (Transportation Impact Analysis), prepared by Iteris, Inc. (dated February 1, 2022), the Project would generate a net increase of 1,057 average daily trips (daily trips under proposed dealership use minus daily trips under the existing use). As shown in Table III-5, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the Project would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts from mobile source air emissions would be less than significant.

Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, O3 precursors ROGs and NOx affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to O3 are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating Project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 46 ends

results. In other words, the Project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.

As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD (2014), the SCAQMD acknowledged that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form.

Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (2014; SJVAPCD), SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.

The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from O3, as an example, is correlated with the increases in ambient level of O3 in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes.

SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient O3 levels over the entire region. The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce O3 levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. As such, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. As such, for the purpose of this analysis, since the Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the Project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts as well.

Cumulative Conclusion
With respect to the proposed Project’s air quality emissions and cumulative SCAB basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2016 AQMP pursuant to federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the proposed Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and the adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed Project. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted 2016 AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on development projects throughout SCAB, which would include related projects.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) project-related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary. As discussed previously, the proposed Project would not result in short- or long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction or operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the proposed Project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, the Project’s incremental construction and operational impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts in this regard are less than significant.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 47 ends

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.

Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

The closest sensitive receptor for the purpose of the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis is a hotel (Super 8 by Wyndham), which is located approximately 60 feet west of the Project site. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for onsite construction emissions and certain operations impacts (area sources only). The CO hot spot analysis, following the LST analysis, addresses localized mobile source impacts.

Localized Significance Thresholds
LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD provides the LST screening lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The Project is located in source receptor area (SRA) 8 (West San Gabriel Valley).

Construction
The SCAQMD’s guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day. Based on default information provided by CalEEMod, the Project is anticipated to disturb up to 4.4 acres during the grading phase. The grading phase would take approximately 22 days to complete. As such, the Project would actively disturb an average of approximately 0.2 acre per day (4.4 acres divided by 22 days). Therefore, the LST threshold for 1 acre was conservatively utilized for the construction LST analysis per SCAQMD guidance. The nearest sensitive use is the hotel located approximately 60 feet (18.3 meters) west of the Project site. Therefore, the LSTs for 25 meters were conservatively adopted. Table III-6, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the localized construction-related emissions. It is noted that the localized emissions in Table III-6 are less than those in Table III-4 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (i.e., from construction equipment and fugitive dust). As seen in Table III-6, emissions would not exceed the LST mass rate screening thresholds for Source Receptor Area (SRA) 8 (West San Gabriel Valley). Construction LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 48 ends

TABLE III-6. LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Maximum Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 11,4 25.72 20.59 3.57 2.14
Year 22,4 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.66
Year 33,4 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.58
Maximum Daily Emissions 25.72 20.59 3.57 2.14
Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Screening Criteria 3 69 535 4 3 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

1. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which requires: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

2. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during demolition phase for NOx and CO, and during the grading phase for PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 1.

3. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for all pollutants in Years 2 and 3.

4. The Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Screening Criteria was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Screening Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (one acre), the distance to sensitive receptors (25 meters), and the source receptor area (SRA 8).

Operations
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed Project would involve the construction of an auto dealership and would not introduce a new stationary source or attract mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site, nor would the Project include warehouses or transfer facilities. Thus, no long-term LST analysis is necessary. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, the elderly).

SCAB is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards and an attainment area for state standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased. Nationwide estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions (EPA 2022). CO emissions have continued to decline since this time. The SCAB was redesignated as attainment in 2007 and CO is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions: exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, which is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentrations. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the CO Plan are worst-case intersections in the Basin and would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, CO analysis within the CO Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 49 ends

Plan is utilized in a comparison to the proposed Project, since it represents a worst-case scenario with heavy traffic volumes within SCAB.

Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles County experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 parts per million [ppm]), which is well below the 35-ppm one-hour CO federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily trip (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. As the CO hot spots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hot spots would not be experienced at any intersections within the City near the Project site due to the comparatively low volume of traffic during project operation (1,226 ADT) that would occur as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors.

Construction activities associated with the Project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon Project completion. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The Project would also comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and are less than significant.

Finding of Significance: Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 50 ends

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Project site is fully developed and located in an urbanized area of the City. The Project site is not located within or in close proximity to an open space area or vegetation zone (City of Pasadena 2012). The majority of the City area, including the Project site, is located within the range of Orcutt’s Linanthus (Linanthus orcutti) and Parish’s gooseberry (Ribes divaricatum var. parishii), which are listed respectively by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as CNPS 1B (plants considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere) and CNPS 1A (plants presumed extinct in California) (City of Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 51 ends

Pasadena 2015a). Orcutt’s Linanthus is typically found in gravelly openings in chapparal and is historically recorded from Pasadena, while Parish’s gooseberry is typically found in riparian woodlands and salix swales in riparian habitats. Neither of these species are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act or under the State of California. The Project site currently includes a community garden for students in the northwestern portion of the site; however, as the entire Project site has been graded and fully developed, there is no suitable habitat that could support Orcutt’s Linanthus and Parish’s gooseberry within the Project area.

The Project site currently includes 48 existing trees located both within the Project site interior and along East Colorado Boulevard, North Sunnyslope Avenue, East Walnut Street, and Nina Street. Of these, 24 trees are located within the private property area and are proposed for removal, and consist of sawleaf zelkova (Zelkova serrata), fan palm hybrid (Washington hybrid), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvfolia), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei). None of the onsite trees meet the criteria for protection under the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter

8.52); however, the applicant would be required to obtain a tree permit for the removal. The remaining 25 trees are public street trees located along East Colorado Boulevard, North Sunnyslope Avenue, and East Walnut Street, and include Chinese pistache (Pistacio chinensis), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvfolia), carob (Ceratonia siliqua), Mexican fan palm tree (Washingtonia palm), and paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia). The applicant proposes removal of four of the public street trees: two along East Colorado Boulevard, one along North Sunnyslope Avenue, and one along East Walnut Street. While none of the public street trees proposed for removal are considered mature or landmark, the applicant would be required to obtain the City Manager’s approval in accordance with Chapter 8.52.

Based on the figure titled “Wildlife Species” in Appendix 3 of the Pasadena General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, no known candidate, sensitive, or special-status species exist on or near the site.

Additionally, the Project site and urbanized surrounding area do not provide suitable habitat for sensitive species, and the Project would not directly affect or modify the habitat of any identified sensitive species.

Wildlife at the Project site is limited to species adapted to urban settings with a moderate level of human activity including noise, foot traffic, moderate vehicle traffic, or other anthropogenic disturbances.

Migratory birds that may utilize the trees and other vegetation at the site for nesting are federally protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 et seq. The Project site contains several on-site trees and multiple public street trees along Sunnyslope Avenue, Colorado Boulevard, and Nina Street that may provide nesting opportunities for migratory avian species. During construction, nesting birds could be indirectly impacted by the temporary generation of dust, noise, lighting, and vibration. Construction activities would be required to comply with the MBTA to ensure that nesting bird surveys would be conducted prior to the start of construction activities that may occur during nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Per the MBTA requirements, a qualified biologist would conduct a nest survey within one week prior to the commencement of construction to ensure that no active nests would be lost. If an active nest is located, then the nest should be flagged and construction within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the nest should be postponed until the biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. The Project construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance, as well as federal and state regulations related to the protection of migratory birds, including avoiding the direct destruction of active nests and avoiding Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 52 ends

disturbance of nesting birds due to noise, vibration, lighting, or human activity in proximity to active nests, which would ensure that impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant during tree removal.

Finding of Significance: Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? See Issue IV(a) above. The Project site is developed and located in an urbanized area in the City. Vegetation present on-site includes ornamental landscaping and trees. The Project site is not located within an area that has sensitive biological resources and no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present at the Project site or in the Project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive communities and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The Project site is in an urbanized area and does not include wetland areas and thus does not include state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impacts to wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed Project.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
See Issue IV(a) above. The Project site does not contain any natural areas or water features. The Project site has been previously and is currently developed and located in a highly urbanized area. No native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors are present on-site or in the Project vicinity, nor is the site a wildlife nursery site. No established or potential wildlife movement corridors have been identified within the proposed Project area. It is possible that individual wildlife species could wander onto the site from the regional natural areas, such as Eaton Canyon, approximately 2 miles to the north; however, given the urban setting and lack of vegetation and natural habitat at the site, the occurrence of wildlife on the site is expected to be minimal. The proposed Project would not result in a barrier to wildlife migration or movement. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on wildlife movement and wildlife nursery sites.

As discussed under Issue IV(a) above,trees located at and in vicinity of the Project site may support nesting birds. Compliance with the requirements of local tree trimming and tree removal ordinances, as well as federal and state regulations related to the protection of migratory birds, would ensure that impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially affect the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 53 ends

Finding of Significance: Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City of Pasadena’s Ordinance No. 6896, City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance Nos. 7184 and 7322 and codified in Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 8.52, aims to protect the tree canopy in the City. The Project site includes 24 trees are located within the private property area, which are proposed for removal, and 25 public street trees, of which four are proposed for removal. While none of the public street trees proposed for removal are considered mature or landmark, the applicant would be required to obtain a tree permit from the City for the removal of the trees in the private property area, and the City Manager’s approval to remove the four public street trees to ensure compliance with the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, Chapter 8.52. Adherence to the City’s tree preservation regulations and tree removal permit process would ensure that the Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural communities’ conservation plan, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans or approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans within the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural communities conservation plan, or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 54 ends

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as (1) a resource that is listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historic Resources Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or (3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.

The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would have a significant impact on historical resources if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(1)). The Guidelines (Section 15064.5[b][2]) go on to state that “[t]he significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project… [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources… local register of historic resources… or its identification in a historic resources survey.”
Historic Resources Identification
A historic resources evaluation was prepared for the proposed Project by Michael Baker in March 2022 (Appendix C). The purpose of the report is to determine whether the Project area contains historical resources (as defined by California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1) and, if so, identify potential Project impacts to the resources.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 55 ends

A records search of the California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) was conducted for the proposed Project and surrounding area. The records search included a review of all previous cultural resources studies and previously documented historic architectural resources on and/or within a quarter mile of the Project site. Additional sources researched included historical maps, aerial photography, historical databases and collections, historical contexts/technical publications, books, magazines, and other publications, and genealogy resources.

An intensive level built-environment survey of the project area and the commercial building at 2914 East Walnut Street, 2926 East Walnut Street, and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue was conducted on October 28, 2021. SCCIC records search identified three cultural resources within the Project area, described in Table V-1, and 16 resources were identified within the quarter-mile radius (but outside) of the Project area, as described in Table V-2.

TABLE V-1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT AREA CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Name/Resource No. Address Type OHP Status Code Year Built Evaluation Lamanda Park
Commercial Area (P19-183186)
Between 2415
and 2980 East
Colorado
Boulevard
Multi-property
Resource
7R – Identified in
reconnaissancelevel survey; not
evaluated
Between
1908 and
1956
No previous evaluation.

Does not appear eligible for
historic listing or designation.

Not a historical resource
under CEQA.

Gwinn’s Restaurant
(P-19-183488)
Formerly at 2915
East Colorado
Boulevard, was
surveyed as a
component of the
Lamanda Park
Commercial Area
Former
restaurant
6 – Resource was
ineligible 1947
Designed by Harold Bissner
and constructed in 1947.

Historical aerial photographs
indicate that the building was
demolished between 1992
and 1993. Not a historical
resource under CEQA.

Swanson and
Peterson Furniture
Manufacturing (P-19-
184688)
2914 East Walnut
Street
Furniture
manufacturing
6 – Resource was
ineligible 1930
Surveyed in 1990 and
determined ineligible.

Reevaluated in 1994
associated with the East
Pasadena Specific Plan and
assigned resource status
code 5S3 (not eligible for
separate listing or
designation under the
existing local ordinance, but
could be eligible for special
consideration in local
planning). Reevaluated in
2021-2 as part of this Project
(Appendix C) and concluded
not a historical resource
under CEQA.

Source: Appendix C of this Initial Study.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study

Page 56 ends

TABLE V-2. SUMMARY OF CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Name/Resource No. Address Type OHP Status Code Year Built Historical Resource Distance to Project Site P-19-183162/Pasadena
Motel Grouping East Colorado Blvd District 7R – Identified in reconnaissance-level survey; not evaluated 1945-1970 No Within 1/4-mile radius P-19-183164/
Travelodge 2767 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 7R – Identified in reconnaissance-level survey; not evaluated 1952 No Within 1/4-mile radius P-19-183165/
Swiss Lodge 2800 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 5S1 – Individual property that is listed or designated locally1 1961 Yes 680 feet P-19-183166/
Astro Motel 2818 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 5S1 – Individual property that is listed or designated locally2 1962 Yes 500 feet P-19-183167/
Vagabond Inn 2863 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 7R – Identified in reconnaissance-level survey; not evaluated 1970 No Within 1/4-mile radius P-19-183168/
Ace Motel 2870 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 6L – Determined ineligible for local listing or
designation through local government review
process; may warrant special consideration
in local planning
1946 No. Within 1/4-mile radius
P-19-183192/ Third
Church of Christ Scientist
2801-2803 East Colorado
Blvd Building 5S2 – Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation 1935 Yes 300 feet P-19-183489/
Serendipity 2966 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 5S1 – Individual property that is listed or designated locally3 1927 Yes 300 feet P-19-183490/
Serendipity 2970 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 7R – Identified in reconnaissance-level survey; not evaluated 1927 No Within 1/4-mile radius P-19-183491/
Serendipity 2980 East Colorado Blvd Building; element of district 7R – Identified in reconnaissance-level survey; not evaluated 1888-1928 Yes 400 feet P-19-183492/
Serendipity
2966-80 East Colorado
Blvd (rear building)
Building; element
of district
7R – Identified in reconnaissance-level
survey; not evaluated 1900 No Within 1/4-mile radius
P-19-184687/
Glo-Quartz Mfg. 2714 East Walnut Street Building 7R – Identified in reconnaissance-level survey; not evaluated 1945 No Within 1/4-mile radius P-19-189228/
Suzuki Dealership 2900 East Colorado Blvd Building
6L – Determined ineligible for local listing or
designation through local government review
process; may warrant special consideration
in local planning
1976 No Within 1/4-mile radius
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study TABLE V-2, CONTINUED

Page 57 ends

Name/Resource No. Address Type OHP Status Code Year Built Historical Resource Distance to Project Site P-19-189236/
Street Lights East Colorado Blvd Object
6L – Determined ineligible for local listing or
designation through local government review
process; may warrant special consideration
in local planning
1928-1950 No Within 1/4-mile radius
P-19-190502/ SCE MesaAnita-Eaton 66kV
Transmission Line
N/A Object
6Y - Determined ineligible for NR by
consensus through Section 106 process; not
evaluated for CR or local listing
1951 No Within 1/4-mile radius
P-19-192479/ Naval
Ordinance Test Station;
Pasadena, Foothill Plant
3202 East Foothill Blvd Building; structure
6Y - Determined ineligible for NR by
consensus through Section 106 process; not
evaluated for CR or local listing
1973 No Within 1/4-mile radius

1. Resource listed in the BERD with OHP Status Code 5S1; City of Pasadena records indicate that the OHP Status Code should be 5S2.

2. Resource listed in the BERD with OHP Status Code 5S1; City of Pasadena records indicate that the OHP Status Code should be 5S2.

3. Resource listed in the BERD with OHP Status Code 5S1; resource is not individually designated at the local level per City of Pasadena’s records.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 58 ends

Project Site
The Project area is bound by East Walnut Street to the north, East Colorado Boulevard to the south, and North Sunnyslope Drive to the west, and is bisected by Nina Street. It is mapped within the Mount Wilson, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Township 1 North, Range 12 West, part of Rancho Santa Anita, San Bernardino Base Meridian) (Appendix C). The Project area encompasses the extent of ground-disturbing project activities associated with the demolition of the extant buildings, site preparation, and construction of the new dealership center. The existing buildings consist of buildings north of Nina Street and structures located south of Nina Street. The buildings north of Nina Street were evaluated for eligibility in the California Register (based upon the National Register of Historic Places) and for listing as a Pasadena landmark, as detailed below and in Appendix C. South of Nina Street, the Project area is occupied by a commercial building and surface parking currently in use by the automotive dealership to the east of the Project area.

Potential Direct Impacts
The Project area north of Nina Street is currently occupied by a former furniture manufacturing building known as the Swanson and Peterson Furniture Manufacturing building, with a main block and two additions (2914 East Walnut Street, 2926 East Walnut Street, and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue), as well as a garage structure, surface parking, and vacant lots. 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. Fenestration consists of original multi-pane, steel-sash windows spanning the width of each bay.

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. 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. The southwest corner of the original building includes a garage entry with a roll-up metal door. 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. 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. A detached garage building built in 1997—2929 Nina Street—is located directly east of this addition.

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. Therefore, the property is recommended not eligible for listing under California Register Criterion 1 or Pasadena Landmark Criterion A.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 59 ends

California Register Criterion 2/Pasadena Landmark Criterion B – 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. 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 1929-built 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 codesigned 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 in the Pasadena Post, no information was uncovered during research that would suggest that Manfred Magnusson, the contractor on the project, was a master builder among his contemporaries in Pasadena. The later buildings located at 2926 East Walnut Street and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue, added in 1973 and 1979, respectively, are not individually exceptional for their design or method of construction. As such, the subject property is recommended not eligible under California Register Criterion 3 or Pasadena Landmark Criterion C.

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.

Lacking significance under any of the above listed criteria, the subject property is recommended not eligible for listing in the California Register nor as a City of Pasadena landmark. Therefore, it is not a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a). As a result, the Project would result in no potentially significant impacts.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 60 ends

Potential Indirect Impacts
Of the 16 resources identified in the information search in the Project vicinity (within 0.25 miles of the Project site), four were previously evaluated and found to be eligible for local historic listing or designation and one has potential eligibility for local historic listing or designation. The five sites are between 300 to 680 feet from the Project site and are along Colorado Boulevard, with the nearest being on the south side of Colorado and east of the Project site. The proposed Project would include construction of an auto dealership on property currently occupied by the adjacent auto dealership as a car lot along Colorado Boulevard (southern extent of Project site), and commercial buildings and garage structure along East Walnut Street (northern extent of Project site). The existing developments and uses do not have any historical relationship to the identified resources in the Project vicinity, which consist of a lodge and motel, a church, and two commercial structures. For the Project activities to be considered a substantial adverse change, it must be shown that the integrity and/or significance of the historic resources would be materially impaired by the proposed Project. The significance of a historical resource can be materially impaired when the changes to its surroundings involve the removal or obscuring of setting features critical to understanding the significance of a historical resource or substantially impair or obscure the ability of the resource to convey its historical significance such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the National or California Registers or by the City of Pasadena. Historical resources located outside of, but immediately adjacent to, a project site have the potential to be adversely impacted because they border the affected area. In the case of the proposed Project, however, the resources are physically separated from the Project site by other buildings, streets, such as Colorado Boulevard, and distance. Once constructed, the Project will not be in close proximity to or involve elements that would remove or obscure features of the historic resources. As a result, potential indirect impacts from the Project would be less than significant.

Potential Construction Impacts
The proposed Project would demolish the existing buildings and structures on the Project site. None of these buildings or structures have any historical relationship to any of the identified historical resources in the Project vicinity.

The proposed Project does not include the demolition, relocation, rehabilitation, alteration, or conversion of any historical resources outside of the Project site in the vicinity of the Project site. The integrity of feeling and association pertaining to historic resources in the Project vicinity would also remain unaffected because all of the existing physical elements that convey the significance of each historical resource would be unchanged. All of the historical resources would continue to reflect their building type, architectural style, period of development, and historic association with an important event or person, as applicable.

Construction activities have the potential to generate vibrations that could impact nearby historic resources; however, as discussed under Issue XIII, Noise, as the historic resources are 300 feet or greater from the Project site, the proposed Project would not be anticipated to cause damage from construction equipment vibration. Therefore, potential indirect impacts due to construction vibration on surrounding historical resources would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 61 ends

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA §15064.5?
Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines generally defines archaeological resources as any resource that “has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.” The Project is located within a highly developed commercial and industrial area. Previous ground disturbances include historical and modern construction. The project area is mapped as Urban Land of varying complexes (NRCS 2022). Urban Land is heavily modified through the creation of fills, soil import, and construction, and is typical of low sensitivity for significant prehistoric resources. According to the SCCIC records search, no prehistoric archaeological resources were identified within or in the vicinity of the project area. As a consequence of these factors, the prehistoric site sensitivity is low.

Many of the same factors in prehistoric site sensitivity factor in historic archaeology site sensitivity. The high degree of disturbance associated with construction, demolition, and rebuilding in the Project area would likely have impacted the archaeological integrity of any historic period feature like a privy or midden. Furthermore, the association of historic archaeological features would likely be geographically closest to the built environment resource which has been evaluated and found not to be significant.

Therefore, the potential to find significant historic archaeological resources is low. The proposed Project would require excavation to construct the building foundations, and, while unlikely, there is the potential that construction of the Project could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. In the unlikely event that archaeological resources are discovered during construction, Mitigation Measure 4-1 from the City of Pasadena General Plan EIR, as reiterated below, would apply as implemented by the General Plan’s Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP). As required by Mitigation Measure 4- 1 of the City’s General Plan EIR, in the event that an unanticipated discovery is encountered, the find must be assessed by a professionally qualified archaeologist to determine if the find may be significant. If determined to be of significance, the materials would be recovered, evaluated, documented, and reposited with a reputable research institution or museum, consistent with General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1 and the corresponding MMRP. With the implementation of General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4-1, the proposed project would not significantly impact archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure
If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, Mitigation Measure 4-1 from the City’s General Plan EIR would apply as follows:

General Plan Mitigation Measure 4-1 (MM CULT-1). If cultural resources are discovered during construction of land development projects in Pasadena that may be eligible for listing in the California Register for Historical Resources, all ground-disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until the find is evaluated by a Registered Professional Archaeologist. If testing determines that significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; and provide a comprehensive final report including site record to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University Fullerton. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until Planning Department approves the report.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 62 ends

Applicable state and federal laws include California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5- 7055, and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.

Finding of Significance: With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CULT-1, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The Project site is a developed area in an urbanized environment and has been previously graded and disturbed. There are no known cemeteries or burial sites nearby, or other known known archaeological sites, as identified above in Issue V(b). Therefore, no human remains are expected to be present. The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal or burial of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed Project. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during Project construction, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires construction to halt until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner would have 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission.

The commission would identify the person(s) thought to be the most likely descendent, who would then help determine the appropriate course of action. Compliance with these regulations would ensure the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts due to disturbing human remains. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

VI. ENERGY

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
State of California
Senate Bill 100. Senate Bill (SB) 100 (Chapter 312, Statutes of 2018) requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? 
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 63 ends

2027; 60 percent by December 31, 2030; and 100 percent by December 31, 2045. SB 100 requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Energy Commission (CEC), and all other state agencies incorporate this policy into all relevant planning. In addition, SB 100 requires the CPUC, CEC, and State board to utilize programs authorized under existing statutes to achieve such renewable energy goals.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), commonly referred to as “Title 24,” became effective on January 1, 2020. In general, Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Under 2019 Title 24 standards, residential buildings will use about 53 percent less energy (mainly due to solar photovoltaic panels and lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards, and nonresidential buildings use about 30 percent less energy (mainly due to lighting upgrades) when compared to those constructed under 2016 Title 24 standards (California Energy Commission 2018).

The standards require installation of energy-efficient windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

California Green Building Standards. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), commonly referred to as CALGreen, is the first-in-the-nation mandatory green buildings standards code. The California Building Standards Commission developed the green building standards in an effort to meet the goals of California’s landmark initiative Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to 1990 levels by 2020. CALGreen was developed to (1) reduce GHGs from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the environmental directives of the administration. CALGreen went into effect on January 1, 2020. CALGreen requires that new buildings employ water efficiency and conservation, increase building system efficiencies (e.g., lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC], and plumbing fixtures), divert construction waste from landfills, and incorporate electric vehicles charging infrastructure. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials (US Green Building Council 2022).

California Public Utilities Commission Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. The CPUC prepared an Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) in September 2008 with the goal of promoting energy efficiency and GHG reductions. In January 2011, a lighting chapter was adopted and added to the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is California’s single roadmap to achieving maximum energy savings in the state from 2009 to 2020 and beyond. The Strategic Plan contains the practical strategies and actions to attain significant statewide energy savings, as a result of a year-long collaboration by energy experts, utilities, businesses, consumer groups, and governmental organizations in California, throughout the West, nationally and internationally. The plan includes the following four strategies:

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 64 ends

1. All new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020;

2. All new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030;

3. HVAC will be transformed to ensure that its energy performance is optimal for California’s climate; and

4. All eligible low-income customers will be given the opportunity to participate in the low-income energy efficiency program by 2020.

California Energy Commission Integrated Energy Policy Report. In 2002, the California State legislature adopted SB 1389, which requires the CEC to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. SB 1389 requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices, and use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state's economy, and protect public health and safety.

The CEC adopted the 2021 IEPR, Volume I, Volume II, and Volume IV on February 1, 2022, and Volume III on February 24, 2022 (California Energy Commission 2021b). The 2021 IEPR provides information and policy recommendations on advancing a clean, reliable, and affordable energy system for all Californian (California Energy Commission 2021a). Volume I of the 2021 IEPR addresses actions needed to reduce the GHG emissions related to the buildings in which California live and work, with an emphasis on energy efficiency; Volume II examines actions needed to increase the reliability and resiliency of California’s energy system; Volume III looks at the evolving role of gas in California’s energy system; and Volume IV reports on California’s energy demand outlook, including a forecast to 2035 and long-term energy demand scenarios of 2050. The 2021 IEPR builds on the goals and work in response to AB 758 (Energy: energy audit), SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act), AB 3232 (Zero-emissions buildings and sources of heat energy), and the 2019 IEPR to further a comprehensive approach toward decarbonizing buildings in a cost-effective and equitable manner. For the 2021 IEPR, the CEC extends the forecast time frame to 15 years to coincide with several state goals that are planned for 2035 and improves methodologies to better quantify and predict the likelihood, severity, and duration of future extreme heat events.

Executive Order N-79-20. Executive Order N-79-20, issued September 23, 2020, directs the state to require all new cars and passenger trucks sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Executive Order N-79-20 further states that all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold in the state will be zero-emission by 2045.

City of Pasadena
Climate Action Plan
The City adopted the Pasadena Climate Action Plan (CAP) in March 2018, which aims to reduce community-wide GHG emissions and combat climate change. It is the latest initiative in the City’s ongoing commitment to confronting the issue of climate change. The CAP analyzed the community-wide GHG emissions at a programmatic level; outlined strategies to reduce Pasadena’s emissions consistent with AB 32, SB 32, and EP S-3-05; demonstrated Pasadena’s commitment to achieving the statewide GHG emissions reduction targets; and served as a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan consistent with CEQA Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 65 ends

Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1). There are five strategies in the CAP: Energy Conservation and Efficiency, Sustainable Mobility and Land Use, Water Conservation, Waste Reduction, and Urban Greening.

METHODOLOGY
The energy impact analysis focuses on the two sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed Project:
electricity and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with Project operations as well as the fuel necessary for Project construction. The Project does not include connection to natural gas services, meaning that there would be no natural gas consumption during construction and operation of the Project. The analysis of electricity usage is based on CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 modeling, which quantifies energy use for occupancy. The Project’s estimated electricity is based primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for Los Angeles County, and consumption factors provided by Pasadena Water and Power (PWP), the electricity provider for the Project site. The results of the CalEEMod modeling are included in Appendix B.1, Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy Calculations. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using the CARB Emissions Factor 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program, which provides projections for typical daily fuel (i.e., diesel and gasoline) usage in the County, and the Project’s trip generation from the 2915 East Colorado Porsche Transportation Impact Analysis Outside CEQA Evaluation Final Report (Transportation Impact Analysis), prepared by Iteris Incorporation (dated February 1, 2022); refer to Appendix F, Traffic Impact Assessment. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the Project’s construction equipment list timing/phasing, and hours of duration for construction equipment, as well as vendor, hauling, and construction worker trips. The results of the modeling and construction fuel estimates are included in Appendix B.1.

CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists in determining whether a project will result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. The analysis under Issue VI(a) relies upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes the following criteria to determine whether this threshold of significance is met:
 Criterion 1: The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal.

If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials maybe discussed.  Criterion 2: The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
 Criterion 3: The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
 Criterion 4: The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.  Criterion 5: The effects of the project on energy resources.  Criterion 6: The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

Quantification of the project’s energy usage is presented and addresses Criterion 1. The discussion on construction-related energy use focuses on Criterion 2, 4, and 5. The discussion on operational energy use is divided into transportation energy demand and building energy demand. The transportation energy Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 66 ends

demand analysis discusses Criterion 2, 4, and 6, and the building energy demand analysis discusses Criterion 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Discussion:
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The Project’s estimated energy consumption is summarized in Table VI-1, Project and Countywide Energy Consumption. As noted above, the Project would not include natural gas consumption. As shown in Table VI-1, the Project’s electricity usage would constitute an approximate 0.0022 percent increase over the County’s typical annual electricity consumption. The Project’s construction and operational fuel consumption would increase the County’s consumption by 0.0176 percent and 0.0015 percent, respectively (Criterion 1).

TABLE VI-1. PROJECT AND COUNTYWIDE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Energy Type
Project Annual
Energy Consumption a
Los Angeles County Annual
Energy Consumption b
Percentage
Increase Countywide b
Electricity Consumption 1,450 MWh 65,649,878 MWh 0.0022% Fuel Consumption
Construction (Heavy-Duty
Diesel Vehicle) Fuel
Consumption c
68,513 gallons 390,111,209 gallons 0.0176%
Operational Automotive Fuel
Consumption c
56,570 gallons 3,742,125,048 gallons 0.0015%
Key: MWh= Megawatt Hour
Notes:
a. As modeled in CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.
b. The Project’s electricity consumption during operation is compared to the total consumption in Los Angeles County in 2020. The Project’s construction and operational fuel consumption are compared with the projected Countywide heavy-duty vehicle/diesel fuel consumption in 2022 (when construction starts) and on-road automotive fuel consumption in 2025 (operational year).

Los Angeles County electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission 2022.

EMFAC2017 Model data source: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/, accessed April 26, 2022. c. Project fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results. Countywide fuel consumption is from the California Air Resources Board EMFAC2017 model.

Construction-Related Energy Consumption
During construction, the Project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during demolition, grading, building construction, and architectural coating. As indicated in Table VI-1, the overall fuel consumption during Project construction would be 68,513 gallons, which would result in a nominal increase (0.0176 percent) in fuel use in the County. As such, Project construction would have a minimal effect on the local and regional energy supplies and would not require additional capacity (Criterion 2).

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 67 ends

Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with state requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off (i.e., Title 13, California Code of Regulations Section 2485). Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. In addition, because the cost of fuel and transportation is a significant aspect of construction budgets, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction (Criterion 4).

Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting building materials composed of recycled materials that require substantially less energy to produce than nonrecycled materials (CalRecycle 2022). It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment, or building materials, or methods that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, fuel energy and construction materials consumed during construction would not represent a significant demand on energy resources (Criterion 5) and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Operational Energy Consumption
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Based on the Transportation Impact Analysis, the Project would generate 1,226 trips per day, including 57 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 86 trips during the p.m. peak hour. As indicated in Table VI-1, Project operations are estimated to increase approximately 56,570 gallons of fuel consumption per year, which would increase countywide automotive fuel consumption by 0.0015 percent. The Project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption (Criterion 2).

The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the Project. However, the Project would include on-site electric vehicle charging stations, vanpool/carpool parking spaces, and bicycle parking spaces in compliance with the CALGreen Code. These Project design features would encourage and support the use of electric vehicles and alternative transportation modes by residents, workers, and visitors of the Project and thus reduce petroleum fuel consumption (Criterion 4 and Criterion 6).

Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 68 ends

Building Energy Demand
The CEC developed 2020 to 2035 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2021 IEPR for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the state based on the economic and demographic growth projections (California Energy Commission 2021c). The CEC forecasts that the statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2021 and 2030 would be 1.3 percent to 2.3 percent for electricity and less than 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent increase for natural gas (California Energy Commission 2021c). As shown in Table VI-1, operational energy consumption of the Project would represent approximately 0.0022 percent increase in electricity over the current countywide usage, which would be significantly below the CEC’s forecasts and the current countywide usage.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies (Criterion 2). Additionally, the Project would consume energy during the same time periods as other commercial developments. As a result, the Project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (Criterion 3).

The proposed Project would be required to comply with 2019 Title 24, which provides minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the 2019 Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage (53 percent for residential uses and 30 percent for nonresidential uses compared to structures constructed under the 2016 standards). The Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become more stringent with each update. As such, complying with the latest 2019 Title 24 standards would make the proposed Project more energy efficient than existing buildings built under the earlier versions of the Title 24 standards. Furthermore, the Project would exceed 2019 Title 24 standards by 10 percent. Additionally, the Project would install high-efficient lighting, energy-efficient appliances, all electric landscape equipment, low-flow water fixtures, and water-efficient irrigation (Criterion 4).

The electricity provider, PWP, is subject to California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) reflected in SB 100. The RPS requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by the end of 2020, 44 percent by the end of 2024, 52 percent by the end of 2027, and 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. The Project would install rooftop solar panels and generate renewable energy on-site. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that the Project would not result in the waste of the finite energy resources (Criterion 5).

The Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during Project operation, or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. A less than significant impact would occur.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 69 ends

b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
As described above, the City adopted its CAP on March 5, 2018. The CAP includes five strategies: Energy Conservation and Efficiency, Sustainable Mobility and Land Use, Water Conservation, Waste Reduction, and Urban Greening. The Project proposes to incorporate several energy efficiency design features that are consistent with the CAP efficiency measures. Table VI-2, Climate Action Plan Consistency, discusses the Project’s consistency with the applicable CAP measures.

TABLE VI-2. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
CAP Measure Project Consistency
Measure E-1: Building performance
standards for new construction.
 E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency
requirements of new buildings to
perform better than 2016 Title 24
Standards.
 E-1.2: Encourage the use of energy
conservation devices and passive
design concepts that make uses of the
natural climate to increase energy
efficiency.

Consistent. The Project would comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards and CALGreen and would use water-efficiency irrigation systems and include lowflow fixtures, water-efficiency irrigation, and all electric landscape equipment.

Furthermore, the Project would exceed 2019 Title 24 standards by 10 percent.

Additionally, the Project would not consume natural gas and would install highefficiency lighting. As such, the Project would be consistent with the CAP measure.

Measure E-4: Residential and Commercial
Carbon-Neutral Energy.
 E-4.1: Increase city-wide use of
carbon-neutral energy by
encouraging and/or supporting
carbon-neutral technologies.

Consistent. Per the 2019 Title 24 standards, the Project would install energyefficient appliances and lighting throughout the Project site. Additionally, the Project would receive its electricity from PWP, which is required to comply with the RPS procurement goal of 50 percent renewable energy in 2030.

Furthermore, the Project would install rooftop solar panels and generate renewable energy on-site. As such, the Project would be consistent with the CAP measure.

Source: City of Pasadena 2018.

As noted above, the proposed Project would adhere to 2019 Title 24 standards, which includes the CALGreen code, and would implement several project designs features consistent with the CAP.

Therefore, the proposed Project would help implement the CAP and would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to energy efficiency. A less than significant impact would occur.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 70 ends

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the state geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 71 ends

The Project site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California; anywhere in Southern California there is a potential for fault rupture hazard due to an earthquake from local and regional faults.

The potential impact of fault rupture hazard is considered to be greater on and near earthquake faults.

The Alquist-Priolo Act and the City of Pasadena Fault Hazard Management Zone are intended to identify areas with higher potential for fault rupture hazard and mitigate this hazard by restricting new development for human occupancy on or near known earthquake faults. The Project site is not situated within an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Department of Conservation 2021) nor a City of Pasadena Fault Hazard Management Zone (City of Pasadena 2002). A fault that is considered to be seismically active is one that has ruptured in the last approximate 11,700 years (Holocene). There are no known Holocene-active faults mapped across the Project site or trending directly toward the Project site. The closest significant fault to the Project site is the Raymond fault, oriented west to east northeast, located approximately 1.0 mile south. The Eagle Rock fault, Sierra Madre fault zones (B and C), and Elysian Park fault are located between 2 and 6 miles from the Project site. The Raymond fault zone, located along the City’s southernmost boundary, is identified on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The City’s Safety Element in the General Plan also identifies the Eagle Rock Hazard Management Zone and the Sierra Madre Fault Hazard Management Zone as additional zones of potential fault rupture (City of Pasadena 2002).

Despite being located in a strongly seismically active region, the Project site is not located on or in close proximity to an active fault and, as stated, is not located within an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Pasadena Fault Hazard Management Zone. Therefore, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault line would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
As discussed in Issue VII(a)(i), the Project site is located within a seismically active area of Southern California and there is a high potential for the Project site to experience strong seismic ground shaking or earthquakes from local and regional faults. However, the Project site is not located on or in close proximity to an active fault and is neither located within an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone nor a Pasadena Fault Hazard Management Zone. Further, the risk of earthquake damage from strong seismic ground shaking would be minimized because new structures would be built according to the current building codes that prescribe seismic safety requirements to address seismic ground motion, such as the International Building Code, California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Zone 4 requirements (design requirements based on the highest seismic risk category), and other applicable codes. Compliance with up-to-date building code requirements would reduce the risk of building collapse and major injuries during a seismic event to the extent feasible. Additionally, structures and practices would be inspected during construction, which would help ensure compliance with these engineering and safety standards.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 72 ends

(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction involves sudden loss in strength of a saturated, cohesionless soil caused by the build-up of pore water pressure during cyclic loading, such as that produced by an earthquake. This increase in pore water pressure can temporarily transform the soil into a fluid mass, resulting in differential settlements and ground deformations. Typically, liquefaction occurs in areas where there are loose soils and the depth to groundwater is less than 50 feet from the surface. Seismic shaking can also cause ground settlement without liquefaction occurring, including settlement of dry sands above the water table. According to the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (a California Department of Conservation online map that identifies mapped earthquake hazard zones in California referred to as EQ Zapp), the Project site is not located within an Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction (California Department of Conservation 2021). Moreover, the Pasadena General Plan Safety Element Technical Background Report indicates that the Project site is not located within an area of previous or potential liquefaction (City of Pasadena 2002: Plate 1-3). Further, the background report identifies the subsurface soils underlying the Project site to consist predominantly of stiff soil, which is not susceptible to liquefaction or significant seismic settlements (City of Pasadena 2002: Plate 1-6). Open slopes and waterways can often lead to lateral spreading, which is a significant contributing factor to ground failure; however, there are no open slopes or waterways near the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
(iv) Landslides?
The proposed Project site and its surrounding areas are generally flat and highly urbanized. There are no mapped landslide zones on the Project site, nor is the site within an Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation for landslides (California Department of Conservation 2021). The proposed Project is not within an area that is subject to landslides and, therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, from landslides.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion has the greatest potential to occur in areas adjacent to slopes/small gradients where disturbed or loosely packed topsoil is exposed to surface water or wind. The Project site is currently covered with structures, paving, and landscaping with limited exposed soil. However, during construction, soils would be temporarily exposed. Existing regulations and best management practices (BMPs) for construction processes would be used to ensure that wind or water erosion is minimized to the extent feasible during construction. Construction of the proposed Project would be subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit (Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), which requires construction projects with coverage under the permit to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). One of the permit requirements relative to construction is that the SWPPP be designed to address pollutants, including sources of sediment and site erosion. The SWPPP would identify BMPs, such as watering during active grading and covering soil Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 73 ends

stockpiles on-site or in haul trucks (City of Pasadena 2018), which would prevent substantial soil erosion.

Similarly, soil erosion from surface water would be minimized during construction by BMPs that would require covering excavated soil during rain and installing temporary berms to prevent flooding. Soil that would be displaced through cut and fill would be handled through compliance with standards for grading and excavation in the CBC.

At completion, the proposed Project would be built out with structures, landscaping, and paved surfaces, with only minimal landscaping area where soil may be exposed and susceptible to surface water and wind.

Soil erosion during Project operations would be controlled by implementation of an approved landscape and irrigation plan that would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed Project.

With compliance with existing local and state requirements pertaining to construction activities and landscaping, the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction and operation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Is the project located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The Project site is located in the San Gabriel Valley. The sedimentation of the alluvial valley beneath the Project site is extremely thick, due to the proximity of the San Gabriel Mountains and Verdugo Mountains, and the valley is considered relatively flat and stable. Therefore, the Project site is not considered to be located on a geologic unit that is unstable. The proposed Project consists predominantly of PalmviewTujunga complex soils (USDA Custom Soil Resource Report 2022). This type of soil is not susceptible to liquefaction, significant seismic settlements, or collapse due to soil bridging and/or hydro collapse.

Additionally, the soil is not anticipated to be significantly affected by moisture either through shrinking or swelling. Best engineering practices, proper design, and compliance with the current CBC would reduce any adverse effects caused by unstable geologic units or soils (City of Pasadena 2018). Therefore, the proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The impact would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Is the project located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? As discussed in Issue VII(a, b, c), the Project site is located in the San Gabriel Valley. The soils consist predominantly of sandy loam, which is in the low range for expansion potential. The soils on-site are not expected to have potential shrink and swell with changes in moisture content. Should expansive soils be encountered, best engineering practices, proper design, and compliance with existing CBC and sitespecific geotechnical requirements would reduce any adverse effects associated with expansive soil. The proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil that would create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 74 ends

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
e) Would the project have soils that are incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed Project would connect to the City sewer system for wastewater disposal and no use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. No impact would occur.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Project site is currently developed with commercial buildings, a garage structure, surface parking, a vacant lot, and a portion of Nina Street, which is to be vacated. There is no significant natural landscape remaining at or in the vicinity of the proposed Project, and the potential hazard of destroying a unique geological feature is minimal.

The Project site is not known or expected to contain paleontological resources. As shown on Pasadena General Plan EIR Figure 5.4-2, Paleontological Sensitivity, the Project site is within an area of “No Sensitivity” for paleontological resources (City of Pasadena 2015a).

Plate 2-1 of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan (City of Pasadena 2002) identifies the geologic unit underlying the project area as being Holocene to late Pleistocene young alluvial fan. The General Plan EIR (City of Pasadena 2015a) identifies that younger Quaternary deposits (such as those underlying the Project area) generally are too young to contain fossils and, as such, the paleontological sensitivity in these areas of the City is considered low. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project is not expected to encounter unique paleontological resources and the proposed Project would not have a significant impact.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 75 ends

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
and
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
The City adopted the Pasadena CAP in March 2018, which aims to reduce community-wide GHG emissions and combat climate change. It is the latest initiative in the City’s ongoing commitment to confronting the issue of climate change. The CAP is a long-range qualified GHG reduction plan that provides a strategy to reduce GHG emissions from community-wide activities and municipal operations in the City to support California’s efforts under EO S-3-05, AB 32, and SB 32. The CAP builds on the goals and policies of the City of Pasadena General Plan Update and complements the state’s objectives to address climate change.

Specifically, the CAP identifies climate action measures and implementation actions to reduce GHG emissions to achieve the following reduction goals:
 27% below 2009 levels by 2020 (equivalent to 14% below 1990 levels, exceeding AB 32 target);  49% below 2009 levels by 2030 (equivalent to 40% below 1990 levels, consistent with SB 32);  59% below 2009 levels by 2035 (equivalent to 52% below 1990 levels); and  83% below 2009 levels by 2050 (equivalent to 80% below 1990 levels, consistent with EO S-3-05).

The strategy for achieving the goals outlined in the CAP builds on the City’s overall success to date, proposing to strengthen existing programs that have contributed to this success, and integrating new efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The CAP identifies 5 climate strategies, 27 measures, and 142 actions to reduce the City’s GHG emissions. Collectively, they have the potential to reduce emissions and contribute to the statewide efforts to combat climate change. The climate strategy is summarized below:
 Energy Conservation and Efficiency – reduce energy demand, utilize energy more efficiently, and switch to carbon neutral sources
Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 76 ends

 Sustainable Mobility and Land Use – improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, enhance carpool and public transportation services, and expand the use of electric vehicles and related infrastructure
 Water Conservation – increase access to and use of recycled water and improve storm water infiltration
 Waste Reduction – promote reuse, recycling, and composting  Urban Greening – maintain a healthy and expand existing urban forest In accordance with the CAP, the City also developed a CAP Consistency Checklist as a tool for new development projects to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. To demonstrate consistency with the CAP, a project needs to be consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element land use designation, and fulfill one of the options below:
 Option A: Sustainable Development Actions – Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the Pasadena CAP by incorporating applicable actions intended to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to the City’s cumulative GHG reduction goals;  Option B: GHG Efficiency – Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with Pasadena’s per person GHG efficiency thresholds; or
 Option C: Net Zero GHG Emissions – Demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions.

For the purpose of this analysis, consistency with Option A: Sustainable Development Actions would be utilized to demonstrate project consistency with the City’s CAP; refer to Appendix B.2, Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist. To demonstrate consistency with CAP Consistency Checklist Option A: Sustainable Development Actions, a proposed project must incorporate applicable Sustainable Development Actions to the satisfaction of the applicable City departments. Incorporating these actions would ensure that the project would reduce its fair share of GHG emissions and support the achievement of the City’s overall GHG emissions reduction goals. Table VIII-1, Consistency with Climate Action Plan Sustainable Development Actions, evaluates applicable actions to determine how the proposed Project would be consistent with or exceed the actions outlined in the CAP. As shown, the Project would be consistent with all six Mandatory Actions, one Energy Efficiency and Conservation action, three Sustainable Mobility and Land Use actions, and one Urban Greening action. This would result in 11 actions being implemented as part of the Project, which would be consistent with the requirement of at least 11 actions incorporated.

Page 77 ends

TABLE VIII-1. CONSISTENCY WITH CLIMATE ACTION PLAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP) Sustainable Development Actions Project Consistency Analysis Mandatory Actions T-1.2: Continue to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety
Bicycle Storage: Does the project provide bicycle storage lockers, racks, or other bicycle storage facilities for residents/employees? Consistent. The Project would provide bicycle parking spaces on-site for employees and visitors.

T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles
traveled by single occupancy vehicles
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Does the project include a TDM plan? A TDM plan is required for the following projects: multifamily residential development that are 100 or more units; mixed-use developments with 50 or more residential units or 50,000 square feet or more of nonresidential development; or non-residential projects which exceed 75,000 square feet.

Consistent. The Project would include more than 75,000 square feet of non-residential development and therefore is subject to this action. A TDM is required prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, after the construction of the Project per the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this action.

T-4.1: Expand the availability and use of
alternative fuel vehicles and fueling infrastructure
Alternative Vehicle Fueling Wiring: For projects with more than three parking spaces, does the project provide wiring for at least one 240V Type II electric car charger? Consistent. The Project would provide at a minimum ten electric vehicle charging stations on-site, including Type II chargers.

E-1.2: Encourage the use of energy
conservation devices and passive design concepts that make use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency Passive Design Features: Does the project utilize passive design techniques such as awnings or overhangs on the east, west, and south facing windows which block the high summer sun but allow in lower winter sun? Consistent. The Project would utilize passive design techniques that make use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency.

Specifically, the glazing at exterior storefront would utilize tempered, insulated Low-E clear glass; a cool roofing system (e.g., Carlisle syntec system) would be used; adhesives, sealants, and caulks used during Project construction and operation would comply with SCAQMD requirements; architectural paints and coatings would comply with VOC limits in Table 1 of the CARB Architectural coatings suggested control measure as well as SCAQMD Rule 1113; all carpet would be compliant with the VOC emission limits and testing requirements; composite wood products used would meet the requirements for formaldehyde as specified in CARB's air toxics control measure for composite wood; lastly, Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 8 (air) Filters would be installed for the structures and recommendations for maintenance with filters of the same value would be included in the operation and maintenance manual.

WC-1.1: Reduce potable water usage
throughout Pasadena
Irrigation Efficiency: Will the project utilize drought tolerant landscaping and/or drip irrigation and/or weather controllers to reduce outdoor water use? Consistent. The Project would use a water-efficient irrigation system to reduce outdoor water use.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study TABLE VIII-1, CONTINUED

Page 78 ends

GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP) Sustainable Development Actions Project Consistency Analysis WR-1.1: Continue to reduce solid waste and
landfill GHG emissions
Facilitate Recycling: Does the project include a space for separate trash and recycling bins as well as provide informational signage/handouts for residents/employees outlining materials to be recycled? Consistent. The Project would include space for separate trash and recycling bins and provide informational signage for employees and visitors outlining materials to be recycled.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency requirements of new buildings to perform better than 2016 Title 24 Standards Energy Efficiency (Exceed 2016 Title 24): Does the project exceed the 2016 Title 24 Efficiency Standards by at least 5%? Consistent. The Project would exceed the most current (2019) Title 24 standards by 10 percent, at a minimum. It should be noted that 2019 Title 24 standards are 30 percent more efficient than 2016 Title 24 standards for nonresidential buildings.

Sustainable Mobility and Land Use T-1.1: Continue to expand Pasadena’s bicycle and pedestrian network
Bike Share: Does the project include a bike share station? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

Consistent. As shown on Figure 4, Site Plan, the Project includes a bike share station on the east side of the Project site.

T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles
traveled by single occupancy vehicles
Car Sharing: Does the project provide/facilitate car sharing by providing a designated car share space on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site? Examples of car share options include ZipCar, PitCarz, and Getaround.

Consistent. The project would provide vanpooling/carpooling and car share parking spaces on-site.

T-5.1: Facilitate high density, mixed-use,
transit-oriented, and infill development
Transit Oriented Development: Is the project located within 0.25 mile of a major transit stop as defined in the Zoning Code. Please include a map outlining the nearest transit stop.

Consistent. The project site is an infill development located within 0.25 mile of multiple bus stops along East Colorado Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevard. The closest bus stop is the Colorado/Kinneloa stop serving Pasadena Transit bus line 30 and located approximately 880 feet east of the site. [
Urban Greening UG-1.1: Continue to preserve, enhance, and acquire additional green space throughout Pasadena to improve carbon sequestration, reduce the urban heat-island effect, and increase opportunities for active recreation Greenspace: Does the project include at least 500 sq. ft. of public use greenspace (landscaped yards, parklets, rooftop garden, etc.)? At a minimum, 50% of the required greenspace must include softscape landscaping (e.g., trees, plants, grass, etc.).

Consistent. As shown on Figure 4, Site Plan, and Figure 7, Landscaping Plan, the Project would include ornamental landscaping along the perimeter of the site and throughout the surface parking lot. The landscaping would exceed 500 sq. ft.

Source: City of Pasadena, Pasadena Climate Action Plan, Appendix D: Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist, December 28, 2017.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 79 ends

In summary, the consistency analysis provided in Table VIII-1 demonstrates that the proposed Project complies with 11 applicable Sustainable Development Actions from the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist.

In addition, the Project would be consistent with the land use designation of the City’s General Plan.

Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the City’s CAP adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and the project-specific impacts with regard to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Direct Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
While the Project’s GHG emissions impact significance determination is based solely on consistency with GHG reduction plans (i.e., the Project is consistent with the CAP and would result in less than significant impacts in regard to GHG emissions), quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions resulting from Project implementation have been prepared and disclosed herein for informational purposes. The proposed Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4, and would not result in other GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct Project-related GHG emissions would include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. It should be noted that GHG emissions from existing uses (operations of the on-site commercial buildings, garage structure, and surface parking lots) are not quantified for a more conservative analysis. The most recent version of CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, was used to calculate Project-related GHG emissions. Table VIII-2, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the proposed Project. CalEEMod outputs are contained in Appendix B.1.

Construction Emissions. Construction GHG emissions are amortized (i.e., total construction emissions divided by the lifetime of the Project, assumed to be 30 years),1 then added to the operational emissions.

As seen in Table VIII-2, construction of the proposed Project would result in a total of 30.48 MTCO2e/year (amortized over 30 years).

Area Source. The Project would result in nominal area source emissions; refer to Table VIII-2. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping equipment associated with the development of the proposed Project. As discussed in Table VIII-2, area source emissions account for the Project design feature of using all electric landscape equipment.

Mobile Source Emissions. The Project would result in mobile source emissions; refer to Table VIII-2.

Mobile source emissions account for CalEEMod estimated construction trips and operational trips based on the 2915 East Colorado Porsche Transportation Impact Analysis Outside CEQA Evaluation Final Report (Transportation Impact Analysis), prepared by Iteris, Inc. (dated February 1, 2022). According to the Transportation Impact Analysis, the project would result in a net increase of 1,057 average daily trips (daily trips under proposed dealership use minus daily trips under existing use). 1 In accordance with the SCAQMD guidance, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years, which is the number of years considered to represent the life of the project. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 80 ends

TABLE VIII-2. ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2e
2,3
Metric
tons/year1
Metric
tons/year1
Metric
tons of
CO2e
1,3
Metric
tons/year1
Metric
tons of
CO2e
1,3
Proposed Project
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years)4 29.99 <0.01 0.12 <0.01 0.37 30.48 Area Source5 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.00 <0.01
Mobile Source6 342.26 0.03 0.67 0.02 4.86 347.78
Stationary Source7 3.06 <0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 3.07
Project Total Direct Emissions2 375.33 0.03 0.79 0.02 5.23 381.34 Indirect Emissions
Energy8 574.24 0.02 0.54 <0.01 0.78 575.57
Water Demand9 12.13 0.72 17.92 0.00 0.00 30.05
Solid Waste10 88.01 0.46 11.45 <0.01 0.33 102.77
Total Indirect Emissions2 674.38 1.20 29.91 <0.01 1.11 708.39 Total Project-Related Emissions2 1,089.73 MTCO2e/yr
Notes:

Carbon dioxide equivalent = CO2e; metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year = MTCO2e per year

1. Project emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, as recommended by the SCAQMD.

2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

3. Carbon dioxide equivalent values calculated using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Website, Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, http://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator, accessed June 8, 2022.

4. Total Project construction GHG emissions equate to 914.54 MTCO2e. Value shown is amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years).

5. Area source emissions account for the Project design feature of using all electric landscape equipment.

6. Mobile source emissions account for CalEEMod estimated construction trips based on land uses and a net increase of 1,057 average daily trips (daily trips under proposed dealership use minus daily trips under existing use) during Project operation based on the 2915 East Colorado Porsche Transportation Impact Analysis Outside CEQA Evaluation Final Report, prepared by Iteris, Inc. (dated February 1, 2022).

7. Stationary source emissions account for the Project design feature of an emergency generator with 250 kW.

8. Energy source emissions account for Project design features, including no natural gas use, compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards, and using high efficiency lighting and other energy efficient appliances.

9. Water demand emissions account for Project design features, including low-flow water fixtures and water efficient irrigation system.

10. Solid waste demand emissions account for compliance with AB 341.

Refer to Appendix B.1, for detailed model input/output data.

Indirect Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
Energy Consumption. Energy consumption associated with the Project would result in 575.57 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table VIII-2. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model and Project-specific land use data. Electricity would be provided to the Project site by Pasadena Water and Power. The Project would include energy-efficient project design features, including no natural gas use, compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards, and high efficiency lighting and other energy-efficient appliances, all of which have been incorporated in CalEEMod.

Water Demand. Water consumption associated with the Project would result in 30.05 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table VIII-2. The Project would include water efficiency project design features, including low-flow water fixtures and a water-efficient irrigation system.

Solid Waste. Solid waste associated with the Project would result in 102.77 MTCO2e/year; refer to Table VIII-2.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 81 ends

Total Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
As shown in Table VIII-2, the total amount of proposed Project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would be 1,089.73 MTCO2e/year. It should be noted that the roof would be designed to accommodate solar panels. Future installation of solar panels would further decrease the total amount of proposed Project-related GHG emissions. Overall, as the Project is consistent with the City of Pasadena CAP (refer to Table VIII-1), impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 82 ends

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?

e) For an action located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires.

BACKGROUND
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated November 4, 2021 (Appendix D.1), and a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment dated March 24, 2022 (Appendix D.2), were performed for the proposed Project. The Phase 1 ESA identified two recognized environmental conditions (RECs): the potential for soil, groundwater, and soil gas impacts to have occurred from a former dry cleaner operation on the Project site; and the potential for soil gas impacts to have occurred from a former gasoline station located approximately 85 feet west of the Project site.

The Project Phase I ESA also identified two historic recognized environmental conditions (HRECs): two prior underground storage tanks (USTs) on the Project site that were removed under the Los Angeles Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 83 ends

County Department of Public Works (LADPW) supervision in 1987, for which soil sampling beneath the USTs did not detect significant contamination, and LADPW issued a “no further action” letter on July 29, 1987; and in July 1996, during a prior Phase I ESA and Phase II investigation by Dames & Moore, when soil borings and samplings were performed in the vicinity of the former locations of hydraulic lifts, former USTs, piping, and an auto spray booth area, which detected low levels of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and low levels of solvents in a portion of the samples. The analytical test results indicated low enough detection to be acceptable, and the City of Pasadena issued a “no further action” closure letter on January 30, 1997. An HREC is defined by ASTM International in the E1527-21 standard as “a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations).”
The Limited Phase II ESA was prepared as a result of the identified RECs in the Project Phase I ESA, and was performed on the southwestern portion of the Project site. The Limited Phase II Investigation consisted of installing two soil gas probes at a depth of 6 feet to investigate the potential for soil gas present in the Project soils. Groundwater samples were not collected due to the depth to the water table at approximately 150 feet below ground surface. The collected soil gas samples from the borings were analyzed and indicated exceedances of Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) soil gas screening levels for constituents in soil of VOCs (1,3-butadiene and benzene) for commercial land use (DTSC 2020).

The Limited Phase II recommends vapor mitigation contingencies, including passive venting, and a membrane be implemented with the sub-slab design for development in the southwest portion of the Project site.

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction
As previously described, the proposed Project would involve the construction of 65,360 square feet of building area comprising a two-story auto dealership/service center, car wash building, EV battery storage building, and a surface car lot. The Project site is currently occupied by an existing commercial building and surface parking lot, both of which would be demolished as part of the proposed Project. Construction activities, including demolition of the existing uses, excavation, and building construction, would include the use of limited quantities of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels, hydrocarbons, and hydraulic fluid, and their derivatives (e.g., gasoline, diesel, oils, and lubricants). These types of materials are not acutely hazardous. The use of these substances would be short-term and in quantities that are typical of the construction industry. Further, transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used during construction would occur in accordance with state and local regulations and manufacturers’ instructions. Construction of the proposed Project would involve the implementation of BMPs and standard construction controls to ensure that if any hazardous materials are released, they are controlled in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 84 ends

As mentioned, the Project would require demolition of the existing structures located at the northwest portion of the Project site with the site addresses at 2914 East Walnut Street, 2926 East Walnut Street, and 60 North Sunnyslope Avenue. The original construction of the buildings occurred in 1929 with subsequent additions made in 1973, 1979, and 1997. Based on the age of the buildings, it is possible that the structures may have used asbestos containing material (ACM), which was extensively used from the 1940s through the 1970s as a fire-retardant building material and thermal and acoustic insulator.

Additionally, it is possible that lead-based paint (LBP) may have been used on the structures, which has a long history of use from at least the eighteenth century until its ban in 1978. As a result, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 is identified to require ACM and LBP testing and abatement activities, as appropriate, in compliance with California and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and SCAQMD regulations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 would render potential impacts associated with ACMs and LBPs less than significant.

As mentioned above, the Project Phase I ESA identified two RECs for potential soil gas contamination associated with the past on-site dry cleaner operations and from a previous gasoline filling station located 85 feet west of the Project site on the west side of North Sunnyslope Avenue. The Limited Phase II Investigation was conducted as a result of the Project Phase I ESA identification of the RECs, and consisted of conducting soil boring samples and analyses. The analyzed samples indicated exceedances of commercial land use (DTSC 2020) soil gas screening levels for 1,3-butadiene and benzene. Due to the presence of the contaminated soils, the proposed Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during Project construction and operations due to the release of the soil vapor. Absent mitigation, this would be a potentially significant impact. Based on the conclusions of this assessment, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-2 is required to address potential on-site contamination and reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Operations
Operation of the Project includes the collection and presentation of vehicles for sale, vehicle service and maintenance, and car wash. As a result, the Project operations would include use of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels, hydrocarbons, and hydraulic fluid, and their derivatives (e.g., gasoline, diesel, oils, and lubricants). As mentioned previously, these materials are not acutely hazardous, and are typically used in automotive service centers. The safe transport, storage, use, and disposal of these hazardous materials used are delineated and required in federal, state, and local regulations and manufacturers’ instructions. The Project Operational SWPPP would prescribe BMPs for proper management, use, and disposal for hazardous materials used and generated by the Project. Additionally, the Project would be subjected to standard procedures and reporting requirements, such as the preparation and maintenance of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) (for hazardous materials above the applicable threshold quantities), which is managed by the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), Pasadena Fire Department. The HMBP would ensure that in the event of any hazardous materials are released, they are controlled in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Compliance with federal, state, and local requirements would result in less than significant impacts during Project operations.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 85 ends

Mitigation Measures
The following Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 shall be implemented to address the potential for the proposed Project to result in significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

MM HAZ-1: Hazardous Building Materials Abatement. Prior to building demolition, the following activities shall be implemented:

A. The applicant shall retain a State of California-licensed asbestos/lead abatement contractor to conduct surveys to identify the potential presence of asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP).

B. In the event that ACM and/or LBP are detected, the State of California-licensed asbestos/lead abatement contractor shall perform ACM and/or LBP abatement in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including those of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

C. The asbestos/lead abatement contractor shall provide written notification to the local CalOSHA district office regarding its “Intent to Conduct Asbestos Related Work” and/or “Intent to Conduct Lead-Related Work.” These notifications shall be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of performing the respective asbestos-related or lead-related work.

D. Other potentially hazardous building materials, including mercury-containing equipment, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing equipment, lead-containing batteries, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-containing equipment, and Universal Wastes (e.g., fluorescent light tubes), shall be segregated and may require further testing and analysis to determine whether they meet the definition of a hazardous waste in California and can be managed under the Universal Waste Rules. Hazardous wastes shall only be handled by properly trained workers.

E. Notification shall be provided to contractor and subcontractor personnel as to the presence of ACMs, asbestos-containing construction materials, LBPs, and other hazardous building materials at the site.

F. All ACMs removed from on-site structures are to be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company certified to handle asbestos and hazardous materials.

MM HAZ-2: Hazardous On-site Contamination. Prior to the issuance of the Project grading permits, the applicant shall conduct additional characterization of the Project site to delineate the extent of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contaminated soils associated with the historical uses of the site. Construction of the Project may not commence until it has been confirmed that soil vapor or soil matrix is not impacted or has been remediated.

If the contaminated soil exceeds the applicable regulatory standards (i.e., DTSC Human Health Risk Assessment Screening Levels), a remedial action plan shall be prepared and Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 86 ends

include measures to remove or protect against the contaminated conditions, which may include soil removal, installation of passive venting and a membrane be implemented with the sub-slab design, other vapor barriers and venting systems, and ongoing monitoring of soil vapors, if future construction is planned for the identified affected areas. The remedial action plan must be approved by the Pasadena Fire Department and implemented to the satisfaction of the Pasadena Fire Department, which serves as the CUPA. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Construction
As described under Issue IX(a) above, construction activities and equipment would include the use of limited quantities of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels, hydrocarbons, and hydraulic fluid, and their derivatives (e.g., gasoline, diesel, oils, and lubricants); however, the amount of these substances would be considered minimal and short-term. Construction vehicles on-site may require refueling or maintenance that could result in minor releases of oil, diesel fuel, transmission fluid, or other materials. Accidental spills, leaks, fires, explosions, or pressure releases involving hazardous materials represent a potential threat to human health and the environment if not properly treated. Accident prevention and containment would be the responsibility of the construction contractors, and provisions to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes are typically included in construction specifications.

Additionally, the limited quantities of hazardous materials that would be associated with proposed construction would not represent a significant hazard to the public or environment in the case of an accidental release.

As also described under Issue IX(a) above, contaminated soils and hazardous building materials are located on-site. Compliance with existing regulations, including implementation of BMPs and coordination with regulatory agencies on remediation activities, would limit both the frequency and severity of potential releases of hazardous materials associated with cleanup and abatement. Nevertheless, due to the presence of contaminated soil and hazardous building materials, the proposed Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Absent mitigation, this would be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-2 identified above would reduce impacts associated with an upset or accident involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. With implementation of this measure, the impact of the proposed Project with respect to upset and accident conditions would be less than significant.

Operations
The proposed Project is an auto dealership with a service center, car wash, and EV battery storage facilities. The use of hazardous materials and substances during operations would involve petroleumbased fuels, hydrocarbons, and hydraulic fluid, and their derivatives (e.g., gasoline, diesel, oils, and lubricants). As mentioned above, the Project Operational SWPPP would prescribe BMPs for proper management, use, and disposal for hazardous materials used and generated by the Project, and the Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 87 ends

Project HMBP would ensure that in the event of any hazardous materials are released, they are controlled in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Therefore, the operation of the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest school to the Project site is Walden School, located at 74 South San Gabriel Boulevard, in Pasadena, approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the Project site. The school is an independent, nonprofit corporation with approximately 190 students in grades pre-kindergarten through sixth grade. The school was founded in 1970, and is governed by a board of trustees. No public schools are located within 0.25 miles of the Project site. As mentioned, the Project would involve use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials such as petroleum-based fuels, hydrocarbons, and hydraulic fluid, and their derivatives (e.g., gasoline, diesel, oils, and lubricants) during both construction and operation stages.

However, these types of materials are not acutely hazardous. As mentioned, the Project would be subjected to requirements for managing the hazardous materials, including implementing the Project SWPPP and HMBP, which entail the safe handing, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. During construction, the Project has the potential to release hazardous materials associated with the prior uses on the Project site as described in Issue IX(a); however, the Project would implement Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 to abate and address the prior contamination in accordance with safety requirements promulgated by the EPA, Cal-OSHA, and SCAQMD such that impacts would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2, impacts are less than significant.
d) Is the project located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The Project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5, based on a query of the Project area on the DTSC EnviroStor database.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) For an action located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Project site is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public use airport is the San Gabriel Valley Airport, located approximately 5.4 miles southeast of the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the vicinity of an airport and would have no impact.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 88 ends

f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The nearest disaster route within the Project vicinity includes Colorado Boulevard, which is adjacent to the Project site’s southern property line, and the I-210 freeway, which is approximately 0.15 miles north/northeast the Project site (County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works 2008). While the majority of construction activities would be confined to the Project site, limited off-site activities may occur within the adjacent rights-of-way, temporarily requiring lane closures on the roads surrounding the Project site. These partial lane closures would be temporary in nature and would not occur on any streets designated as evacuation routes by the County of Los Angeles. The closures would also occur in coordination with the Pasadena Fire Department and the Pasadena Police Department, which would ensure proper advanced coordination with emergency service providers and planning of detours and emergency access routes, if needed, to maintain emergency access. No permanent lane closures or obstructions that could impede emergency response to or from the Project site from surrounding streets would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. At buildout, the proposed Project would be developed on existing parcels that were previously developed and would not pose any physical barriers on public rights-of-way. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and the impact of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The Project site is not near wildlands and is outside any of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in the City’s Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (CAL FIRE 2011). Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, and the Project would have no impact.

Finding of Significance: No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 89 ends

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through the addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?

iii. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

DISCUSSION:
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The City of Pasadena is within the greater Los Angeles River watershed and, thus, within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project would discharge water that does not meet the water quality standards of LARWQCB and other agencies that regulate surface water quality and water discharge. The City of Pasadena is a copermittee of the Los Angeles County storm drain system permit or “municipal permit” (Order No. R4- 2012-0175-A01; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] No. CAS004001), which was Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 90 ends

adopted November 8, 2012, and amended June 16, 2015, by the State Water Resources Control Board (WQ2015-0075). The proposed Project also would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, which incorporates the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance (Ordinance Number 2013-0044) by reference. The Municipal Code requires application of erosion and sedimentation control BMPs during construction for proper water quality management.

The Project site is largely covered with existing commercial buildings, a garage structure, and a surface parking lot, which are impervious surfaces; however, the site also contains a vacant lot with a small unpaved area, which provides some pervious area for infiltration. The proposed Project includes the demolition of the existing structures and construction of an automotive dealership, a car wash, an EV battery storage building, and associated surface parking and landscaping, which collectively would be expected to result in a slight increase in the total area of the Project site that is impervious. The Project could have both short-term construction impacts and long-term operation impacts on water quality.

Construction
Short-term impacts would occur during the construction phase of the Project, when the pollutants of greatest concern are sediment, which may run off the Project site due to site grading or other site preparation activities, miscellaneous solid and liquid wastes that may not be properly collected and stored, and hydrocarbon or fossil fuel remnants from the construction equipment. In addition, on-site watering activities to reduce airborne dust could contribute to pollutant loading in surface runoff.

However, as indicated above, the Project applicant would be subject to the requirements of the Municipal NPDES Permit and the City’s Municipal Code. Additionally, construction runoff is regulated by the NPDES Construction General Permit, discussed above, which requires preparation and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would identify Project-specific BMPs to be incorporated during construction. These BMPs would minimize construction-induced water pollutants by controlling erosion and sediment, establishing waste handling/disposal requirements, and providing nonstormwater management procedures. Erosion control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. BMPs must be designed to prevent erosion and construction pollutants from entering the City’s storm drain and receiving waters. As part of its normal Project approval and construction oversight activities, the City of Pasadena monitors compliance with stormwater BMP requirements. Through these existing, mandatory regulatory compliance measures, potential water quality impacts during construction would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels and would avoid conflicts with water quality standards established by the RWQCB.

Operations
Long-term impacts would result from operation of the completed Project, with waste material dumped into storm drain inlets having the potential to adversely impact surface water and groundwater.

Anticipated pollutants of concern likely generated by Project operation would be those related to the service center and the car wash, which would include petroleum-based oils, greases, solvents, metals, and cleaners. Additionally, stormwater runoff from areas where refuse is stored or handled could inadvertently transport trash to storm drain inlets, and oil and grease buildup in parking areas, drive aisles, and driveways could be captured in site runoff and flow into the City’s storm drains. Discharges from the Project site could thus produce polluted runoff that could enter the municipal storm drain system.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 91 ends

The Project would be subjected to the MS4 Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program permit requirements, which are designed to prevent illicit discharges to MS4 and receiving waters. The permit requirements entail preparation and implementation of an Operations SWPPP to manage the Project pollutant sources. The SWPPP would require regular employee training, BMPs for proper storage, use, and disposal of pollutants, and regular inspections and reporting to maintain compliance. The Project service center and car wash activities would be conducted within the proposed buildings where fluids and other potential pollutant materials would be contained and treated prior to discharge or hauled off for treatment and disposal.

The Project would be required to prepare and be constructed according to an approved grading and drainage plan to allow for proper stormwater drainage and an erosion control sedimentation plan to prevent erosion. The Project design will include drainage and erosion control engineering BMPs, such as use of landscaping vegetative cover and pervious ground cover to encourage infiltration and reduce runoff.

As mentioned, in accordance with the MS4 permit and LID requirements, the proposed Project includes a new on-site storm drain system that would be installed to capture and route runoff into an on-site storm retention basin, located in the southwestern portion of the Project site. The proposed Project would retain storm flows on-site either via infiltration or storage and treatment. This is expected to involve storage in tanks under the buildings. Compliance with the MS4 permit and the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that operation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.

Finding of Significance: The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of Pasadena Water and Power (PWP), a public service owned and operated by the City of Pasadena. PWP obtains water from the Raymond Basin and by purchasing imported water. According to the PWP’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the current water supply consists of approximately 40 percent from local groundwater in the Raymond Basin and 60 percent imported water, purchased primarily from the Metropolitan Water District. In wet and normal years, PWP augments local groundwater with surface water diversions.2

The groundwater supply is extracted from the Raymond Basin, which covers approximately 40 square miles in the northwest portion of the San Gabriel Valley, including Pasadena. The Raymond Basin is considered a “very low priority” basin and not at risk of overdraft (DWR 2020), and maintains a safe yield of 30,662 acre-feet per year, of which PWP has a right to 10,304 acre-feet. PWP also has rights to divert surface water or to use this surface water to recharge the Raymond Basin and pump a portion of the recharged volume. Recharge of the Basin occurs through natural infiltration and percolation of rainfall and surface water, percolation of applied water from irrigation and other return flows, subsurface inflow 2 Pasadena Water and Power. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Rusnak Porsche Dealership Project _______________ Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 92 ends

Pasadena City CouncilJuly 15, 2024

Pasadena City Council
July 15, 2024