ATTACHMENT K
17.50.240 Research and Development Facilities
A. Applicability. The following standards apply to Research and Development facilities, as defined in Article 8 (Glossary of Specialized Terms and Land Use Types).
B. Height and appurtenance roof coverage provisions.
1. Height limits. The height limit of the base zoning district may be exceeded by a maximum of 12 feet (excluding the appurtenance height) in order to accommodate additional mechanical equipment between floors.
2. The height limit may exceed the maximum in Section 17.50.240.B.1 through the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit, granted in compliance with Section
17.61.050.
3. Appurtenance roof coverage. The allowable appurtenance roof coverage for research and development facilities may exceed the height limit by a maximum of 18 feet, for a maximum of 75 percent of the roof area.
4. The appurtenance roof coverage and height may exceed the maximums in Section
17.50.240.B.2 through the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit, granted in compliance with Section 17.61.050.
C. Gross Floor Area. For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio (FAR), research and development facilities shall exclude mechanical space and appurtenances from gross floor area.
(Ord. No. 7418, § 5, 2-26-2024; Ord. 7160 § 47, 2009)
ATTACHMENT L –
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES IDENTIFIED BY STAFF
Design-Related Policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan:
4.10: Locate and design buildings to relate to and frame major public streets, open spaces, and cityscape. New development at intersections should consider any number of corner treatments, and should balance safety and accessibility concerns with the vision of the area and the need for buildings to engage the street and create a distinct urban edge.
4.11: Require that development demonstrates a contextual relationship with neighboring structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing, orientation, setbacks, buffering, the arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, infrastructure, and aesthetics.
7.1: Design each building as a high-quality, long term addition to the City’s urban fabric; exterior design and buildings material shall exhibit permanence and quality, minimize maintenance concerns, and extend the life of the building.
7.2: Allow for the development of a diversity of buildings styles. Support innovative and creative design solutions to issues related to context and environmental sustainability.
7.3: Require that new and adaptively re-used buildings are designed to respect and complement the defining built form, massing, scale, modulation, and architectural detailing of their contextual setting.
10.7: Encourage sustainable practices for landscape materials, landscape design, and land development.
23.3: Provide appropriate setbacks, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, along the street frontage and, where there are setbacks, ensure adequate landscaping is provided.
25.4: Require that new development protect community character by providing architecture, landscaping, and urban design of equal or greater quality than existing and by respecting the architectural character and scale of adjacent buildings.
East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan:
Goal 1: A public realm, including sidewalks, paseos, plazas, and pocket parks, that are safe and accessible to the general public and contribute to the ECSP area’s overall identity and sense of place.
Policy: 1.c: Enhanced Storefronts. Promote enhanced storefronts that engage the public realm with street-oriented entrances, modulated facades, and pedestrian amenities in the public realm.
Goal 5: Complementary building forms that fit the scale of the neighborhood and support a vibrant, walkable district.
Policy 5.a: Architectural Diversity. Allow for a range of architectural styles and forms that provide visual interest and quality design through massing and façade standards.
Policy 5.b: Scaled Transitions. Provide upper floor stepbacks where new development is adjacent to lower density residential districts.
Goal 6: Ample access to open space for both passive and active enjoyment.
Policy 6.b: Commercial Open Space. Require large nonresidential or mixed-use projects to provide open space for residents, employees, and visitors.
Policy 6.c: Quality Design. Introduce open space design standards meant to create usable and functional open space for residents, employees, and visitors alike.
Policy 6.d: Urban Greening. Use all open space areas to further environmental goals – such as carbon sequestration and reducing the urban heat island effect – through tree planting, stormwater capture, and native landscaping.
Goal 14: A commercial corridor supported by a mix of uses and housing opportunities connected by an enhanced public realm.
Policy 14.c: Pedestrian-Oriented Design. Balance the needs of auto-oriented uses with the desire for a walkable neighborhood character and enhanced pedestrian mobility by requiring pedestrian-oriented site design and features.
Policy 14.d: Lower-Scale Character. Maintain character to reflect existing form and strengthen neighborhood identity.
Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Residential Districts:
• 2.2 Activating the street. New multi-family and mixed-use buildings should be designed with frontages that activate the street by providing direct access to their ground floor dwellings and commercial spaces.
• 5.1: Provide well-marked, articulated building entrances oriented to streets and public space.
• 11.1 All buildings should incorporate: A full array of architectural elements associated with their chosen style; the compositional, structural, and constructional logic associated with that style; and the material logic associated with that style.
• 11.2 The style of a new building should be clear and consistent, whether traditional or contemporary. Hybrid projects are discouraged. • 11.4 Contemporary architecture. Buildings designed in contemporary styles may adhere to a set of rules that is established and followed through by the designer.
The design strategy must be described in conformance with Appendix A3 (Preliminary Review).
• 13. The means and methods of construction of new buildings should contribute to their durability, usefulness, and compatibility.
• 14.1 Details. Window and door assemblies should be chosen that conform to the precedents of traditional styles or the intentions of contemporary design in terms of material, dimension, and detail.
• 14.3 Configurations. The orientation and proportion of openings should be consistent with the architectural language chosen for a project. Openings should relate to one another according to a clear system of composition and structure. • 18 Landscape and hardscape. Landscape and hardscape should enhance the character of new buildings, address the Pasadena climate, and facilitate sustainable water use and drainage strategies.
• 18.1 Compatibility. Landscape and hardscape design should be compatible with the chosen architectural style of a building.
Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Erika Foy
Monday, February 16, 2026 2:44 PM
Rivas, Jessica; Lyon, Jason; Hampton, Tyron; Masuda, Gene; Madison, Steve; Gordo, Victor; Cole, Rick; Jones, Justin; PublicComment-AutoResponse Marquez, Miguel; Paige, Jennifer; Siques, Joaquin; Johnson, Kevin; Reyes, David; Jomsky, Mark
Please Review Attached Traffic Rebuttal and Safety Concerns - 1364 E. Green Street Caltech Innovation Traffic Concerns.docx
Some people who received this message don't often get email from why this is important
Learn
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Attached please find my letter regarding the independent traffic engineering rebuttal for the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street from Prism Engineering. Please make the report public record for thehearing on February 23rd.
In addition, t respectfully ask that you take a few minutes to view the following drone footage, which captures existing traffic conditions on Holliston Avenue during school activity:
'S.' Drone Footage:
https://vimeo.com/1114381242What you will see in the video:
In the opening portion of the footage: vehicle queues already extending well beyond intersectionapproaches during school drop-off.
Midway through the video: cars stacked bumper-to-bumper along Holliston, with pedestrians — including young children — navigating between stopped vehicles.
As the camera widens: the narrow width of the residential street and the proximity of the school, church, and neighborhood homes to heavy vehicle movement.
Throughout the footage: spillback conditions where congestion extends through intersections and blocks driveways.
These are existing conditions — before the addition of a 93,000+ square foot R&D facility generating over 1,000 daily trips, supported by a 260-car garage and daily commercial deliveries.
The findings in the attached letter, combined with this visual evidence, raise serious safety concerns for the 550 students at St. Philip the Apostle School, as well as pedestrians and parishioners who rely on Hotliston Avenue every day.
1 At a minimum, the issues identified warrant a more thorough operational analysis during actual school peak hours and meaningful consideration of redirecting project access to Green Street.
I never imagined the City would so clearly blur the longstanding boundary between a quiet residential neighborhood and high-intensity commercial development without fully resolving the safety implications first.
Thank you for your time, your careful review, and your continued commitment to public safety.
Respectfully,
Erika Foy
2 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to carefully review and support the findings contained in theindependent traffic engineering rebuttal regarding the proposed project at 1364 E.
Green Street, known as the Caltech Research & Development project. The report raisessignificant safety concerns related to increased traffic around the approximately 550children who attend St. Philip the Apostle School each day, as well as the pedestriansand parishioners who call this neighborhood home.
Most importantly, the rebuttal identifies a fundamental flaw: the City's traffic study did not evaluate conditions during the actual peak conflict times — morning drop-off (7:30- 8:30 a.m.) and afternoon pick-up (2:45-3:45 p.m.). These are precisely the periods when vehicle queues form, pedestrians are concentrated, and street capacity is fully utilized. It is clearly when the risk of accidents is highest.Holliston Avenue is not a high-capacity corridor. It is a narrow residential street that already experiences standing vehicle queues twice daily due to school operations.
During these windows, traffic does not flow — it stops. Vehicles back up throughintersections and block driveways. Adding approximately 1,036 daily project trips, including 90-100 vehicles per hour, into this constrained environment without a true operational analysis is deeply concerning. The inclusion of a 260-space underground parking structure and a multi-truck loading dock reflects the scale and intensity of usebeing introduced.
The rebuttal report also highlights:
• A documented 620-foot vehicle backup at the southbound left-turn lane at Hill and Del Mar— meaning cars routinely stack up for more than two football fields.
While the overall intersection was given a passing grade, this specific movement is already overwhelmed and regularly spills back into the roadway. • The absence of a proper traffic operations or microsimulation analysis for closely spaced intersections, where congestion and spillback are known to occur. • Using "General Office" modeling assumptions rather than a Research & Development land use category may underestimate trip characteristics andpatterns.
A generalized growth-rate methodology that does not reflect real-world traffic impacts from recently approved developments.
It is highly unusual that private residents and parishioners would feel compelled to retain their own licensed traffic engineer simply to understand what they experience daily ontheir own street. This step was not taken lightly. It was taken because what parents and neighbors see every day — long queues, blocked driveways, unsafe passing, and intersection spillback— did not appear to be reflected in the City's conclusions.
I have also been informed that none of the substantive issues raised in the independentrebuttal were directly addressed in the City's response. That lack of engagement is concerning, particularly given that the City recently adopted updated traffic analysisstandards intended to strengthen transparency and analytical rigor. Those policiesshould be applied consistently and meaningfully here.
Importantly, the rebuttal proposes a reasonable and feasible alternative: redirecting primary project access to Green Street, a higher-capacity roadway, rather thanconcentrating all access onto Holliston Avenue. This adjustment would materially reduce conflict with school traffic and pedestrian activity. Quite frankly, Holliston Avenue cannot safely absorb what is being proposed.
This is not opposition to innovation, land rights, or responsible development. It is aboutensuring that development is analyzed honestly, mitigated appropriately, and designed to protect children, pedestrians, and neighborhood streets.
Before approving this project, I respectfully ask that the City:
1. Require a full traffic operations analysis, including microsimulation of the Hill/Del Mar/Cordova corridor.
2. Analyze traffic during actual school peak hours.
3. Reevaluate trip generation assumptions specific to R&D land use.
4. Redesign access to Green Street to avoid concentrating traffic on Holliston.
5. Fully acknowledge and address the existing two-football-field vehicle backup at Hill and Del Mar before adding more traffic to an already strained corridor.
Good planning requires looking beyond average numbers and examining what is trulyhappening on the ground. Pasadena's 140-year legacy of thoughtful planning is whatmakes this city exceptional. That legacy should not be compromised by overlooking legitimate safety concerns.
The safety of children, parishioners, and neighbors must remain paramount. Once safety is diminished, it is extraordinarily difficult to restore.
I respectfully ask you to slow down, require a more complete analysis, and ensure that this project fits the neighborhood it is entering.
Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to community safety.
Respectfully,
Erika Foy
Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:To:
Cc:Subject:
Erika Foy ^ . _...__
Monday, February 16, 2026 3:01 PM
Rivas, Jessica; Lyon, Jason; Hampton, Tyron; Masuda, Gene; Madison, Steve; Gordo, Victor; Cole, Rick; Jones, Justin; PublicComment-AutoResponse Reyes, David; Marquez, Miguel; Paige, Jennifer
Erika Foy Personal Letter Regarding 1364 East Green
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /rnowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I oppose the proposed project at 1364 East Green Street and respectfully urge the City Council to deny it as designed.I write not only as a Pasadena resident, but as someone who has been a parishioner at St. Philip the Apostle for 27 years and currently serves on the St. Philip's School Board. My family's roots — and my heart — are deeply planted in this neighborhood.
Pasadena is more than buildings and zoning maps. It is tree-lined streets, historic homes,neighborhood churches, and schools where generations of children grow and learn. St. Philip'sChurch itself is part of that legacy — designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose workhelped shape the architectural character of our city. It stands not only as a place of worship, but as ahistoric and cultural landmark within our community.
I regularly attend either the morning Mass or the lunchtime Mass. These quiet moments of prayerare part of the rhythm of daily life for many of us. It is difficult to imagine how regular worshipcould continue uninterrupted during years of heavy construction immediately adjacent to the church and school. The noise, vibration, traffic, and dismption would directly affect the spiritual life of our parish and the daily experience of our students.
Pasadena has long prided itself on protecting residential neighborhoods from incompatible commercial encroachment. That commitment has preserved the livability, human scale, and character that define our city. For that reason, I struggle with the fact that a project of this scale wasadvanced immediately beside homes, a church, and a school. It feels inconsistent with the veryprinciples that have guided Pasadena's planning for generations and your own commitment as elected officials.Growth is not the enemy. But it must be thoughtful, measured, and respectful of context.
Developments that prioritize maximum height and density over neighborhood compatibility change not just skylines, but the feel of our streets and the tmst residents place in the planning process. 1 I respectfully ask you to protect our neighborhoods, honor our architectural heritage, and ensure that Pasadena's future reflects the stewardship that has long made this city special.
Thank you,
Erika Foy
District 7
2 Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anne Tipton
Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:35 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Safe Parking Program at All Saints church
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important [ t ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
I am a Pasadena resident and I am writing in support of allowing a Safe Parking Program at All Saints Church.AnneTipton
1 Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Gao, Beilei
Tuesday, February 17, 2026 3:57 PM
Gao, Beilei
FW: CalTech Green Street Project
From: sandra ballatore <;__.--..„.^^-„...„...__
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:56 AM
To: commentsDC <[email protected]>Subject: CalTech Green Street Project i- You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
From: SANDRA LEE BALLATORE -
PASADENA, CA 91106
TO: Pasadena Design CommissionRob Tyler, Julianna Delgado, Lucinda Over, Joe Feinblatt, David Di Cristofaro, Brian Knight, Srinivas Rao,Marie-Claude Fares Apparently not one person on the City of Pasadena Design Commission, the Pasadena City Council, the Caltech Planning Committee for the Green Street Project, or Ms. Nancy Moses and the Trammell Crow Company is going to sit, sleep and work within 20 yards of the behemoth that you are planning to squeeze into the very small parking lot across from 107 South Holliston. But I will. I will face it. Daily. For years. I am 84years old, a work-at-home teacher and resident on this residential street for 26 years.
Empty lots north of Green Street all the way to Colorado sit vacant. Why can this amazing "hub for scientific invention" not be built where it will harm no one? This project should never have been approved for this lot. As well, an empty lot at Hill and Colorado needs a building as well. Whatever gave Caltech plannersthe idea that building next to St. Phillips Church and school and across from a nursery school in a residential neighborhood was the perfect place for a massive business building? Clearly, not one of you will hear the noise or struggle through traffic jams on your street, blocked with trucks, cranes, and construction equipment. Not one of you will be awakened at 7 a.m. by pounding jackhammers and throbbing cement mixers and men yelling as if they are standing in your bedroom.
Not one of you will suffer physical and psychological harm due to your neighborhood being ripped to pieces in front of you over many months and then years. And the children trying to read at St. Philips theApostle School, directly adjacent to the deafening construction site? Why is their safety not being considered inthis neighborhood disaster- story? And, the pre-schoolers at the PCC nursery school at the corner that faces this lot? They walk daily up and down Holliston Avenue and play in their schoolyard. Parents drop them off, pick them up — all on Holliston Avenue. St. Phillips parents line up twice daily on Holliston to drop off and pick upstudents and their SUV's jam up Holliston.
Stop this project now. Its placement is inhumane and will hurt the St. Phillips' students and teachers, as well as residents on Holliston Avenue This is a residential environment and it always has been. It must not be destroyed by people who do not live here, do not have students here, and do not worship here. No design 1 changes will change the basic problem here: this little parking lot should never have been considered, much less approved by you for this behemoth.
2 Gao, Beilei
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
Attachments:
Takeda, Michi
Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
FW: 1364 East Green St. (DHP2025-00037)
1364 E. Green Street (DHP 2025-00037).docx
This is for 1364 E. Green St, for CC 2/23
From: Millie Musslewhite Bruce <
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 12:45 PM
To: Duong, Rathar<[email protected]>;Takeda, Michi <[email protected]> Cc:Thyret, Pam <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: 1364 East Green St. (DHP2025-00037)
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Attention Design Commission,
Please distribute our attached letter as part of the public record to the intendedrecipients? Please also include our letter as part of the public comment in opposition to1364 E. Green St. (DHP2025-00037) at the next Design Commission meeting.
Thank you,
Millie and Thomas Bruce
1 FROM THE DESK OF
Millie Bruce
February 2, 2026
Design Commission
City of Pasadena175 N. Garfield Ave, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
RE: 1364 E. Green Street (DHP 2025-00037)
Dear Design Commission,My name is Millie Bruce. I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband Thomas Bruce. Weare the proud parents of a current Kindergarten student at St. Philip the Apostle School and parishioner of St. Philip the Apostle Church. I am writing to you today to express my concerns regarding the proposed building at 1364 E. Green Street.
Below is a list of our concerns regarding the new construction of the 1364 E. Green Streetbuilding:1.) Safety during construction. a.) We are very concerned about unvetted personnel coming and going in such close proximity to St. Philip the Apostle School and our child.
b.) We are concerned that the drilling, vibrations, and operation of heavy machinery andequipment will be unsafe for our child.c.) We have extensive concerns for the constructions effect on the air quality during the drilling of the subterranean parking lot. Especially given the recent fires and the potential for soil contamination and dust particles.
2.) Historical and Cultural Preservation of Pasadena.a.) My husband is native of the area, growing up in San Marino, and we are so proud to raiseour son in the Pasadena community. One of the draws to the Pasadena community is that isgrounded in tradition. We are concerned that the proposed building, will not only tower over the highest point of the church and our children's playground, but also that the design will compromise that ascetic of the church, school and neighborhood.3.) Improper Zoning. a.) We were very disappointed to learn that the area has recently been rezoned. Especially,after little or no efforts to alert St. Philip School about the rezoning. We learned that within the city documents there is no mention of the school as an impacted neighbor- only the church. St.
Philip School teaches 550 students, with kids as young as 4-years-old being taught yards from this proposed new project, which the rezoning paved the way for.
In closing, we expect our city officials to value the safety of our most vulnerable community members - which includes our son. We understand that Cal Tech is a intrinsic part of our community and believe that innovation only improves our community, but disagree that this project considers the full impact to our community - specifically the children attending St. Philip the Apostle School. We strongly object to the building of 1364 E. Green Street.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Millie and Thomas Bruce
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cord Dorcey
Wednesday, February 18, 2026 1:30 PM
Paige, Jennifer; Johnson, Kevin; Jomsky, Mark
Rivas, Jessica; Lyon, Jason; Hampton, Tyron; Masuda, Gene; Madison, Steve; Gordo,Victor; Cole, Rick; Jones, Justin; PublicComment-AutoResponseSubmission of Architectural DrawingsSt_Philip_Church_Coate.docx; Church Floor Plan and Elevations - 1951-pdf I
Some people who received this message don't often get email from earn why this is important [ d } CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
On behalf of St. Philip the Apostle Church and School, we are submitting the attached architectural drawings and contemporaneous newspaper clippings documenting the work of Roland Coate,theoriginal architect of St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, for inclusion in the administrative record forthe proposed development at Green Street and Holliston Avenue.These materials provide clear evidence of the architectural authorship and historic significance of the church campus. The Environmental Review failed to recognize that Roland Coate was the originalarchitect of the church and did not analyze the implications of his authorship in determining whether the campus qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA Guidelines §1 5064.5. Architectural drawings and contemporaneous newspaper documentation confirming Coate's authorship are now being formallysubmitted for the record. Because the significance of a property's architect is a central factor in historical resource evaluation, this omission renders the historical resources analysis incomplete.
Given Mr. Coate's recognized architectural Legacy in Pasadena and Southern California, the failure toevaluate his authorship directly affects the adequacy of the City's CEQA review and may have resulted in an incomplete assessment of impacts to a historical resource and its setting.
Accordingly, we formally request that:
1. The attached materials be incorporated into the official project file and administrative record;
2. The City conduct a supplemental historical resource evaluation that includes analysis of Roland Coate's authorship and the church campus under CEQA Guidelines §§15064.5 and15126.4:and
3. If warranted by that analysis, the environmental document be revised and recirculated to ensure full compliance with CEQA prior to any further discretionary approvals.
We respectfully request written confirmation that these materials have been received and that the City will address this issue in its environmental review.
1 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
In Christ,
Cord Dorcey
Business Manager
Book a 30 minute meeting
(626)793-0693x107
St Philip the Apostle
151 S Hill Ave
Pasadena, CA 91106
2 til—»»"K'!»<»i'm"* n,jdi»»,,
PAftE22
^
^St^ ^^8.w^,^,ni!F-^|
File Plans for $200.000Catholic Church With Gif
^
11 Plana for the new $200.000 St.
Phlllp'a Catholic church at 128
South Hill avenue have been •ubnttted to the city department ofbutldingr, wtth the application for (bulMltny permit filed yeaterd&y.
The new atructure to be erected
on the parking lot for the extettngchurch will be conatructed of relnforced concrete, with tile roof. Ita arehttccture will be moderntaced
Italian Rom&neaque, the plana hav-
$EU; SERVICE
AUTO PAINTING
Swve B0% by Helplni
1-D^T Service
Lulc'i Body Shop E. C5olonda ' BY. t-MI?
tng been prepared by Rolftnd B.
Co&tc, P&aadcna architect
Seating capacity of the new St.
Phlllp'a wtll be 800, with 18,000•quare feet being the overall aixeof the building.
ConabrucUon will probably not
be at&rted for aeveral monUia, according to Coatc.
IXIST BY INCIIE8
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (UP)-The
evidence waa right there whenBarber Rosa Ewlng was fined (80In City Court on a charge of eoliclilng girls for modellngr Jobs eo hecould "measure** them. When &rrested, a detective testified, Ewlngwaa accompanied by a young woman—and a meaaurlny tape. t
«
<<<!cI1r
tt
Pasadena Independent
Thu, Oct 6,1949, Page 22
Mayfield AiixiBary ^
Schedules Art Tour
nil
mi
ye.
<
By KUTH BIU.HlllAEK Society Editor
A;chilec<& of the "P<tsa<tcna
school" wh» tiavc brouglit reRcwn to Calltarrla archltK- • tore the world arountt wUl 6ehonored by the slwwtog oE olcg ail t haraus designed by thero hero n-hcn M»yHcld School
Auxiliary gives 'ts lirst Artand Artttilectuc'e Tour Nov, 15.
Five Iscmte;- In addllion to
We fomicr Kaglc and Wiirner.
cstatc-s vhich now hoiise May<
Ifcld Iligls Sclifxal oil Bcltcfohtaine ai::l Sciytli Orange Grave, will be viewed on (lx>iavltntlsr.al 12-13.5 p.m. tour.
Also ir-zludcd wiil be a show'.
ine oi work ly )c;idihx cunteA' •
para'y Calitcp-.ia artists a(.Ihe Kanhaltan Gallery on
South Lnkc.
Prucceils o' she a! (air will
hcr.ci':t the Mayfidd Sclxiot
fcutLdlng fund,. ;.
Mrs. P. Jamns Kirbyt.aiixil-, 'iary-.picsidcnt^- hks named j Mi¥.<f. Kdmftl :Martin, KW'-I oral ch.airman.^.WcrIang with • }icf «ir& Kn'ics,' David Hoyt, ] aitangcn.entii; iWilliam Cimy ; and Jcromft Murphy, inyita-! 'iw.s; 'Miller SSuliivan .arirt':Francis R. Ki^t, publicity; * frftjeridc S. Wcod. EuRene E. :
Jtonay, and WSS-yn W. I'Tan. :; cis, re ! re s h rcents; Donley • . Brady ind;Qir];riolm^s,.r<*s-; crviitkifls; -Mnics: •Marllri .arri:
?;.(H'6gi-gm; Jamips •
'. A. Caruaek, ps'operUt's; Kobcrt D. Suropi, Jiun<>s Marshall,. Francis.. J, Kane, and 's' John C. Blumnirr, Man'hatlan " Gallery irt. •~ . •
Doccais at llie liuuscs are
Mttip.t-.' Theodore Batry, Wll.
liam R. HCTSS III, Wtlltam H.
HawdL Douglas M, Longyear, Morsfr PaynSj Louis R.
•Rowan, Robert A. ROWAD, and
Pdul A. Ei'skttifcTl;° Gamble hcusc on Wcst-
. renreIaRii I'lacc,. huitt' in 1908
. and, (lesSgned by Rrccnc and.
Grcciw, wl:o also designodthe iiitcdor furaistiiDgs, willhe shawn. Tl-.e Rsgpocy housebuilt for ftc Sidney Francislaraily on South Grand, now <:wrie4 by th* Kcrr.ieth MiMrcs. was dRsignfd. by RnglMldJnhwcn fftr the site ^t the old • Bishop Jchr^icn estate.
Myron Htir.t d<lstgnp<( (he
*? Tu.dor-style taaiuion •uf Str
William and Lady Crockcr on
'thi
CP:
Oak UroYc, : known ns ttie ^
Eraer^' hoiise. The Frcticli cr,
Provincial style home adapted i
(s Cttltfamla ,Barden living tiy ] / Rol.tid Ooale'tor the WdKamCtiiytoriS ot lombardy Road, and the Mediterranean v'tUasn a town Ituusc sctlinR dcsigacd 6y Wallace Ncff and liclciiging (ft Ms ststcr, MiM nciln'NcK, on South Orange Crave are-also oft Ihe tour.
T'ue Kagle t-fitatu is a l>i.fir'nr.s'.y appointed Ttallan style maiisiott built Jor tliclate John Eagle, silk mng.nato, And Stiniiycrost wlilchbcloiiKcd (o ttie la 1c TlwiiiiisW. Warncrs. is. a Mcdllcrrapcari vtlla on SottlhJOrangs- Grave, Rcn'cst 'addition to theMayfiaM'complex. •. ..' •• Otiicr structures o( impQrun::c A-slKnwl l>yllt<"» archtlecls . Include Myron Hunt's |— l:uild:iigs fur I'asadcna Publit:
LfiraTy—considered tliu mcstoulsladdiri^'piibltc building •it> .llw <iri;<i_. for; •jfs prpportiuii;, anit classici'al'lincs—,ilu(i(iiig-' lan J-ibr.iry, tile earlier :bulldings o:t campuses o( Occtrtenl- a1, Pomona, and^Caltcch,Htinttr'glnr. Memorial I-Inspital, While Memorial, and: (he lio&e Bowl. .,
. Wallace NcH^csiancd'Pick.
fair and rasidenccs of oijicrmclion- pic(u .;folk: Including Gary :Graflt and B.-li-bara lllutton arsd ^oan'-Beanell, .also Ure Dn?icny Chapel, Manresa.-.Ile- treat Hoiue In Aztisa, and St 'Elizatttth's CalhoUc' Church.
Rol.ind Coste'.R destgns inchid? 'All. Kalnts Eplsmp'al Cliuruh and St.''Plulip>s; Keg- .inald Julinsoti's, tlie Santa
Barbara Bilhnore, many noted Santa .Barbara tximps; S.f.
Paulas pro • Cathedral (wtfn.
fioland Co.ite), and (lie Baldwin '[ills tozv-cost housing deVcloprncntt F a m n u s Firccnft aud Greene honics hcrcaBouts ii¥e'thfc .lames A.''Culbertsaa
homo, tt»; ?<• 'A. Ilot)t»)«in, (he Blacker and Crowe Koiiscs.
Anisls wbosc work wilt be
hur.g in Manlwttan Gall<*ry arp farmlchael," Gluckman, a.ndElmskaw.. J_ I
v.;
.•'. Pasadena Independent, Thu, Oct 29, 1964, Page 20
i
I
SAN GABRIEL VAIJJEY
Cfwrclt of the We^k '." .-:
(T)iis (eitfwe fs fpaiuared as n puWc sftrmce bij ITie {trws wlivsr nsmcs spprar on this vose.) ••MK SISS^S :>A St,
^ ?;<!;>• I.
Ms
.'* ?-' ;1'-1
< 'ist^;^
f:£S^I?f^£?^W^^!^ltiS
' K^B^IiliEi^%i
dz
ms
w
s
z s» tl 31
m
t. te
I§
Si0
z
®^ "i^S^^1
^
^
^
ti^l s.
•fUlit St<Philip's Cnth»»ls( Chunh,15i Scufh Hi(lAw.,minh<eting,)d othoysand Potadeno (omilics, hot'becutiM (burch ofld iehool nnd new'poriih house.
THE PARISH of St. FhlEip tba Apostle was cstablisttC:! in FWiruRry, l92l, aud the Riw, Dnninl O'Coniietl was ttantcd'as Hratpns'or. Fn'hcr O'Contiplt at the tln-.e < wn.s OSSi.StftTlt ttt.thc 'Rev. M.-.er, John McGarthy o' H). .An. dicw's, Pnsadenft. and .tkr tnolhcr cliurch - aided. sulisluolijtlly in the boginnfng Ot ttiti.wark, • • ' • A IcDiponii-y chuifh—hnw tlir iiurish hafl- wfts St-cctfti Oil lliy tOt-ntF.'Of Jiitl and Cotduva StFccts. Bnd WAS dcdleatud on-Jan. .23. 1922
by thr Must Rev. Joh:i .T. CatitH'ull, Aruhblshop at JE-o'i Aneeles. Tn J927 property •((Ijolitin^ the church was yitrfltiis<;<l lor the crcctior. of a p;ir}3h school, '»n.d i-'.ilhcr O'Connalt w,is ahlo to Benirr .-»s teachers mombpw or tilt; distineulshed intm.
munK.v of the Slsfrr* of .Cliarlty u'liosc mo<hi<'i1'.c«i.';cis In Dtiboqiie, -Inw.i.
When PattiRr.O'Conncli
died in July, 1937, Mse-r. Thomns O'Regan iy<is '»(»• potnlml pastor.''£lie city'a erowtli nfwssltated new fatilltles tor tlivine' worship nnd a psri.'ih (^immllicc, t'nn- siiitidff ot E. T. yo!ey, Pr. Cliarhs Slnib. W. 'S. Dona. hue, .lottii A. McCone. SIM'art O'McIvey, 'niomas Plltp and .Tamos Heilvy wnaformfcl lor the proln-r. Holitiiti Coate. distlngulsftfwl paB»tlBnii cliitfct, was selected parc -tlic plans. Tlie ntructure on the wrst side
of the I^asailuna City Cd- lege campus has won prRfoc lor th<> hraitty of Its 'sini- pliclty and IIir Itarnitiny of Its 'proporttoris. Muntlgnor O'Regan contpleluil tiic ercc. tion of a coiivcnt un llolll!!- ton Avenue fn l&a>.
- *
Kcxt SlltHluy; Viral Mclh- Utliftl Clllltfh o( St>utl» I'y.ia- Ifeltll. • ' ws. «rto prn"
.prescnl
e <I %
a
ft ^
^
m
^ VM
•it
&
^
•i: s? ?-.^';
?•*
J SVNOAY MEWTATION
Wcwld Craves Sta Iwlity
liy Msgr. WinianE; Norlli
Go<l tr!iimp)>K la every nR<* and in nwic mofe reiBSrkah ty than tn niir own. Ours Is a (lay that ia filled wll:» <)<?:. . llhisioa and ;d<»pa:r. Wu)<»-
liprcadl ari; the iiftnrehcn.tlontf of ilnom th the fear cf men Awwlwilh thsi threat of nil.
Independent Star-News, Sun, Dec 14, 1958,Page 10
Auil men begin nsftin lo -we that if huniaiiitiirinnistn is to be i.-umpctenl it nccdA thft cnmplcment of the vi.<(lo« eit fftilh, :tnc fortrtei'i ol hap<», flnfl a charity unbntindcd. The pftnitcnti.it seasftn of Adwnt prepares it!, for the Monsignat Witlfam E. No^h. thifd pailor ^|F St. Philip't, ^Ut(B«d<d the lute Mnnrig- Bcr'rhomai O'Kegod Nov, 3, W&7. Born in Chktigo tn 1904, h« come to Pnsodend tifUr e 10-year po'ttoTnte at tiic Chutch of Sl. Mark in Venicfl. In oddiffon (o hi* porith dyiias Ihere h« Strwecl for ei<jh< yeurt e* cdilor of The Tid.'ngt, otfltiaA new*. paper of the Brthdfo<c»<* of lot Angela : In 1937-1ff38 ho wot »uperln(cnd«'ht of Cotholk tchool* tn th n Southern Californlff otisB.
Ordainrd in 1931, ha
curnBd Ns tfoEt«irato io
edut«»(ii»B, nt the Cothotic yniveitlity of America in Wuilimalon, B.C. 2a» •'-} .SSS.3&
MIWtTff /. ^J-7^ - W o ^?T? »-"%
E ^ I II feA^ -•i
..* ^\ ^
m- If
^ SIE II I ..^".- >-
i . .7 - W-.w- -».;-—»• -• i
s ii ^i i i 1 ii P-B-"^ •s..^
•«1 s -^
^
s , !1@r"F^i I'.'E^
» ^ « ^ 5 Is
s sig-ls .1 g SS.S I —J g s M • sgf-fl ? 8 •y.'i .^ iSfi &1 ill ti; ?j .4...
^ •?
.1 i •m -.
-.»T> zs ^2t1 ^ lit I .1
i ^ s hi-r~i ,ij 6 "S:
iij-iff-tl
-•s ?"
^,! ?1:
t ^;ij,i^ 4 I! •", n. :1^ &• <^-. r:^ -...t :^ - ^ i •1'"r •^-^ T
», ;,...,J
^ij r --'J i-^w
i|
•—•twu
-r i
^ ~^ ••'*1" 'tL_® .-.-•• <• ^-^' -'••I I? J.i ?. , iL; ^•"i I :!:-- i S*~ i WL N: ^; J- q" ^ hr-- l! r ;
I •*, &-n. r<i te II •J-I
^ ^ -'i3: •} -Tii
s ,^—S-Tl 4-
u
r ,< i,I: -y I, +-] ! <£:;*.
'llffri
^;('Ef» -»•.' ""i-.f;
-^ ',: •-<- t< |R <A?7 r'.:;:l-«i
E
•—? 1i K. I: S
\ ^ft;,^,,
VTSS'l ., i ,' »f
4 ill! .1 *•' -+ ._[
^ 1-
!|i ;; X E.. j] - +.-,— H !1.!. lifi ilifi4
j'l^^l
rf^':y-.^.^. s<
s- ^
s .-?: ?"1 •• '•iil ^ •^ r^ ^tl ,« ^ 3<5 ^- i!~
T"^ -ir
.?- <^ I:. is y» ^ 4 ^ -"
^
Q if.' jir,.- •II ^4-» '% i'll! I ^l) :'
••,:•: -•j) --
$ lLUfc dlS^Q i . s'
^ i^^^l
-,..,„- .,..» ^p^ i ; ! J 1
•I] S «' ^
^ J; ^"-.o,. ~^7 .^-J- J..4 I
0 /„•..„- •—; !J ; .^o- -.f~--.-~ L..- ...,S
li ^ iU: i ill I-- ?;E -^.J: ...-1 ^ 1-.-.^^_..-4 ,; 1L.^,^.^-^—!J .i _-_:.,. ,..5 i 1^
;^.. '• ^...IIL...
I
ii^-li r^ :-i -.-.^ ii^'p ^, ....^ s. '.A-S h. ^1;
^=^.=::^:=.-=s ±.-^
^ ^
I. 1, [... ^
; lli I: '3
2 H —-^^-—--s.^--
^
^ :: l<
s
s l^p !1"
F ...A
I •:.
^ S£ . "t,tilll
a
.T-'-S- ...1-i
3 >" *¥. I^'^A
; E s —" 5 fG s y?
^ _-L -t
' Ki>
•,1'i
^ :ii~s tl ..•• liJj
9 -sl_'-. ^
..-»5T: <s.^
^ n
^
^^ s*; T -^ 5:
!•<-
¥
? tF^
@; - li[-^ '/ Ss
y
^
^
L "T" •I
^ <B- I ^l f I N<p •^ "I 3,0 l\ •T' f! ;0 ^..,?....-_
-V^-^;^M^" "i.tji^-^r'^—.^'^r^^^.^s —5-?-7^5T-^*-
-j-—-^;^T——*"•—"»..„ ^ -•'-Xi-4—^.. — -.Kl— --?.
I1 •.
I
fr
t
I
n
^ j 1^
3 ^s^'^l
^•- J; fflffll s. ii
's a \ s
i3SI
v\ ii a
\- -^
JK30
It
2i .
,ea. li
@®i!il
^
I
a !
9 ^
••'S3
• ^i E L:-:-elLL:-l
S 'litils't-lii
?BV
v-flf. J. L^;i
:-:?'!IEI'i!!G ;:i"@t-IIi§3SII \
ffl ;|A' ff!
•^
? •)
rf.' -;'.
^1-" hi •<•. 1~ \i ill sl
. :i< if
^,.
•s
Si^i^ll
Sl
'"I
5|
u!
^1
«!
<!
5|
01s
'-'I
^ll
v)l
^\^1"I I
^1
uf
^\
'?!
^!
Sl
o!
"ll
!-•
»r:r ^
s; -^ -II•;;;
-^ ^^ jp
^@1;B
--Pl
ess
'•s
A
"?;-" 3>
H
gg
.aiigssgg
fit S
^
a
»
I I
^< !;t_J 1i » i
-A'^SB
:sli
oil
-<-
E ^
a[t; -i
•-TI
3-.
!'
^
d " SU
-f:: J:.zli5'' :! 3^
^ral>-1'
•_u .^i
^ 3-
:3^
^
s- il
r-—Tlf^sms,r—">.
6)
^. 1
«E3
,1
e
^
^s\ ^r. BSi
1.1 »1
••"OL
M^1xl*4)1'JI
l~dl
^1
$1
k«l
^1
^tl
:31
Kl•^i
^1
'a
^R'
111111
2&
^1
01 '-I
\!
y|
'^1'
^1
'"'I
^i
^1
^1
^\
*Q|ktil
sl
yi II
•s
s
•I •.
B?
^
-,<!
I 113?®
^
I
:
j:''~"~^i
'^ B15
^ hi? ?1 )
^
] ^g:
1 T! •
r" yj.
0 |-'"31—'«3
m
•t£
w..^ •fl i^i^l •i
sr^^E Ig
y a ?'•„,„,.
^ 5 ;i ^.
m '^ i IS
C3"- -t-j...iaEis^sSi i^
,.'Q,^.ffiL==
S; ! '•>-?,1
:-- w-
^^i,^e™ @.B =T'"i
"I
a @^;
i
I) a^i "nli ir
a II
ri ED
•^-
0^-' ?; I ii -
m
@
as ,11—
?
5 Q
0 ;! h.
^
^
s'
dl5 £3
*a« <^., ;^ a
•-1]
3 ^J
E3)
:u
ft
-S! i! 1^
Ci!
^
c^-" n
0 lit ^
?1~i^ .''>:1l =3 J I
•d3:1.
i—n'i.
; ^ .<;; •^c- L.Sfsl ^» tri.3) B'"lil? a,D r;l
BD®
II@'i)l
^"
y !s ^[ll m»
^
^ ,}• •s
-. ^
c@» I:
«: \
r^ i..^
:233 c;;
K
-^1-
i.
.'.
;ft%^^:%K%.^%%|%jtl|H^g:H''^
w-^s^y
•a" i~T:' a;:'i^-r'"! Ml -^:T?.Uft3 ir»1
(^
!!
c^lI
D
1^II
it
Ifi?
,'-<•
M .
1%':
.1:
.3
aI laaa
iia'iSD
id ai
K
[iiiiffSSSWiiiis^ ^i'^^,^^.;.;a^^%?^^.-^^^t^^
i laaaa !c?°aa ^JoSaa
^••^•-^^
I
c:
I
»'i ^t3
.^-
•"-ri: -"
::w;ifc . ! •."; :VssK.:
-i^r^K^Kil
i^w^sSws.
.••::< :^...^,....,-..i;S.. -
%,:
':^^,w.£%N!
^msWsS'^
'1SEE
'•^.^:'t
M:.'':.£j%^&»B»l ^ ws.•;;ti ^. '^
-11
WM.
"),
I,,
s *» 13I
^;;I!^l]!31SKl •-8
.i.;,&is«K
(^!
iaBiSlslil^l
W'^S&sssW^""' "";. ^' ' -' * ,":'1:'; SssilSff&'te&.s- - i • • .^ -.""/".'. 'i~'' '•'•~^ HI^^Bg 'i;:: '&;'}ffy^lt'^.Ay-'ii:S:".' .*-:.;;'^ ^wMm
i
-3^^
~^
Sfe.
Bfc
y}j
K
eS8r3gsS61£s&-'B:S.' ^l^.;:sS^MsSK-^Kvv: • • ^.i^-. ^-••^ .J
./^' A\ u^ D FPF !\/F n office ofthe provost /f' (f) '^ nE:-l"'t'""s vi25o East California Boulevard IS'8'""^, U_.^^-- „...,. Mail Code 206-31 ^ P^l -(125FE823 PM fe^ena.Califorma^u^ ^o jH|^<T"-u'"" 1~" '" ' ' (626)395-6336 Cil'Y CLERK
CiTY OF PASADENA
February 19, 2026Dear Members of the Pasadena City Council:I write in support of the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 East Green Street,in the context of Appeal # DHP2025-00258. This project represents an important step forward for the neighborhood and the City of Pasadena, and I urge the Council to approve it at the earliest possible time.
After thorough discussion and approval by the Design Commission, the plan for the Innovation Center is well-matched to the Green Street location. The site has for many years been an unattractive surface parking lot — contributing little to the neighborhood's vitality, walkability, or tax base. Replacing it with a hub for technology companies, many of them Caltech spin-offs, will transform an unproductive eyesore into a living, working asset for the City.
The economic benefits of the project are compelling. Technology-sectorjobs are amongthe highest-paying in the regional economy. The companies that are expected to occupythe building will generate tax revenue, attract talented workers who shop and dinelocally, and strengthen Pasadena's identity as a center of innovation. Caltech spin-off companies have a record of growing into significant employers. This project gives thema place to take root in our community, rather than migrating to other cities.
I am aware that some community members associated with the nearby church and school have raised concerns about construction noise, pedestrian and student safety, and traffic congestion. I respect those concerns, and I believe they are sincerely held. At the same time, I am confident that our partners at Trammell Crow have the experience and skill needed to address worries about construction noise, and I believe thatreplacement of a vacant lot with a well-managed innovation center will improveneighborhood safety. The required traffic studies have been completed. It is my sincere belief that the innovation center will be a net benefit to the church and school, with advantages that include expanded options for parking and enrichment activities forstudents if the school wishes to pursue them. We will strive to be good neighbors.
This project affords Pasadena an opportunity to build on the presence of Caltech in a way that benefits the East Colorado neighborhood, the City, and the broader economy ofthe San Gabriel Valley. I urge the Council to approve this project, and to send a clear California Institute of Technology Page 2
signal that Pasadena is open for the kind of thoughtful, high-quality development that isessential to its future.Thank you for your service to our community and for your careful consideration of thisimportant project.
Sincerely,
^
David A. Tirrell
ProvostCarl and Shirley Larson Provostial ChairRoss McCollum-William H. Corcoran Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
RECEIVED
cFROM: SANORA LEE BALLATOR
^«^
f • •» ^-i i r CLLHK
CiTY OF PASADENA
TO: Pasadena Design Commission
Pasadena's City Clerk's Office, Office
100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S228
Pasadena, CA 91106
Dear Commission Members, Ms. Nancy Moss of Trammel Crow, Pasadena City CouncilMembers, Mayor Gordo:
Apparendy not one person on the City of Pasadena Design Commission, the Pasadena City Council, the Caltecli Plannmg Committee for tJie Green Street Project, or Ms. Nancy Moses and the Trammel Crow Company is going to sit, sleep and work within 20 yards of the behemoth that you are planning to squeeze into the very small parking lot across from 107 South Holliston. But I will. I \nll face it. Daily. For several years. I am 84 years old, awork-at-home teacher and resident on this street for 26 years.
Empty lots north of Green Street all the way to Colorado sit vacant. Why can this amazing "hub for scientific invention" not be built where it will harm no one? This project should never have been approved for this lot. As well, an empty lot at Hill and Colorado needs a building. Whatever gave Caltech planners and you people the idea that building next to St.Phillips Church and school directly across from a nursery school was the perfect place for a business buildmg far too big for the tiny street on the west and the neighborhood itself? Clearly, not one of you will hear the noise or stmggle through traffic jams on your street, blocked with trucks, cranes, and construction equipment. Not one of you will be wakened at 7a.m. by pounding jackhammers and throbbing cement mixers and men yelling as if they arestanding in your bedroom.
Not one of you will suffer physical and psychological harm due to your neighborhood being ripped to pieces in front of you over many months and then years. And the children Uying to read at St. Philips the Apostle School, which is directly adjacent to the deafening constructionsite? Why is their safety not being considerect at all in this neighborhood disaster- story? And, the pre-schoolers at the PCC nursery school at the comer that faces this lot? They walk daily up and own Holliston Avenue and play in their schoolyard.
Stop this project now. Its placement is inhumane and will hurt the St. PhiIIips' students and teachers, residents on Holliston Avenue and nursery school children at Holliston and Green Streets. This is a residential environment and it always has been. It must not be dtetroyed;j by people who do not live here, do not have students here, and do not worship here. No -^design tweaking will solve the coming disaster: this 93,539 square-foot corporate researchbuilding. It must go ekewhere./ ^ ; 1—,CCT
i'0
LJ
°? 5":1 -?^3 :± ^ -^$ ^
?3
m
0 rn
••e-<.
rri
0 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:22 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the ApostleMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as a St. Philip the Apostle parishionerwho believes we must protect the places that anchor our community. Our churches, schools, and long-established neighborhoods are not just structures on a map — they are the foundations of daily life in Pasadena. They provide stability, belonging, and continuityacross generations. When large-scale development such as that at 1364 E. Green Street is proposed immediately beside these anchors, it raises serious concerns. Sacred spaces and neighborhood institutions depend on peace, safety, and compatibility with their surroundings. Construction impacts,increased traffic, noise, and projects that are out of scale can disrupt more than routines—they can erode the sense of place that holds a communitytogether. Pasadena has long been admired for thoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential. Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you to ensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough reviewand are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not opposition to progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.
Sincerely,
EtisaAlderete
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCLickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:58 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ i ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on Hill Avenue.
For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, andquiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that hasstood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. My parents were married in the original church building during World War II, as were many other couples of the "greatest generation." Finally, this parish is responsible for my consecration as a Discalced Secular Carmelite and for my becoming a member of the St. John Paul II Discalced Secular Carmelite Community in Alhambra, CA. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for our church and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure.It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of thisscale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too targe and out ofproportion to their surroundings. When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatjbjlity and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance and respect — for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor our community. I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process, require afull environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planningdecisions reflect this community's values.Sincerely, Barbara Ower
I Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 6:14 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Prayerful Request for Care Near St. Philip the Apostle School [ i ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Prayerful Request for Care Near St. Philip the Apostle SchoolMr. MarkJomsky, I am a parent at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing with a humble and prayerful request regarding the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street, near our school, church, and neighborhood. As parents, we entrust our children to God's care each day, hoping they are Learning in a safe and nurturing environment. For this reason, I am concerned about construction activity near the school, increased traffic on Green Street, and the presence of an R&D facility whose research uses have not been clearly explained. These uncertainties are difficult for families when children's safety is involved. I am grateful for your service to the City and respectful of Cattech's role in Pasadena. At the same time, schools and churches are sacred spaces that deserve special care. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and thoughtfully discern whether this project, as proposed, serves the common good, and to require athorough safety and environmental review. I pray that your decision will be guided by wisdom, compassion, and a deep sense of responsibility for the most vulnerable in our community. Thankyou for yourtime and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bells Moreno
Pasadena , CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:14 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseProtect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle ChurchMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on Hill Avenue.
For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, and quiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that hasstood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I amdeeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for ourchurch and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure. It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too large and out of proportion to their surroundings.
When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatibility and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance andrespect—for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor ourcommunity. I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process, require a full environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51-foot height Limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Pleaseprotect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planning decisions reflect thiscommunity's values.Sincerely, Anne Marie Simoneau
Pasadena, CA 91101 PASADENA, CA, CA 911 01 -3259 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCtickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street [ 1 ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you taoivthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Longtime Catholic parishioner who attends Mass regularly and cares deeply about ourchurch and its future. For many of us, this parish is the center of our spiritual lives. It is where I comeeach weekto pray, find peace, and feel close to God. Our church, designed by Roland Coate, is a beautiful and historic place, and the quiet and reverence of the space mean so much to those of us whohave worshipped here for many years. I support Pasadena's growth and understand the importance ofinnovation, but I worry that the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street would make it very difficult for parishioners like me. Construction often begins as early as 7:00 in the morning, and the noise, heavy trucks, and ground vibration could easily disrupt daily and weekend Masses, funerals, weddings, and times of prayer. Many parishioners are older and move more slowly, and increased trafficand noise would make attending Mass more stressful and less safe. I am also concerned that vibration could affect our historic church building, which was never meant to sit next to a Large-scale project like this. Catholic teaching reminds us to care for one another and work for the common good (Gaudium et Spes). I do not feel that approving this project without a full environmental review reflects that care. I respectfully ask the City Council to require that this project follow the 51-foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan and undergo a thorough environmental review that truly considers noise, vibration, and construction hours. Please allow this project to return in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who depend on it. Thank you for listening to my concerns and for protecting the communities that make Pasadena special.Sincerely,
Lauren Thompson
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPotitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 7:08 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Prayerful Request for Accountability and Care Near St. Philip the Apostle School [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Prayerful Request for Accountability and Care Near St. Philip the Apostle SchoolMr. MarkJomsky,I am a parent at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing with a sincere and prayerful request regarding theproposed development at 1364 E. Green Street, near our school, church, and neighborhood. As parents, we entrust our children to God's care each day, hoping they are Learning in a safe and nurturing environment. For this reason, I am deeply concerned about construction activity near the school,increased traffic on Green Street, and the placement of an R&D facility whose research uses have notbeen clearly explained. Given the proximity to a school and a church, I must ask how a project of thisscale and intensity was permitted to advance this far without clear, publicly demonstrated assurances ofchildren's safety. I am grateful foryour service to the City and respectful of Caltech's role in Pasadena.At the same time, schools and churches are sacred spaces and sensitive uses. Decisions that affect them should reflect the highest level of care, transparency, and accountability—especially when the most vulnerable members of our community are involved. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause andseriously discern whether this project, as proposed, serves the common good, and to require a thorough and meaningful safety and environmental review before it proceeds any further. I pray that your decisionwill be guided by wisdom, humility, and a deep responsibility to protect children and families. Thankyouforyourtime and consideration.Sincerely,Andrea Milam Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected], February 27, 2026 8:09 AM PublicComment-AutoResponseParishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street [ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. I am very concerned about the next many decades of children and families who will attend facilities in this neighborhood should this project go ahead. This building does not fit in the proposed location from a Pasadena local point of view. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation andinstitutions like Cattech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, andelderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this projectcomplywith the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmentalreview. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities.
Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in the neighborhood. Robert Bolger Sincerely,Robert Bolger
Sierra Made, CA 91024 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (trn) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCLickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 11:15 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 East Green St. Building Concerns
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 East Green St. Building Concerns
Mr. MarkJomsky,I Live on S Holliston across the street from the proposed building project. I work from home and attended church at St. Philip's, so this neighborhood is where I spend the overwhelming majority of my time. It is abeautiful residential street capturing the dream of Pasadena - a walkabte, small-town environment with big-city amenities. It is absolutely not the appropriate location for a multi-storey research facility.Holliston is already used as a shortcut and access street by through traffic, and the presence of a Large workplace will only exacerbate the large number of cars and unsafe driving speeds present on the street.
Moreover, this neighborhood is not zoned for this sort of development - and for good reason! Families with young children Live, work, and attend school on this street. Since I work from home, I am intimately familiar with the day-to-day rhythm of Holliston. There is already a substantial amount of noise and regular construction work, electrical work, and other maintenance which disturbs the neighborhood andinterferes with the internet connection that I rely on for my job. This new building would not only destroy the beautiful views of the mountains, the nearby Mill Library, and the church, but it would contribute tothe disruptions which already harm the otherwise pleasant life in this part of Pasadena. Finally, St.
Phillip's church is one of the vital centers of life in this part of the city. Thus new construction would harmits mission by negatively impacting the priests who live less than 10 feet from the proposed building and the elementary-age schoolchildren who attend the preschool and grade school at the church. I love Caltech; it is a gift to have it near my neighborhood. But Caltech is not in my neighborhood - nor should it be. This building represents a profound misunderstanding of the university's relationship to Pasadena and a betrayal of its duty to the families who live here. I urge you to not allow this project to move forward.Sincerely,
Geoffrey Blum
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 12:11 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know {he content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on Hill Avenue.For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, andquiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that hasstood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I amdeeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for ourchurch and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure. It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too large and out of proportion to their surroundings.
When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatibility and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance andrespect—for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor ourcommunity. I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process, require a full environmental review, andensure the project complies with the 51-foot height Limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Pleaseprotect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planning decisions reflect thiscommunity's values.Sincerely, Robert KESSINGER
Pasadena, CA 91101 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 1:18 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseParishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street [A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to uphold human dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I supportPasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfullyurge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect bothPasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allow thisproject to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in theneighborhood.
Sincerely,
AdeleAmurao
Pasadena, CA 91107-4757 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPotitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:22 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Serious Safety Concerns Regarding Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Serious Safety Concerns Regarding Development Near St. Philip the Apostle SchoolMr. MarkJomsky,How is it possible that a large construction project and proposed R&D facility at 1 364 E. Green Streetcould move forward directly adjacent to an active elementary school and church without clear andpublic assurances that children's safety has been fully protected? I am a parent of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing to express serious concern about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street. The prospect of prolonged construction next to the school, increased and unsafe traffic on GreenStreet, and an R&D buildingwith unclear research uses raises fundamental questions about oversight, planning, and public safety. Parents rely on the City to act with heightened care when projects affectschools and places of worship. It is troubling that a development of this scale and intensity appears tohave progressed so far, given its proximity to children and a residential neighborhood. At a minimum, families deserve transparency about what activities will take place on this site and how risks will be mitigated. I respect the City Council's service and acknowledge Caltech's importance to Pasadena.
However, respect for institutions must never outweigh the responsibility to protect children. I urge the Council to pause this project, require a thorough and meaningful safety and environmental review, andreconsider whether this location is appropriate for high-intensityR&D use. I ask that your decisions reflect sound judgment, accountability, and a clear commitment to the well-being of families who depend on you to safeguard their community. Thankyou for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Katie Brow
South Pasadena, CA 91030 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCtickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:33 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseRequest for Additional Review of Proposed Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Request for Additional Review of Proposed Development Near St. Philip the Apostle SchoolMr. MarkJomsky,I'm a graduate of St. Philip the Apostle School (Class of 2006), and I'm reaching out to share some concerns about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street. I look back very fondly on my 9 years at St. Philip's, which provided me with a safe, quiet, and healthy environment to learn and grow in. As I'vebegun to better understand the proposed development on Green Street, it has made me worried about the impact this project will have - specifically, that the the long-term construction and increased trafficwill materially diminish the experience of current and future students at St. Philip's. I appreciate everythingthe City Council does and the incredible work Caltech brings to Pasadena (I remember thinking it was so cool to be going to grade school down the street from such a prestigious institution and havingfriends whose parents worked there). Give the potential impact this development has on students (as well as their parents and the community more broadly), I believe that this review process anddecision should be handled with the utmost care and transparency. I'm asking the City Council takesome additional time to really consider if this project is the right fit for this specific spot. A fullenvironmental and safety review, compliance with the existing height and zoning limits, and meaningfulconsideration of the voices of the community follow what I believe to be a critical precedent. A precedentthat ensures ensure Pasadena continues to grow and develop in the coming years but that it does so in a responsible way that takes into account the local community who is most impacted. Thanks for your time and for everything you do for Pasadena.
Sincerely,
Joe Roohan
Pasadena, CA 91001 Constituent
Prepared by OneCtickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods - 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods - 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I support innovation and responsible growth in Pasadena, but development and community safety mustmove forward together. The proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street does not meet that standard. Thisis not opposition to science — it is a call for more science, transparency, and accountability. While theproject is described as supporting a startup ecosystem, the majority of the building is slated to becomehome to a large external biotechnology company. Despite its proximity to sensitive uses — including hundredsofschoolchildren—the project is proceeding under a CEQA exclusion, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Report. Key safety, traffic, and environmental impacts have not been fully studied or disclosed. Pasadena residents deserve developments that prioritize public safety. Health, traffic, andoperational impacts must be clearly evaluated before approval. Recent broad code amendments have opened the door to projects that may be inconsistent with established neighborhood planning.
Pasadena's growth should strengthen— not compromise—the safety and character of our community.
I urge the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that 1364 E. Green Street proceeds only if it truly protects nearby schools, churches, homes, and children. Our city's safety, accountability, and quality of life are at stake. Thank you.Sincerely,BobAronoff South Pasadena. CA 91031 Constituent
Prepared by OneCLickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCtickPotitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
[ ,| ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I support Pasadena's goal of growing the life-sciences sector, strengthening the tax base, and retaining Caltech-affiliated research and jobs. For that reason, I am askingyou to grant the appeal of the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and not allow it to proceed. The General Plan and East Colorado SpecificPlan exist to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale and in appropriate locations— especially near schools, churches, and residential neighborhoods. As currently configured, this projectexceeds what was envisioned for this location and moved forward without a full environmental review.Given its location next to a TK-8 school, childcare facilities, homes, and a church, it is concerning thatthe project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion without a full Environmental Impact Report. Significantsafety, traffic, and environmental questions remain unanswered. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and require a full review before allowing this project to proceed.Thank you.
Sincerely,
FiLippo Fanara
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:05 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseProtect Pasadena Neighborhoods (1364 E. Green Street) [ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods (1364 E. Green Street) Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a resident who supports responsible economic development, innovation, and the continuedsuccess of research institutions such as Caltech. However, I believe that discretionary land-use approvals must be consistent with adopted planning policies, supported by adequate environmental review, and compatible with surrounding uses, particularly where sensitive receptors are present. I am concerned that the R&D project at 1364 E. Green Street has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be appropriate for its location adjacent to a school, a church, and established residential neighborhoods.
From a planning perspective, this raises significant Land-use compatibility issues. The currentenvironmental analysis appears insufficient to fully evaluate potential project impacts related to traffic generation, air quality, noise, operational intensity, and public health, particularly as they affect sensitive receptors. I respectfully request that the City Council require a full environmental impact report consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such analysis should include a detailed evaluation of site-specific impacts, feasible project alternatives, and enforceable mitigation measures,as welt as an assessment of cumulative impacts in the surrounding area. I also urge the Council to revisit its November 2023 General Plan modification that permitted R&D facilities citywide. Allowing highintensity R&D uses with increased height allowances on residentially adjacent streets represents a significant departure from long-standing Land-use planning principles. I believe that R&D facilities with greater height and intensity should be directed to established commercial and transit-oriented corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake, ratherthan locations immediately adjacent to residentialneighborhoods, including Green Street. Finally, I am concerned that recent broad amendments to the R&D zoning code were adopted without sufficient consideration of their cumulative, area-wide, and sitespecific impacts near sensitive land uses. These amendments have enabled discretionary approvals thatmay introduce traffic, health, and safety impacts into areas that were previously buffered through zoning,height limits, and use restrictions. In our view, this reflects a process failure that warrants correctiveaction through policy refinement and clearer development standards. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this project reflects Pasadena's commitment to safety, transparency, and community character. Thank you.Sincerely, AndersTroedsson
Pasadena, CA 91103 Constituent
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:10 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please Do Not Approve the 1364 E Green Street Project
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Please Do Not Approve the 1364 E Green Street Project Mr. MarkJomsky,
I value Pasadena's commitment to innovation, research, and economic growth. At the same time, our city has invested significant effort in establishing clear plans to guide where that growth belongs and howit should relate to surrounding neighborhoods, schools, and community institutions. Despite its intensityand location, the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Report. This approach leaves unresolved questions about environmental, traffic, and health impacts.Recent code amendments may permit greater height and intensity, but permission does not equalprudence. Pasadena's long-term planning integrity depends on careful review and contextual development. I ask the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that thisproject aligns with the safety, scale, and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Thiel
• Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:32 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
[ ,1 ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I support Pasadena's goal of growing the life-sciences sector, strengthening the tax base, and retainingCaltech-affiliated research and jobs. For that reason, I am asking you to grant the appeal of the proposedproject at 1364 E. Green Street and not allow it to proceed. The General Plan and East Colorado Specific Plan exist to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale and in appropriate locations— especially near schools, churches, and residential neighborhoods. As currently configured, this projectexceeds what was envisioned for this location and moved forward without a full environmental review.Given its location next to a TK-8 school, childcare facilities, homes, and a church, it is concerning thatthe project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion without a full Environmental Impact Report. Significantsafety, traffic, and environmental questions remain unanswered. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and require a full review before allowing this project to proceed.Thank you.
Sincerely,
Karen McClintock
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
February 26, 2026
Elizabeth Hong, Ph.D.1200 E. California Blvd
MC 216-76
Pasadena, CA91125
RECEIVED
20?6FEB27 AM (I: 52
CJTY CLERK
CITY OF PASADENA
Dear Pasadena City Council,
As a member of the Pasadena community, I write to express concern about the proposal to situate the Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green St. I have studied, worked, or taught at Caltech for nearly 15 years between 1998 and present day, and I am very familiar with theneighborhood, having lived just blocks away on Chester Ave. years ago. The proposed site sits within the city block bounded by Green St. and Cordova St. (on the north and south, respectively), and Holliston Ave and Hill Ave (on the west and east, respectively), which hasbeen the historic home of St. Philip the Apostle parish and school. The construction of a large, multistory, commercial for-profit building immediate adjacent to buildings where young children learn and souls are nurtured is inappropriate and does not respect the work that St. Philip doesin our community, nor the spiritual needs of its parishioners. The families of St. Philip worshipand mark the deepest events of their lives at this site - births, marriages, deaths - and to be forced to conduct their rituals in the shadow of a for-profit, commercial building that towers higher than the steeple of the church is incongruous and unnecessary.
I understand the economics of the proposed project likely requires a certain sized footprint for the building to achieve financial viability. Additionally, the nature of the work being proposed inthe building (wet lab biomedical research) requires specific facilities and equipment for transporting, containing, and neutralizing hazardous materials, such as toxic chemicals,flammables, radioactive materials, biomedical waste, and/or compressed gases. I am highlyfamiliar with the many specialized procedures that are required for safely conducting this kind of research, since I run a wet lab myself, and I am concerned that I have not seen a plan for how this will be achieved safely and without undue burden on the parish. I was shocked to learn that Caltech is seeking an exemption from a full environmental impact review of the project, especially given its proximity to a school and daycare. This is completely inappropriate and does not align with Caltech's stated commitment to rigorous inquiry.
Common sense leads to the conclusion that the proposed Innovation Center building requiresa certain size and scope of specialized resources that are inappropriate for the proposed site 3/2/2026
Item 10
on Green Street. Pasadena as a whole, and this neighborhood in particular, has no shortage of underutilized land in commercial corridors that would be far more appropriate for a building of this size and specialized function, for instance, one block away along Colorado Blvd. The Innovation Center project could anchor revitalization of that stretch of historic Colorado, conveniently and prominently located just steps from Pasadena City College.
I apologize that a prior obligation prevents me from being able to attend the City Council meeting on 3/2 to share my perspectives in person. However, I wanted to write so that you are aware that support for the construction of the Center at 1364 E. Green St. among members of the Caltech community is far from unanimous. While faculty at Caltech are excited about their science and want to see it commercialized for the benefit of society, many of us are do notwant it to be done at the immediate expense of our neighbors and community members.
I understand the tremendous time, energy, and money that has already been sunk by the City, Caltech, and Trammell Crow into this project. I understand there are no financial incentives todelay, but there are so many moral imperatives that should give us pause. I know that there aresolutions that allow Caltech and Pasadena to pursue this project and reap the innovation andeconomic benefit, while also respecting the integrity of the local community. I sincerely ask youto reflect whether you feel right about standing behind elite private universities, private developers, and deep-pocketed corporate giants like Eli Lilly in their efforts to steamroll the concerns of a historic community parish and school.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,Elizabeth Hong, Ph.D.
Professor of NeuroscienceCalifornia Institute of [email protected] (617)935-6403(0)
STONER CARLSON LLP
Attorneys at Law
Scott W. Carlson, PartnerRichard A. McDonald, Of Counsel www-.carlsonnicholas.com
30 IE. Colorado Blvd.
Suite No. 320
Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 356-4801
RECEIVED
2026 FEB 27 PH 3^53
CITY CLERK
CITY OF PASADENA
[email protected](%stonercarlson.com
February 27, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Victor M. GordoVice-Mayor Jess Rivas,
Honorable Councilmembers Cole, Hampton, Jones, Lyon, Madison, and Masuda c/o City Clerk
City of Pasadena
100 N. Garfield Avenue, 2d Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: Cal-Tech Innovation Center- 1364 E. Green StreetDear Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas, and Honorable Councilmembers:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the appellant Building A Better Pasadena, LLC, which is a community organization focused on promoting the City's economic growth with contextualdevelopment that fits its surroundings and adheres to the City's General Plan and Specific Plans.Those plans were adopted after more than a decade of community meetings where the publicrepeatedly emphasized that it wanted growth that is compatible with the City's history, values, culture, neighborhoods and historical structures so that we preserve our sense of place. The proposed project is the opposite of that compatibility and sense of place and Appellant thus opposes the project. Specifically:
First, attached to this letter as Exhibit A is our January 22, 2026 submittal to the Design Commission that explains how the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan, not consistent with the East Colorado Specific Plan, not consistent with the City's 2023 restrictionon research and development uses at or near schools and residential neighborhoods, and noteligible for a categorical exemption under CEQA. 3/2/2026
Item 10
Second, attached as Exhibit B is a legal memorandum that identifies five specific design deficiencies and how they could possibly be addressed. However, the Design Commission failedto do so. As such, the Commission's required finding that the project "will comply with the purposes of design review" cannot be made based on the current design.
Third, attached as Exhibit C is the February 16, 2026 submittal by Erika Foy that includes the traffic study and drone video footage contradicting the City's analysis along with her memorandum on the traffic issues not addressed by the City. Both show visually and inwriting that there are significant traffic impacts that were not studied by the City and thatpreclude the use of a categorical exemption under CEQA.
Fourth, attached as Exhibit D are the City Council's Minutes from its December 4, 2023 meeting, wherein it adopted the proposed amendments to the City's regulations for research anddevelopment uses. There, the Mayor and Council expressed concerns about allowing such uses near schools and neighborhoods and prohibiting them on public school sites with instmctions to staff to work with the Planning Commission on the issue. Specifically, Councilmember Madison expressed concerns that vacant school properties in residential neighborhoods may not be viable or suitable sites for research and development uses/businesses; and, Mayor Gordo also expressedconcerns with R&D uses of vacant school sites in neighborhoods; and suggested that the use of vacant schools for non-educational purposes be carved out of the proposed ordinance if the location is in residential areas to prevent traffic and employment impacts on neighborhoods.Please note that (1) it has been two years, and staff has still not reported back to the Council as directed, and (2) two of the three speakers in support of the amendments were from Biocom California.
Fifth, with that in mind, attached as Exhibit E is the Biocom California Case Study on how Biocom "began an 18-month endeavor to change the local hazardous materials ordinance and the land use zoning codes" in the City of Pasadena. In and of itself, this may seem innocuous until you realize that the changes mean that this facility can operate at a Biosafety Level 2 or 3, involving hazards that are more likely to be chemical (flammables, solvents,compressed gases) rather than infectious disease; although, there is nothing in the zoning codeprohibiting infectious disease research. As the City's maps show, there is a school and historic Church next door to it, and multi-family residential across the street. Is this actually what you
mean to approve and allow? Appellants are shocked that this is even being considered let alonepotentially approved.
Under CEQA, at a minimum, this type of facility's immediate proximity to a church, school, and residential neighborhood should trigger a Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment withan analysis of:
Accidental release scenarios
Toxic air contaminant exposure
• Emergency response times
Evacuation conflicts
• Cumulative risk
Here, no such assessment or analysis was done. Instead, staff claims it does not know who the tenant will be. But a simple review of the record from the December 4, 2023 meeting shows the likely tenant to be Protomer Technologies, which is developing "next generation protein therapeutics". See, Exhibit F. A simple review of its website shows chemical researchthat inherently has risks: https://ww'-\v.protomer.comyscience/ The Applicant and Cal-Tech also have made clear that other tenants will be in the building, any of which may conduct biological or chemical testing and none of which has beenconsidered or studied. In particular, the environmental studies for the proposed categoricalexemption were limited to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality and cultural resources. There is no discussion of laboratory classifications, research categories, or biosafety levels (e.g., BSL-1, BSL-2, BSL-3). In other words, there is nothing that analyzes the safety levels,types of research, or intensity of research that could occur inside the R&D building that will have a significant environmental impacts outside the building on the adjacent properties.
Indeed, there is not one condition of approval that addresses the potential risks of placing such a use adjacent to a historic church, school, and residential neighborhoods just like there is not one condition of approval that addresses the significant traffic and other environmental impacts shown to the Design Commission and City. Nothing, therefore, limits or restricts the type of research that could occur in the building, the levels of laboratory classification, the nature of materials that could be stored or used, any operational safety protocols, any hazardousmaterial thresholds specific to R&D uses, or anything that addresses the proximity concerns
related to a school or church from a safety-use perspective.
Sixth, since the January 27, 2026 Design Conimission hearing, Appellant has been provided the January 28, 2026 Decision Letter which lists numerous conditions of approval under the heading "Excavation ofAsbestos-Containing Asphalt on Green Street" and beginning with Condition #32. For your convenience, they are attached as Exhibit G to this letter.
As you will see, the conditions of approval are actually mitigation measures imposed to avoid significant air quality impacts. Specifically, the conditions identify the location of the asbestos, set the thresholds for remediation, impose health and safety protections, and regulate what equipment can and cannot be used for the remediation of it. Given the proximity ofresidential buildings and schools, under CEQA the significant known environmental impact of the removal of the existing asbestos has to be studied, not found to be exempt and then saddled with conditions of approval. In other words, there is no such thing as a mitigated categorical exemption. See, Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County ofMarin (2004) 125 Cal.App. 4th 1098 (If a project may have a significant effect on the enviromnent, CEQA review must occur and only then are mitigation measures relevant. . . . Mitigation measures may support anegative declaration but not a categorical exemption."). Simply put, rather than rushing the project through the process, there should have been community engagement, adequate environmental review including a Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment, various mitigationmeasures and conditions of approval that address the objections and opposition presented, and a dialogue on the various design issues that render the project incompatible with the neighborhood.
None of that occurred.
Seventh, since the January 27, 2026 Design Commission hearing. Appellant also has discovered architectural drawings and contemporaneous newspaper clippings documenting the work of Roland Coate, the original architect of St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church. We understand that the drawings and other information recently discovered were filed with you onFebruary 20, 2026 so that you have them in the administrative record at the hearing on this matter.
As you will see, these materials constitute substantial evidence of the architectural and historical significance of the Church campus, none of which was studied and all of whichpreclude the use of a categorical exemption under CEQA. Specifically, the environmental I
review failed to recognize that Roland Coate was the original architect of the Church and did notanalyze the implications of his authorship in determining whether the campus qualifies as ahistorical resource under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. This omission also renders the categoricalexemption invalid because there is no historical resources analysis. See, Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15300.2 (f) ("Historical Resources, A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.").
Eighth, given its historic eligibility under CEQA, the damage that will be caused by the excavation and jack hammering a fifty (50) feet deep hole spanning almost 40,000 square feet of soil literally feet away from a church with multiple large stained-glass windows further mandates a historical resources analysis. Regardless of the equipment used, experience in December 2025with the disassembly of the surface metal elevations shows the likely significant impact thatneeds to be studied under CEQA and mitigated. Then, daily masses and classes were rocked with vibrations and disruptions, not to mention shaking buildings. These facts are not conjecturebut rather real-life impacts experienced by parishioners and the school when that work was done.
Ninth, as stated in Public Resources Code §21002, et. seq., "The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant enviromnental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematicallyidentiiying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives orfeasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects."How can this be done when there is no historical resources analysis, a traffic study that is incomplete and in error, no hazardous materials assessment, and the acknowledgement ofasbestos but no study or legally proper mitigation measures? As you are well aware, under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse enviromnentaleffect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(l); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 931.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review. (PocketProtectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the
typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
The 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on apreponderance of the evidence. [Citations] . The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.
The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolveconflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274 (CEB). The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courtsowe no deference to the lead agency's detennination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [emphasis in original].
Further, as a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes . . . expert opinion." (PRC § 21080(e)(l); 14 CCR § 15064(f)(5).) Where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(5); PRC § 21080(e)(l); PocketProtectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935.) An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." (No Oil, Inc.v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83. And "if there is a disagreement among expertsover the significance of an effect, the agency is to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR. [Citations.]" (Moss v. Cty. of Humboldt {7.QW) 162 Cal,App.4th 1041, 1049.
Our letter to the Design Commission explains the Project's problems under CEQA in detail, and why it does not qualify for an in-fill exemption. But in short, "[w]ith narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment."! Laurel Heights, supra, 47
1. "Significant effect on the environment" means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21068, emphasis added. "CEQA requires that an agency determine whether a project may have a significant environmental impact, and thus whether an EIR is required, before it approves that project." Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 394, emphasis original; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Page?
Cal.3d at p. 391, citations omitted; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(a). Specifically, contrary to staffs assertion that the Project is exempt from environmental review, "categorical exemptionsare not absolute. Even if a project falls within the description of one of the exempt classes, it may nonetheless have a significant effect on the environment based on factors such as location,cumulative impact, or unusual circumstances. '[W]here there is any reasonable possibility thata project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper.' " Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 688-689 ("Save Our Carmel River"), citing to Ass n for Protection ofEnv 't Values in Ukiah v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 726 (emphasis added).2 Finally, when a lead agency chooses to dispose ofCEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to the exemption. This duty isimposed by CEQA and related case law. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 [lead agency shall notknowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects]; see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex r el. 14th Disl. Agriculture Assn. (2015)242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 [lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project fallswithin a categorical exemption and must support the determination with substantial evidence]; accord Assn. for Protection etc. Values v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 [lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact].) See also, Davidon Homes, supra, 54 Cal.App.4that p.115;Dehne, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 842. "Substantial evidence is evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." Banker's Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 261, fn.IO.
Here, however, the record is devoid of any evidence "that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value" regarding the lack of any possible cumulative environmentalCal.3d 68, 79. (Emphasis added).2. "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances;' Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15300.2.
impacts; particularly, cumulative traffic impacts. Moreover, the discovery of the historical eligibility based upon the renowned architect's drawings that are being submitted renders the exemption invalid altogether as explained above.
In sum, the Project must respect the existing built environment and be contextual with its surrounding uses. It fails to do so for the reasons explained herein. It is, therefore, not consistent with the General Plan, the ECSP, and not eligible for any exemption under CEQA. Appellantthus respectfully requests that its appeal be granted and a full environmental review be prepared so that all the significant environmental impacts we have identified, and all the alternatives for properly mitigating them, are properly and thoroughly analyzed.
Last, regardless of the undeniable sanctity of the Church and its constitutionally protected use, any structure similar to the newly built Keck/USC building at the southeast comer of Fair Oaks Avenue and California Blvd. should never be deemed appropriate for a comer lot at GreenStreet and Holliston Avenue. This neighborhood should not and must not become a CentralBusiness District, even with Caltech's proximity, particularly given the ECSP policies to achieve the opposite type of development. Appellant does not oppose the location of this Project in the Central Business District, such as on Colorado Boulevard as an alternate more fitting location, but strongly opposes it here.
Sincerely,
4^^^^>
Richard A. McDonald, Esq.Of Counsel, Stoner Carlson LLP I
EXHIBIT A
STONER CARLSON LLP
Attorneys at Law
Scott W. Carlson, PartnerRichard A. McDonaId, Of Counsel \v..'.-
301 E. Colorado Blvd.
Suite No. 320
Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 356-4801
[email protected]@stonercarlson.com
January 22, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
Chair Julianne Delgado, Vice-Chair Marie-Claude Fares & Honorable Members of the Design Comniission
c/o Planning & Community Development DepartmentCity of Pasadena175 N. Garfield Avenue, 3d Floor Pasadena, CAP 1101
Re: Cal-Tech Innovation Center - 1364 E. Green Street
Dear Chair Delgado, Vice-Chair Fares, and Honorable Commissioners:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the parishioners, members, parents, and neighbors of the historic St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church and St. Philip the Apostle School(collectively, "Parishioners"), which has been a community institution since 1921 serving a community of several thousand people, many of whom are long-time residents of the City/ )(^ Specifically, Parishioners are concerned about the proposed 93,539 square foot research
1. St. Philip the Apostle, History of the St. Philip the Apostle Church:
https://\vww.stphiliptheapostle.or&/histon' (Accessed May 21, 2025).
2. While the conceptual plans include photos of the Parish, they suggest the Project is far awayfrom the Project Site. Note that other commercial facilities are shown in close-up photos even though they are farther away from the Project Site, so as to hide the proximity of the Church,Parish and School that surround two sides of the Project Site.
and development building with on-site laboratory space above th-ee levels of subterranean parking (the "Project") located next door to the Church and School at 1364 Green St-eet ( the "Site"). See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
As stated on the website for the California Institute of Technology ("Caltech"), the Project is "a building to be developed by Trammell Crow Co. on a Caltech-owned parking lot.This future research and development building at 1364 E. Green St. will have laboratory and office space to support Caltech's start-up companies and Pasadena's growing biotech and innovation ecosystem." (Emphasis added).
As such, the Project is a speculative for-profit investment for the applicant who has submitted plans that conflict with the City's General Plan, Specific Plan, applicable developmentstandards, and is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. The resulting detrimental effects to a religious and educational institution that have been serving the community for over 100 years are discussed below. But given the size, scope and proposed use for the Project, at a minimum, a robust analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub.Res. Code § 21000 etseq.) is required, not a categorical exemption.
Parishioners, therefore, are asking you not to approve the Project until a complete EIR has been done, which will insure public input and full mitigation measures to protect andpreserve the sanctity of the Church, the School, and their neighborhood.
Lest you be concerned whether requiring an ED?- is within your purview, California courts have consistently held that planning and design review bodies retain independent discretion to deny or condition projects and may rely on technical experts for analysis, butdiscretionary bodies are not required to accept expert conclusions where the design raises Page3
unresolved safety or land-use compatibility concerns (see Topanga Assn. for a ScenicCommunity v. County of Los Angeles, 1 1 Cal.3d 506 (1974); Berkeley Hillside Preservation v.City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (2015)). Transportation studies inform decision-making; they do not compel approval where substantial evidence supports design-level concerns.
I. Religious Values Have Been Ignored By The Applicant And The Cit^ The proposed 80 feet high structure, in its mass, dominating profile, bulk, and height is not only incompatible with but affirmatively (and quite obviously) invades the religiouspurpose, sanctity, and sacredness of the Church and School, which for over 100 years have served as a venue for healing, spiritual nourishment, hope, community fellowship and restorationof the spirit. These are constitutionally protected rights that no City can or should ignore.
Thousands of parishioners and guests mamfest their adherence to these values daily and weekly by attending 18 masses per week, funerals, weddings, baptisms and other sacramentalrituals and events at the Church. Also, on the St. Philip the Apostle parish grounds, approximately 550 children in grades TK through 8th receive a quality Catholic education fromdedicated and committed faculty and staff throughout the school year. None of these appear inany Staff report, nor is the impact on them given its due weight. Indeed, recently at the 12:05Mass there was concrete breaking activity going on with a backhoe that was so noisy that itdrowned out the mass and homily, knocked over some supporting colunms, and shook the buildings.
Similarly, December 8, 2025 was a Holy Day of Obligation, and the Church offered four masses for parishioners and non-parishioners. Some of the masses were in English and others in Spanish with hundreds of attendees and approximately 550 children going to school next door.
The detrimental impact of constmcting three subterranean levels of parking and an 80-foot-high building are exponentially greater than what already has occurred.
No religious mstitution or school - be it public (like PUSD) or parochial— should have its very purpose of providing peace, tranquility, solace and restoration trampled upon by some massive adjacent biiilding simply because it is profitable regardless of whether it serves science, innovation, or other secular values. The City has done nothing to measure these impacts on the religious purpose and unique function of this beautiful and historic Church.
In short, Caltech knew it was buying a site oext to the Church and knows the purpose of the Church and its School. But now it and the City pretend that Parishioners' religious values have no place in their analysis of a zoning matter. It thus never held a town hall meeting with Parishioners about its plans nor surveyed the thousands of weekly users of the Church and School on the impact of such a massive building overshadowing, dwarfing, and looming over their sacred and holy Church, not to mention the dismption to their peace and spiritual journeys.
II. The Project Is Not Consistent with The Cih 's General Plan The Project is adjacent to St, Philip's Parish and School. It also is across the storeet from Pasadena City College Child Development Center, which provides childcare for children between four months and 5 years old (3); and, across the street from low-density multi-familyhousing that does not exceed 30 feet in height. As proposed, the Project at 80 feet thus willdwarf the existing neighborhood, which typically does not exceed 30 feet.(4)
3. Pasadena City College, Available at: https://pasadena.edu/cdc/index.php (Accessed May 21, 2025).
4. City of Pasadena, Plaiming and Community Development Department Staff Report, Application for Preliminary Consultation of a Three-to-Four Story Research and Development
Contrary to the assertions in the Staff Report, therefore, the Project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Specifically:
A. Guiding Principle 1 and 2 provide that, "Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance the quality of life. Higher density development will be directedaway from residential neighborhoods and into the Central District, Transit Villages, and Neighborhood Villages. These areas will have a diverse housing stock, job opportunities, exciting districts with commercial and recreational uses, and transit opportunities. New development will build upon Pasadena's tradition of strong sense of place, great neighborhoods,gardens, plazas, parks, and trees"; and that, "Pasadena's historic resources will be preserved.Citywide, new development will be in harmony with and enhance Pasadena's unique characterand sense of place. New construction that could affect the integrity of historic resources will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the existing resource." B. The General Plan zones the Site as "Medium Mixed-Use", which is defmed as "Medium Mixed Use. 0.0-2.25 FAR, 0-87 dwelling units per acre. Intended to support thedevelopment ofmulti-story buildings with a variety of compatible commercial (retail and office)and residential uses. Development is characterized by shared open spaces, extensive landscaping,small to medium separations between buildings, and shared driveways and parking. Sites may be exclusively commercial or exclusively residential, or with buildings vertically integratinghousing with non-residential uses. Mixed use development projects containing housing shall Building with 93,539 sqiiarefeet of office and laboratory space and three levels of subterranean parking, ("Staff Report") (Mary 13, 2025): Available at:
Iiyj2S^/www^cm^ot]T^^
Cornmission-4A4j64^Gree (Accessed May 21,
2025).
incorporate amenities contributing to a quality living environment for residents includingcourtyards, recreation facilities, and similar elements. Where buildings face the street frontage, they shall be designed to enhance pedestrian activity with transparent facades for retail uses and distinctive entries for housing. Parking shall be located below or to the rear of the street. Projects consfa'ucted at Medium Mixed-Use densities may be required to develop pedestrian-oriented streetscape amenities along their primary street frontages, consistent with the improvement concepts and plans defined by the City."
C. As the Commission knows, "Goals" in the General Plan are statements that describe the City's purpose and direction in reducing its natural hazards. "Policies" areguidelines that can be implemented to reduce the City's risk and maximize the commumty's emergency preparedness, "Programs" are the specific actions that the City has coimnitted to implement over a given number of years to reduce its hazards.
Here, the Project is not consistent with Goal 3, which emphasizes a "mix and distribution of land uses characterized by their compatibility." Goal 3.1 further seeks to avoid "the concentration of uses and facilities in any neighborhood or district where their intensities,operations, and/or to-affic could adversely impact the character, safety, health, and quality of life.And Goal 3.5 prohibits "land uses which pose potential health and environmental hazards toPasadena's neighborhoods and districts." Given the unknown nature of the potential users of the Project, each of these goals is at issue.
Similarly, Goal 4 is to develop a "safe, well-designed, accessible City with a diversity of uses and forms. These diverse forms include distinct, waUcable districts, corridors, and transitand neighborhood villages and cohesive, unique single and multi-family residential Page?
neighborhoods and open spaces where people of all ages can live, work, shop and recreate." Toward that end. Goal 4. 11 requires that "development demonstrates a contextual relationshipwith neighbormg structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing,orientation, setbacks, buffering, the arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, in&asfanicture, and aesthetics"; and. Goal 4.12 requires that "the scale and massing of new development in higher-density centers and corridors provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk and are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining lower-density neighborhoods." Nothing about the Project even remotely achieves these goals. Simply put, it is not contextial, it does not address any of the requisite elements, it does not provide any transition let alone an appropriate one, and it is not sensitive to the adjoining neighborhood inany way, shape, or form.
Finally, Goal 6 requires development "that evolves while maintaining Pasadena's unique »•
sense of place, character, and the urban fabric'. Policy 7.3 requires that new buildings "aredesigned to respect and complement the defining built form, massing, scale, modulation, and architectural detailing of their contextual setting", and Policy 23.3 mandates "appropriateSetbacks, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, along the street frontage and, where there are setbacks, ensure adequate landscaping is provided." Nothing about the Project evenremotely achieves these goals either.
HI. The Project Is Not Consistent with the Cih 's East Colorado Snccific Plan After the General Plan was updated in 2015, the East Colorado Specific Plan ("ECSP") was updated in 2022, which is only three years ago. The Our Pasadena update process was a Page8
multi-year effort that consisted of numerous hearings in front of every city commission and special community meetings, that were attended by hundreds if not thousands of residents - all expressing their vision for what the City should be.
Under Zoning Code Section 17.31.030.C, the purpose of the ECSP zoning districts (Figure ECSP-1) is to implement the Plan's vision for each of the subareas described in the ECSP adopted in 2022. For example, the Plan states that the vision for East Colorado is totransform it from largely auto oriented uses into a series ofpedestrian-oriented villages and districts with unique identities, bolstered by their vibrant mix of uses, amenities and streetscapes improving their walkability and appearance. Toward that end, the overall objective for the planning area is to break up long stretches of commercial uses with residential uses and cluster commercial uses in nodes. Neighborhood Villages then could be established along ColoradoBoulevard in the vicmity of Hill Street and Sierra Madre Boulevard containing a mix ofcommercial and residential uses with pedestrian-oriented amenities and plazas. Those mix of uses and design would serve as a gathering place and be walkable from adjoining neighborhoods.
Of relevance to this case is the Plan for the Village near Pasadena City College that would offer unique opportunities to serve and provide new housing opportunities for studentsand faculty. Conversely, the Plan shows the Lamanda Park sub-area would offer the opportunity to serve as an mcubator for creative technology, and medical start-up industries, capitalizing on their proximity to Pasadena's esteemed academic institutions like Caltech.
As proposed, the Project thus is in the wrong place, which explains why it does not fit within the neighborhood context and is not consistent with the ECSP.
For example, the Project Site requires a minimum 15-foot setback since it is located
adjacent to parcels zoned PS and RM. The Project also disregards the required setbacks forGreen Street and Holliston Street as well as setbacks that are intended to respect the neighborhood context.(5) In fact, the existing Parish Rectory was built to the property line before the adoption of the current setback requirements, which means that the Church clergy who reside there would be detrimentally impacted by the constmction and operations of the Project just 15 feet away. The sole exit for the vehicles parked in the 260 underground parking spaces at theProject and the tractor trailers and box vans that deliver materials daily is right outside theclergy's bedrooms and dining area.
Similarly, the Project Site as Mixed-Use Neighborhood ("EC-MU-N"), which is intended to promote the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood with a broad range of retail, office, services and multi-family housing.(6) The Project, however, proposes acommercial use that does not contain "mixed uses" nor does it create any pedestrian friendly neighborhood. While the Project was initially reviewed by the City Design Commission on May 13, 2025, the Project still fails to meet several required development standards that are mandated by the Specific Plan, and7or fails to demonstrate how it complies with those standards. As noted in the Staff Report, the Project has not demonstrated that it provides sufficient parkwayamenities, street trees, walk zones, open space, and other pedestrian amenities/71 Further, despite the Staff Report stating the Project meets contextual setting by
5. Staff Report, Attachment A, pp. 4-5.
6. City of Pasadena, East Colorado Specific Plan, p. 61(emphasis added) (February 28, 2022).
Available at: |^T^l//'www_cit^oJ;fiasadena^n^
Cok^^-^^iilc-Pianj5df?Y=1747M (Accessed May 21, 2025).
7 Staff Report, Attachment A, p. 3.
comparing it to larger buildings on Fair Oaks, Colorado, Los Robles, and Lake Avenue, the only building referenced DOES NOT EXIST as it has yet to be consfa-ucted. The fact of the matter is that Holliston Avenue is not Lake Avenue or Colorado Boulevard. That comparison is disingenuous and a disservice to all the community members and City planners that worked so hard to develop and constmct a very thoughtful and well-done East Colorado Specific Plan.
And in every specific plan that encompasses Green Street, heights have been limited - in some areas as low as 35' - for the specific purpose of maintaining a very low-scale, pedestrian oriented feel that would not conflict or compete with the tree canopy. The ECSP pennits a height of 51' however, the concept design review package presents an inappropriate building height of 79' when including the appurtenance for much of the building's mass. Not only were densities and Floor Area Ratios established (development volume and intensity) so too were heights, in the ECSP. This decision to keep Green Street at a lower scale has long been the plan, but the Project destroys that lower scale, walkability, context, feel, and sense of place.
As proposed, therefore, the Project is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood context and does not take into consideration the existing built environment, nor has it provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it even meets the applicable development standards under the ECSP.
Moreover, were this building built on Caltech's campus under its Master Plan ("MP"), it would have to comply with a variety of setbacks and height limitations that would make it almost impossible to be built as proposed; and it would not be categorically exempt. In fact, a simple comparison of the renderings for the proposed Project (Exhibit "A") and the recently built Chen Neuroscience building (Exhibit "B") show the stark contrast, which raises the issue on why the
Project is not having to meet Caltech's MP higher standards when it is for its own use.
Further, in 2021 the Design Commission considered an Addendum to Caltech's FSEIR when it was presented with the Resnik Sustainability Center for Concept Design Review rather than a categorical exemption. That 80,000 building used a basement to reduce height and was set back 90 feet from S. Wilson Avenue. See Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Last, how does the Project comply with the historic adjacency standards under Section
17.31.070.F? Figure EC SP-14, 15, and 16 set forth those standards such as transition massing, streets setbacks, interior setbacks, street wall heights ("A maximum street wall height shall notexceed the height of the historic resource for a minimum of 20 feet from the shared propertyline"), stepbacks, and facade lengths and area. All of these standards are in play given theProject's location, but a simple review of the elevations and renderings show that only a few have been addressed. While alternative means of compliance are available for the modulationrequirements under the Code, the Design Commission would need to make the five required fmdings in Section 17.31 .070.0., none of which can be made nor are they supported by any substantial evidence. Exhibit "A" shows it does not meet the standards and that the findings cannot be made.
IV. The Project Does Not Belon& Next To A School
The ECSP was amended in 2023 to allow the R&D land use as a permitted use. But, as the City Council's December 4, 2023 minutes show, the Council had specific concerns about theR&D land use on Pasadena Unified School Disfa'ict sites noting the school sites, in residential neighborhoods were not appropriate for R&D projects.
i
In fact, the City Council opted to prohibit the establishment ofR&D uses on school district property after the Planning Commission in their communication to the Council explained that the idea ofR&D uses stemming from school uses applied only to PCC and Caltech, not school sites in close proximity to residential zones. (Note: This paragraph is a little clunky as I had to read it a few times to get the message and I knew the message we were makmg.) In this case, the Project is adjacent to an RM district, contiguous to residential uses, and proximate to sensitive users - an elementary school and historic church full of daily parishioners.Every condition that caused the City Council and Planning Commission not to permit such uses in such proximity to schools exists m this case making this Site equally inappropriate and impermissible.
Again, the City Council's minutes clearly show the Council's intent to protect schools and their surrounding neighborhoods from R &D uses: "Following discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Hampton, seconded by Councilmember Masuda, to approve staff recommendation, amended as follows: prohibiting Research and Development (R&D) uses at K-12 school sites that are in PS Zones, with direction to City staff to work with the Planning Commission on possible uses and to report back in 8 months. (Motion unanimously approved) (Absent: None)"
It has been two years, and staff has still not reported back to the Council as directed. The processing of this Project raises suspicions on why. Regardless, there is no doubt that theproposed R&D Land Use at this location conflicts with Council's directions and is thus anotherreason it is not consistent with the ECSP.
V. The Project Is Not Eligible for a Catesorical Exemption A. CEQA - The Analytical Framework.
In enacting CEQA, the California Legislatu-e declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21001. "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act 'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment withinthe reasonable scope of the statutory language.'" Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n v. RegentsofUniv. ofCal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 ^Laurel Heights"), Citizens ofGoleta Valley v. Bd. ofSupervisors of Santa Barbara Cnty. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 563-64 ^Citizens ofGoleta Valley"). "With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approveor to carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. "8 Laurel Heights,supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 391, citations omitted; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(a). "CEQA is primarily a procedural statute" (1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act 17 (January 2011)), and states that the purpose of an EIRis to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effectwhich a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which thesignificant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such aproject. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21061. It is therefore critical that CEQA's procedural mles be"scmpulously followed." Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392.
Toward that end, CEQA's implementing regulations in Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15000 et. seq. (the "Guidelines") set forth a three-tier process for CEQA review.
8. "Significant effect on the environment" means "a substantial, or potentially substantial,adverse change in the environment." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21068, emphasis added. "CEQA requires that an agency determine whether a project may have a significant environmental impact, and thus whether an EIR is required, before it approves that project." Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 394, emphasis original; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) f3 Cal.3d 68, 79. (Emphasis added).
The first tier requires a determination whether the proposed action. is a project. If so, the second tier requires a detennination whether the project is exempt from environmental review under either a statutory or categorical exemption. If not, the third tier requires the preparation of an initial study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano Cnty. Airport Land Use Comm'n (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380-81.
In this case, the City asserts that the Project is a project under Tier One, but exempt from any environmental review under Tier Two. In that regard, "categorical exemptions are not absolute. Even if a project falls within the description of one of the exempt classes, it maynonetheless have a significant effect on the environment based on factors such as location, cumulative impact, or unusual circumstances. ' [W]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper.' " Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 688-689 ^Save Our Carmel River"), citing to Ass 'n for Protection ofEnv't Values in Ukiah v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 726 (emphasis added).9 The Guidelines specifically state: "All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." 10 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §^ 15300,2. The issue, therefore, is whether the Project
9. "A categorical exemption shall not be iised for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the envii-omnent due to unusual circumstances." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15300.2.
10. "Cumulative impacts" refer to "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a)Theindividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separateprojects, (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment whichresults from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of tune." Cal.Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15355. With respect to the cumulative impact exception, an agency is required to consider the issue of significant effects and cumulative impacts of a proposed project
creates a cumulative impact or "any reasonable possibility" of a significant effect on the environment, and the neighborhoods around it. Under CEQA, any doubt that it has such an effect requires environmental review under Tier Three.
B. Exemptions Are Construed Narrowly and Not Applicable. "In keeping with general prmciples of statutory constmction, exemptions are construed narrowly and will not be unreasonably expanded beyond their terms." County ofAmador, supra,76 Cal.App.4th at p. 966. "Strict constmction allows CEQA to be interpreted in a manner affording the fullest possible environmental protections within the reasonable scope of statutorylanguage. It also comports with the statutory directive that exemptions may be provided only for projects which have been determined not to have a significant envirofimental effect" (Id., citations omitted, emphasis added.) Put another way, "where there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper." Save Our Carmel River, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 689, emphasis added.
More specifically, The CEQA Guidelmes(ll) include a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§m detenniniag whether the project is exempt from CEQA where there is some information or evidence in the record that the project might have a significant environmental effect. Ass 'n for Prot. ofEnvtl. Values in Ukiah, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 732 (citing to East Peninsula Educ.Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula UnifiedSch. Dist. (1989) 210 Cal.App.Sd 155,172). "[T]he purpose of the requirement that cumulative impacts be considered ... isto ensure reviewof the effects of the project in context with other projects of the same type." Save Our Carmel River., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at 703-04 (footnote omitted). "Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum." Cmtys. For a Better Envtl. v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98,1 14,disapproved on other grounds by Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086;
11.14 CCR section 15000 et seq are referred to herein as the "CEQA Guidelines." The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 etseq areregulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natiiral Resources Agency for the implementation ofCEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given "great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . .. clearly unauthorized or erroneous." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204,217.
15300-15332.) Nevertheless, such CEQA exemptions must be "construed narrowly" (Cnty. of Amador v. El Dorado Cnty. Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966) and interpreted "to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statiitory language" (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 (hereafter, "Save Our CarmeF)). CEQA exemptions are resented for projects without potential to have significant environmental effects. (See Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. Cnty. ofMarin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107 ["If a project may have a significant effect on the enviroimient, CEQA review must occur"].) In addition, when a lead agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to the exemption. This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 [lead agency shall notknowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects]; see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. Stale ex rel. 14th Dist. Agriculture Assn. (2015)242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 [lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project falls within a categorical exemption and must support the detennination with substantial evidence]; accord Assn. for Protection etc. Values v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 [lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact].) See also, Davidon Homes, supra, 54 Cal.App.4that p. 115; Dehne, supra, 115 Cal.AppJd at p. 842. "Substantial evidence is evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." Banker's Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 261, fn. 10. However, the record is devoid of any evidence"that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value" regarding the lack of any possiblecumulative environmental impacts; particularly, cumulative traffic impacts.
The duty to support CEQA and exemption findings with substantial evidence is also
required by the California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), and case law on administrative or traditional writs. For example, under the CCP, an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is unsupported by the findmgs, or the fmdmgs are unsupported by the evidence. (CCP, § 1094.5, subd. (b).) In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (1997), our Supreme Court held that implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (11 Cal.3d 506, 515, internal citations and quotations omitted.) The lead agency's findings may be determined to be sufficient if a court hasno trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. (West Chandler Blvd. Neighborhood Assn. vs. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521-22, internal citations omitted.) However, "mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate." (Id. at p. 1521 [fmding citycouncil findings conclusory, violating Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm.}.) Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA's environmental objectives. (Cal. Farm Bureau Federation v. Cal. Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187; accord Save Our Carmel, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at 697 ["These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will besubject to some level of environmental review."].) Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (c) [EIR may be disposed of only ifthere is no substantial evidence, in light of the entire record before the lead agency, that theproject may have a significant effect on the environment or revisions in the project]; CEQAGuidelines, §§ 15061, subd. (b)(3) [common sense exemption only where it can be seen withcertainty], 15063, subd. (b)(l) [EIR must be prepared if the agency determines that there is
substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may causea significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial].)
C. The "In Fill" Categorical Exemption Does Not Apply
To qualify for a Class 32 in-fill exemption, the Project must be (a) consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially suiTounded by urban uses; (c) have no value as habitat forendangered, rare or threatened species; (d) not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,noise, air quality, or water quality, and (e) be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. A and D cannot be met.
Before addressing them, however, what is the "exempt class" being used when staff says, "that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class". Is itother office buildings? Surely as research and development facility is not a typical commercialoffice building. Nowhere does staff define the "exempt class" being used, which is the very prerequisite for the invocation of a categorical exemption and finding of no unusual circumstances.
This is especially important to know in this case because the nature of possible R&D uses on the site that require specialized equipment to be installed on the exterior of the building or served with higher volumes and discharge of water or other natural resources, it is impossible to rule out potential impacts such as equipment, filtration, and other devises have yet to beidentified for potential tenants. Potential storage and handling of materials and substances alsohave not been identified nor studied. Given the multitude of sensitive surrounding land uses -
educational and residential - the exemption findings cannot be made.
Last, the Project requires further environmental review under Tier 3 and the exception to exemptions outlined in CEQA § 15300.2 (c) because it will significantly impact traffic, parking,and historical resources on adjacent properties. The proposed use must be mitigated to a point where no significant impacts would occur. Parishioners, therefore, want the City to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to explore all alternatives to the Project and to createenforceable mitigation measures necessary to reduce proposed use's noise, traffic, parking, and lighting impacts. (See Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 714 (affirming lower coiu-t's finding that an environmental impact report (EIR) was required before a county could allow events to be hosted on a mountain property because there was substantial evidence that there might be impacts on surrounding residents from music and crowd noise, even if the project would not generate noise in excess of the county's noise ordinance andgeneral plan.)) t. Traffic Impacts - Prism Engineering Study re Failure To Property Apply the City's TIA Guidelines & Mobility Policies
On January 21, 2026, Parishioners submitted the Prism Engineering Traffic Study and analysis of the Fehr & Peers Report prepared for the City. Pages 3 and 4 of it set-forth 11 bulletpoints highlighting the errors in the Fehr & Peers Report. They are attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by this reference. Combined with Erika Foy's 16 page summar}f and analysis. Parishioners have submitted more than substantial evidence of potentially significant environment impacts warrantmg further environmental review and making it impossible to make the required findings for the recommended categorical exemption.
As stated therein, the Local Mobility Analysis states that it was prepared under the City
of Pasadena Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2022), yet key required and discretionary elements are missing or only partially addressed for a project of this sensitivity.
Specifically, the Guidelines explicitly call for data collection and analysis tailored to critical periods, including "mid-day, afternoon school peak, weekend, etc." where appropriate, to bedetennined in consultation with DOT staff.
Here, however, bus traffic on Green Street is not fully analyzed and all intersection counts and LOS analyses were limited to the standard weekday commuter peaks (7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.), with no separate analysis of the school's TK to 8th grade heavily congested carlinewindows (roughly 7:30-8:00 a.m. and 2:55-3:15 p.m.) when most of the 550 children make their way to the classrooms or Sunday/ceremonial peaks at the adjacent church, despite both uses being explicitly mapped as bicycle/pedestrian trip generators in the Active Transportation Assessment. This omission is difficult to reconcile with the Guidelines' intent to assess localmobility conditions for all road users in the actual peak periods they experience, especially nextto a TK through 8th grade school and active parish.
Similarly, the Guidelines provide for a Residential Neighborhood Cut-Througk/Intmsion analysis where project traffic may divert onto local or "Access" streets, with explicit quantitative criteria and required measures if thresholds are exceeded. In this case, Holliston Avenue is identified as an Access Street in the City's Street Design Guidelines and in the project conditionsof approval, yet the Local Mobility Analysis does not include any neighborhood street segment or cut-through analysis for Holliston or nearby school/church-adjacent streets, even though the project would shift substantial new traffic to Holliston Avenue for garage entry and for Green Street for the exit, including large conunercial tractors hauling trailers ofinaterials. !
This approach is inconsistent with both the TIA Guidelines and the General Plan Mobility Element policy to "discourage traffic from using Access streets to bypass congested intersections" and to prevent new development from intruding into residential and schooladjacent streets.
2. Questionable Land-Use Assumptions & No Empirical R&D/Lab Trip Data The City's TIA Guidelines direct consultants to use ITE Trip Generation and, where land uses are not well-represented, to supplement with empirical data from similar local uses. The Local IVtobility Analysis uses ITE's "Research & Development Center" (Land Use Code 760) to generate 1,036 daily trips, acknowledging explicitly that the project is a "Research andDevelopment building, with laboratory and office space." However, the CEQA VMTA^T analysis then re-codes the same 93,539 sq fit project as generic "office" in the City's travel demand model solely because the model does not contain a separate R&D category, asserting without evidence that R&D travel patterns are "anticipated to be similar" to General Office. Noempirical local data is presented for comparable Pasadena lab/R&D facilities—despite the Guidelines specifically encouragmg empiiical trip-data when ITE categories or models do not match the actual land use. This mismatch between a lab/R&D building on the ground and an "office" surrogate in the CEQA model, without any empirical validation, undercuts the reliability of both the VMT/VT results and the claimed mitigation effectiveness for a high-intensity, parking-rich R&D facility.
Compounding this, neither the Local Mobility Analysis nor the conditions of approval clearly disclose the specific nature of the building's R&D operations (e.g., wet labs vs. dry labs, hours of operation, shift work, hazardous materials handling, commercial truck tractor traffic,
frequency and type of deliveries, or off-schedule service trips), even though the project is titled"Caltech Innovation Center" and described only in generic tenns as "lab/office spaces." For design-review purposes, that lack of operational detail means the Commission is being asked torely on a highly generalized traffic model rather than a mobility analysis grounded in the actual R&D/lab behaviors that will drive trip generation, freight, and service demands at this particular site.
3. Detrimental Impacts on Transit Routes
The Active Transportation Assessment correctly maps the nearby TK through 8th grade school and St. Philip the Apostle Church as major pedestrian and bicycle trip generators.
However, it then concludes in one sentence that the project "is not anticipated to remove ordegrade existing active transportation iii&astructure, or increase demand on damaged or substandard facilities within a 0.25-inile radius," without any quantitative analysis of sight distance, driveway conflicts, or crossing safety at the new Holliston Avenue garage entry—used bychildren walking to and from school each day—and without reference to the school's tightly constrained carline operations on Holliston Avenue. This is an especially egregious error becausethe garage entry will compete directly with the morning and afternoon carlines for up to 550students also entering and exiting on Holliston Avenue, precisely during the same 7:30-8:00 a.m.and mid-aftemoon windows that were not separately analyzed. In practice, this is a direct, design-level conflict between high-volume vehicle ingress/egress and a known child pedestrianroute that the Local Mobility Analysis treats only at a very high level.
Finally, while the City's conditions of approval recognize significant right-of-way occupation, construction staging, and even asbestos-containing pavement work on Green Street,
none of these multi-year constmction-phase mobility impacts are analyzed in the Local MobilityAnalysis itself. For a three-level subterranean garage immediately adjacent to a TK through 8th grade school and active parish, the absence of any construction-phase pedestrian and bicycle detour plan, temporary sidewalk/crosswalk analysis, or driveway closure phasing in the mobility study is a material omission under the CEQA Guidelines stated piupose of identifying "anynegative effects on local mobility" and assessing the effectiveness of corrective measures.
4. Other Detrimental Noise, Erosion, Air Quality Impacts As noted above, the Church is over 100 years old. As such, noise and vibration impacts resulting from the Project's construction must be analyzed. For example, the Project proposes athree-level subterranean parking facility. Such significant excavation adjacent to the historic structure of the Church will create soil stability impacts and could result in structural instability to a valued cultural and historical community resource. Any CEQA analysis must analyze theimpacts associated with such extensive excavation because it has the potential to impact adjacentdevelopment which is built out to the property luie.
Similarly, while the Project Site is developed with a surface parking lot, preparation of the Site for construction will require removal and grinding of the existing asphalt, which has thepotential to release carcinogens and other volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") depending on the actual chemical composition of the asphalt. 12 (Note; Fix reference number size -12) Such impacts may be exacerbated by the recent Baton Fire, in which various hazardous compounds are
12. Center for Disease Control. Recent Review: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt, (2000) Available at: https://www^dc^oy/mosh^ (AccessedMay 21,2025).
likely to have found their way into these porous surfaces/131 which will be re-released into the airas particulate matter and expose the surrounding coinmunity when Site preparatiQn begins.
Impacts may include respiratory issues and potential cancer risks. Such impacts can havedetrimental impacts on the Church clergy that live onsite, the TK educational facility that is on the same parcel as the Parish, and the Child Development Center directly across from the Project Site, not to mention the numerous Pasadena residents living in various Holliston Avenue apartment buildings.
In addition, the Air Quality Study identifies the excavation of the site as involving the removal of 60,000 cubic yards of soil, The average dump truck has a capacity of 10-16 cubic yards that would result in 6,000-3,750 truck trips - none of which are identified in any of the studies related to traffic or air quality impacts. Loading ftie dump trucks will generally require a large excavator and loader to execute the work and that effort will raise dust, cause significant noise and unfortunately, generate vibrations to the sun-ounding properties. As construction andexcavation activates tending to begin promptly at 7:00 a.m., and tapering off around 3:00 p.m., this mirrors exactly, school drop off and pickup times thus creatin an obvious conflict. It willalso be a disruption to the two masses each day that take place just steps away at the Church and the solemn funeral masses that come up frequently throughout the work week.
Given the volume of traffic already on Green Street and Holliston Avenue, this additional volume is not captured anywhere in any study, thus rendering it impossible to make the required
13. Los Angeles Tunes, Nearly Half of Pasadena Unified schools have contaminated soil, district finds (May 15, 2025), Available at: htt|is^ywvAyJ^im£sxor^ O5.-16/nearlj-half-of-{]asaden^^ (Accessed
May 21,2025).
findings for an exemption.VI. Conclusion
The Project must respect the existing built environment and be contextual with its surrounding uses. It fails to do so for the reasons explained above. It is, therefore, not consistentwith the General Plan, the ECSP, and not eligible for any exemption under CEQA. Parishionersthus respectfully request that concept design review be denied and a full EIR be prepared so thatall the significant environmental impacts are identified and all the alternatives for properly mitigating them analyzed.
Last, regardless of the undeniable sanctity of the Church and its constitutionally protected use, any structure similar to the newly built Keck/USC building at the southeast comer of Fair Oaks Avenue and California Blvd. should never be deemed appropriate for a comer lot at Green Street and Holliston Avenue. This neighborhood should not and must not become a CentralBusiness District, even with Caltech's proximity, particularly given the ECSP policies to achieve the opposite type of development. We thus do not oppose the location of this Project in theCentral Business District, such as on Colorado Boulevard as an alternate more fitting location, but strongly oppose it here.
Sincerely,
.^-^^
Richard A. McDonald, Esq.
Of Counsel, Stoner Carlson LLP
EXHIBIT A
i?M^as^i^;^;i;|—
i.1 v-SXMS£-kW
!EH!EIOIlHIi1BI8{ffl!EiII'^ wSf-uS-. rf I -, ;^ K w ^^ m. g? siiuja Iw, (. n E4 w u I li a I El B s % B * I i« • r
~
I
^i:::'". ..::~1'"":':W^^^^S^^^^B^
-s^s
3= «ag —ig»" V
"=
a m^
^•i--
m
y
A
A_
^fe.
•BE—I
I
s
wsaw'-yss
t
M II
a
^t
BB
B
"i
«1 It
i^
•
g
e
ii
—
a
SB
as
^
»
Iff
^1
»®»S us • SB
r B .& '•ffilifflnlfllih [•t?.:*ft [PlEBBI a
II
h* a
!SM» tf'
\
EXHIBIT B
• uilding a •aa a
i
lii
m^, m wu
a;' f^S'^
ai! f^.
» it rw < €? ? !• »r ^ ^ ^» •T
."% j- A / <g. ^
.: w. ».* K^ s m9w
& fe» a, # fi ? m
N
^
B
•V y -/ •^" •fri. 'a& B s" % 8 's n •J 0 3-,i^fe .y. s 3 £. r
1»
E*
^
'!-! E KK a| ^ s ^ ^
f- r ms
-IS:
ea ^ g^ •fs s» K- 3 { I
•»« SM^..-^* •:» yd e KN» I * t.b..H sSi IB«ii«sli s
•s
m» •*& ^^^^J^ff|^^tf^;|fet:::3E Ill \~:wl:t^
s "SN y^:"
iSW^
feSsl3%;.:r:;-'a$9sl£i
^s>
^! I?
».
» fl
ft* f t
B e
A.!.-'!
t-]
Sfli
?g
sss
3Ri» ^1 smw\
a ^
if I
MS
a
''I..i
5 Bi •t <• ?" f ft i3
a NS I• • e
^ R&'",' SULf'. '.^
1^1«.^ fi^ w^ '^
< I'^AS^it'W
d^W.0® * ,.* m »*fc
m sai
» fi^ y «
y 's I i &a :^
» ©
?^ >^" •ii m »
y ;< E:T ^
.,,» »,»-""«
m f*
^ «. ^. ?*.. ^ ^ ?
•WK (X^iPrj?3?@R A m a
y ©. f ^.0 -yv^&.- y f n. 1'f <r »
/ .»» t ( ^ ff ?' A^'^ 'i-% _..r^J> w ^ / » •fe f; <* I //. %.. m::- % '"l,^ ^ f^ ^ B % ^ ^ ^ fi. f> ?« ^ •JH /•
*&•;••* e
-»•
^ '•1^. -? t s^'A.' t- •»1 r-
?s«
^ ^^-^». »
•^ /J / ^ * < BSi A s. , ~'<-- ^^fi.. ••• <f \ w, >* > Q '<<^. fi r »- t- I^ » ^ r. /^ m A ^ f" *~. »1 ** fc ,f 'Ai€"y<^ IS. I ^ ws s
ll <M
/ /- A a '/
"^
2 Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute for Neuroscience at Caltech. Spearheaded with a $115 million gift from Chen and Luo to Caltech, the Chen Institute for Neuroscience unitesinvestigators across campus to create a unique environment for brain research. The goal is to deepen our understanding of the brain—the most powerful biological and chemicalcomputing machine.
I
?»^B^^!^^^S
\
/ /
a*,
tt I iM K, ( € i a •a f ffiB
t I n
I
r n
p gg
|-^s%>
•.—,
s F:te! ^ ^
^^--1 !ni
IE
":1 .< .1 I' a S-ffl Ei a -< sl i m a. s I s I ^
a—
r* m
•• ..-,. ,».. *•*»* B
m
^ifis Iif ifil•KB
As part of the Chen Institute for Neuroscience, Caltech broke ground on the new 150,000-square-foot, $193 million Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Neuroscience Research Building (CNRB) in December 2017. The facility centralizes Cattech's diverse brain research efforts in one camous location.
I
I
I
3 JAs a demonstration of Caltech's commitment to transparency, the facility features a [stunning glass window f3(;ade that illuminates the interior with bright, natural daylight.IBiophilic design is showcased through a sunken garden adjacent to the building that Ipromotes a sense of serenity and inspires creativity. The build'ng borders Moore Walk, ajprimary pedestrian pathway, and features one of the largest campus-wide auditorium and seminar spaces, reservable conference spaces with plug-and-play technology, wet and drylaboratories, and a variety of suites for behavioral studies. Captivating artwork displayed ithroughout the building depicts the human brain, inspired by Santiago Ramon y Cajal, ajSpanish neuroscientist and pathologist. ^ »»
m :i|n»K'i— » I \ I •<t'% a,:" -r J;* » ss iJ'iB -ISs ^ JIIS1^ t^
B ^ IE fw. ^••i s i
x
;t lilt m s
» I
K a I I1< B. m
iH 1
•»
»1 ^jg»p -^1
.fit
1 <
4 EXHIBIT C
Traffic Engineering Response to F&P Traffic Report on Caltech R&D Project
OVERVIEW
In the City of Pasadena a very large R&D project looms over the century old St. Philip the Apostle church and school, with the threat to overwhelm the historical church with traffic impacts that wilt exceed what has been reported in the F&P report. This study will look more closely at the VMTImpacts, the VT Impacts, and the traffic impacts that will be generated from the Caltech R&D facility. •
•
We investigated the time periods of the Trip Generation of the Project, because the study only looked at impacts from the am and pm peak hour of ad/'acenf street traffic, when the school traffic is taking place at a time other than the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Since the peak hour of the school traffic pick-up takes place around 3 pm, we investigated the traffic that is to be expected from the R&D center at that time, and ran those numbers together tosee what the impact would be. The F&P study did not look at the times that would coincide with R&D traffic and School traffic, which is a very important time period. This includedtaking counts during the pickup time of school.We took a closer look than the F&P study did, to the presence of pedestrians on E GreenStreet and S Holtiston Avenue, and discussed the impacts that this R&D project will have upon them in terms of pedestrian and bike safety. The Fehr and Peers study was missingpedestrian and bike data for the intersection of Green St. at Holliston Ave.
We examined whether the traffic study looked at including cumulative developments tike the S Hilt and Colorado PD-35 375 room hotel on the parcel north of E Green St. and between Shlotliston and S Hilt, and any other cumulative projects have been included. One of the fatal flaws of a traffic study is to not look at the background traffic of already approved projects toget their VMT impacts, and their magnitude of traffic that will impact the roads. In short, we took a look a pedestrian travel and everything that the traffic counts do not include.We analyzed the outbound trip distribution to make sure that it makes sense to send 50% ofthe traffic north on S Hill Avenue. We examined a change in trip distribution for the Projecttraffic and found that this can have a significant effect on the traffic impacts.We investigated the Thresholds for Determining a Transportation Review of Development Projects, to make sure that the study included all items that are required by the City.
We investigated, by traffic operations analysis and by inspection, the viability of S HoltistonAvenue to handle the addition of such a targe project as the Research and Development Center, especially in light of the existing traffic relating to the school drop off and pickup times, and how this is a key impact.We determined that the intersections are being studied as single intersections withouttraffic operations analysis. This is where closely spaced intersections are linked in softwareto measure effectiveness as a group of intersections with specific mitigation measures to help move traffic more efficiently between them. For example at S Hill Ave. and Del Mar Blvd. the signal at this intersection can be wired together to interconnect to the signal at theCordovaSt. intersection, to Link the SB through movements and the NB left turn movements to keep traffic moving. In addition, the traffic movements can be linked so that one turns green when the traffic arrives from the other intersection.
Traffic Engineering Response to F&P Traffic Report on Caltech R&D Project We commented on the Design Elements relating to the R&D Center site plan and accessissues. The narrowness of the street, the impacts to safety and how this is a key impact.
Thresholds fw Determining Transportation Review <rf Development Pngects IVp.ofPn^ect
Residential Land Uses
ff^frt New Units)
Non-Restdential Land
Uses (Net Neu/ Sq Ft of
Net Me-*- Daity TrysJ
Analysis ft^^Krements
BtEMPT
< 10 units
a 10,000 Sq Ft: or
<uo0aity Trips
None
Pn<KtC«t^<xy
CBtw°<y>.'
BEUW
COMMUNnYWDB
BBNIFKaUICE
il - 49 Units
10,001 - 49.999 Sq Ft;
or a uo DaiSy Trips
Local MobiDty Analysis
Cltognya
C<»^(W<ITVWI!%
aoNnatNCE
aSOurfts
a 50.000 Sq Ftl-ocalM<*«ty
Analysis and
CEQAAnalyas
^
We found that the Research and Development Center Project was required to conduct aCategory 2 analysis, and that this was indeed done. What was not done was everything else 'between the lines" that should have been scoped out in advance between the City and Consultant. Things such as scoping the school peak hours into the equation: the long linesof queued traffic on Holtiston Ave. that would block the R&D Center seeking access to Holliston Ave., the afternoon pick-up times and the R&D Center traffic impacts, etc.We found that the St. Philip the Apostle school traffic, already approved nearly 20 years agoin the Year 2008 when a new school building was added, has a very large traffic engineeringstake in this Local Mobility Analysis, in that it already has utilized the capacity on HollistonAve., and fills capacity along other roadways shown in Figure 1. This used capacity is in theform of long lines that do not move as traffic queues up for drop-off or pick-up, as parentsseekto drop their kids off at the school campus in an orderly format, one by one. This processtakes time. This process is fragile, and can be impacted. There is capacity to do this on theroads so that traffic does not block any intersection, but it takes up most of the capacity on 'S. Holliston Ave. There is room for an occasional vehicle not related to the school to getthrough on Holliston Ave. during this half hour period in the morning and also the afternoon,but not enough capacity to service a four-story Research and Development Center.
It is a safety issue to mix elementary school traffic and pedestrians with large scaleindustrial traffic. Holliston Ave. is not of sufficient width (narrow and unstriped "lanes"totaling 22' (11' of space in each direction) after parking on the west side) to handle large boxtrucks. This is especially true when one considers the queue lines that block traffic. Theparents of children going to the school are content to wait for these lines of traffic. AResearch and Development Center's traffic would not have the patience, and it is feared thatunsafe maneuvers would take place on the part of the R&D Center regular traffic, and itsdeliveries using large box trucks.
EXHIBIT D
W.S^
^
2 EU
& "?^
TEO s
PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 23, 2021TO: DESIGN COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID M. REYES, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY 80,000 SQUARE FOOTLABORATORY BUILDINGRESNIK SUSTAINABILITY CENTER 1200 E. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD (CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Design Commission:
Environmental DeterminationPursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, consider the Addendum to the previously certified FSEIR prepared for the subject project (Attachment A) and find that nosubsequent EIR or other environmental document is required for this project.
FindinQS for Compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance1. Acknowledge that a tree inventory (Attachment B) identifies removal of five protected trees,
2. Find that the removal of five protected trees meets finding 6 of the Tree Protection Ordinance (PMC Section 8.52.075.A): "the project, as defined in Section 17.12.020, includes a landscape design plan that emphasizes a tree canopy that is sustainable over the long term by adhering to the replacement matrix prepared by the city manager and includedin the associated administrative guidelines;" and, therefore,
3. Approve the removal of five protected trees.
^f s^
»
.^1 ti^
PLANNING & COMMUNITT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2020TO: DESIGN COMMISSIONFROM: DAVID M. REYES, DIRECTOR, PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION - NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREESTORY 80,000 SQUARE FOOT LABORATORY BUILDING
REZNIK SUSTAINABILITY RESOURCE CENTER
1200 E. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD (CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY)
Project Description:
This proposal is for the construction of a new three-story-plus-basement, approximately 80,000-square-foot laboratory building (Reznik Sustainability Resource Center) at 1200 E. CaliforniaBoulevard (California Institute of Technology). The specific site of the building is on the eastside of S. Wilson Avenue, between Del Mar Boulevard and San Pasqual Street. Adjacentbuildings along S. Wilson Avenue within the Caltech campus are the Beckman Institute building(1989, Albert C. Martin & Associates) and adjoining lawn, and the Braun Laboratory (1982, C.F.Braun & Co.). The existing Mead Laboratory (1981, John Kewell Associates) is proposed to be demolished to accommodate the proposed new building. There are also 16 trees in the immediate vicinity of the site that are proposed to be removed. At this time, staff does not havesufficient information to determine if any of the trees proposed to be removed are protected.
There are two street trees adjacent to the proposed site and one on-site tree in the yard area in front of the proposed building that would be retained.
In addition to the flanking buildings mentioned above, other nearby Caltech buildings include the Broad Center for Biological Studies (2002, Pei Cobb Freed & Partners) and the ChenNeuroscience Research Building (2020, Smithgroup JJR) to the north, the Church Laboratory(1955, Stiles 0. Clements), Alles Laboratory (1960, Caftech Physical Plant), and Kerckhoff Laboratory (1928, Mayers, Murray & Phillip) to the south, hvo large parking structures and twosmaller single-family residences to the west, and the Noyes Laboratory (1967, Risley, Gould &Van Heuklyn) and Schlinger Laboratory (2010, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson) to the east. Nearbydesignated historic resources include Villa San Pasqual (1953, Lionel V. Mayell) at 1000 San Pasqual Street, Whispering Waters (1961, Lionel V. Mayell) at 1000 Cordova Street, Mentor Court (1923, Delux Building Company) at 937 E. California Boulevard and Bullocks South Lake(1947, Wurdeman & Beckett) at 401 S. Lake Avenue. The property at 1031 San Pasqual Street(recently relocated Wilson Court) is currently pending landmark designation. The site is zoned PS (Public/Semi-Public).
<•
Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability ResourceCenter) October 27, 2020Page 2 of 5The new building is proposed to be set back 90 feet from South Wilson Avenue and 30 feet from the Braun Laboratory to the south. The proposed setbacks from the Beckman Lawn to the northand the Noyes Laboratory to the east are not indicated in the drawings, but are substantially narrower than these. The design appears to incorporate the existing undulating front yardcondition of the site, which is somewhat unique along the existing streetscape, including creation of an angled driveway to a loading area at the south end of the west (Wilson Avenue) elevation that would largely be screened from public view by the elevated hill in front of it. An existing driveway along the north side of the building is proposed to remain.
The floor plans provided depict, at the first floor, open collaboration spaces along most of the outer perimeter with meeting rooms and laboratories in the center and support/back-of-house spaces along the south and east edges, including a freight/receiving area at the southwestcomer. Building entries are shown at the north end of the west (street-facing) elevation and the eastern end of the north and south facades. Vertical circulation is proposed to occur at a large communicating stair at roughly center of the north side of the building, two elevators and anenclosed stair at the northeast corner, and one elevator and enclosed stair at the southwestcorner. The second and third floor plans depict laboratories and meeting rooms at the center ofthe floors and storage rooms, mechanical shafts, restrooms and other similar spaces along the south and east edges. The roof plan depicts outdoor gathering spaces, a solar roof testinglaboratory, skylights and a large mechanical penthouse.
The building is designed in a contemporary/organic style with a flat roof, an undulating curtainwall system with an angular mass timber structure along the north and west sides of the buildingand at the southeast comer, which peels away at the ground floor entries. There is a roofcanopy feature that extends beyond a mechanical penthouse enclosure, while remaining behindthe outer building envelope. The south and east facades are in close proximity to other existingadjacent buildings and not significantly visible to the public; however, these comers are thelocation of the building's elevators. The southwest comer elevator presents as a rectilinear terminus to the undulating curtain-wall system; by contrast, the curtain-wall system wraps the exterior of the northeast elevators.
Applicable Design Guidelines:
Design-Related Goals and Policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan Cattech Master Plan
Previous/Existing Entitlements:
None.
Approvals Needed/Project Scheduling:
• Concept and Final Design Review (Design Commission)
Building Permits (Building Staff)
Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability ResourceCenter) October 27, 2020Page 3 of 5CEQA Clearance:
This is preliminary consultation only and is not subject to the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA).
Staff Observations;
Applicable Design Guidelines:
The following design guidelines are applicable to the project and should guide furtherdevelopment and study of the project as it moves forward in the design review process:Design-Related Policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan:
4.11: Require that development demonstrates a contextual relationship with neighboring structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing, orientation, setbacks, buffering, the arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality,infrastructure, and aesthetics.
7.1:
7.2:
7.3:
10.7:
Design each building as a high-quality, long term addition to the City's urban fabric; exterior design and buildings material shall exhibit permanence and quality, minimize maintenance concerns, and extend the life of the building.
Allow for the development of a diversity of buildings styles. Support innovative and creative design solutions to issues related to context and environmental sustainability.Require that new and adaptively re-used buildings are designed to respect and complement the defining built form, massing, scale, modulation, and architectural detailing of their contextual setting.
Encourage sustainable practices for landscape materials, landscape design, and land development.
23.3: Provide appropriate setbacks, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, along the street frontage and, where there are setbacks, ensure adequate landscaping is provided.
25.4: Require that new development protect community character by providing architecture, landscaping, and urban design of equal or greater quality than existing and byrespecting the architectural character and scale of adjacent buildings.
Caltech Master Plan:
«. Buildings north of the San Pasqual alignment should be designed in accordance with the principles that have made the campus so successful thus far. These principles do notimply architectural monotony but rather an active engagement with the present. That is,after all, Caltech's mission - to be building into the future using the wisdom of the past.
In the spirit of this mission, buildings should be designed as imaginative architectural visions, whether contemporary in design or reminiscent of the original buildings.
However, they should also be designed as part of a larger whole to be interconnected with hardscape or landscape bordered courtyards, paths and open spaces.
Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability Resource Center)
October 27, 2020
•
•
New buildings should be designed in accordance with the same principles for siting, massing, size, scale, and open space that guided the design of buildings at the originalcampus bounded by San Pasqual Street, California Boulevard, Wilson Avenue and Hill Avenue,
New buildings should be designed to be compatible with the massing, scale,architectural treatment, and materials of nearby buildings and places.
New buildings should not be designed in isolation, but address and seek to unify the architectural character of surrounding buildings.
At the edges of the campus, the design of buildings should seek compatibility with the surrounding urban context, while contributing to a unified campus-wide image and character.
Potential Design Issues:
Continue to study ways to further accentuate the building entries. •
•
•
Explore ways to unify the building with the character of surrounding buildings, while retaining the unique expression and sustainability features that relate to the activities that will take place within it. Incorporation of movement in the west facade curtain-wall, similar to the north facade treatment, and studying the proportions of these movements to respond to surrounding buildings, could be an effective means of achieving this goal.
Provide diagrams and studies to demonstrate how the design responds to the surrounding context.Continue to study the terminus of the curtain-wall at the southwest corner, includingpossible further engagement with the elevator tower.
Continue to refine the loading/receiving area treatment to ensure it is visually screened from street view and as integrated as possible into the overall design character of the building.
For Concept Design Review, provide a tree inventory that accurately and clearlyindicates the species and size of all trees in the vicinity of the construction site. Private Tree Removal permits may be required if any trees proposed to be removed are protected by the Tree Protection Ordinance. Any protected trees proposed to be retained in the vicinity of the construction site will also require a Tree Protection Plan to identify protection measures to be installed prior to and during construction and ensure compliance with the City's tree protection requirements.
Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability ResourceCenter) October 27, 2020
• Concept and Final Design Review by the Design Commission Building Permits
Respectfully Submitted,
:^€^-^-ft^>
Prepared by:
/
^/-
Kevin Johnson
Senior Planner
David M. ReyesDirector of Planning & Community Development DepartmentReviewed by:
Leon E. White
Principal Planner
Attachments:A. Master Plan compliance matrix
B. Applicant submittal package
EXHIBIT B
Executive Summary
The Design Commission's authority under Pasadena Municipal Code Section 2.80.110 is explicitly focused on ensuring "appropriate design" through review of "architecture, materials, scale, massing, color, lighting, landscaping, open space and any other design concept." [1] TheCommission's stated purpose includes safeguarding "the visual and aesthetic character, diversityand quality of the city" and ensuring that "changes to the built environment will be orderly and will not diminish the architectural, aesthetic or design quality of the city." [2] [^ The Design Commission, however, failed to correct: (1) the inadequacy of massing and scale mitigation measures for school adjacency; (2) the prominence of the 15-foot rooftop mechanicalscreen; and (3) the project's relationship to established neighborhood character. As such, the Commission's required finding that the project "will comply with the purposes of design review"cannot be made based on the current design. [4]These concerns are grounded in design principles and code provisions, not land use policy ordensity objections.Part I: Required Findings for ApprovalThe Design Commission must find that the project, upon implementation of conditions ofapproval, "will comply with the purposes of design review, the design-related goals and policiesof the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily Districts." [4] As such, the Design 'Commission reviews the following design elements:Design Element Code Authority Architecture PMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)[1J
]\4aterials PMC§2.80.110(B)(1)[U
Scale PMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)[1J
Massing PMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)U:
Color PMC§2.80.110(B)(1)UJ
Lighting PMC§2.80.110(B)(1)[U
Landscaping PMC§2.80.110(B)(1)[U
Open Space PMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)[U
Streetscape and pedestrian environment PMC§2.80.110(B)(2)ul Urban design quality PMC§2.80.110(A)(5)[2J
Part II: Issue-by-Issue Design CritiqueIssue 1: Inadequate Scale Transition and Massing Response to School AdjacencySpecific Design Features at Issue:
The project site directly adjoins St. Philip the Apostle Church and School on its south and east propert;^ lines. [5] The closest building to the project site is the St. Philip the Apostle Church rectory building, located near the northeast comer of the project site along Green Street. [6] Theproposed building rises to 79 feet in height (including a 15-foot mechanical screen) immediately adjacent to a school playground and parking area. [7] [8] Design Deficiencies:
The project proposes only the minimum required 15-foot interior setback along the south and east property lines adjacent to the school. [9] While the applicant states the south facade is setback 16 feet and the east facade nearly 23 feet from the primary facade plane, these setbacksrepresent minimal deviation from code minimums. [10] The 15-foot mechanical screen, though reduced from 18 feet at Preliminary Consultation, remains a prominent vertical element that adds significantly to the perceived height when viewed from the school property. [II1 The fourth-floor stepback along the south and east elevations provides "unoccupiable or inaccessible space" rather than meaningful mass reduction. [12] The Commission previously directed the applicant to "continue to explore and restudy the design and treatment of the southelevation in order to reduce its mass and scale...due to the project's proximity to the adjacent school and playground/parking." [71 The applicant's response—a one-foot reduction in mechanical screen height and "tapered roof edge"— is insufficient to address this issue. [131 Relevant Code/Guidelines:
•
•
PMC § 2.80.110(A)(5): The Commission's purpose includes safeguarding "the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and quality of the city." [2] PMC § 2.80.110(B)(1): Jurisdiction expressly includes "scale, massing." [U Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Districts (applicable per staff report): Require compatibility with adjacent uses. [14] Issue 2: Rooftop Mechanical Screen Prominence
Specific Design Features at Issue:
The project includes a 15-foot-tall rooftop mechanical screen (reduced from 18 feet at Preliminary Consultation). [11] The mechanical screen extends across the full building footprintand is composed of both opaque and perforated metal panels. [15] Design Deficiencies:
The staff report from December 9, 2025 noted that the mechanical screen height "is taller thanthe 15-foot high 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors and visually competes with the design to the building overall and especially the intended and differentiated top section (4th floor) of the building." [16] Despite the subsequent one-foot reduction, the screen remains as tall as each occupied floor of the building. jj_[J
The staffs own analysis acknowledged this concern and previously recommended a condition "to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to the degree possible so that the screen becomes a background feature of the building design." [17] This condition was marked as "satisfied" based on the onefoot reduction, but the underlying design problem—a mechanical enclosure that competes with rather than recedes from the building's architectural expression—persists. [18]Relevant Code/Guidelines:
The design guidelines require a differentiated base, middle, and top expression. [16] fl91 A 15-foot mechanical screen that equals the floor-to-floor height of occupied stories undermines the intended "top section" termination of the building.
Issue 3: Compatibility with Neighborhood Character and Design Precedent Specific Design Features at Issue:
The project is designed in a contemporary style featuring a "rectilinear form...flat roof and expansive glazing set within frames and accented with metal panels and spandrels." [20] Theapplicant claims inspiration from Pasadena City College campus buildings across Holliston Avenue. [21J [221
Design Deficiencies:The surrounding context "lacks a predominant architectural precedent" according to staff, with buildings ranging from one to three stories and "varying construction dates and architecturalstyles." [23] The proposed building at 79 feet and four stories significantly exceeds the height ofsurrounding development, which staff describes as ranging from "one- to four-stories." [8] The Commission previously directed the applicant to "further refine [facade treatment] to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildings on the PCC campus." [24] The applicant's response acknowledges that the project "draws influence from the buildingsat PCC not by copying their architecture" but by "identifying specific architectural qualities and translating them." [25] This abstract interpretation is insufficient to achieve the "stronger relationship" required for any approval.
Notably, the PCC campus buildings that the applicant references feature "restrained art deco architecture characterized by symmetry, rhythm, and a strong sense of mass" with a "material palette...composed primarily of stucco, glass, and blue-green metal." [26] The proposedbuilding's extensive use of metal panels and spandrel glass, while incorporating some PCCinspired colors, represents a significant departure in materiality and architectural expression from the referenced precedents.
Relevant Code/Guidelines:
PMC § 2.80.110(A)(2): Establishing "procedures and criteria for review of alterations to the urban and natural environments to assure appropriate design." [27] Design Guidelines in the ECSP and Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial andMulti-family Districts require compatibility with surrounding development. [28] Issue 4: Relationship to Public Realm and Pedestrian ScaleSpecific Design Features at Issue:
The building provides 8-foot setbacks on both street frontages (Green Street and Holliston Avenue) and incorporates publicly accessible open spaces (PAOS) totaling 1 ,060 square feet at ground level. [29] The building frontage along each street is approximately 78 feet on either sideofa20-foot facade break, totaling 177 feet of building facade length. [30] Design Deficiencies:
While the project meets the minimum required PAOS (calculated as 40% of the required ground floor common open space), the integration of publicly accessible space with the 79-foot building mass creates a significant scale differential at the pedestrian level. [31] The ground floor plateheight is 17 feet, which, while providing verticality at the entry, overwhelms the modestly sizedpublic spaces. [32] The building's two vehicular driveways—one ingress on Holliston Avenue and one egress on Green Street—interrupt the pedestrian experience along both street frontages. [33] [34] [35] [36] The driveway placement also creates pedestrian-vehicle conflict points in proximity to a school as noted by the traffic engineer. [37]
Relevant Code/GuideIines:• PMC § 2.80.110(B)(2): The Commission is charged with developing "objectives and criteria of design for all streetscapes" including features that affect the pedestrian environment. [38]ECSP Design Guidelines require 12-foot sidewalks on Green Street with a 7-foot walk zoneand 5-foot amenity zone. [39] Issue 5: Privacy and Overlook Concerns as Design Issues Specific Design Features at Issue:
The project features "expansive glazing" on all facades, with the south and east elevations facing directly toward the school property. [20] The applicant has incorporated wider metal panels on the south and east facades to reduce glazing area and "enhance privacy to the neighbor at the east." [411
Design Deficiencies:
While the applicant states that "windows are non-operable and the shading elements reduce theamount of full-height glass," the fourth-floor terrace on the south and east is accessible "for maintenance only." [42] However, the fourth-floor occupied space retains substantial glazing with direct sightlines to the school playground and campus below. [12] The existing row of trees on the St. Philip property provides vegetative screening that the applicant identifies as helpful in buffering views of the south facade. [43] However, these trees are located on third-party property, and their long-term maintenance or preservation is outsidethe applicant's control. Reliance on off-site landscaping for visual mitigation is a design deficiency.Relevant Code/GuideIines:• Design review authority extends to any design element that affects "the visual and aesthetic character" of the city and compatibility with adjacent uses. [2] The Commission previously expressed concern regarding privacy impacts as a designconsideration. [44] Part IV: Possible Design ModificationsAlthough not an exhaustive list, the following modifications could address the identified concerns while maintaining the project's development program:
Concern Suggested Modification
South elevation mass/scale Increase south setback beyond 16 feet to provide greater buffering from school;
consider additional fourth-floor stepback
depth on south facade [10] [45]
M^echanical screen prominence Further reduce mechanical screen height or relocate equipment to reduce screen extent;
employ darker or recessive coloring to
visually diminish screen presence [46]
Privacy/overlook Increase solid-to-void ratio on south and east facades above third floor; consider fixed
external screening elements (louvers, fins)
that provide physical privacy barriers rather
than relying on panel arrangement alone [12]
144}
Architectural compatibility Incorporate more substantial masonry or stucco elements at the base to better reference
PCC campus precedents; consider modifying
the metal panel color palette to more closely
align with the "blue-green metal"
characteristic ofPCC buildings [21] F261
Pedestrian scale Enlarge ground-floor PAOS beyond
minimum requirements; provide more
substantial landscaping and shade trees within
the setback areas; consider reducing groundfloor plate height ifprogrammatically feasible mi
Driveway/school interface Implement enhanced pedestrian warning systems at both driveways; provide additional
landscaping buffers between driveway egress
on Green Street and pedestrian path of travel
B21
References
1. Jurisdiction shall include architecture, materials, scale, massing, color, lighting, landscaping, open space and any other design concept. After the first meeting of the design commission at which a public project is considered, and at the request of a public agency with concerns about the effect of design review on exceeding a budget, impacting a schedule, or in direct conflict with neighborhood requests about design, the city manager or his/her designee may directly forward an application for design review of a "public project" to the city council. The general manager of the Rose Bowl Operating Company and the chief (Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances.pdf)
2. and industry by encouraging excellency of design; 5. Safeguard and enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and quality of the city. B. The commission shall: 1. Conduct design review for "public projects" as defined and set forth in the zoning code (Title 17)... (Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances.pdf)
3. policies relating to architecture and urban design; 8. Work closely with the planning commission, historic preservation coirunission, community development committee andother advisory' bodies and city departments to assure changes to the built environment will be orderly and will not diminish the architectural, aesthetic or design quality of the city; 9.Comment and make recommendations for proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance or map, subdivisions, general plan amendments, significant public improvements, and suchother land use proposals or projects that may affect the architectural, aesthetic or designquality of Pasadena; 10. Participate in revisions of the urban design (Pasadena, CA Code ofOrdinances.pdf)
4. Page 2 of 13 Findings for Concept Design Approval Find that the project, upon implementation of the conditions of approval, will comply with the purposes of design review, the design-related goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelinesfor Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Districts. Based on these findings, approvethe application for Concept Design Review subject to the conditions in Attachment A, whichshall be further reviewed during Final Design Review. BACKGROUND: Project Overview •General Plan Designation: Medium Mixed (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 1)
5. romanzoffianum), none of which are protected trees. The project site adjoins the PS (Public/Semi-Public) zoning district on the south and east sides of the property'. • Surroundings: The surrounding properties include a mix of multi-family residential, religiousand educational buildings ranging from one- to three-stories with var>'ing construction dates and architectural styles. Adjoining the east and south property lines is St. Philip the ApostleChurch and School (the closest building to the project site is the St. Philip the Apostle Church rectory building, which is located near the northeast comer of the project site, along Design Commission (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-StaffReport.pdf, Page 1)
6. varying construction dates and architectural styles. Adjoining the east and south property7 lines is St. Philip the Apostle Church and School (the closest building to the project site is theSt. Philip the Apostle Church rectory- building, which is located near the northeast comer of the project site, along Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green StreetJanuary 27, 2026 Page 3 of 11 Green Street.), across East Green Street and directly north of the project site is a surface parking lot, and to the west, across South Holliston Ave is the Pasadena City College (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-StaffReport.pdf, Page 1)
7. JANUARY 27, 2026 1364 GREEN STREET ATTACHMENT B 01 Continue to explore and restudy the design and treatment of the south elevation in order to reduce its mass and scale and height/size of the rooftop mechanical screen due to the project's proximity to the adjacent school and playground/parking. 02 The treatment of the facades shall be further refined to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildings on the PCC campus, from which the project draws influence. 03 Reconsider and modify the design treatment of the north elevation and south and west elevations that (2026-01-27-DesignCommission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 1)
8. design guidelines. Height, Massing and Modulation The proposed four-story building is 79'- 0" high and is compliant with the maximum allowable height for research and development land uses. The surrounding context includes residential and institutional buildings ranging between one- to four-stories in height.... (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-l 3 64-E.- Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 9)
9. • Site Design: The proposed building is designed to encompass the entire site with the exception of the required setbacks, which are provided as follows: 8'-0" on the west side(South Holliston Avenue frontage), 15'-0" along the east and south interior lot lines, and 8'-0"on the north side (East Green Street frontage). The setback areas will also accommodate publicly accessible open spaces (PAOS), landscaping, and two driveway portals. The building exhibits a strong northward and westward orientation towards the street frontages; however, the primary facade is oriented towards East Green Street and will accommodate the main pedestrian (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf,
10. Project construction will protect these trees in place. Furthemiore, the required minimum interior setbacks at the east and south are 15'-0" from the property line. The project's southfacade is currently set back 16'-0", while its east facade is set back nearly 23'-0," whenmeasured from the primary facade plane. Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 6 of 11 Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 4)
11. adjacent school and play- ground/parking. Response The rooftop mechanical screen has been reduced by an additional I'-O", from 1S"-0" tail at Prelimi- nar>' Consultation to 15'-0"currently, for a total reduction of3'-0". In addition, the roof edge has been tapered at every elevation to reduce the project's visual weight towards its neighbors. .. (2026-01-27-DesignCommission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 2)
12. appropriately oriented to capture views of the mountains. The step back on the south, east, and west elevatio';3 will result in unoccupiable or inaccessible space that will help minimize views onto the a'djoining site, p£rticularly alor-;. th& south and east facades that share the boundary with St. Philip i:h2 Apostle Churcn ..^d Scriool. Preliminary Consultation Comment4 Restudy the fourth floor and how it could be further differentiated to clearly appear as the top section or termination of the building consistent with the differentiated based and middle sections. Applicant Response "Since Preliminary Consultation, the facades at the fourth (2026-0 l-27-Desiga-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)
13. adjacent school and play- ground/parking. Response The rooftop mechaniical screen has been reduced by £.:-; a:^Ltional l'-0'', from 18'-0" tail ^ Prelimi- nary Consultation to 15'-0"currently, for a ratal reduction of3'-0". In addition, the roof edge has been tapered at every elevation to reduce the project's visual weight towards its neighbors... . (2026-01-27-DesignCommission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 2)
14. Colorado Specific Plan, Mixed-Use Neighborhood) • Design Guidelines: The applicable design guidelines are the design-related goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the 2022 ECSP, and the Design Guidelines forNeighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Residential Districts. • Site: The project site is 41,573 square feet, is located at the southeast comer of Green Street and Holliston Avenue, and is currently improved with a surface parking lot with 115 spaces. The project site is square in shape with a relatively flat topography and is located one block south of East (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf,Pagel)
15. EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYTEMS W/ STUCCO FINISH MTL-03 MECH SCREEN OPAQUE MTL-04 MECH SCREEN PERFOR.'MED MTL-05CANOPY/TRELLIS GREEN ST HOLLISTON AVE SHEET NOTES LEGEND VICINITY MAP © Gensler Date Description Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2025 2221 Rosecrans Ave Suite 200 El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel 310.363.4700 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Tel 213.327.3600 Fax 213.327.3601 500 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071 United States SAIFUL BOUQUET STRUCTURALENGINEERS 725 S Figueroa St 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel 213.315.2277 Trammell Crow Company EXP 330 N Brand Blvd #950 Glendale, CA 91203 Tel (2026-01- 27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 43)
16. termination point of the building's 4th floor. However, the rooftop mechanical screen and its proposed 17-foot height depicted on Sheet PAS-A2.101, is taller than the 15-foot high 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors and visually competes with the design to the building overall and especially the intended and differentiated top section (4th floor) of the building. For this reason, condition of approval no. 4 is recommended to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to thedegree possible so that the screen becomes a background feature (2026-01-27-DesignCommission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)
17. differentiated top section (4th floor) of the building. For this reason, condition of approval no. 4 is recommended to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to the degree possible so that the screen becomes a background feature of the building design. Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street December 9, 2025 Page 7 of 13 Preliminary ConsultationComment 5 Further study the design of the two driveways relating to usability and circulation particularly at the southeast junction where they intersect and (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)
18. submittal will require details of the building's venting. 4. Further study the height and extent of the rooftop mechanical screen to reduce it to the degree possible and consider whether it can be maintained at a height lower than the three floors below it. If the height and extent cannot be further reduced, study ways to visually reduce its prominence through materiality, color or other means. Condition satisfied: The further studies that have been conducted, asdetailed in the response to comment no. 1 below, have resulted in an additional one-footheight reduction in the mechanical screening. 5. (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-13 64- E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 3)
19. helping minimize the appearance of unresolved mass. Materials should be employed to achieve a differentiated base that anchors the building to the site, such as materials that appear heavier and/or darker.... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-GreenSt_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 8)
20. design guidelines. Architectural Style and Detailing The proposed building is designed in a contemporaiy style within a rectilinear form that features a flat roof and expansive glazing set within frames and accented with metal panels and spandrels. The front elevation facing East Green Street depicts a repeated fenestration pattern, while the remaining elevations aresubtly differentiated through the shifting/staggering of the metal panels and their size toaddress solar orientation... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-GreenSt_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 10)
21. lot to the south. Commission Continuation Comment: 2 The treatment of the facades shall be further refined to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildingson the PCC camous. from v.hich the project draws influence. Applicant Response Pasadena City College (PCC) is comprised of buildings with distinct architectural identities. 1364 EGreen St draws influence from several of these notable buildings. The buildings facingColorado Blvd - PCC's primary axis - feature restrained art deco architecture characterizedby symmetry, rhythm, and a strong sense of mass. Their material palette is minimal,composed primarily of(2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-StaffReport.pdf, Page 5)
22. metal accent to the material palette found at PCC. 1364 E Green St draws influence from the buildings at PCC not by copying their architecture, but by identifying specific architecturalqualities and translating them to the project's unique site at the end of Green Street.... (2026- 01 -27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 5)
23. proposed design treatments and features. Compatibility The surrounding context lacks a predominant architectural precedent, but the design draws inspiration from the nearby PCC and Caltech campuses to inform the project's design, building form, and finishes to achieve acompatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. The project design team also found inspiration in the recently approved mixed-use and hotel projects located at the comer of Colorado Boulevard and Hill and Holliston Avenues on PD-35 sites... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 10)
24. Comment 2 The treatment of the facades shall be further refined to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildings on the PCC campus, from which theproject draws influence. Center for the Arts Sarafian Hall College Bookstore Terraces & Tones Comment 2 1 Design Precedent: 1336 E Colorado Response (cont'd) At PreliminaryConsultation, the team was direct- ed to reference the proposed mixed-use develop- ment at 1336 E Colorado Blvd. At a much larger scale, this project incorporates rhythm and repetition but introduces several balconies and ter- races to break down its mass. (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 7)
25. PCC campus, from which the project draws influence. Response (cont'd) 1364 E Green St draws influence from the buildings at PCC not by copying their architecture, but byidentifying specific architectural qualities and translating them to the project's unique site atthe end of Green Street. The project aims to pay homage to PCC while creating its own identity - both architecturally and for its intended building type - as a cutting-edge lab facility for Caltech... (2026-01-27-Design-Comniission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf,Page 9)
26. influence from several of these notable buildings. The buildings facing Colorado Blvd - PCC's primary axis - feature restrained art deco architecture characterized by symmetry', rhythm, and a strong sense of mass. Their material palette is minimal, composed primarily of stucco, glass, and bluegreen metal. The campus also features highly contemporary buildings that diverge from classic symmetry and repetition, instead featuring irregularly layeredmassing, broad canopies, and a finer articulation of components. The minimal materialpalette, however, is maintained. At Preliminary Consultation, the team was directed toreference the proposed mixed-use development at 1336 E Colorado Blvd. At (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 5)
27. § 45 (part), 2000; Ord. 6229 § 2 (part), 1987) 2.80.110 - Purpose and ftinctions. A. The city council declares that the achievement of quality in the architecture and urban design of thecity is required in the interest of the prosperity, social and cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the people. The purpose of this commission is to: 1. Establish procedures for developing design policies for the city; 2. Establish procedures and criteria for review of alterations to the urban and natural environments to assure appropriate design; 3. Encourage public understanding of and involvement in the design (Pasadena, CA Code ofOrdinances.pdf)
28. policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercialand Multi-family Districts. Based on these findings, approve the application for Concept Design Review subject to the conditions in Attachment A, which shall be further reviewed during Final Design Review. BACKGROUND: On December 9, 2025, the Design Commission reviewed the application for Concept Design Review. The staff report for thathearing is in Attachment D for reference. The Commission provided comments on the designand continued the public hearing to allow (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 1)
29. • Site Design: The proposed building is designed to encompass the entire site with the exception of the required setbacks, which are provided as follows: 8-0 on the west side (South Holliston Avenue frontage), 15'-0" along the east and south interior lot lines, and 8'-0"on the north side (East Green Street frontage). The setback areas will also accommodatepublicly accessible open spaces (PAOS), landscaping, and two driveway portals. The building exhibits a strong northward and westward orientation towards the street frontages; however, the primary fayade is oriented towards East Green Street and will accommodate themain pedestrian (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf,
30. OF THE FACADE LENGTH OR 20', WHICHEVER IS GREATER GREEN ST OVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" MIN REQ. FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / 10'-0" PROPOSED FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" /15'-0" HOLLISTON AVEOVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" M1N REQ. FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH:20'-0" / lO'-O" PROPOSED FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" FACADE AREA EACH STREET-FACING FACADE EXCEEDING 50' IN LENGTH SHALLMODULATE A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE AREA ABOVE THE FIRST STORYGREEN ST PROPOSED PERCENTAGE OF MODULATION 29% HOLLISTON AVE PROPOSED PERCENTAGE OF MODULATION 29% VICINITY MAP BUILDING
NARRATIVE ZONING INFORMATION ADDITIONAL ZONING INFORMATION TOTAL AREA (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf,
31. 1,871 X 40% - 748) PADS PROPOSED: 1,060 SF MODULATION FACADE LENGTH EACH STREET-FACING FACADE EXCEEDING 150' SHALL INCLUDE A BREAK OFAT LEAST 10% OF THE FACADE LENGTH OR 20', WHICHEVER IS GREATERGREEN ST OVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" MIN REQ. FACADE BREAKLENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" PROPOSED FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / 15'-0" HOLLISTON AVE OVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" MIN REQ.FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" PROPOSED FACADE BREAKLENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" FACADE AREA EACH STREET-FACING FACADE EXCEEDING 50' IN LENGTH SHALL MODULATE A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THEAREA ABOVE THE FIRST STORY (2026-01-27-Design-Conunission-3A-1364-E.-GreenSt_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 23)
32. - 0"LEVEL 04 47' -0"LEVEL 03 32' -0"LEVEL 0217' - 0" LOWER LEVEL 01 -10' - 0" LOWER LEVEL 02 -19' - 6" T.0. MEP SCREEN 78' - 0" LOWER LEVEL 03 -29' - 0" 01PAS-A3.101 16' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 10' - 0" 9' - 6" 9' -6" MECHANICAL YARD STAIR TENANT IDF VESTIBULE ELEV LOBBYCORmDOR TENANT STAIR TENANT IDF VESTIBULE ELEV LOBBY CORRIDOR
MECHANICAL TENANT STAIR TENANT IDF VESTIBULE ELEV LOBBY CORRIDOR TENANT STAIR TENANT (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 51)
33. other vehicles and pedestrians in the area. Also, the Project proposes one inbound driveway on Holliston Avenue and one outbound driveway on Green Street. In general, due to the R&D land use nature of the Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 8 of 11 Project, most of the morning trips would be inboundtrips using the Holliston Avenue driveway and most of the afternoon trips would be outbound trips using the Green Street driveway (all turning right onto Green Street since it is a one-waystreet eastbound).... (2026-01-27-Design-Cormnission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-StaffReport.pdf, Page 6)
34. other vehicles and pedestrians in the area. Also, the Project proposes one inbound driveway on Holliston Avenue and one outbound driveway on Green Street. In general, due to the R&D land use nature of the Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 8 of 11 Project, most of the morning trips would be inbound trips using the Holliston Avenue driveway and most of the afternoon trips would be outboundtrips using the Green Street driveway (all turning right onto Green Street since it is a one-way street eastbound)... (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-StaffReport.pdf, Page 6)
35. proposed design was deemed to be the best option. In this design scheme, two one-way driveways will be provided at the southwest and northeast comers of the site. Their locations ensure minimal interruption to the use of the public right-of-way as well as the disruption to the site and building frontages along the streets. Additionally, the openings (and width) of the driveways correspond to the rhytlim of the ground floor facades and respect the spans of the coluirms and window frames to achieve a consistent and appropriate alignment. The southwest driveway from Holliston Avenue traverses underneath the building (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 6)
36. as well as potential impacts to the public realm. \\1iile consolidation of the two driveways into one could not be achieved due to the programmatic requirements of the project, theproposed design was deemed to be the best option. In this design scheme, two one-way driveways will be provided at the southwest and northeast comers of the site. Their locationsensure minimal interruption to the use of the public right-of-way as well as the dismption to the site and building frontages along the streets. Additionally, the openings (and width) of the driveways correspond to the rhythm of the (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 6)
37. transportation impacts related to traffic safety Comment: Cominenters expressed concerns about the project driveways potentially conflicting with school pick-up/drop offs or with pedestrians or cross-countn' runners. Response: The transportation safety metric underCEQA is whether the Project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric designfeature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment). The addition of vehicle trips to the City's street network does not inherently result in a traffic safety impact. The City also has driveway design standards in the Pasadena Municipal Code to improve visibility and reduce potential conflicts with (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 6)
38. submitted by their respective operating companies; 2. Develop and recommend to the city council objectives and criteria of design for all streetscapes and all features thereof within the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, street lights, poles, benches, signs, hydrants, trash receptacles and other street furniture and street trees, sidewalks, parkways and special paving treatments for traffic islands and pedestrian crossings. This paragraph shall not affect the installation, maintenance or removal of traffic control devices described in Title 10 of this code, provided, however, that the commission may advise on such matters as the mounting and positioning (Pasadena, CA Code ofOrdinances.pdf)
39. the project shall.comply with the following: • Green Street is required to have a 12-foot sidewalk, consisting of a seven- foot (7') walk zone and five-foot (5') amenity zone byadditional right-of-way dedication. • Per PMC 17.30.040, the project shall provide forsidewalks that meet the required widths. Where the existing sidewalk right-of-way is lessthan the required width, the difference shall be provided through a private propertydedication. 44. Pursuant to the adopted Street Design Guidelines, the applicant shall complywith the following: • Holliston Avenue is an Access Street and should have a minimum eight- (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTACH-A.pdf, Page 8)
40. Street by providing longer driveways within the site. This design also dramatically cleans up the project's Green Street faqa.de, its primary elevation, minimized facade cutouts forvehicular traffic, and enhances the pedestrian experience at street-level.... (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 6)
41. A mirror of the west elevation, the east elevation carries the same wider panel to reduce the overall glazing area and enhance privacy to the neighbor at the east. The staggered patterncontinues, differentiates this facade from that of the north. Since Preliminary Consultation,the project's fa9ade now carries a common architectural language and expression that allowsfor variation at each elevation. The stepping back of fourth floor facades at the north andeast, together with the landscaped tenrace, provides relief to the 2-story residential neighbor to the east. The wider metal panels on the east fayade further (2026-01-27-DesignCommission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)
42. the project's visual weight towards its neighbors. The project's design provides natural shading at the 4th floor to avoid umiecessarv' light glare into the neighboring school and playground parking. The outdoor spaces at the south and east elevations are accessible formaintenance only. The windows are non-operable and the shading elements reduce theamount of full- height glass, in direct response to the neighbor's request to incorporate aheightened level of security throughout the design. A photographic collage has been included to show an approximate representation of the project in context, from the point of view of the (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf,Page4)
43. the point of view of the parking lot to the south. The existing row of trees helps to screen the building's south elevation from its neighbors. Project construction will protect these trees in place... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 4)
44. relief to the 2-story residential neighbor to the east. The wider metal panels on the east facade further enhances privacy. " Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed. The revised design reflects a stepped 4th floor along all sides which is an improvement over the previous design in providing relief to the adjoining developments. On the north, this area will be designed as a roof terrace that will be appropriately oriented to capture views of the mountains. The step back on the south, east, and west elevations will result in unoccupiableor inaccessible space that will help minimize views onto (2026-01-27-Design-Conimission3A-1364-E.-Green.St ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)
45. in Attachment C. Commission Continuation Comment: 1 Continue to explore and restudy the design and treatment of the south elevation in order to reduce its mass and scale andheight/size of the rooftop mechanical screen due to the project's proximity to the adjacent school and playground/parking. Applicant Response The rooftop mechanical screen has been reduced by an additional I'-O", from 18'-0" tail at Preliminary Consultation to 15'-0" currently, for a total reduction of3'-0". In addition, the roof edge has been tapered at everyelevation to reduce the project's visual weight towards its neighbors. The project's design (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-l 3 64-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 4)
46. the temiination point of the building's 4th floor. However, the rooftop mechanical screen and its proposed 17-foot height depicted on Sheet PAS-A2.101, is taller than the 15-foot high2nd, 3rd and 4th floors and visually competes with the design to the building overall and especially the intended and differentiated top section (4th floor) of the building. For this reason, condition of approval no. 4 is recommended to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to the degree possible so that the screen becomes a background (2026-01-27-Design-Commission3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)
47. E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 6 of 11 Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed,... (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-l 3 64-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 5) 48. - MINIMUM REQ. PER CODE LOADING SPACES - PROPOSED FAR - EXISTING FAR - MAX ALLO\\TD PER ZONING CODE FAR - PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS &STORIES - EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS & STORIES - PROPOSED PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PROPOSED HARDSCAPE/PAVING EXISTING ZONING AND LANDUSE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL LAND USE OCCUPANCY GROUP,CONSTRUCTION - EXISTING OCCUPANCY GROUP, CONSTRUCTION - PROPOSED41,573 SF N/A 93,539 SF N/A 1 N/A 117 2 PER 1,000 SF = 187 SPACES ADDITIONAL SPACES ALLOWED BY RIGHT = 93 (187 + 50%); 280 SPACES 261 SPACES O 5% OF MIN. REQ. VEHICULAR PARKING = 9 SPACES CLASS (2026-01-27-DesignCommission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 23)
49. PER CODE LOADING SPACES - PROPOSED FAR - EXISTING FAR-MAX ALLOWED PER ZONING CODE FAR - PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS & STORIES- EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS & STORIES - PROPOSED PROPOSED.
LANDSCAPING PROPOSED HARDSCAPE/PAVING EXISTING ZONING AND LAND
USE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL LAND USE OCCUPANCY GROUP,CONSTRUCTION - EXISTING OCCUPANCY GROUP, CONSTRUCTION - PROPOSED 41,573 SF N/A 93,539 SF N/A 1 N/A 117 2 PER 1,000 SF = 187 SPACES ADDITIONAL SPACES ALLOWED BY RIGHT = 93 (187 + 50%); 280 SPACES 261 SPACES O 5% OFMIN. REQ. VEHICULAR PARKING = 9 SPACES CLASS 1 (75% OF (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 23)
50. orientation of the building. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that the Commission determine the projec: TO be exempt from environmental review pursuant to theCalifornia Envirom^ental Qualiry Act (CEQA). §15332, Class 32. In-Fiil DevelopmentProjects. Based on the technical studies prepared by EcoTienra Consulting and Fehr & Peers(Attachments E and F, no changes to these studies have been made since the previous hearing), environmental consulting firms under contract to the City, the project would not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to air quality, noise or traffic. Theproject is consistent with the General Plan, (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 6)
EXHIBIT C
Richard McDonald
From:
Sent:
To:Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Erika Foy <[email protected]>
Monday, February 16, 2026 2:44 PM
[email protected],· Lyon, Jason; Hampton, Tyron; Gene Masuda; Madison, Steve; Gordo, Victor; [email protected];[email protected];[email protected] "Marquez, Miguel"; Paige, Jennifer; Siques, Joaquin; Johnson, Kevin; David Reyes; Jomsky, Mark
Please Review Attached Traffic Rebuttal and Safety Concerns - 1364 E. Green StreetCaltech Innovation Traffic Concerns.docx Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Attached please find my letter regarding the independent traffic engin£e^^^^^^^^ project at U Prism Engineering. Please make the report public record for the hearing on February 23rd.In addition, I respectfully ask that you take a few minutes to view the following drone footage, which captures existing traffic conditions on Holliston Avenue during school activity:
'S.' Drone Footage:
http£:.//yim.e.Q,c.Qm/.l.l..1..4.3m.2.4.2
What you will see in the video:
•
•
In the opening portion of the footage: vehicle queues already extending well beyond intersection approaches during school drop-off.
Midway through the video: cars stacked bumper-to-bumper along Holliston, with pedestrians —includingyoung children — navigating between stopped vehicles.
As the camera widens: the narrow width of the residential street and the proximity of the school, church, and neighborhood homes to heavy vehicle movement.
Throughout the footage: spillback conditions where congestion extends through intersections and blocks driveways.
These are existing conditions — before the addition of a 93,000+ square foot R&D facility generating over 1,000 daily trips, supported by a 260-car garage and daily commercial deliveries.
The findings in the attached letter, combined with this visual evidence, raise serious safety concerns for the 550 students at St. Philip the Apostle School, as well as pedestrians and parishioners who rely on Holtiston Avenue every day.
At a minimum, the issues identified warrant a more thorough operational analysis during actual school peak hours and meaningful consideration of redirecting project access to Green Street. 1 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to carefully review and support the findings contained in theindependent traffic engineering rebuttal regarding the proposed project at 1364 E.
Green Street, known as the Caltech Research & Development project. The report raisessignificant safety concerns related to increased traffic around the approximately 550 children who attend St. Philip the Apostle School each day, as well as the pedestriansand parishioners who call this neighborhood home.
Most importantly, the rebuttal identifies a fundamental flaw: the City's traffic study did not evaluate conditions during the actual peak conflict times — morning drop-off (7:30-8:30 a.m.) and aft9.''n3o", pick-up (2:45-3:45 p.m.). These are precisely the periods when vehicle queues form, pedestrians are concentrated, and street capacity is fully utilized. It is clearly when the risk of accidents is highest.Holliston Avenue is not a high-capacity corridor. It is a narrow residential street that already experiences standing vehicle queues twice daily due to school operations.
During these windows, traffic does not flow — it stops. Vehicles back up through intersections and block driveways. Adding approximately 1,036 daily project trips, including 90-100 vehicles per hour, into this constrained environment without a true operational analysis is deeply concerning. The inclusion of a 260-space undergroundparking structure and a muiti-truck loading dock reflects the scale and intensity of usebeing introduced.
The rebuttai report also highlights:
A documented 620-foot vehicle backup at the southbound left-turn lane at Hill and Del Mar — meaning cars routinely stack up for more than two football fields.
While the overall intersection was given a passing grade, this specific movement is already overwhelmed and regularly spills back into the roadway. • The absence of a proper traffic operations or microsimulation analysis for closely spaced intersections, where congestion and spillback are known to occur.
Using "General Office" modeling assumptions rather than a Research &Development land use category may underestimate trip characteristics and patterns.A generalized growth-rate methodology that does not reflect real-world traffic impacts from recently approved developments.
It is highly unusual that private residents and parishioners would feel compelled to retain their own licensed traffic engineer simply to understand what they experience daily on their own street. This step was not taken lightly. It was taken because what parents and neighbors see every day — long queues, blocked driveways, unsafe passing, andintersection spillback — did not appear to be reflected in the City's conclusions.
I have also been informed that none of the substantive issues raised in the independentrebuttai were directly addressed in the City's response. That lack of engagement is concerning, particuiariy given that the City recently adopted updated traffic analysis standards intended to strengthen transparency and analytical rigor. Those policiesshould be applied consistently and meaningfully here.
Importantly, the rebuttal proposes a reasonable and feasible alternative: redirecting primary project access to Green Street, a higher-capacity roadway, rather thanconcentrating all access onto Holliston Avenue. This adjustment would materially reduce conflict with school traffic and pedestrian activity. Quite frankly, Holliston Avenuecannot safely absorb what is being proposed.
This is not opposition to innovation, land rights, or responsible development. It is about ensuring that development is analyzed honestly, mitigated appropriately, and designed to protect children, pedestrians, and neighborhood streets.
Before approving this project, I respectfully ask that the City:
1. Require a full traffic operations analysis, including microsimulation of the Hill/Del Mar/Cordova corridor.
2. Analyze traffic during actual school peak hours.3. Reevaluate trip generation assumptions specific to R&D land use.4. Redesign access to Green Street to avoid concentrating traffic on Holliston.5. Fully acknowledge and address the existing two-football-field vehicle backup at Hi!! and Del Mar before adding more traffic to an already strained corridor.
Good planning requires looking beyond average numbers and examining what is trulyhappening on the ground. Pasadena's 140-year legacy of thoughtful planning is whatmakes this city exceptional. That legacy should not be compromised by overlookinglegitimate safety concerns.
The safety of children, parishioners, and neighbors must remain paramount. Once safety is diminished, it is extraordinarily difficult to restore.
I respectfully ask you to slow down, require a more complete analysis, and ensure that this project fits the neighborhood it is entering.Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to community safety.Respectfully, Erika Foy
I
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF PASADENA
City Council Minutes
December 4, 2023 - 5:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chamber
OPENING:
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers:
Staff:
CEREMONIAL MATTERS
Mayor Gordo called the regular meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. The pledge of allegiance was fed by Vice Mayor Williams. (Absent:
Councilmember Rivas)Mayor Victor M. Gordo
Vice Mayor Felicia WilliamsCouncilmember Tyron Hampton
Councilmember Justin JonesCouncilmember Jason LyonCouncilmember Steve MadisonCouncilmember Gene MasudaCouncilmember Jessica Rivas (arrived at 7:15 p.m.)City Manager Miguel MarquezCity Attorney/City Prosecutor Michele Beat BagnerisCity Clerk Mark JomskyMayor Gordo presented commendations to the following long-time employees celebrating 40 and 35 years of service with the City:
Marcia L. Tagiioretti, Police Department 40 years
Robert G. Herrera, Library & Information Services 35 yearsDerek C. Massengale, Library & Information Services 35 yearsElidia M. Gonzalez, Planning Department 35 years Karen C. Peterson, Police Department 35 years
Joseph J. Armstrong, Water & Power Department 35 years
Martin G. Lopez, Water & Power Department 35 yearsEmory M, Mack, Water & Power Department 35 years Mayor Gordo requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory ofJames Robenson, Pasadena Police Department's first Black police chief; he reflected on Chief Robenson's accomplishments during his administration.Councilmember Madison expressed condolences for the recent passings of former Los Angeles County District Attorney Robert Philibosian, former Descanso Gardens Director David Brown, and finance mogul Charlie Munger; he reflected on their impacts and various contributions to the City.Mayor Gordo also requested the meeting be adjourned in memory ofthe passing of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner,former Grand Marshall of the Rose Parade; and expressed gratitudefor her advocacy and devotion to public service.
Council Minutes 1 12/04/2023
PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CODE AMENDMENT: TO AMEND THE CITY'S EXISTING
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT (R&D) LAND USES (INCLUDING LIFE SCIENCES)
(Planning Dept.)
City Clerk Jomsky opened the public hearing; reported that the publichearing notice was published in the Pasadena Press on November 20,November 27, and November 30, 2023; and that six letters in support of the staff recommendation and/or providing comments on the matter were received by the City Clerk's Office, distributed to the City Council, posted online, and made part of the public record.
The following individuals expressed comments in support of the staff recommendation:
Melanie Cohn, Senior Director of Regional Policy and
Government Affairs with Biocom California
Charles Lites, Director of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations at ZenCorp
Casey O'Neill, representative from Biocom California
Councilmember Hampton thanked staff for their work on this item;highlighting the positive impacts that the jobs and careers to be created through these initiatives will have on the community.
It was moved by Councilmember Hampton, seconded by Vice Mayor Williams, to close the public hearing. (Motion unanimously approved.) (Absent: None)
Following discussion, Councilmember Hampton advocated for allowing Pasadena School Unified District to determine the best use of their properties (in relation to R&D uses at vacant school sites).
Councilmember Madison expressed concerns that vacant schoolproperties in residential neighborhoods may not be viable or suitablesites for research and development uses/businesses.
Mayor Gordo also expressed concerns with R&D uses of vacant schoolsites in neighborhoods; and suggested that the use of vacant schools for non-educational purposes be carved out of the proposed ordinance if the location is in residential areas to prevent traffic and employmentimpacts on neighborhoods.
It was moved by Coundlmember Hampton, seconded by Vice Mayor Williams, to reopen the public hearing. (Motion unanimously approved) (Absent: None)Mic Hansen, Planning Commission Chair, provided details on the Planning Commission's discussion of this item, which it was herunderstanding that the R&D uses proposed referred to schools such as Pasadena Community College, Cal Tech, and other schools in the large Council Minutes 10 12/04/2023
MOTION:
PS zones; and stated that the Commission did not discuss the public schools in residential areas aspect.Mayor Gordo expressed concerned for the uses that are currently allowed in PS zones and emphasized that the conditional use permits (CUP) for vacant school sites in residential neighborhoods beappropriate and compatible for the surrounding area.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential uses of the vacant schools in PS zones, drafting an ordinance to carve out public school propertiesin residential neighborhoods, and returning the item to the Planning Commission for further review and discussion.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams, seconded by CouncilmemberHampton, to close the public hearing. (Motion unanimously approved) (Absent: None)
Following discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Hampton, seconded by Councilmember Masuda, to approve staffrecommendation, amended as follows: prohibiting Research and Development (R&D) uses at K-12 school sites that are in PS Zones, with direction to City staff to work with the Planning Commission on possible uses and to report back in 8 months. (Motion unanimouslyapproved) (Absent: None) ZONiNG CODE AMENDMENT: TO AMEND THE CIPlf'S
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (SECTION 17.50.275OF THE ZONING CODE AND OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS) TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH RECENTLY ADOPTING STATE
REGULATIONS AND TO FACILITATE THE PRODUCTION OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (Planning Dept.)
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council:(1) Find that the proposed amendments in the agenda report are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 in that theproposed Zoning Code Text Amendment further implements theprovisions of Section 65852.2 of the California Government Code; (2) Make the Findings for Approval for the Zoning Code Text Amendment (Attachment A of the agenda report); and
(3) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the Zoning Code Text Amendment within 90 days consistent with the provisionsset forth in the agenda report.
Recommendation of the Planning Commission: On October 11, 2023 (Attachment B of the agenda report), the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments at a publicly noticed hearingand recommended, by a unanimous vote, that the City Council approve the Zoning Code Text Amendment as presented by staff, with the following changes:
Council Minutes 11 12/04/2023
EXHIBIT E
Biocom
California
How Local Governments Can Attract More Life Science Companies Case Study I City of Pasadena
Background
Many cities in California convey a desire to attract life science firms - especially since the COVID-19pandemic put a spotlight on the industry's economic and health contributions - but not all of themare aware that small changes to local policy can go a long way to help life science thrive.
In early 2022, member companies in Pasadena approached Biocom California to share insight intohow local hazardous materials and zoning rules could be changed to spur industry growth. What they needed was to get in front of the right policymakers with a unified voice. This is where we came in.As life science advocacy experts, we leverage our dedicated and experienced team to tackle policy change directly with key stakeholders and local policymakers, relationships that have been builtover" the course of nearly three decades. In collaboration with our members, we initiatecomprehensive policy changes aimed at bolstering our industry, and our team provides technicalassistance throughout the process.
Process
In March 2022, we began an 18-month endeavor to change the local hazardous materials ordinance and the land use zoning codes.First the City of Pasadena changed its regulatory reporting rules through a Fire Department recommendation to City Council. Businesses were previously required to report "any quantity" of a hazardous material; this was updated in August 2022 to adopt the reporting thresholds in California state law.
The city's Planning Department then set about tackling the land use zoning code. Through a series of hearings, planning staff presented a package of zoning changes that included:
• Updating the definition of Research and Development (R&D) to remove the distinction between office and non-office.
• Removing the Conditional Use Permit requirement for R&D in non-residentia! and mixed-use zones, and allowing R&D with a Conditional Use Permit in public zones. • Changing parking requirements to allow 2-3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. • Allowing total building height to exceed base zone height by 12 feet by-right to accommodate mechanical equipment between floors.
. Increasing the amount of rooftop area that can be occupied by mechanica! equipment to 75%.. Exempting mechanical spaces from FAR requirements. . Reducing open space requirements up to 60% by-right.
• Removing the ground floor prohibition for R&D uses in the East Colorado and South Fair Oaks Specific Plans.
ff SM--;
•*.
^.•f'fS::l'^s'sM'^ MSS'vKff^^S^
^-^r^^.
€
?
9 a*s
11 v
K
^
y
M
At each hearing, Biocom California and our
members were on hand to speak in support
of the changes, which received final
approval in December 2023.
BBS s;
s lr» •!
B/'ocom California's Melanie Cohn and Casey O'Neill testifying insupport of the changes at the December City Council meeting.
Timeline to Approval
March 2022 - First meeting with the City of Pasadena on hazardous materials I
August 2022 - Council approved hazmat changes & led to zoning change conversationsFebruary 2023 - City staff began drafting zoning changes I
July 2023 - Zoning changes introduced to City CouncilAugust 2023 - Second hearing & study session September 2023 - Stakeholder meeting between industry & city staff October 2023 - Planning Commission approvalDecember 2023 - City Council approval ^
Outcome
These hazardous materials and zoning changes send a message to the life science industry that Pasadena is a top destination for our companies to locate and grow. Making small changes to localpolicies can go a long way for research facilities that operate under stringent regulatory guidelines.Biocom California is proud to have guided the City of Pasadena through these legislative changes, which are a shining example of how governments can create additional employment opportunitiesfor people of all backgrounds.Contact Melanie Cohn, Senior Director of Regional Policy and Government Affairs, at [email protected] to begin conversations on making your city more life science friendly.
KW
Ran
•• KNA.boutBiocom California!
B!BS:';:; Blocom .California is the'largest,amdst experienced;:
leader and advocate for California's life science
sector. We work with all levels of government to
collectively pursue outcomes that benefit regional
BKfcllfe sclence growth and contribute to a more
innovation-friendlv state.
aed sE-i.:
li
*'
1«S i ,3iHte m
t ^
a; s;
"w:
Biocom California biocbm.brg/Ios-angeles
EXHIBIT F
December 4, 2023
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91101
RECEIVED
5823CEC-4 PU 3^9
C;T / .i..^K_ Cn-YOF PA3ADENA
tal
z<^ r
Lilly USA, LLC
Lilly Corporate CenterIndianapolis, Indiana A6285
U.S Awww.lilly.com
Submitted electronically: correspondence(a).cityofpasadena,net:
Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments to Support Research & Development ActivitiesDear Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) respectfully requests your support for the proposed zoning codeamendments to accelerate important discoveries in pharmaceutical research. Lilly considers a variety offactors when deciding to site and expand facilities, including a good general business climate. Beneficial zoning laws can be an important factor in attracting new investment.Specifically, we request that you support the following important changes to the zoning code; Ease Conditional Use Permit (CUP), parting. Floor Area Ration (FAR), and open spacerequirements;Allow for increased building heights and greater appurtenance roof coverage; Simplify the definition of "Research and Development" (R&D) by removing the distinction between office and non-ofifice; andModernize the R&D definition to include current R&D uses like the design, development, andtesting of biological, chemical, electrical, magnetic, mechanical, and/or optical components.
We would also request that the city revisit restrictions on first floor utilization as ofiRce space when related to research and development activities. Additionally, it could be beneficial to reconsider thecurrent restrictions on parking to only allow for 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet in areas identified astransit-oriented.Lilly unites caring with discovery to create medicines that make life better for people around the world.For more than 140 years, we have worked tirelessly to develop and deliver trusted medicines anddiagnostics that meet real needs. Our growing portfolio of medicines includes treatments in the areas ofbone muscle joint, cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, endocrine, immunology, neurodegeneration,neuroscience, and pain.
At Protomer Technologies, we are engineering next-geaeration protein therapeutics that can sense molecular activators in the body to automatically activate as needed. Using our proprietary proteinengineering platform, we develop therapeutic proteins that can sense molecular activators, achievevariable dosing and targeted delivery.Protomer's chemical biology-based MBPS platform enables the development ofnext-generation therapeutic proteins that can be controlled using molecular activators. Post-injection tuning of atherapeutic protein's activity is a powerful approach to increase safety and efficacy. MEPS brings a trulypersonalized medicine approach to injectable proteins, allowing a variable dosing regimen that best fits each person's unique physiology and response to therapy. MBPS also enables rapid tum-on, and turn-off 12/04/2023
Item 14
ec:
capability for automatic activity control and targeted therapies with dual homing to reduce off-targeteffects.Pasadena has become a hub for the life science industry in the Greater Los Angeles region. The cityrecognizes the value of supporting Pasadena's cluster of life science facilities and has adopted policies to attract and retain emerging industries in Pasadena. The life science industry comprises companies working in the scientific research and development of products that improve the lives of Californians andpeople around the world. Over the last several months, staff has worked closely with the City Council'sEconomic Development and Technology Committee (ED Tech), Planning Commission, EconomicDevelopment Department staff and industry stakeholders to develop recommendations to further facilitate life science uses, classified as Research and Development (R&D) in the Zoning Code.
The City of Pasadena has come a long way since early community discussions about zoning code changesto support the life sciences industry and we want to thank all parties involved and the public at large fortheir investment of time and energy into this important project.We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for these changes that will help us make medicines that will make life better for people around the world. We request your support for the zoning changesproposed in the Planning Commission staff report.Sincerely, ^AL^^.^I^
William S. Reid
Vice President, State Government Affairs ,
Members of the Pasadena City Council
Alborz Mahdavi, Vice President LRL and CEO ofProtomer TechnologiesJack Steele, Chief Operating Officer ofProtomer Technologies
EXHIBIT G
A non-refundable flat fee, based on the current General Fee Schedule, is required for plan review and on-going monitoring during construction. This plan shall show theimpact of the various construction stages on the public right-of-way (and the privatestreet) including all street occupations, lane closures, detours, staging areas, and routes of construction vehicles entering and exiting the construction site. An occupancy permit shall be obtained from the department for the occupation of any traffic lane, parking lane, parkway, or any other public right-of-way. All lane closures shall be done in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Contra! Devices (MUTCD) and California Supplement.
If the public right-of-way occupation requires a diagram that is not a part of the MUTCD or California Supplement, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted as part of theConstruction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to the department for review and approval. No construction truck idling or staging, material storage, or construction trailer are allowed in the public right-of-way.
All costs associated with these conditions shall be the applicant's responsibility. Unless otherwise noted in this memo, all costs are based on the Genera! Fee Schedule that is ineffect at the time these conditions are met.
In addition to the above conditions, the requirements of all applicable PasadenaMunicipal Code (PMC) will apply and be implemented during the corresponding plan review and permitting. They may include but not limited to:Sidewalk Ordinance - Chapter 12.04 Sewer Facility Charge - Chapter 4.53Residential Impact Fee-Chapter 4.17City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance - Chapter 8.52 Construction and Demolition Waste Ordinance - Chapter 8.62 Holiday Moratorium of activities within public right-of-way - Chapter 12.24.100
EXCAVATION OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING ASPHALT ON GREEN STREET Background:In 1971, Green Street, between Orange Grove Boulevard and Hill Avenue, was paved with asphalt containing asbestos in the top two inches. The Department of Public Works has established policies and procedures for cutting and/or grinding the pavement on this street. All utility companies are requested to inform all field personnel of the asbestos on Green Street and to post a copy of these policies and procedures which are to be followed, including having a certified hazmat contractor on-site, even if not required by a permit.Samples containing asbestos concentrations greater than 1% are considered asbestos containing materials, orACMs, in accordance with the US EPA definition ofACM. Thosesamples containing greater than 0.1% but less than or equal to 1% are considered asbestoscontaining construction materials, or ACCMs, in accordance with Cal/EPA definition.
Areas of Green Street containing ACMs:
Pasadena Avenue to De Lacey AvenueFair Oaks Avenue to Raymond AvenueLos Robles Avenue to Hudson Avenue Catalina Avenue to Holliston Avenue
Areas of Green Street containing ACCMs:
Hudson Avenue to Catalina AvenueHolliston Avenue to Hill Avenue ACMs containing greater than 1% asbestos are required to be abated prior to the demolition or re-surfacing activities that will impact or disturb the ACMs resulting in the creation of airborne asbestos fibers. ACCMs require that they be disturbed by personnel with asbestos training butmay be disposed of as non-regulated waste in accordance with applicable regulations. All ACMs and ACCMs shall be abated by a State of California licensed asbestos abatement contractor using 40-hour asbestos trained workers and appropriate wet methods and engineering controls.
All asbestos abatement workers must have current asbestos training documentation, current medical exams and releases, and current fit tests for the use of personal protective equipment(PPE). The asbestos abatement contractor shall be responsible for estimating and verifying dimensions and quantities ofACMs and ACCMs to be abated. Asbestos abatement methods must comply with Title 8, Section 1529 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403.
Excavation Conditions:
32. Contractor shall show certification that it is a state approved environmentai remediation firm.
33. All work must comply with the City of Pasadena "Utility Excavation Permits - Policies and Procedures.
34. Air monitoring data shall be recorded and copies provided daily to the City of Pasadena.35. If exposure levels exceed 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter, then it is mandatory that respiratory protection be worn and exposure levels reduced to the extent feasible.
36. The work shall be registered with CAL OSHA by the permittee and comply with CAL OSHA regulations.
37. All liquids will be vacuumed and disposed of at a designated, licensed disposal facility.
Vacuum equipment shall be equipped with a HEPA filter.
38. The composite structural section of asphalt on concrete shall be removed in one unit to the extent practical to minimize asbestos exposure.
39. The excavation area shall be constantly sprayed with water to control dust and other airborne particles.
40. Technicians will wear Personal Pump Air Monitoring devices as well as utilize air sniffers as required by taw.
41. All personnel will wear the appropriate level of personal protection equipment and full face respirators with HEPA filter cartridges while in the work zone.
42. All personnel must have appropriate training in the removal of hazardous materials.
43. The foliowing prohibitions apply:
(a) Using compressed air to remove asbestos or asbestos containing material.(b) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and debris containingasbestos.(c) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.
De pa rtm ent of T ra ns portati o n
44. In accordance with City Ordinance No. 7157 and PMC Chapter 10.64, the project is subject to the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) requirements. • Per the requirements, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to receipt of the Certificateof Occupancy and a review fee of $2,000 shall be paid prior to the issuanceof the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building).
The plan shall conform to the requirements set forth in PMC Chapter 10.64, including the annual reporting requirement and fee.
• The plan shall include the following TDM strategies from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for AnalyzingGreenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2024):
o Commute trip reduction program with mandatory monitoring (Strategy T-6)
o Employee parking cash-out (Strategy T-13)
To understand the TDM Plan requirements and associated review fees forthe report submittal, contact the Multimodal Planning Division at (626) 744- 7494 for submittal requirements.
The review fee is based on the current General Fee Schedule and aresubject to change.
The project is not expected to exceed any of the CEQA thresholds outlined in DOT'S Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
45. Pursuant to the adopted East Colorado Specific Plan and PMC Section 17.31.050, the project shall comply with the following:
Green Street is required to have a 12-foot sidewalk, consisting of a sevenfoot (7') walk zone and five-foot (5') amenity zone by additional right-of-way dedication.
• Per PMC 17.30.040, the project shall provide for sidewalks that meet the required widths. Where the existing sidewalk right-of-way is less than therequired width, the difference shall be provided through a private property dedication.
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Erika Foy
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:44 PMJomsky, Mark; Marquez, Miguel; Paige, Jennifer; Gordo, Victor; Sell, Timothy Rivas, Jessica; Lyon, Jason; Hampton, Tyron; Masuda, Gene; Madison, Steve; Cole, Rick; Jones, Justin; PublicComment-AutoResponse; Thyret, Pam; Mikaelian, Jason; Johnson, Kevin
Request for CEQA Clarification - 1364 E. Green Street
R & D Scope 1364 East Green Street.pdf
[A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Asa longtime Pasadena resident and parishioner of St. Philip the Apostle for nearly three decades, I am submitting the attached letter regarding the proposed R&D project at 1364 E. Green Street.
My primary concern is that the full range of Laboratory containment levels permitted under the City's broad R&D designation was not expressly analyzed as part of the CEQA review. The ordinance does not distinguish between laboratory intensities, and the environmental documentation does not define thecontainment envelope reasonably contemplated under this approval — particularly given the project'simmediate adjacency to a grade school.
I appreciate that Caltech has indicated it does not intend to operate above BSL-2 levels in this facility.However, CEQA review is intended to evaluate reasonablyforeseeable impacts associated with the land use being approved, not solely current operational intent. Land use entitlements run with the property, and operational intensity can evolve overtime.
For that reason, I believe the containment spectrum encompassed within the R&D zoning category should have been clearly addressed within the scope of the CEQA analysis.
I respectfully request that my attached Letter be included in the official record.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.Sincerely,
Erika Foy
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
Subject: Clarification Requested Regarding Scope of R&D Use and CEQA Review - 1364 E. Green Street
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,I am writing to raise a concern that is not the central issue in this appeal but warrants serious and deliberate consideration.
Section 17.50.240 of the Pasadena Municipal Code provides height and floor area incentives for Research & Development facilities. As written, the code treats R&D as a permitted land use and does not distinguish between varying intensities of researchactivity. The designation encompasses a broad range of potential uses — fromoffice-based innovation to laboratory-based research involving chemical or biological materials — without defining an operational ceiling.
Laboratory research in the United States is regulated under federally defined biosafety levels (BSL-1 through BSL-4), which reflect progressively greater containment, ventilation, and operational requirements. These classifications directly determine core building systems, including air pressure controls, filtration, access restrictions, and waste handling infrastructure. While higher-containment laboratories, such as BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities, are rare and subject to significant state and federal regulation, theCity's R&D zoning designation does not distinguish among laboratory intensities. Forcontext, BSL-4 represents the highest level of laboratory containment in the UnitedStates and involves highly specialized, purpose-built facilities with extensive federal oversight; although uncommon, it illustrates the upper end of the nationally recognizedcontainment spectrum. The environmental documentation does not specify thecontainment envelope contemplated for this project or define the reasonably foreseeable upper range of laboratory activity authorized under this approval.
I respectfully ask whether, when Section 17.50.240 was adopted, the Council evaluated the full range of laboratory containment levels encompassed within the R&D designation — including those not expressly distinguished in the ordinance — and whether anyoperational limitations were intended when such facilities are located adjacent to sensitive receptors such as schools. The ordinance does not specify containment levels, and it is unclear from the record what operational envelope was contemplated when these incentives were adopted.
I understand that Caltech has shared that it does not currently intend to operatelaboratory functions at BSL-2 levels or higher within this facility, and I appreciate that clarification, hlowever, those representations are not reflected in the zoning entitlementor environmental documentation. Land use approvals run with the property, and institutional missions, research needs, and tenancy can evolve overtime. Future changes in laboratory intensity would be governed primarily by building and fire codes rather than by renewed discretionary land-use review. That distinction is significant.
The environmental review evaluates traffic, air quality, noise, and vibration. However, it does not analyze the reasonably foreseeable range of research intensities permitted under the R&D land use category. The project is modeled largely as an office-equivalentuse for transportation purposes, and the operational analysis evaluates general emissions, but it does not address laboratory exhaust systems, hazardous material inventories, or the containment spectrum permitted by the zoning designation.
This is not an allegation of unsafe activity. It is a question of scope, clarity, and governance.
When Section 17.50.240 was adopted, it was appropriately framed as an economicdevelopment tool to support innovation and scientific advancement. However, the application of that broad incentive structure to a site directly adjacent to a grade schoolraises a legitimate question about whether additional operational clarity shouldaccompany such approvals.As Pasadena continues to encourage scientific and technological innovation —which Isupport — it may be appropriate for the City to consider whether R&D incentives should include additional disclosure, conditional limitations, or review mechanisms when projects are located adjacent to schools or other sensitive receptors. At a minimum, the CEQA documentation should clearly acknowledge the range of laboratory intensitiespermitted and explain the containment envelope reasonably contemplated under this entitlement.
Approving a broad R&D entitlement adjacent to a school without clearly defining its operational envelope, including the permitted range of laboratory intensities, sets a precedent. That precedent deserves to be examined openly and deliberately, not assumed.
Respectfully,
Erika Foy District 7
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 4:43 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. GreenStreet and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place of worship, sacrament, andservice. Catholic Social Teaching reminds us that decisions affecting our city must serve the commongood and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes). These values depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses Like churches. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that itcan operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises serious concerns forparishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height Limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would reflect true stewardship, respect for faith communities, and a commitment to the common good. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors safety, community, and the vital role our parish plays in Pasadena.
Sincerely,Vaterie Plump
Altadena, CA 91001 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.onecUckpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 5:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I'm writing as a Longtime parishioner who comes to Mass every week and cares deeply about our church.For many of us, this parish is a second home. It's where I come to pray, to find some quiet, and to feel at peace. Our church is also a beautiful and historic building designed by Roland Coate, and it means agreat deal to those of us who have worshipped here for many years. I understand that Pasadena wants to grow and support new development, and I respect that. But I'm very worried about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it could mean for people Like me. Construction often starts as early as7:00 in the morning, and the noise, trucks, and ground shakingwould make it hard to attend Mass,especially for older parishioners. It's difficult to pray when there's Loud construction outside, and I worry about Masses, funerals, and weddings being interrupted. I'm also concerned that vibration could affectour historic church building. It was never meant to be next to a large project like this. As Catholics, we'retaught to look out for one another and to do what's best for the common good. I don't feel that approvingthis project without a full environmental review does that. I'm simply asking the City Council to slow thisdown, require a proper environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51-foot height Limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please Let this project come back in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who come here every week. Thank you for taking the time to listen to a parishioner who just wants to keep my cherished church peaceful and the spiritual place it was intended to be.Sincerely,
Tamara Maimon
Los Angeles, CA 90039 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 7:57 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Community Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Community Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Pasadena resident, Pasadena City College (PCC) student and PCC employee who is very concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and what it could mean for the neighborhood including its surrounding businesses, housing, schools, child development center, and faith community. I support Pasadena's vision for innovation and economic growth, and I value the contributions of institutions like Caltech. However, growth should never come at the expense of the places that anchor our community. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location, nor that it is appropriately scaled for a street shared with a church, a communitycollege child development center or neighboring businesses and housing areas. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this area, puts all of us at risk.Traffic, noise, air quality, and safety are not abstract concerns for us. They affect how people arrive forworship, how children and elders move through the neighborhood, and how the adjacent church and the child development center, and neighboring businesses serves the broader community. A redesignedproject that respects the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergoes thoroughenvironmental review would show care for both innovation and the people who Live, worship, study, serve and are employed here. As it is right now it is already difficult to find parking for PCC students andstaff along Green Street and traffic gets congested around drop off and pick up times at the surrounding schools and child development center. Even with Pasadena City College parking lots down the street, these can also be filled and congested which creates a strain on students and employees walking to the PCC building that houses the Child Development Center and other important departments that serve thestudents and our community. Approving this project as proposed would send an unfair and painfulmessage—that churches and childcare facilities can be treated as afterthoughts in Pasadena's growth. Iknow that I have spent years as a housing advocate and even getting plans to be changed for approval ofaffordable houses in our city does not come quickly or easily. I don't think it should be easier for a building of this magnitude to be permitted an allowance without safer code compliant specificationsbeing met. Therefore, I urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflectsnot only economic ambition, but compassion, stewardship, and respect for our shared community values and safety.Sincerely,
Heather Richardson
1 03/02/2026
Item 10
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneCtickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCtickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 2 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 9:49 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Ensure Responsible Growth at 1364 Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Ensure Responsible Growth at 1364 Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a resident who supports thoughtful development, world-class innovation, and the important roleinstitutions like Caltech play in our beautiful city. I believe Pasadena can continue to grow and thrive. At the same time, growth must be safe, transparent, and compatible with the neighborhoods in which it is proposed.I am concerned that the proposed R&D project at 1364 E. Green Street has not been adequately demonstrated to be safe, given its location next to a grade school, an active church,childcare center, and established residential neighborhoods. The environmental review does not appearto sufficiently address potential health, traffic, and quality-of-Life impacts on these sensitive uses.Growth should never come at the expense of students, parishioners, families, and neighbors who rely onthese spaces everyday. I respectfully askthe City Council to require a full environmental analysis beforethe project moves forward. Decisions of this magnitude should be grounded in clear, thoroughr information so the community can have confidence that impacts are fully understood and responsiblyaddressed. I also encourage the Council to revisit the November 2023 General Plan modification that allowed R&D facilities citywide. R&D facilities with increased height allowances should be concentrated along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake areas designed to accommodate targer-scale development—rather than on streets directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Pasadena's long history of careful planning is one of its strengths. I urge you to ensure that growth enhances our community, protects neighborhood Livability, and maintains public trust in the planning process. Thankyou for your service and your consideration.Sincerely, AliaAlshoushi
A..^,...__
Duarte, CA 91010 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 12:45 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Uphold Planning Standards at 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Uphold Planning Standards at 1364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I support research, innovation, and Pasadena's continued economic vitality. However, Land-use decisions must be consistent with neighborhood planning principles and public safety standards. The 1364 E. Green Street project proposes a 79-foot, 93,539-square-foot laboratory adjacent to a grade school, childcare center, a church and nearby homes. Although described as fostering startups, the majority of the facility is intended for a large biotechnology company. Despite its intensity and location, the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Report. This approach leaves unresolved questions about environmental, traffic, and health impacts. Responsibledevelopment should require a complete Environmental Impact Report for projects of this magnitude andensure compatibility with surrounding residential and community uses. Recent code amendments may permit greater height and intensity, but permission does not equal prudence. Pasadena's long-termplanning integrity depends on careful review and contextual development. I ask the City Council torequire a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this project aligns with the safety, scale, and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you.Sincerely, KellyOBrien
^ I- .-• - I
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 7:56 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Questioning City Priorities Regarding Development Next to St. Philip the Apostle School [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Questioning City Priorities Regarding Development Next to St. Philip the Apostle School Mr. MarkJomsky,
Why is the City advancing a major construction and R&D project directly next to an active elementary school and church, and whose interests are being prioritized in allowing it to proceed this far? I am a parent of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing out of deep concern regarding the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street. Placing prolonged construction, increased traffic, and an R&D facility with unclear research uses immediately adjacent to children raises serious questions aboutjudgment, oversight, and public responsibility. Parents expect the City to exercise heightened cautionwhen decisions affect schools and residential neighborhoods. Instead, this project appears to have moved forward with limited transparency and without clear, publicly demonstrated assurances that children's safety and daily well-being come first. It is reasonable to ask why this location was consideredacceptable at all, and why safeguards were not firmly established before progress was made. I respectthe role of the City Council and acknowledge Caltech's contributions to Pasadena. However, economicor institutional interests should never outweigh the obligation to protect children. I urge the Council to pause this project, require a comprehensive safety and environmental review, and seriously reconsider whether this site is appropriate for high-intensity development. The community is watching closely and expects decisions rooted in accountability, sound judgment, and a clear commitment to families—notexpediency.Sincerely,Chantal Resales Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpoLitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:14 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Require Mitigation at Hill & Del Mar Before Approving Additional Traffic [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Require Mitigation at Hill & Del Mar Before Approving Additional TrafficMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Pasadena resident and supporter of responsible, safety-first planning. The City's own analysis acknowledges that the southbound Left-turn pocket at h-1ill and Del Mar is currently operating at LOS F, with approximately 620 feet of documented overflow during peak periods. This is not speculative.It is an existing operational failure. Yet the proposed Research & Development project at 1 364 E. Green Street would add approximately 1,036 daily vehicle trips to this corridor—without requiring mitigation of this known deficiency. Before adding more traffic, the City should correct what it already knows is failing.While Pasadena continues to invest in new greenways and bicycle infrastructure, a documented LOS Fvehicle movement remains unresolved. Multimodal investments are important, but they do not eliminate the responsibility to repair critical operational failures — especially near school corridors. Additionally,while morning school drop-off was studied, afternoon pick-up—when pedestrian activity and queue spillbacks are significant — was not fully evaluated. Approving additional traffic without a completepeak-hour analysis undermines public confidence in the review process. This is not about opposingdevelopment. It is about sequencing growth responsibly. I respectfully urge the City to: • Requiremitigation of the existing LOS F condition at Hill & Del Mar • Conduct full peak-hour operational analysis,including school pick-up • Ensure trip assumptions accurately reflect R&D use • Consider routing access to higher-capacity corridors rather than concentrating traffic on constrained residential streets Fix what is failing before adding more strain. That is responsible governance. That is sound planning. And that is what residents expect.
Sincerely,
filippofan^ra
Pasadena , CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:38 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Require Mitigation at Hill & Del Mar Before Approving Additional Traffic [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Require Mitigation at Hill & Del Mar Before Approving Additional Traffic Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Pasadena resident and supporter of responsible, safety-first planning. The City's own analysis acknowledges that the southbound left-turn pocket at Hill and Del Mar is currently operating at LOS F, with approximately 620 feet of documented overflow during peak periods. This is not speculative.It is an existing operational failure. Yet the proposed Research & Development project at 1364 E. Green Street would add approximately 1 ,036 daily vehicle trips to this corridor — without requiring mitigation ofthis known deficiency. Before adding more traffic, the City should correct what it already knows is failing.While Pasadena continues to invest in new greenways and bicycle infrastructure, a documented LOS Fvehicle movement remains unresolved. Multimodal investments are important, but they do not eliminate the responsibility to repair critical operational failures — especially near school corridors. Additionally,while morning school drop-off was studied, afternoon pick-up—when pedestrian activity and queue spillbacks are significant — was not fully evaluated. Approving additional traffic without a completepeak-hour analysis undermines public confidence in the review process. This is not about opposingdevelopment. It is about sequencing growth responsibly. I respectfully urge the City to: • Requiremitigation of the existing LOS F condition at hlill & Del Mar • Conduct full peak-hour operational analysis,including school pick-up • Ensure trip assumptions accurately reflect R&D use • Consider routing access to higher-capacity corridors rather than concentrating traffic on constrained residential streets Fix what is failing before adding more strain. That is responsible governance. That is sound planning. And that is what residents expect.
Sincerely,Denise Hornick
PASADENA,CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 9:27 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponsePrioritize Safety- 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Prioritize Safety -1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
As someone who cares deeply about Pasadena's families and neighborhoods, I support innovation — but not at the expense of safety. Development must reflect the needs of the people who live and learnhere. The proposed 79-foot Laboratory at 1364 E. Green Street would sit steps from a TK-8 school,homes, and a historic church. While presented as part of a startup ecosystem, most of the space isslated for a Large outside biotech company. It is troubling that a project of this scale, in such close proximityto children, is moving forward without a full Environmental Impact Report. By proceeding under a CEQA exemption, the City is allowing significant safety and traffic concerns to go unstudied. Pasadena residents should expect a full and transparent Environmental Impact Report with careful review ofhealth, safety, and traffic impacts before approval. Our city can champion scientific advancement while still protecting children and neighborhoods. I urge the City Council to require a full review and ensure this project truly safeguards the surrounding community. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Yvette Uy
-.,_ Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 9:32 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Responsible Growth and Fiscal Stewardship at 1364 E. Green [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnoiv the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Responsible Growth and Fiscal Stewardship at 1364 E. Green Mr. MarkJomsky,I support innovation and responsible development in Pasadena, including Caltech's continued success.But growth must be thoughtfully placed — especially when it is adjacent to a grade school, a church, andestablished homes. The proposed project at 1364 E. Green sits in a sensitive neighborhood setting andalong a corridor where traffic operations are already strained, including the documented LOS F conditionat the southbound Left-turn pocket at Mill and Del Mar. Before increasing height and adding trafficintensity, the City should ensure existing deficiencies are addressed and fully analyzed. This is also a matter of fiscal responsibility. Taxpayer dollars should prioritize documented infrastructure needs and operational failures before Layering on additional impacts that may require further public expense.Sequencing improvements wisely protects both safety and public investment. If enhanced R&Dstandards are appropriate, they belong on established commercial corridors like Fair Oaks, Colorado,and Lake — areas designed to absorb greater scale — not next to residential streets such as Green, Holliston, and Catalina. A 51 -foot height limit and a thorough environmental review are reasonable safeguards for this Location. Pasadena can grow — but it should do so in the right places, and in the rightorder.Sincerely,Charles Raymond .Pasadena, CA 911 06 Constituent
Prepared by OneCtickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 9:34 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Community Input for 1364 E Green St
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Community Input for 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,Please do not allow the 1364 E. Green Street project to proceed. I support development, innovation, andPasadena's role as a center for research and Life sciences. At the same time, the East Colorado SpecificPlan was developed through extensive public engagement, with hundreds of residents participating inperson and thousands more providing input online. That process was intended to meaningfully guide where and how growth should occur. This project moved forward without a full environmental review and at a scale that exceeds what was envisioned for this location. Setting aside the ECSP's guidance here,especially for a project next to a school, a church, and homes, risks undermining the community vision that informed the plan. A project of this scale, in such close proximity to children, should not moveforward without a full Environmental Impact Report. By proceeding under a CEQA exemption, the City is allowing significant safety and traffic concerns to go unstudied. Approving the project would set a precedent for enhanced R&D development in locations not clearly intended under adopted plans.
Granting the appeal would allow the City to honor its planning process while refining the project to better align with community expectations. Thankyou.Sincerely,
JulieSchoen1—-..--._^.. Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 9:40 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Right Projects in the Right Places — Fix What's Failing First [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Right Projects in the Right Places — Fix What's Failing First Mr. MarkJomsky,Pasadena can support innovation and still demand responsible placement and performance. Growth should strengthen neighborhoods — not strain them. The proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street is being advanced next to a grade school, a church, and established homes, in an area where traffic operations are already documented as failing. The City's own analysis acknowledges that thesouthbound left-turn pocket at Hill and Del Mar is operating at LOS F with approximately 620 feet ofoverflow during peak periods. That is an admitted operational breakdown — not a theoretical future impact. Yet the City is preparing to layer additional intensity and vehicle trips onto this corridorwithout first requiring mitigation of that known failure. That is not responsible sequencing. It is a prioritization decision. Enhanced height allowances and expanded R&D flexibility should be directed to establishedcommercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake — areas built to absorb higher density and traffic volume. They do not belong on or immediately adjacent to residential streets Like Green, Holliston, and Catalina. Pasadena should not approve greater scale and traffic load in sensitive school-adjacentneighborhoods while documented infrastructure deficiencies remain unresolved. Streets must functionsafely and efficiently before additional strain is added. A maximum height of 51 feet and a full, transparent environmental review are not extreme demands. They are reasonable safeguards given the location and existing conditions. Right projects belong in the right places. Fix what is failing first.Sincerely, KimSanteLL
•s-/
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPotitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 9:49 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Responsible Governance Requires Fixing LOS F Conditions First [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Responsible Governance Requires Fixing LOS F Conditions First Mr. MarkJomsky,
Good governance requires addressing known failures before creating new ones. The City's own trafficanalysis confirms that the southbound left-turn pocket at Hill and Del Mar is operating at LOS F, withapproximately 620 feet of queue overflow during peak periods. That is not a projection — it is anadmitted, existing deficiency. Despite this, the City is preparing to approve a Research & Development project at 1364 E. Green Street that would add approximately 1,036 daily vehicle trips to this already strained corridor—without requiring mitigation of the documented failure. That is a policy choice.
Residents are repeatedly told resources are limited when it comes to addressing congestion,intersection improvements, and neighborhood traffic impacts. Yet Pasadena continues allocating funding toward new greenways and infrastructure expansions while leaving a known LOS F condition unresolved — particularly in a corridor adjacent to a school. Multimodal investments have value. But they do not replace the responsibility to fix critical operational failures first. Morning school drop-off was studied. Afternoon pick-up—when pedestrian activity and congestion are often just as intense—wasnot fully evaluated. Approving additional traffic without fully analyzing peak conflict periods weakenspublic confidence in the review process. If the City moves forward without requiring mitigation of theadmitted 620-foot overflow condition, it sends a troubling message: that existing congestion, spilloverinto neighborhoods, and school-area conflicts are acceptable trade-offs. They are not. Before approving this project, the City must: • Require mitigation of the existing LOS F condition at Hill & Del Mar • Conduct full peak-hour operational analysis, including school pick-up • Ensure trip generation assumptions accurately reflect R&D use • Reevatuate project access to prevent concentrating traffic onto constrained residential streets Pasadena residents expect fiscal responsibility and performancebased planning— not expansion layered onto unresolved failure. Decisions like this shape public trust.
They also shape electoral accountability. Fix what is failing. Then consider adding more.
Sincerely,MICHAEL MAGAMEZ
n
^ASADENA, CA 91117 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acqyanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected], February 28, 2026 10:26 AM PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,I support Pasadena's goal of growing the Life-sciences sector, strengthening the tax base, and retaining Caltech-affiliated research and jobs. For that reason, I am asking you to grant the appeal of the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and not allow it to proceed. The General Plan and East Colorado SpecificPlan exist to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale and in appropriate locations— especially near schools, churches, and residential neighborhoods. As currently configured, this project exceeds what was envisioned for this location and moved forward without a full environmental review.Given its location next to a TK-8 school, childcare facilities, homes, and a church, it is concerning that the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion without a full Environmental Impact Report. Significant safety, traffic, and environmental questions remain unanswered. I respectfully ask the City Council topause and require a full review before allowing this project to proceed. Thankyou.Sincerely,carol meylan Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected], February 28, 2026 10:56 AMPublicComment-AutoResponseProtect Pasadena's Neighborhoods: 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect Pasadena's Neighborhoods: 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I am a Pasadena resident who values our city's strong neighborhoods and supports thoughtful development. Innovation and growth are important, but they must not come at the expense of the residential communities that make Pasadena such a special place to live. I am concerned that theproposed R&D project at 1 364 E. Green St. has not been adequately demonstrated to be safe, given its location next to a grade school, an active church, and Long-established residential neighborhoods. Theenvironmental review does not appear to sufficiently address potential health, traffic, and quality-of-life impacts on the surrounding homes and sensitive uses. Our neighborhoods should not bear uncertainrisks from projects of this scale and intensity. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a fullenvironmental analysis before allowing this project to proceed. Protecting neighborhood livability requires careful, transparent decision-making grounded in complete and reliable information. Pasadena has long been known for careful planning that protects neighborhood safety while allowing appropriate growth. I ask that you uphold those principles now. Thank you for your attention and service to our community.
Sincerely,
Henry De Jesus
Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 11:13 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing to express my support for responsible development and innovation in our city, while emphasizing the importance of projects that are contextual and protect sensitive uses. The proposeddevelopment at 1364 E. Green Street raises significant concerns regarding its compatibility with our neighborhoods, schools, and churches. While I support Caltech and its contributions to our community, this project has not been shown to meet safety standards or to align with the Pasadena community's priorities as outlined in our adopted plans. I respectfully request that the City Council to require a fullEnvironmental Impact Report and ensure that 1364 E. Green Street proceeds only if it truly protectsnearby schools, churches, homes, and children. Any approval should be contingent upon a thorough environmental analysis demonstrating that operations will not pose risks to residents or sensitive uses.
Recent amendments to the municipal code have allowed projects that may introduce health, traffic, and safety hazards to nearby neighborhoods. I encourage the Council to revisit its November 2023 modification to the R&D Land Use regulations, which should limit developments to commercial and industrial corridors (e.g., Fair Oaks, Raymond, Arroyo Parkway, Lake Avenue, and Colorado Blvd) ratherthan to minor streets such as Holliston, Catalina, and Green. Pasadena's growth should be safe,contextually appropriate, and enhance the community. I urge the City Council to ensure that the 1364 E.
Green Street project proceeds only if it meets these standards and reflects our city's vision and values.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns and your continued service to our community.
Sincerely,
David Good
•3asadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 11:33 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponseParent Safety Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parent Safety Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a parent of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School, located near the proposed development at 1 364E. Green Street, and I am writing to express serious concerns about this project's proximity to a school, church, and residential neighborhood. As a parent, I am particularly worried about construction activity next to our children, increased and unsafe traffic on Green Street, and the placement of an R&D building with unknown research uses adjacent to a school. At this time, it has not been clearly demonstrated thatthis project would be safe or appropriate for such a sensitive location. I support responsible development and Caltech's contributions to Pasadena, but projects near schools must meet the higheststandards for safety, scale, and transparency. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a strongerenvironmental and safety review, uphold existing height Limits, and ensure R&D uses are located inappropriate commercial or industrial corridors—not on neighborhood streets next to schools. Please put the safety of children and families first and reconsider allowing this project to proceed in its current form.
Sincerely,
Kalia Ramirez
Los Angeles, CA 90042 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 11:33 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Concerns About the 1364 E Green St Project
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Concerns About the 1 364 E Green St ProjectMr. MarkJomsky, I respectfully ask that you do not allow the 1364 E. Green Street project to proceed. I support innovationand economic growth in Pasadena. However, I also support responsible development, and the 2023 R&Dzoning amendments did not clearly resolve how expanded R&D allowances should apply on neighborhood-serving streets near sensitive uses. In addition, this project—adjacent to a school, a church, and a residential neighborhood—was advanced without sufficient environmental and safety review. Allowing this approval to stand would set a precedent for similar projects on comparable streets before these policy questions are fully addressed, increasing the likelihood of future appeals and disputes. I ask the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this projectaligns with the safety, scale, and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thankyou.Sincerely, Brooklyn Olivas
' Pasadena, CA 91101 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 12:09 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church Mr. MarkJomsky,Mayor Gordo & Planning Commission, We understand the importance of Caltech's research and appreciate its commitment to higher education. Our two nephews, have graduated from this outstanding university in the past years, so we do have an understanding of the strengths of this university. Yet, an impartial and thorough environmental review of the proposed building @ 1364 E. Green Street has not been done. Why has this not been done? Growth is necessary, but must be done responsibly. Thankyou foryour dedication to our beloved Pasadena.
Sincerely,Sandra Haskin
South Pasadena, CA 91030 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact info@oneclickpo[itics.com 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
February 28, 2026
To: Mayor and CityCouncilmembers
RECEIVED
202&HAR-2 AM 8: 18
i
Re: Proposed Project at 1364 E. Green Street ^JB pl^^NA I have been attending St Philip the Apostle'for several years. I must offeFa'commerit oh ttiy proposed development at 1364 East Green Street.
St Phillip is not just a place of worship and contemplation but also an important part of Pasadena. Its history is in part the history of Pasadena. However, the recent opposition to the proposed development adjacent to the parish is concerning.
Pasadena set design and planning rules and regulations for this parcel through the East Colorado Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was developed through an extensive community meeting and hearing process, a process for which all city residents should be proud andprotective. Once adopted, it is important for Pasadena decision-makers to respect the rules and approve developments that adhere to what the community, through the city council, judged as acceptable for the site. The proposed project adheres to the SpecificPlan.
I do not Like every new project that is built in Pasadena. I may not like the design or use of this or that project. However, I do know that every project built in this city is judged against plans and standards that are not ad hoc and changeable by the highest bidder or Loudest opponents as occurs so often in cities Like Los Angeles.
I also know that the planning processes we have adopted, and will publicly review in the future, welcome and value my participation. And most importantly, I know that the fairness of the city's planning process, even if I do not Like a particular project, protects everybody'sproperty rights.
I ask the City Council to approve the project.Respectfully, James McDermott
Pasadena, CA 91105
03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 12:49 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseSafeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,Dear Members of the Pasadena City Council, Building a Better Pasadena strongly supports responsible innovation and Caltech's continued success, but we firmly oppose the proposed development at 1364 E.Green St. in its current form, as it fails to meet the basic standards of contextual and communityconscious planning. The project's proximityto a grade school, St. Philip Church, and surrounding residences demands that any approved structure be limited to a maximum height of 51 feet, consistent with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Without this Limitation, the project sets a dangerous precedent for oversized development on residential streets such as Green, Hottiston, andCatalina—streets that were never intended to anchor Large-scale R&D facilities. Furthermore, recent broad amendments to the Research and Development code have created regulatory gaps that allowprojects to advance without adequate scrutiny of their health, traffic, and environmental impacts on sensitive nearby uses. The City Council must require a thorough, transparent environmental review before any approvals move forward, ensuring that students, parishioners, staff, and residents areprotected from avoidable harm. R&D facilities with increased height allowances belong in established commercial corridors like Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake—not immediately adjacent to places of worship, schools, and homes. We urge the Councilto uphold Pasadena's planning principles, imposeclear height and use restrictions at this site, and demonstrate that growth and community safety can and must move forward together.
Sincerely,GeneZange
G . ... .
Hollister, CA 95023 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.onectickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected], February 28, 2026 1:40 PM PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
Dear Mr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacredplace where we gatherforworship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we arecalled to uphold human dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community.
While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado SpecificPlan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflectboth Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Tim Morse
t
't Pasadena, CA 911 06 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 1:57 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Responsible Growth: Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street Proposal [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnoivthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Responsible Growth: Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street ProposalMr. MarkJomsky, We are residents who support thoughtful development, innovation, and the important role institutions Like Caltech play in our city. At the same time, we believe development must be safe, transparent, and compatible with the neighborhoods in which it is proposed. We are concerned that the current R&D project has not been adequately shown to be safe given its location next to a school, a church, and established residential neighborhoods. In particular, we believe the environmental review has notsufficiently addressed potential health, traffic, and quality-of-Life impacts on these sensitive uses. We respectfully ask the City Council to require a full environmental analysis before this project proceeds.
This step is essentialto ensuringthat decisions are based on sound information and that community impacts are fully understood. More broadly, we urge the Council to revisit its November 2023modification of the General Plan that allowed R&D facilities citywide. We believe that R&D facilities withincreased height allowances should be concentrated along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake, rather than on streets directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods, including Green Street. Finally, we are concerned that recent broad amendments to the R&D code wereadopted without sufficient consideration of how they could impact nearby schools, churches, and homes. These changes risk introducing health, traffic, and other hazards into areas that were previouslyprotected by zoning and planning standards. We ask the Council to take action to ensure responsible development, protect neighborhood Livability, and restore public confidence in the planning process.
Thankyouforyourtime and consideration.
Sincerely,
Emily H
1 Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications toots forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 2:41 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseEnsure Responsible Growth at 1364 Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Ensure Responsible Growth at 1364 Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am a resident who supports thoughtful development, world-class innovation, and the important role institutions like Caltech play in our beautiful city. I believe Pasadena can continue to grow and thrive. Atthe same time, growth must be safe, transparent, and compatible with the neighborhoods in which it is proposed.I am concerned that the proposed R&D project at 1364 E. Green Street has not beenadequately demonstrated to be safe, given its location next to a grade school, an active church,childcare center, and established residential neighborhoods. The environmental review does not appearto sufficiently address potential health, traffic, and quality-of-Life impacts on these sensitive uses.Growth should never come at the expense of students, parishioners, families, and neighbors who rely onthese spaces every day. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full environmental analysis beforethe project moves forward. Decisions of this magnitude should be grounded in clear, thorough information so the community can have confidence that impacts are fully understood and responsiblyaddressed. I also encourage the Council to revisit the November 2023 General Plan modification thatallowed R&D facilities citywide. R&D facilities with increased height allowances should be concentrated along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake areas designed to accommodate larger-scale development—rather than on streets directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Pasadena's long history of careful planning is one of its strengths. I urge you to ensure that growth enhances our community, protects neighborhood livability, and maintains public trust in the planning process. Thank you for your service and your consideration.
Sincerely,
Denise Morse
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 3:33 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and WorshipMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual Landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surroundingenvironment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern giventhe church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damageand the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfairburden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project complywith the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
MatthewS. Casillas
Pasadena, CA 91104-2925 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 3:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to upholdhuman dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. White I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions Like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this Location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -footheight limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allow thisproject to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in theneighborhood.
Sincerely,
EduardoCasillas
Pasadena, CA 91104-2925 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 3:36 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protecting Our h-listoric Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. GreenStreet and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship,designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural andspiritual Landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold thecommon good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a safe and respectful surrounding environment. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation andinstitutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this Locationor at the scale proposed. Construction activity of this intensity raises serious concerns about noise, vibration, traffic, and access, including the potential for Masses, funerals, weddings, and other worship services to be disrupted. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a heightexceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.Sincerely, MisaelCasillasr
•^t'asadena, CA 91104-2925 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 3:37 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky, I'm writing as a longtime parishionerwho comes to Mass every week and cares deeply about our church.For many of us, this parish is a second home. It's where I come to pray, to find some quiet, and to feel at peace. Our church is also a beautiful and historic building designed by Roland Coate, and it means agreat deal to those of us who have worshipped here for many years. I understand that Pasadena wants togrow and support new development, and I respect that. But I'm very worried about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it could mean for people like me. Construction often starts as early as 7:00 in the morning, and the noise, trucks, and ground shaking would make it hard to attend Mass,especially for older parishioners. It's difficult to pray when there's Loud construction outside, and I worryabout Masses, funerals, and weddings being interrupted. I'm also concerned that vibration could affectour historic church building. It was never meant to be next to a Large project Like this. As Catholics, we'retaught to look out for one another and to do what's best for the common good. I don't feel that approvingthis project without a full environmental review does that. I'm simply asking the City Council to slow this down, require a proper environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please Let this project come back in a form that respects our church, ourworship, and the people who come here every week. Thank you for taking the time to listen toa parishioner who just wants to keep my cherished church peaceful and the spiritual place it was intended to be.
Sincerely,
ObduliaCasillas
Pasadena, CA 91104-2925 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 4:28 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green StMr. MarkJomsky, I support Pasadena's goal of growing the life-sciences sector, strengthening the tax base, and retaining Caltech-affiliated research and jobs. For that reason, I am asking you to grant the appeal of the proposedproject at 1364 E. Green Street and not allow it to proceed. The General Plan and East Colorado Specific Plan exist to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale and in appropriate Locations— especially near schools, churches, and residential neighborhoods. As currently configured, this projectexceeds what was envisioned for this location and moved forward without a full environmental review.Given its location next to a TK-8 school, childcare facilities, homes, and a church, it is concerning that the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion without a full Environmental Impact Report. Significant safety, traffic, and environmental questions remain unanswered. I respectfully askthe City Counciltopause and require a full review before allowing this project to proceed.Thank you.
Sincerely,Linda Lim
Pasadena . CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 4:53 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Safeguarding Pasadena Communities: 1364 E. Green St.
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnoivthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Safeguarding Pasadena Communities: 1364 E. Green St.
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am a local resident who supports responsible development, innovation, and the important contributions of institutions such as Caltech. We do not need a biotech research center in Pasadena. We do not want more vaccines, man-made pharmaceuticals, or genetic experiments. We need a hlealing Sanctuarythat uses ancient, time honored healing practices with modern therapies to heal our human mind and body in a wholistic environment. We do not need a pharmaceutical company next to our schools and churches. Land-use decisions must be grounded in sound planning principles, adequateenvironmental review, and compatibility with surrounding sensitive uses. Despite its proximityto sensitiveuses—including hundreds of schoolchildren—the project is proceeding under a CEQA exclusion, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Report. Key safety, traffic, and environmental impactshave not been fully studied or disclosed. Pasadena residents deserve developments that require a full Environmental Impact Report and prioritize public safety. Projects of this scale and R&D lab operations next to schools and homes demand thorough, transparent review. Health, traffic, and operationalimpacts must be clearly evaluated before approval. More broadly, I encourage the Council to revisit its November 2023 General Plan modification that permitted R&D facilities citywide. We believe this policy change, particularlywhen coupled with increased height allowances, warrants further refinement.Concentrating higher-intensity R&D uses along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks,Colorado, and Lake would better align with Long-standing planning practices and reduce conflicts withresidential neighborhoods, including streets such as Green. Finally, I am concerned that recent broadamendments to the R&D code were adopted without sufficient analysis of their cumulative and sitespecific effects near sensitive land uses. These amendments have enabled projects that may introduce traffic, health, and safety impacts in locations previously buffered by zoning and planning controls. We cannot allow unscreened companies to bring in new business or experimentation without our consent.
We demand full disclosure of their business intentions. What is the category of their research?? I urge the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that 1364 E. Green Street proceeds only if it truly protects nearby schools, churches, homes, and children. Our city's safety,accountability, and quality of life are at stake. Thank you for your time and consideration.Sincerely, Evan Strongbow
. Pasadena, CA 911 06 Constituent
1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 4:59 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Call for Safe and Transparent Planning (1364 E. Green Street) [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Call for Safe and Transparent Planning (1364 E. Green Street) Mr. MarkJomsky,I am a community memberwho supports thoughtful development, world-class innovation, and theimportant role institutions Like Cattech play in our beautiful city. At the same time, we believe development must be safe, transparent, and compatible with the neighborhoods in which it is proposed.
I am concerned that the proposed R&D project at 1 364 E. Green Street has not been adequately demonstrated to be safe, given its location next to a grade school, an active church, and established residential neighborhoods. In particular, we believe the environmental review has not sufficiently addressed potential health, traffic, and quality-of-Life impacts on these sensitive uses. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full environmental impact report before the project proceeds. This step is essentialtoensuringthat decisions are based on sound information and that community impacts are fully understood and appropriately addressed. More broadly, we urge the City Council to revisit its November 2023 General Plan modification that allows R&D facilities citywide. R&D facilities with increased height allowances should be concentrated along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake—not on streets directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods, includingGreen Street. Finally, I am concerned that recent broad amendments to the R&D code were adopted without sufficient consideration of their potential impact on nearby schools, churches, homes, and families. If this can occur on Holliston, it could happen elsewhere. These changes risk introducing health, traffic, and other hazards into areas that were previously protected by longstanding zoning andplanning standards. We ask the City Council to take action to ensure responsible development, protectneighborhood livability, and restore public confidence in the planning process. Residentialneighborhoods are not negotiable Thankyou. Lucrecia Jurado urado Sincerely,
LucreciaJurado
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneCtickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 5:29 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please Require Full Review for 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Please Require Full Review for 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I know Pasadena can embrace innovation while still protecting its neighborhoods. We do not need Trammell Crow Company, a pharmaceutical company, or a new laboratory building to rise at 1 364 E.
Green Street in order to achieve innovation here. Although described as part of a startup ecosystem,most of the building is reportedly intended for a large outside biotechnology company. The site sits directly beside schools, homes, and a historic church. Yet the project is moving forward under a CEQAexemption, bypassing a full Environmental Impact Report. That means important questions about safety, traffic, and environmental effects have not been fully examined or shared with the public. Pasadena deserves development that conducts a full Environmental Impact Report for projects of this size andintensity and carefully studies public health, traffic flow, and operational impacts before approval. Whatwe really need in this town is a Health and Wellness Clinic with modern therapy and healing practices that integrates traditional allopathic medicine and natural healing. That is truly innovative and also meets a higher standard for long term human health. Please require a full Environmental Impact Reportand ensure that this project reflects Pasadena's commitment to safety, transparency, and community character. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
JoyAbernathy
Pasadena, CA 91101 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.onectickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 5:32 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Uphold Planning Standards at 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Uphold Planning Standards at 1364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I support research, innovation, and Pasadena's continued economic vitality. However, land-use decisions must be consistent with neighborhood planning principles and public safety standards. The 1364 E. Green Street project proposes a 79-foot, 93,539-square-foot laboratory adjacent to a grade school, childcare center, a church and nearby homes. Although described as fostering startups, the majority of the facility is intended for a large biotechnology company. Despite its intensity and location, the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Report. Thisapproach Leaves unresolved questions about environmental, traffic, and health impacts. Responsible development should require a complete Environmental Impact Report for projects of this magnitude andensure compatibility with surrounding residential and community uses. Recent code amendments maypermit greater height and intensity, but permission does not equal prudence. Pasadena's long-termplanning integrity depends on careful review and contextual development. I ask the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this project aligns with the safety, scale, and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you.Sincerely,LeoraJuster Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneClickPotitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected], February 28, 2026 5:51 PM PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship,designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural andspiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safelyat this Location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—oftenbeginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, trucktraffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern giventhe church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on astructure never intended to be adjacent to Large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damage and the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned forthis street, places an unfairburden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height Limit and undergo a thoroughenvironmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
MaryDitt
—o---
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 7:03 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Urgent: Child Safety Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Urgent: Child Safety Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I am a parent of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School, Located just steps from the proposeddevelopment at 1364 E. Green Street, and I am writing with urgent concerns about the safety of ourchildren and community if this project moves forward as proposed. This development would place majorconstruction activity, increased traffic, and an R&D facility with undefined research uses directly next toa school and church. As a parent, I find it deeply troubling that children could be exposed to construction hazards, unsafe traffic conditions on Green Street, and unknown operational risks without a clear andreassuring environmental and safety analysis. While I support responsible development and value Caltech's role in Pasadena, projects adjacent to schools demand the highest level of caution and transparency. At this time, those standards have not been met. Allowing this project to proceed withouta stronger review places children and families at unnecessary risk. I respectfully but firmly urge the CityCouncil to pause this proposal, require a comprehensive safety and environmental review, uphold existing height limits, and ensure R&D uses are restricted to appropriate commercial or industrialcorridors—not neighborhood streets next to schools. Please act now to protect our children and preventirreversible impacts to our school and neighborhood.Sincerely, Mary Kate Roohan
Pasadena. CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:38 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Longtime Catholic parishionerwho attends Mass regularly and cares deeply about our church and its future. For many of us, this parish is the center of our spiritual lives. It is where I comeeach week to pray, find peace, and feel close to God. Our church, designed by Roland Coate, is a beautiful and historic place, and the quiet and reverence of the space mean so much to those of us whohave worshipped here for many years. I support Pasadena's growth and understand the importance ofinnovation, but I worry that the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street would make it verydifficult for parishioners like me. Construction often begins as early as 7:00 in the morning, and thenoise, heavy trucks, and ground vibration could easily disrupt daily and weekend Masses, funerals, weddings, and times of prayer. Many parishioners are older and move more slowly, and increased traffic and noise would make attending Mass more stressful and less safe. I am also concerned that vibrationcould affect our historic church building, which was never meant to sit next to a large-scale project Like this. Catholic teaching reminds us to care for one another and work for the common good (Gaudium et Spes). I do not feel that approving this project without a full environmental review reflects that care. I respectfully ask the City Council to require that this project follow the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan and undergo a thorough environmental review that truly considers noise, vibration, and construction hours. Please allow this project to return in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who depend on it. Thank you for Listening to my concerns and for protectingthe communities that make Pasadena special.Sincerely,Juanita Castella Pasadena, CA 91106-2703 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:39 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Regarding 1364 East Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Regarding 1364 East Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I support Pasadena's efforts to attract research, innovation, and Life sciences investment. However, I am asking you to grant the appeal of the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and not allow it to proceed in its current form. Those economic goals depend on clear siting rules, appropriate transitions in scale,and public confidence in the planning process—particularly when projects are proposed near schools,churches, and established neighborhoods. In this case, the project advanced without a fullenvironmental review and at a scale that exceeded what was envisioned for this location under the EastColorado Specific Plan. It is troubling that a project of this scale, in such close proximity to children, is moving forward without a full Environmental Impact Report. By proceeding under a CEQA exemption, the City is allowing significant safety and traffic concerns to go unstudied and sets a dangerous precedent.Granting the appeal would provide an appropriate opportunity to require a full review and refine the project's scale so it aligns with adopted plans before approvals vest. Allowing the approval to stand would set a precedent for expanded R&D development on similar neighborhood-serving streets, increasing the Likelihood of future appeals and disputes. Grantingthe appealwoutd strengthenpredictability and trust in Pasadena's land-use decisions. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Patricia Escorza-Jaime
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:56 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on ourchurch community. Our parish isa sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena's architectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surroundingenvironment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuingfor many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, trucktraffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern given the church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damage and the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a height exceedingwhat was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that thisproject comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height Limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,Carol Mares
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, February 28, 2026 8:59 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseRight Projects in the Right Places — Fix What's Failing First [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Right Projects in the Right Places — Fix What's Failing FirstMr. MarkJomsky,Pasadena can support innovation and still demand responsible placement and performance. Growth should strengthen neighborhoods — not strain them. The proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street is being advanced next to a grade school, a church, and established homes, in an area where trafficoperations are already documented as failing. The City's own analysis acknowledges that the southbound left-turn pocket at Hill and Del Mar is operating at LOS F with approximately 620 feet of overflow during peak periods. That is an admitted operational breakdown — not a theoretical futureimpact. Yet the City is preparing to layer additional intensity and vehicle trips onto this corridor without first requiring mitigation of that known failure. That is not responsible sequencing. It is a prioritization decision. Enhanced height allowances and expanded R&D flexibility should be directed to establishedcommercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake — areas built to absorb higher density and traffic volume. They do not belong on or immediately adjacent to residential streets like Green, hlolliston, and Catalina. Pasadena should not approve greater scale and traffic load in sensitive school-adjacentneighborhoods while documented infrastructure deficiencies remain unresolved. Streets must functionsafely and efficiently before additional strain is added. A maximum height of 51 feet and a full, transparent environmental review are not extreme demands. They are reasonable safeguards given the location and existing conditions. Right projects belong in the right places. Fix what is failing first.
Sincerely,
Alton Cu lien
Pasadena, CA, USA Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:28 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing to express my support for responsible development and innovation in our city, while emphasizing the importance of projects that are contextual and protect sensitive uses.The proposeddevelopment at 1364 E. Green Street raises significant concerns regarding its compatibility with our neighborhoods, schools, and churches. While I support Caltech and its contributions to our community, this project has not been shown to meet safety standards or to align with the Pasadena community's priorities as outlined in our adopted plans. I respectfully request that the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that 1364 E. Green Street proceeds only if it truly protects nearby schools, churches, homes, and children. Any approval should be contingent upon a thoroughenvironmental analysis demonstrating that operations will not pose risks to residents or sensitive uses.
Recent amendments to the municipal code have allowed projects that may introduce health, traffic, and safety hazards to nearby neighborhoods. I encourage the Council to revisit its November 2023 modification to the R&D Land Use regulations, which should limit developments to commercial andindustrial corridors (e.g., Fair Oaks, Raymond, Arroyo Parkway, Lake Avenue, and Colorado Blvd) rather than to minor streets such as hlolliston, Catalina, and Green. Pasadena's growth should be safe, contextually appropriate, and enhance the community. I urge the City Council to ensure that the 1364 E.
Green Street project proceeds only if it meets these standards and reflects our city's vision and values.Thankyou foryour attention to these concerns and your continued service to our community.
Sincerely,
Soprinye Dappa
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:39 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Accountability and Safety for 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Accountability and Safety for 1364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
City council members, I am a Pasadena resident, raising family in the CalTech/PCCarea.As a Longtimecitizen of the area, I find the development of Trammel Crow/Caltech research and laboratory building, for large biotechnology companies at 1364 E. Green Street extremely concerning. Our area is already congested with traffic, from Cal Tech and PCC. Our infrastructure is not suitable for another largeproject. As it is, our sewer systems are currently over burdened, due to all new the condo and apartment buildings that have been built the last ten years. The city has not kept up, with upgrading street lighting, and I am constantly hearing accidents on Green Street. Parking has become costly and burdensome in the city. I can't even park in front of my home anymore, due to the excessive amount of cars, these businesses and their patrons attract. My family has lived here for over eighty years, and I don't feel safe, allowing my child to play, because of all the strangers constantly in and out of our neighborhood.Additionally, it is concerning what type of environmental impact, such laboratories would have on the local residents. Traffic is already grueling enough, and has affected our quality of living. We definitelydon't need a building of this magnitude, to make the situation worse. Most of Cal Tech's properties, off ofit's main campus, have not disrupted the residential landscape, in the neighborhood they reside in, but this building, along with some of the newer buildings on the Cat Tech campus, are gotti Looking, and don'tfit into the city's historic style and charm. I love and adore Pasadena's history, and charm. I request the city council not change what our city is known for, and be much more strict, about the type ofarchitecture, commercial and residential, being built in our city. For years, my family and I, have had todeal with all the extra Loitering on our residential streets, that people throw out from their cars. Brokenglass, from cars being broken into. And things being stolen off our property. We have young children, and want to feel safe taking a walk in our neighborhood, without the extra few thousand strangers invadingour safe spaces. Thankyouforyourtime, regarding this important matter. Sincerely, Dolly Dappa Sincerely,
Dolly Dappa
m
c Pasadena, CA 911 06 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCtickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:41 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponseProtect Pasadena - 1364 East Green [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect Pasadena -1 364 East Green
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am a resident who values our city's Long tradition of thoughtful planning, strong neighborhoods, andrespect for community institutions. Pasadena has always balanced innovation with care — protecting itsschools, churches, and residential areas white allowing appropriate growth. I am writing because Ibelieve that balance is at risk. I am deeply concerned about the proposed R&D project near Green Street, given its location next to a grade school, childcare center, an active church, and established homes. The current environmental review does not appear to fully address potential health, traffic, and quality-of-tife impacts on these sensitive uses. Pasadena has Long been known for careful zoning and planning standards that protect our most vulnerable. Recent broad amendments that allow R&D facilities citywide raise serious concerns when applied directly adjacent to schools and churches, h-ligher-intensity uses should be concentrated along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake — not steps away from young children. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full environmental review before this project proceeds. Decisions affecting hundreds of young children deserve the highestlevel of scrutiny and transparency. Thankyou for your service and your careful consideration.Sincerely,Elsie Robinson Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.onectickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 4:09 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Concerns About the 1364 E Green St Project
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Concerns About the 1 364 E Green St Project
Mr. MarkJomsky,
As a resident of District 7 and also as an employee of Caltech, I respectfully ask that you do not allowTrammell Crow/ Caltech's proposed corporate biotech R&D building at 1 364 E. Green Street. Thisproposed project was advanced without sufficient environmental and safety reviews. The proposal is for a 79-feet tall, 93,539 sq ft space, which is disproportionate to the block and would exceed our longestablished 51-foot neighborhood height limit. This is not even for a campus building, which isconcerning in its own right, but that the R&D Lab activities have not been publicly disclosed comesacross as deceitful and ethically questionable. Frankly, it would reflect an abuse of power to greenlight this project as it stands. We deserve growth that is transparent and above-board. I ask the City Council to pause this approval and to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this project aligns with the safety, scale, and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thankyou.Sincerely, ReoGLancey
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 7:36 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponseFrom an 8th Grader at St. Philip: Concerns About Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: From an 8th Grader at St. Philip: Concerns About Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School Mr. MarkJomsky,I am an eighth grader at St. Philip The Apostle School. I have been a resident of district 7 since I was one year old and have attended St Philip since kindergarten. Like many of my classmates, I am very concerned about how the Caltech project will impact future generations of students at St. Philip The Apostle School and members of our parish for which the church is the center of their daily lives. The traffic impact of the building will cause serious problems for students who walk to and from school. This is supported by traffic studies presented to the City Council. I regularly walk home from school with mysiblings. Also, each student in our eighth grade class has the privilege of walking home from school andmany of us do. This is often during peak hours when construction is going to be in in full gear. One veryconcerning factor that has been overlooked and must be considered is the impact on the athletes whoparticipate in various sports offered at Saint Phillip. Saint Philip has a thriving sports program which runs from the beginning of the school year through the end of Spring. Hundreds of students participate in sports teams, usually more than one throughout the year. I personally have participated in track and fieldcross country soccer volleyball basketball and golf. ALL of our sports teams practice outside on mostdays. The track and cross country teams run in the area that will be directly impacted by the Caltech project. All of these student athletes will be breathing toxins from the construction, and potentially toxins from the lab if it is built. These risks must be assessed before this project is approved. Although this isthe first time that I address the commission, I have been involved in City politics since I helped my dad campaign when he ran for city Council, district 7 in 2017. Like my dad, I understand the importance of responsible development and the negative impact of irresponsible development. Based on the currentplan and scale, this project is the perfect example of irresponsible development. There is no question that if this project is approved, it puts our health and safety at risk. As members of the City Council, please show this a a young generation of civil servants that we can trust in our city to prioritize the safetyand wellbeing of our community for generations to come. Thankyou for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Julia Hasp
Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 7:39 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Stop Adding Traffic to a Failing Intersection - 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Stop Adding Traffic to a Failing Intersection -1 364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,Pasadena's own traffic analysis acknowledges that the southbound left-turn pocket at Hill and Del Mar is already operating at LOS F, with approximately 620 feet of documented overflow during peak periods.
That is a failing condition—today. Yet the City is preparing to approve a project at 1364 E. Green Street that would add approximately 1 ,036 daily vehicle trips to this corridor without requiring mitigation of that known failure. Approving additional traffic load onto an intersection you acknowledge is already failing isnot responsible planning. It is a choice. Residents are repeatedly told there is Limited funding to address traffic congestion and safety issues. At the same time, the City continues allocating substantial resources toward new greenways and infrastructure expansions while leaving documented operationaldeficiencies unresolved. This is a matter of priorities. Multimodal investment does not excuse ignoringexisting LOS F conditions — especially near school corridors where children and pedestrians are present. Morning drop-off was studied; afternoon pick-up was not fully evaluated. Partial analysis shouldnot justify full approval. If the City moves forward without requiring mitigation of the admitted 620-foot overflow condition, it sends a clear message that existing congestion and neighborhood spillover areacceptable collateral. They are not. Before approving this project, the City must: • Require correction or mitigation of the existing LOS F condition at Mill & Del Mar • Conduct full peak-hour operational analysis,including school pick-up periods • Ensure trip generation reflects true R&D impacts • Reevaluate project access to prevent concentrating traffic onto constrained residential streets Fix what is failing before adding more strain. Public trust depends on it.Sincerely,Danielle ELLiott Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 8:52 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I write as a Catholic parishioner with deep concern for the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place. It is where we gather to worship God, receive the sacraments, educate our children in faith, care for the poor, and offerrefuge to those seeking peace and healing. The Church's mission depends not only on what happens inside our walls, but also on the surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of this sacredpurpose. The Catholic tradition teaches us to value human dignity, stewardship of creation, and care for the most vulnerable among us. For these reasons, I am troubled that this project has not demonstratedthat it can operate safely at this location or at the scale currently proposed. Approving it without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, risks disrupting the life of our parish and undermining the sense of safety and reverence that parishioners depend upon.
Traffic congestion, noise, air quality, and safety concerns are not theoretical. They affect families arriving for Mass, children attending religious education, elderly parishioners with Limited mobility, and those who come to our church seeking prayer, counseling, or quiet refuge. A redesigned project that complieswith the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height Limit and undergoes a thorough environmental review would better reflect the values of care, balance, and responsibility that Pasadena claims touphold. Approving this project as proposed would set a troubling precedent—suggesting that churchesand other sensitive institutions may be asked to bear the burdens of growth without adequate protectionor consideration. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form thathonors both economic progress and the spiritual and communal life of our city. Pasadena can grow in a way that respects faith communities, protects human dignity, and reflects true stewardship. I askthatyou choose that path.Sincerely, Diane Villalobos-Olivasc Pasadena, CA 91104 ConstituentPrepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 9:25 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Pasadena's Neighborhoods: 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you knowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect Pasadena's Neighborhoods: 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I am a Pasadena resident who values our city's strong neighborhoods and supports thoughtful development. Innovation and growth are important, but they must not come at the expense of the residential communities that make Pasadena such a special place to Live. I am concerned that theproposed R&D project at 1 364 E. Green St. has not been adequately demonstrated to be safe, given itslocation next to a grade school, an active church, and long-established residential neighborhoods. The environmental review does not appear to sufficiently address potential health, traffic, and quality-of-life impacts on the surrounding homes and sensitive uses. Our neighborhoods should not bear uncertainrisks from projects of this scale and intensity. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full environmental analysis before allowing this project to proceed. Protecting neighborhood livability requires careful, transparent decision-making grounded in complete and reliable information. Pasadenahas long been known for careful planning that protects neighborhood safety while allowing appropriate growth. I ask that you uphold those principles now. Thank you for your attention and service to ourcommunity.Sincerely, Marianne Eggleston
A r\r\r^
88" Pasadena, CA 91107-6826 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:Subject:
Attachments:
Andrade, ClaudiaSunday, March 1, 2026 9:32 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponseGordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
reference to the innovation center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258
Letter of support - Claudia Andrade .docx
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Attached please find our letter of support for the Innovation Center.
Best regards,
CLaudiaAndrade
California Institute of TechnologyGraduate OfficePasadena, CA 91125 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
Claudia and Jose Andrade
17750akdaleSt.
Pasadena, CA
Dear Pasadena City Council,
I am a resident of District 7 and I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the projectis ideally positioned to nurture start-ups and attract companies focused on discovery. Thisdevelopment will help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub for innovation, education, andopportunity. In this space, creative ideas will become products and services that benefitsociety and improve Life.
The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:
Keep transformational ideas and new companies in Pasadena: The start-up companies that arise from cutting-edge research happening at Caltech will have the mix of office and Laboratory space that allows them to put down roots and grow inPasadena, rather than leave for other cities.
Strengthen Pasadena as a center for discovery and invention: Private researchfirms are drawn to the steady flow of creative ideas and talented graduates comingfrom Caltech and nearby institutions. The center will attract these companies and strengthen partnerships.
Turn vision into reality: The site has been zoned for this type of building through the City's East Colorado Specific Plan. The innovation center is a by-right development that helps realize the intentions outlined in the plan and is fully compliant with Pasadena's vision for growth.Create local careers: The innovation centerwill create permanent high-quality STEM jobs. Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schoolswill have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.
Boost the local economy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, the project will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants and shops.Engage education: The innovation centerwill connect students and faculty fromCaltech with industry partners while providing pathways for Local schools andcolleges to engage with cutting-edge science.Enhance Pasadena's reputation: Innovation districts tied to universities are thriving in cities across the U.S. Pasadena has the talent and institutions to compete and lead, and this building is an important step.
Protect Pasadena's environment: The project incorporates sustainability features such as advanced shading, energy efficiency, water conservation, lowVOC emitting materials and 14 new street trees to strengthen Pasadena's green canopy.
Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, Landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.
I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to our community.
Claudia and Jose Andrade
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:09 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponseParishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to uphold human dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I supportPasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in the neighborhood.Sincerely,Amanda Toledo Barriosc .
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:10 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and WorshipMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural andspiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold thecommon good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surroundingenvironment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern given the church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to Large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damageand the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Pleasegrant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Natividad Bustos
Padadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:17 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I write as a Catholic parishioner with deep concern for the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place. It is where we gather to worship God, receive the sacraments, educate our children in faith, care for the poor, and offer refuge to those seeking peace and healing. The Church's mission depends not only on what happensinside ourwalls, but also on the surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of this sacredpurpose. The Catholic tradition teaches us to value human dignity, stewardship of creation, and care for the most vulnerable among us. For these reasons,I am troubled that this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this Location or at the scale currently proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, risks disrupting thelife of our parish and undermining the sense of safety and reverence that parishioners depend upon.
Traffic congestion, noise, air quality, and safety concerns are not theoretical. They affect families arrivingfor Mass, children attending religious education, elderly parishioners with limited mobility, and those who come to our church seeking prayer, counseling, or quiet refuge. A redesigned project that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergoes a thorough environmental review would better reflect the values of care, balance, and responsibility that Pasadena claims to uphold. Approvingthis project as proposed would set a troubling precedent—suggestingthat churches and other sensitive institutions may be asked to bear the burdens of growth without adequate protectionor consideration. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors both economic progress and the spiritual and communal life of our city. Pasadena can grow in a way that respects faith communities, protects human dignity, and reflects true stewardship, laskthat you choose that path.Sincerely,
Gerard Llanos
Pasadena , CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:21 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponseParishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green St Proposed [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you toowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green St ProposedMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a parishioner deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our beloved church community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation, economic growth, and research and development. At the same time, churches play a vitalrole in our city as places of worship, reflection, education, and service. These missions depend on safe, accessible, and appropriately scaled surroundings that respect sensitive uses and neighborhoodcharacter. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at thecurrently proposed scale. Proceedingwithout a full environmental review—and at a height exceedingwhat was envisioned for this street—raises serious concerns for parishioners, including traffic safety, noise, air quality, and overall compatibility with church activities. Requiring the project to return in aredesigned form that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's maximum height of approximately51 feet and that undergoes a thorough environmental analysis would better align the development with the surrounding neighborhood and sensitive institutions. This approach would help preserve communitytrust while still supporting Pasadena's broader innovation goals. Approving the project as proposedwould set a troubling precedent for placing intensified R&D uses adjacent to churches and other sensitive community institutions in areas not clearly intended for such development under Pasadena's planning framework. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forward only in a form that reflects both economic ambition and respect for our church community and shared values.
Sincerely,
I
LarryMangubat
DASADENA,CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:Subject:
AndyWilson <
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:28 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, JasonJomsky, MarkPublic comment for the record/lnnovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258
Some people who received this message don't often get email from a -/'-""• -T- Learn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT porta!.
Dear Honorable City Councilmembers:
I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. GreenStreet. Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project is ideally positioned tonurture start-ups and attract companies focused on important biotech discovery. Thisdevelopment will help fulfill one of Pasadena's primary economic developmentgoals of becoming a hub for innovation, education, and opportunity. In this space, creative ideas will become products and services that benefit society and improve life. It will add much needed vibrancy to this eastern part of Green Street.The innovation center will make vital contributions to city and the surrounding neighborhood:
Keep transformational ideas and new companies in Pasadena: The start:-up companies that arise from cutting-edge research happening at Caltech will have the mix of office and laboratory space that allows them to put down roots and grow in Pasadena, rather than leave for other cities. This is especially important post-covid where we need more lab-based businesses who depend on a local workforce.Strengthen Pasadena as a center for discovery and invention: Private research firms are drawn to the steady flow of creative ideas and talented graduates coming from Caltech and nearby institutions. The center will attract these high growth companies and strengthenpartnerships.
Turn vision into reality: The site has been zoned for this type of building through the City's recently updated East Colorado Specific Plan. This Plan was thoughtfully developed with robust community input. The innovation center is a by-right development that helps realize theintentions outlined in the plan and is fully compliant with Pasadena's vision for growth.
Create local careers : The innovation center will create permanent high-quality STEM jobs.Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schools will have moreopportunities to build their careers here at home. Biotech truly creates good jobs for thecomplete educational stack: from PhD researchers to GED/AA lab techs.
Boost the local economy & neighborhood vibrancy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, theproject will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants and shops. This forward-looking use is a big step-up from an unimproved 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
surface parking lot. This east part of Green street needs a "shot in the arm" and having a prominent innovation center will have a positive ripple effect for this area.
Engage education: The innovation center will connect students and faculty from Caltech and other key academic institutions with industry partners while providing pathways for local schools and colleges to engage with cutting-edge science.
Enhance Pasadena's reputation: Innovation districts tied to universities are thriving in citiesacross the U.S. Pasadena has the talent and institutions to compete and lead, and this buildingis an important step. This type of work is emblematic of Pasadena's unique brand.
Protect Pasadena's environment: The project incorporates sustainability features such as advanced shading, energy efficiency, water conservation, low VOC emitting materials and 14 new street trees to strengthen Pasadena's green canopy.
Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.
As a long time champion of economic develop for our City and key contributor to our recently updated Economic Development Strategic Plan, I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these valuable benefits to our community. I do encourage the applicant to continue to collaborate with the neighborhood and remainopen minded to potential refinements that improve this important project. This project is in the bull's eye for our core goal of becoming a regional leader in "Deep Tech" industries, including life sciences, Al, and quantum technologies.
Thank you for your valued service and thoughtful consideration,Andy Wilson Resident District 7Former Councilmember D7 and Vice MayorCo-founder of Innovate Pasadena AndyWilson
Founder & Managing Partner
Momentum Venture Management LLC
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andywilsoninnovator/[email protected] 2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:29 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a resident who believes that sacred spaces deserve special care and protection.Churches are not simply buildings—they are places of worship, reflection, community, and comfortduring Life's most important moments. They are where families gather for baptisms, weddings, funerals,and weekly prayer. They are anchors of stability in our neighborhoods. I am concerned about development proposals, such as the 1364 E. Green Street project, that place large, high-intensity projects directly beside active houses of worship. Construction noise, heavy truck traffic, vibration, and Long-term operational impacts can disrupt services and diminish the peaceful environment these spaces require. Sacred spaces should not be treated like ordinary parcels of land. Growth is important, but itmust be balanced with respect for community institutions. Pasadena has long taken pride in thoughtful planning that protects historic buildings and sensitive uses. That tradition should continue by ensuring projects adjacent to churches undergo the highest Level of environmental scrutiny and are scaled appropriately to their surroundings. Safeguarding sacred spaces is not about resisting progress — it isabout preserving the spiritual and cultural foundations that hold our community together. I respectfully urge the Council to prioritize the protection of our churches and ensure that development decisionsreflect the care these institutions deserve.Sincerely,Sophie Marquez Pasdena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneCtickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:37 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a parishioner who Loves this church and is deeply concerned about the proposed development ati 364 E. Green Street and what it could mean for our faith community. Our church is more than a building. It is a place of worship, reflection, healing, and service. It is where families gather, children learn, seniors find community, and people seek peace. These sacred purposes depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses.I support Pasadena's vision for innovation and economic growth, and I value the contributions of institutions Like Caltech. But growth should never come at the expense of the places that anchor our community. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location, nor that it is appropriately scaled for a street shared with a church. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this area, puts parishioners and our mission at risk. Traffic, noise, air quality,and safety are not abstract concerns for us. They affect how people arrive for worship, how children and elders move through the neighborhood, and how our church serves the broader community. Aredesigned project that respects the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height Limit and undergoes thorough environmental review would show care for both innovation and the people who live, worship, and serve here. Approving this project as proposed would send a painful message—that churches andother sensitive institutions can be treated as afterthoughts in Pasadena's growth. I urge you to grant theappeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects not only economic ambition, butcompassion, stewardship, and respect for our shared community values.Sincerely, Nina Haynesi,
Pasadena , CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:37 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a parishionerwho Loves this church and is deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and what it could mean for our faith community. Our church ismore than a building. It is a place of worship, reflection, healing, and service. It is where families gather,children learn, seniors find community, and people seek peace. These sacred purposes depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses.I support Pasadena's vision for innovation and economic growth, and I value the contributions of institutions like Caltech. But growth should never come at the expense of the places that anchor our community. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location, nor that it is appropriately scaled for a street shared with a church. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyondwhat was envisioned for this area, puts parishioners and our mission at risk. Traffic, noise, air quality, and safety are not abstract concerns for us. They affect how people arrive for worship, how children andelders move through the neighborhood, and how our church serves the broader community. Aredesigned project that respects the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height Limit and undergoes thorough environmental review would show care for both innovation and the people who live, worship, and serve here. Approving this project as proposed would send a painful message—that churches and other sensitive institutions can be treated as afterthoughts in Pasadena's growth. I urge you to grant theappeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects not only economic ambition, but compassion, stewardship, and respect for our shared community values.Sincerely, Nina Haynes
sadena , CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:40 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I'm writing as a longtime parishioner who comes to Mass every week and cares deeply about our church.For many of us, this parish is a second home. It's where I come to pray, to find some quiet, and to feel at peace. Our church is also a beautiful and historic building designed by Roland Coate, and it means agreat deal to those of us who have worshipped here for many years. I understand that Pasadena wants togrow and support new development, and I respect that. But I'm very worried about the proposed projectat 1364 E. Green Street and what it could mean for people Like me. Construction often starts as early as7:00 in the morning, and the noise, trucks, and ground shakingwould make it hard to attend Mass,especially for older parishioners. It's difficult to pray when there's Loud construction outside, and I worry about Masses, funerals, and weddings being interrupted. I'm also concerned that vibration could affectour historic church building. It was never meant to be next to a large project like this. As Catholics, we're taught to look out for one another and to do what's best for the common good. I don't feel that approving this project without a full environmental review does that. I'm simply asking the City Council to stow this down, require a proper environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot heightlimit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please Let this project come back in a form that respects ourchurch, our worship, and the people who come here every week. Thank you for taking the time to listen toa parishioner who just wants to keep my cherished church peaceful and the spiritual place it was intended to be.
Sincerely,
CorbetWilcoxc
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:41 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as a Longtime Catholic parishioner who attends Mass regularly and cares deeply about ourchurch and its future. For many of us, this parish is the center of our spiritual lives. It is where I comeeach week to pray, find peace, and feel close to God. Our church, designed by Roland Coate, is a beautiful and historic place, and the quiet and reverence of the space mean so much to those of us whohave worshipped here for many years. I support Pasadena's growth and understand the importance ofinnovation, but I worry that the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street would make it very difficult for parishioners Like me. Construction often begins as early as 7:00 in the morning, and the noise, heavy trucks, and ground vibration could easily disrupt daily and weekend Masses, funerals, weddings, and times of prayer. Many parishioners are older and move more slowly, and increased trafficand noise would make attending Mass more stressful and less safe. I am also concerned that vibration could affect our historic church building, which was never meant to sit next to a large-scale project like this. Catholic teaching reminds us to care for one another and work forthe common good (Gaudium et Spes). I do not feel that approving this project without a full environmental review reflects that care. I respectfully ask the City Council to require that this project follow the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan and undergo a thorough environmental review that truly considers noise, vibration, and construction hours. Please allow this project to return in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who depend on it. Thank you for listening to my concerns and for protecting the communities that make Pasadena special.Sincerely,Angelica Marquez Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:46 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and WorshipMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred and historic place of worship,designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual Landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold thecommon good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment toinnovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safelyat this location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for our parish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals,weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern giventhe church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damageand the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceedingwhatwas envisioned forthis street, places an unfairburden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Pleasegrant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Lilly Tien
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.onectickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:47 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to upholdhuman dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I supportPasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -footheight Limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect bothPasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allow thisproject to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in theneighborhood.Sincerely,George Dimen Pasadena , CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:51 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a parishioner who loves this church and is deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and what it could mean for our faith community. Our church ismore than a building. It is a place of worship, reflection, healing, and service. It is where families gather,children learn, seniors find community, and people seek peace. These sacred purposes depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses.I support Pasadena'svision for innovation and economic growth, and I value the contributions of institutions like Caltech. But growth should never come at the expense of the places that anchor our community. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location, nor that it is appropriately scaled for a street shared with a church. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyondwhat was envisioned for this area, puts parishioners and our mission at risk. Traffic, noise, air quality, and safety are not abstract concerns for us. They affect how people arrive for worship, how children andelders move through the neighborhood, and how our church serves the broader community. A redesigned project that respects the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height Limit and undergoes thorough environmental review would show care for both innovation and the people who live, worship, and serve here. Approving this project as proposed would send a painful message—that churches andother sensitive institutions can be treated as afterthoughts in Pasadena's growth. I urge you to grant theappeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects not only economic ambition, butcompassion, stewardship, and respect for our shared community values.Sincerely,michaelhaynes Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:Attachments:
Viviana Gradinaru '
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:58 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jasondistrict 7 resident *supporting* the Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street re Appeal # DHP2025-00258
Prof.Gradinaru_District7_Letter_CityCouncil_March2026.docx [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Dear Pasadena City Council,
I am a resident of District 7 and I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E.
Green Street -this project will serve more Pasadena District 7 people, better.Please find below and attached:
M:RpSE VILLA
OAKMLEvs
'&9&:
LUAOt'.^i D'STRICT
CSTSOS'
AS A DISTRICT 7 NEIGHBOR: My Concerns If This Project Does NOT Move Forward
1. What fills this space if not the Innovation Center? If this project does not proceed, I am genuinely concerned about what will occupy this now-desolate parking lot - apartments, a college dorm, or a multilevel parking structure? The real choice before us is: cures and jobs vs. blocked mountain views; safe walking and biking areas vs. an empty, unwelcoming lot. Other neighbors that have a vested interest inthe long term status of District 7 (vs temporary, necessary, construction disruption) have echoed this sentiment already in letters and in person at previous meetings discussing this project.
2. Lab research next to schools and daycares is safe - and already the norm. Small-scale laboratory experiments (*not* manufacturing) are safely conducted next to schools and daycares every day - including on the Caltech campus itself, where there is a daycare right next to the new quantum building on California Ave. My own kids went there. Amgen's campus has a daycare too. So does the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt - and Europe enforces far stricter environmental regulations than we do. I would ask the Council: how are the children of Caltech, Amgen, or Max Planck researchers any different from the SPAS children? In fact, many Caltech faculty regularly bring their own kids on campus and into labs(actually, this includes a SPAS parent who spoke against this project). This incubator will operate under the same rigorous safety rules as Caltech campus research (which I know very well, having been a professor there for more than a decade).
3. Denying this project will have a lasting negative impact on Pasadena. We have already lost talent because of the fires. We are already seeing individuals and innovators choose the Westside over ourcommunity for their long-term investments. A denial here accelerates that trend.
4. The faculty voice in favor is broad and strong. The majority of Caltech faculty I know support this long-planned project - you have received their many letters. Of the very few faculty members in opposition, one is a St. Philip parent, and another has no entrepreneurial activities to speak of. Theiropposition does not represent the faculty at large. 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
5. Young professionals in Pasadena need these opportunities - now. As an educator myself, I have heard firsthand on their struggle. By not moving this project forward, we are failing the young men and women of our community, residents of District 7 too, who desperately need local job opportunities, and need them sooner rather than later. Their futures must also be considered. Thank you for yourconsideration.
Viviana Gradinaru, Caltech Professor and most importantly, District 7 Pasadena Resident in the Rose ViIla-Oakdale Neighborhood(above is an update to my Nov 12, 2025, letter, re-attached below for your convenience)Best regards,
Viviana
Prof. Viviana Gradinaru (PhD Stanford; BS Caltech)
Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator
Troendle Professor of Neuroscience and Biological Engineering, Caltech Director and Davis Leadership Chair of the Merkin Institute for Translational Research Principal Investigator of the Gradinaru Research LaboratoryFaculty Advisor of the Beckman Institute Center for Neurotechnologies CLOVER 2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 11:15 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of the historic church on Green Street. For many of us, this parish is a second home — a place of prayer, peace, and community. It is also a treasured Roland Coate Landmark that has been part of Pasadena's character for generations. I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street. Early-morning construction,heavy trucks, and vibration would disrupt Mass, funerals, and weddings, and could impact our historic church building. A project of this scale does not belong immediately beside a sacred space and an established neighborhood. This is not opposition to growth. It is a call for balance and respect. I urge theCouncilto require a full environmental review and ensure the project complies with the 51-foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect our church, our neighborhood, and the character that makes Pasadena special.
Sincerely,
Ana Isabel Ramirez
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aaron Fyke ^ • _..„.„,,,^—,
Sunday, March 1, 2026 11:22 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Reference to the innovation center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258
Some people who received this message don't often get email from c" Learn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Dear Pasadena City Council,I came to Pasadena in 2002, having just completed two degrees from MIT, and I've been here ever since, as this is my home. And now, as a long-time Pasadena resident, serialentrepreneur, and venture capital investor based in Pasadena, I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street.
The thought that we could have a tech/entrepreneurship focused project situated closed to both Caltech and Pasadena City College is fantastic, as the project is ideally positioned tonurture start-ups and attract companies focused on discovery. I chose to live in Pasadena,am I have built multiple successful technology companies in Pasadena, and now run I myinvestment firm in Pasadena because I want to help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub for innovation, education, and opportunity. I believe that this project is perfectly aligned with that mission,as in this space, creative ideas will become products and services that benefit society and improve life.
There are an extraordinary number of benefits of a project such as this, for Pasadena today, and in thefuture, hlowever, I am going to speak to the benefits I most see by continuing to develop the innovation ecosystem surrounding PCC and Caltech.
Pasadena has had a Long history with technology development. Caltech, JPL, ArtCenter, PCC, and a host of tech companies based here, are jewels in our crown. And yet, it is often that tech companies, whichcreate tremendous wealth and high-payingjobs, end up being Located in the Bay Area, on the west side of LA, or other regions, rather staying locally where they were first created. I have worked withtechnology startups in Pasadena, and created several myself with Bill Gross at Idealab, and nowthatl'm runninga venture capitalfund, I am continually looking to support local entrepreneurs, seeking to build the next billion-dollar company in Pasadena.
Yet, to foster the early growth of these companies, it is critical to foster a community of similartech and innovation leaders. You can see this surrounding Stanford, along University Ave; you can see the same thing surrounding MIT at Kendall Square; and you can find key examples surrounding other notable tech-hubs globally. Pasadena has the ingredients to 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
continue to play this role, but more often than not, we have failed to capture the spark of what could have been,and this innovation center can be critical in furthering those efforts.
Furthermore, I have noticed an unfortunate divide between the "nobel-prize winningresearch" crowd at Caltech and the "public community college" crowd at PCC. And yet, great companies can come from both sources. The location of this facility, near both campuses is something we should support, as it supports a broader mission of collaborationamongst Pasadena's educational institutions.
I know that you will receive other letters of support which detail the important benefits ofkeeping transformational companies in Pasadena, and strengthening Pasadena as a center of discovery. I understand the benefits of creating local careers, boosting the economy, andcontinuing to build Pasadena's brand. I came to Pasadena after I completed grad school forthese reasons. I've stayed here 25 years since then because of these reasons. And I started multiple companies and am investing in multiple tech companies, and I've based myself in Pasadena for these reasons,and we must continue to support what makes Pasadena great, for the benefit of alt.
I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to our community.
Warm regards,
Aaron Fyke
Thin Line Capital
Aaron Fyke, PE
Founder and Managing Partner
Thin Line Capital
ImpactAssetsSO Fund Manager, 2022, 2023, 2024
[email protected]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/aaronfyke/
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 11:47 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a resident who believes that sacred spaces deserve special care and protection.
Churches are not simply buildings — they are places of worship, reflection, community, and comfortduring Life's most important moments. They are where families gather for baptisms, weddings, funerals,and weekly prayer. They are anchors of stability in our neighborhoods. I am concerned about development proposals, such as the 1364 E. Green Street project, that place large, high-intensity projects directly beside active houses of worship. Construction noise, heavy truck traffic, vibration, andLong-term operational impacts can disrupt services and diminish the peaceful environment these spaces require. Sacred spaces should not be treated like ordinary parcels of land. Growth is important, but it must be balanced with respect for community institutions. Pasadena has long taken pride in thoughtful planning that protects historic buildings and sensitive uses. That tradition should continue by ensuring projects adjacent to churches undergo the highest level of environmental scrutiny and are scaled appropriately to their surroundings. Safeguarding sacred spaces is not about resisting progress — it isabout preserving the spiritual and cultural foundations that hold our community together. I respectfully urge the Council to prioritize the protection of our churches and ensure that development decisionsreflect the care these institutions deserve.
Sincerely,
SpencerTien
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 11:52 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I write as a Catholic parishioner with deep concern for the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place. It is where wegather to worship God, receive the sacraments, educate our children in faith, care for the poor, and offerrefuge to those seeking peace and healing. The Church's mission depends not only on what happens inside our walls, but also on the surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of this sacred purpose. The Catholic tradition teaches us to value human dignity, stewardship of creation, and care for the most vulnerable among us. For these reasons, I am troubled that this project has not demonstratedthat it can operate safely at this location or at the scale currently proposed. Approving it without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, risks disrupting the life of our parish and undermining the sense of safety and reverence that parishioners depend upon.
Traffic congestion, noise, air quality, and safety concerns are not theoretical. They affect families arriving for Mass, children attending religious education, elderly parishioners with limited mobility, and thosewho come to our church seeking prayer, counseling, or quiet refuge. A redesigned project that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergoes a thorough environmental review would better reflect the values of care, balance, and responsibility that Pasadena claims to uphold. Approving this project as proposed would set a troubling precedent—suggesting that churchesand other sensitive institutions may be asked to bear the burdens of growth without adequate protectionor consideration. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form thathonors both economic progress and the spiritual and communal Life of our city. Pasadena can grow in away that respects faith communities, protects human dignity, and reflects true stewardship. I ask thatyou choose that path.
Sincerely,
Wendy Pjttman Ceja
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 11:53 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
[ i ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a resident who believes that sacred spaces deserve special care and protection.Churches are not simply buildings — they are places of worship, reflection, community, and comfort during life's most important moments. They are where families gather for baptisms, weddings, funerals,and weekly prayer. They are anchors of stability in our neighborhoods. I am concerned aboutdevelopment proposals, such as the 1364 E. Green Street project, that place large, high-intensityprojects directly beside active houses of worship. Construction noise, heavy truck traffic, vibration, and long-term operational impacts can disrupt services and diminish the peaceful environment these spaces require. Sacred spaces should not be treated Like ordinary parcels of land. Growth is important, but itmust be balanced with respect for community institutions. Pasadena has long taken pride in thoughtfulplanning that protects historic buildings and sensitive uses. That tradition should continue by ensuringprojects adjacent to churches undergo the highest level of environmental scrutiny and are scaled appropriately to their surroundings. Safeguarding sacred spaces is not about resisting progress — it isabout preserving the spiritual and cultural foundations that hold our community together. I respectfullyurge the Council to prioritize the protection of our churches and ensure that development decisions reflect the care these institutions deserve.Sincerely,Ryan Pittman Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:01 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseProtecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena's architectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic SociaLTeaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a safe and respectful surrounding environment. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation andinstitutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction activity of this intensity raises serious concerns about noise,vibration, traffic, and access, including the potential for Masses, funerals, weddings, and other worship services to be disrupted. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a heightexceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Please grantthe appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Stanley Toy
Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:03 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseA Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a longtime Catholic parishioner who attends Mass regularly and cares deeply about our church and its future. For many of us, this parish is the center of our spiritual lives. It is where I comeeach week to pray, find peace, and feel close to God. Our church, designed by Roland Coate, is a beautiful and historic place, and the quiet and reverence of the space mean so much to those of us whohave worshipped here for manyyears. I support Pasadena's growth and understand the importance of innovation, but I worry that the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street would make it verydifficult for parishioners Like me. Construction often begins as early as 7:00 in the morning, and the noise, heavy trucks, and ground vibration could easily disrupt daily and weekend Masses, funerals, weddings, and times of prayer. Many parishioners are older and move more slowly, and increased traffic and noise would make attending Mass more stressful and less safe. I am also concerned that vibrationcould affect our historic church building, which was never meant to sit next to a large-scale project Like this. Catholic teaching reminds us to care for one another and work for the common good (Gaudium et Spes). I do not feel that approving this project without a full environmental review reflects that care. Irespectfully ask the City Council to require that this project follow the 51 -foot height limit in the EastColorado Specific Plan and undergo a thorough environmental review that truly considers noise, vibration, and construction hours. Please allow this project to return in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who depend on it. Thank you for listening to my concerns and for protectingthe communities that make Pasadena special.Sincerely, Kenneth DeSouza
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:21 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a St. Philip the Apostle parishioner who believes we must protect the places that anchor our community. Our churches, schools, and long-established neighborhoods are not just structures on amap — they are the foundations of daily life in Pasadena. They provide stability, belonging, and continuityacross generations. When large-scale development such as that at 1364 E. Green Street is proposedimmediately beside these anchors, it raises serious concerns. Sacred spaces and neighborhood institutions depend on peace, safety, and compatibility with their surroundings. Construction impacts, increased traffic, noise, and projects that are out of scale can disrupt more than routines—they can erode the sense of place that holds a community together. Pasadena has long been admired for thoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential. Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you to ensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough review and are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not opposition to progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.
Sincerely,Joan DeSouza
Pasadena , CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPotitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:41 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship,designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural andspiritual Landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold thecommon good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a safe and respectful surrounding environment. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation andinstitutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction activity of this intensity raises serious concerns about noise,vibration, traffic, and access, including the potential for Masses, funerals, weddings, and other worship services to be disrupted. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a heightexceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Please grantthe appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Maria Linda Chan
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
Mcl\4illan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:44 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place where we gather forworship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to upholdhuman dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -footheight limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect bothPasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and altowthisproject to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in theneighborhood.
Sincerely,
CodyDuncan
PASADENA,CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.onectickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 12:47 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place of worship, sacrament, andservice. Catholic Social Teaching reminds us that decisions affecting our city must serve the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes). These values depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses like churches. While I support Pasadena'scommitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises serious concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height Limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would reflect true stewardship, respect for faith communities, and a commitment to the common good. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors safety, community, and the vital role our parish plays in Pasadena.
Sincerely,Tessie CChan
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 12:58 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. GreenStreet and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to uphold human dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I supportPasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions Like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concernsfor parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfullyurge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allowthis project to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Anna Pandolfi
• Pasadena , CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
l\4cMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:00 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Urgent: Child Safety Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Urgent: Child Safety Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
We are parents of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School, located just steps from the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street, and we're writing with urgent concerns about the safety of ourchildren and community if this project moves forward as proposed. This development would place majorconstruction activity, increased traffic, and an R&D facility with undefined research uses directly next toa school and church. As parents, we find it deeply troubling that children could be exposed to construction hazards, unsafe traffic conditions on Green Street, and unknown operational risks without a clear and reassuring environmental and safety analysis. While we support responsible developmentand value Caltech's role in Pasadena, projects adjacent to schools demand the highest level of cautionand transparency. At this time, those standards have not been met. Allowing this project to proceed without a stronger review places children and families at unnecessary risk. We respectfully but firmly urge the City Council to pause this proposal, require a comprehensive safety and environmental review,uphold existing height Limits, and ensure R&D uses are restricted to appropriate commercial or industrialcorridors—not neighborhood streets next to schools. Please act now to protect our children and prevent irreversible impacts to our school and neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Robie & Norm San Luis
. ALtadena , CA 91 001 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 1:13 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Honor Our Church and hlonor Our City- 1364 East Green St. Concerns [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: hlonor Our Church and hlonor Our City-1364 EastGreen St. Concerns Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as both a resident and a parishioner, and I believe that how we treat our sacred spacesreflects who we are as a city. To honor our church is to honor Pasadena itself. Our church is more than a structure. It is a historic Landmark, a spiritual home, and a gathering place for generations of families. It is where we celebrate baptisms and weddings, mourn Loved ones at funerals, and come each week seeking peace and reflection. It stands as part of the architectural and cultural fabric that gives Pasadena its identity. When large-scale development, such as the 1364 E. Green St. project, is proposed directly beside such a sacred and historic place, it raises serious concerns. Construction noise, truck traffic, vibration, and the sheer scale of adjacent buildings can disrupt worship and diminish the quiet dignity that a church requires. Sacred spaces deserve thoughtful protection, not simply technicalcompliance. Growth and innovation are important to our city's future. But they must be balanced with respect for our history, our neighborhoods, and the institutions that anchor our community life.Pasadena has long prided itself on careful planning and stewardship. Upholding that Legacy means ensuring that development enhances—rather than overwhelms—the places that define us. I respectfully urge you to require a thorough review and an appropriate scale for any project near our church. By doing so, you will honor both a cherished house of worship and the values that have Longguided Pasadena's development.Sincerely, MaeveO'Riordan
Pasadena, CA 91105 Constituent
Prepared by OneCtickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 1:17 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please Require Full Review for 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Please Require Full Review for 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I believe Pasadena can embrace innovation while still protecting its neighborhoods. Growth and community safety should advance together, not in conflict. Unfortunately, the proposed project at 1364E. Green Street falls short of that balance. This is not about opposing science, it's about requiring morescience. It is about ensuring transparency and rigorous review. Although described as part of a startup ecosystem, most of the building is reportedly intended for a Large outside biotechnology company. The site sits directly beside schools, homes, and a historic church. Yet the project is moving forward under aCEQA exemption, bypassing a full Environmental Impact Report. That means important questions about safety, traffic, and environmental effects have not been fully examined or shared with the public.
Pasadena deserves development that conducts a full Environmental Impact Report for projects of this size and intensity and carefully studies public health, traffic flow, and operational impacts beforeapproval. Recent code changes have made it easier for projects to exceed traditional neighborhoodstandards. We must ensure those changes do not undermine thoughtful planning. Please require a fullEnvironmental Impact Report and ensure that this project reflects Pasadena's commitment to safety, transparency, and community character. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
DanielleJaime
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:37 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred place of worship, sacrament, and service. Catholic Social Teaching reminds us that decisions affecting our city must serve the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes). These values depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses like churches. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises serious concerns forparishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would reflect true stewardship, respect for faith communities, and a commitment to the common good. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors safety, community, and the vital role our parish plays in Pasadena.Sincerely,Tony Batiste '""" ' ' Pasadena, CA 91030 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:45PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Community Input for 1364 E Green St
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Community Input for 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,Please do not allow the 1364 E. Green Street project to proceed. I support development, innovation, andPasadena's role as a center for research and life sciences. At the same time, the East Colorado Specific Plan was developed through extensive public engagement, with hundreds of residents participating in person and thousands more providing input online. That process was intended to meaningfully guide where and how growth should occur. This project moved forward without a full environmental review and at a scale that exceeds what was envisioned for this location. Setting aside the ECSP's guidance here, especially for a project next to a school, a church, and homes, risks undermining the community vision that informed the plan. A project of this scale, in such close proximity to children, should not moveforward without a full Environmental Impact Report. By proceeding under a CEQA exemption, the City is allowing significant safety and traffic concerns to go unstudied. Approving the project would set a precedent for enhanced R&D development in locations not clearly intended under adopted plans.
Granting the appeal would allow the City to honor its planning process while refining the project to betteralign with community expectations. Thank you.Sincerely,GerardoJaime Pasadena , CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:48 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a St. Philip the Apostle parishioner who believes we must protect the places that anchorour community. Our churches, schools, and long-established neighborhoods are not just structures on amap — they are the foundations of daily life in Pasadena. They provide stability, belonging, and continuityacross generations. When large-scale development such as that at 1 364 E. Green Street is proposed immediately beside these anchors, it raises serious concerns. Sacred spaces and neighborhoodinstitutions depend on peace, safety, and compatibility with their surroundings. Construction impacts, increased traffic, noise, and projects that are out of scale can disrupt more than routines — they can erode the sense of place that holds a community together. Pasadena has long been admired for thoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential. Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you to ensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough reviewand are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not opposition to progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.
Sincerely,
Fe Leopando
PASADENA, CA 91107-5071 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 1:52 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Community Input for 1364 E Green St
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Community Input for 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,
Please do not allow the 1364 E. Green Street project to proceed. I support development, innovation, and Pasadena's role as a center for research and life sciences. At the same time, the East Colorado SpecificPlan was developed through extensive public engagement, with hundreds of residents participating in person and thousands more providing input online. That process was intended to meaningfully guidewhere and how growth should occur. This project moved forward without a full environmental review and at a scale that exceeds what was envisioned for this location. Setting aside the ECSP's guidance here,especially for a project next to a school, a church, and homes, risks undermining the community vision that informed the plan. A project of this scale, in such close proximity to children, should not moveforward without a full Environmental Impact Report. By proceeding under a CEQA exemption, the City is allowing significant safety and traffic concerns to go unstudied. Approving the project would set a precedent for enhanced R&D development in Locations not clearly intended under adopted plans.
Granting the appeal would allow the City to honor its planning process while refining the project to better align with community expectations. Thank you.Sincerely, Nicholas Alderete
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 2:13 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I write as a Catholic parishioner with deep concern for the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place. It is where we gather to worship God, receive the sacraments, educate our children in faith, care for the poor, and offerrefuge to those seeking peace and healing. The Church's mission depends not only on what happens inside our walls, but also on the surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of this sacredpurpose. The Catholic tradition teaches us to value human dignity, stewardship of creation, and care for the most vulnerable among us. For these reasons,I am troubled that this project has not demonstratedthat it can operate safely at this Location or at the scale currently proposed. Approving it without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, risks disrupting the life of our parish and undermining the sense of safety and reverence that parishioners depend upon.
Traffic congestion, noise, air quality, and safety concerns are not theoretical. They affect families arrivingfor Mass, children attending religious education, elderly parishioners with limited mobility, and those who come to our church seeking prayer, counseling, or quiet refuge. A redesigned project that complieswith the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height Limit and undergoes a thorough environmental review would better reflect the values of care, balance, and responsibility that Pasadena claims to uphold. Approving this project as proposed would set a troubling precedent—suggesting that churches and other sensitive institutions may be asked to bear the burdens of growth without adequate protectionor consideration. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors both economic progress and the spiritual and communal Life of our city. Pasadena can grow in a way that respects faith communities, protects human dignity, and reflects true stewardship. I ask thatyou choose that path.
Sincerely,
Roberta Serna
Pasadena, CA 91103 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 4:01 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
When I visit my sister and her family, who live in South Pasadena and attend St Philip the ApostleCatholic Church, I also attend this church. I have met and prayed with Father Tony and find it a Lovely community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and to fine institutions like Caltech; my nephew Mike Gherini is a graduate of Caltech, and our family is very proud of him. But I respectfully urge the City Council to consider requiring that the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street be limited to a maximum 51 -foot height, and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for the St. Philip faith community. Please grant the appealand allow this project to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our churchplays in the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Susan Bell
- -u '— ^^
3 Larchmont, NY 10538 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 4:16 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and WorshipMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surroundingenvironment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this Location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. I'm also concerned with who might end up working on this project. Are we sure that no one working on the project is a registered sexoffender? What type of background checks will there be? Given the proximity to the school, this is extremely important. Vibration is of particular concern given the church's historic design and materials.
Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to Largescale R&D development, risking both physical damage and the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfullyurge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.Sincerely, Christy Aneja
rf
San Gabriel, CA 91775 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPotitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
Carbone, Hannah D. <!•
Sunday, March 1,2026 4:39 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Dear Pasadena City Council,I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street.
As a former Pasadena resident (I now live in Sierra Madre), Caltech alumna (PhD 1 999), and Long-time staff member in the Office of Technology Transfer and Corporate Partnerships (OTTCP) at Cattech, I am familiar withboth the neighborhood of the proposed project, and its potential benefits to the greater Pasadena community andbeyond.
As a Caltech student who left Pasadena after graduation and then returned, I can attest to the value of creating options for Caltech graduates (as well as graduates of other Pasadena institutions) to stay local after completing their education. And as a senior staff member at OTTCP, I have seen first-hand how many start-up companies we lose to other cities and states, due in part to a lack of suitable space to set up shop here in Pasadena.It seems to me that the proposed Innovation Center would be a positive addition to its neighborhood. Anattractive, sustainable building design wilt fit in nicely with its neighbors at Caltech, Pasadena City College, the Hill Street branch of the Pasadena Library, and other nearby facilities; and Innovation Center tenants will undoubtedly patronize nearby restaurants, shops, and other services, providing a boost to the local economy.
The Innovation Center would bring more general benefits to society at large as welt. Research at Caltech, and the resulting startup companies, have contributed to technological innovations in fields ranging from digital imaging to medical devices to quantum computing. Providing facilities that would allow startup companies to more easily establish themselves close to the sources of innovation on which they are based increases the likelihood that thestartups will succeed in their mission of making their life-changing products and services available to the public.Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the Innovation Center would be ideally positioned to nurture startups and attract companies focused on discovery. This development will help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub for innovation, education, and opportunity. In this space, creative ideas will become products and services thatbenefit society and improve life.I therefore respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center project, which is crucialfor advancingresearch, strengthening our economy, and helping to secure Pasadena's place as a leader in science andinnovation.
Best regards,
Hannah
Hannah Dvorak Carbone PhD RTTP | Director for Innovation, Patents & Licensing 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
Caltech | Technology Transfer and Corporate Partnerships I MC 6-32 I Pasadena CA 91125
I innovation.caltech.edu
Follow us: Twiner, instaqram, Linkedln, Facebook @innovateCaltech Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Andrei Faraon <!-..„. ^...--- _ . .-...
Sunday, March 1, 2026 4:47 PM
Lyon, Jason; Gordo, Victor; PublicComment-AutoResponse
Reference to the innovation center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258
Some people who received this message don't often get email from i Learn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Dear Pasadena City Council,I am a resident of District 7 (I live on Rose Villa street) and I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project is ideally positioned to nurture start-ups and attract companies focused on discovery. This development will help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub for innovation, education, and opportunity. In this space, creative ideas wilt become products and services that benefit society and improve Life.The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:
Keep transformational ideas and new companies in Pasadena: The start-up companies that arise from cutting-edge research happening at Caltech will have the mix of office and laboratory space that allows them to put down roots and grow in Pasadena, rather than Leave for other cities.Strengthen Pasadena as a center for discovery and invention: Private research firms are drawn to the steady flow of creative ideas and talented graduates coming from Caltech and nearby institutions. The centerwill attract these companies and strengthen partnerships.
Turn vision into reality: The site has been zoned for this type of building through the City's East Colorado Specific Plan. The innovation center is a by-right development that helps realize the intentions outlined in the plan and is fully compliant with Pasadena's vision for growth.Create local careers: The innovation center will create permanent high-quality STEM jobs.Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schools will have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.
Boost the local economy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, the project will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants andshops.
Engage education: The innovation center will connect students and faculty from Caltech withindustry partners while providing pathways for local schools and colleges to engage with cuttingedge science.Enhance Pasadena's reputation: Innovation districts tied to universities are thriving in cities across the U.S. Pasadena has the talent and institutions to compete and lead, and this building isan important step.
Protect Pasadena's environment: The project incorporates sustainability features such as advanced shading, energy efficiency, water conservation, Low VOC emitting materials and 14 new street trees to strengthen Pasadena's green canopy.
1 Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.
I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to our community.Regards,
Andrei Faraon
Resident on Rose Villa street
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 4:49 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseThe Human Factor: Concerns About the 1364 E Green St Project [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: The Human Factor: Concerns About the 1364 E Green St Project Mr. MarkJomsky,I respectfully ask that you do not allow the 1 364 E. Green Street project to proceed. Apparently not oneperson on the City of Pasadena Design Commission, the Pasadena City Council, the Caltech PlanningCommittee for the Green Street Project, or Ms. Nancy Moses and the Trammel Crow Company is going tosit, sleep and work within 20 yards of the monstrous structure (with only one entrance - on tiny Holliston Ave!) that you are planning to squeeze into the very small parking Lot across from 107 South Holliston.
But I will. I will face it. Daily. For several years. I am 84 years old, a work-at-home teacher and resident on this narrow, quiet street for 26 years. Empty lots north of Green Street all the way to Colorado sit vacant.
Why can this amazing "hub for scientific invention" not be built where it will harm no one? As well, an empty lot at Hill and Colorado needs a building. Whatever gave Caltech planners and you people the idea that building next to St. Phillips Church and school, directly across from a nursery school and residences was the perfect place for a business building far too big for the street and the neighborhood? Clearly, not one of you will hear the noise or struggle through traffic jams on your street, blocked with trucks, cranes, and construction equipment as well as Lines of SUVs picking up schoolchildren. Not one of you will be wakened at 7 a.m. by poundingjackhammers and throbbing cement mixers and men yelling as if they are standing in your bedroom. Not one of you will suffer one moment of psychological harm due to your neighborhood being ripped to pieces in front of you over many months and years. And the children trying to read at St. Philips the Apostle School, which is directly adjacent to the deafening construction site? Why is their safety not being considered in this neighborhood disaster- story? And, thepre-schoolers at the PCC nursery school at the corner that faces this lot? They walk daily up and own Holliston Avenue and play in their schoolyard. Stop this project now. Its placement is inhumane. This is aresidential environment and it always has been. It must not be destroyed by people who do not Live here,do not have students here, and do not worship here. No amount design tweaking will solve this problem.
It must go elsewhere. Build it on your street - City Council Members. I cannot imagine that you would be fine with skipping the Environmental Impact Report if CalTech had decided to build this behemoth across the street from your bedroom.Sincerely,
Sandra Ballatore
T Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMilIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 4:51 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the ApostleMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a resident who believes that sacred spaces deserve special care and protection.Churches are not simply buildings—they are places of worship, reflection, community, and comfort during life's most important moments. They are where families gather for baptisms, weddings, funerals,and weekly prayer. They are anchors of stability in our neighborhoods. I am concerned about development proposals, such as the 1364 E. Green Street project, that place large, high-intensity projects directly beside active houses of worship. Construction noise, heavy truck traffic, vibration, and long-term operational impacts can disrupt services and diminish the peaceful environment these spaces require. Sacred spaces should not be treated like ordinary parcels of land. Growth is important, but it must be balanced with respect for community institutions. Pasadena has long taken pride in thoughtful planning that protects historic buildings and sensitive uses. That tradition should continue by ensuring projects adjacent to churches undergo the highest level of environmental scrutiny and are scaled appropriately to their surroundings. Safeguarding sacred spaces is not about resisting progress — it isabout preserving the spiritual and cultural foundations that hold our community together. I respectfully urge the Council to prioritize the protection of our churches and ensure that development decisionsreflect the care these institutions deserve.Sincerely, Lewis Bolf
Pasadena, CA 91101 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 4:59 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena's architectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surroundingenvironment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern given the church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damage and the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfairburden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Pleasegrant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.Sincerely,
RANDY MEDINA
Pasadena, CA 91101 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 5:09 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseProtecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural andspiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold thecommon good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a safe and respectful surrounding environment. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation andinstitutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction activity of this intensity raises serious concerns about noise,vibration, traffic, and access, including the potential for Masses, funerals, weddings, and other worshipservices to be disrupted. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and itsparishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the EastColorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Edward Tao
i San Marino, CA 91108 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 5:56 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the ApostleMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a St. Philip the Apostle parishioner who believes we must protect the places that anchor our community. Our churches, schools, and long-established neighborhoods are not just structures on amap—they are the foundations of daily life in Pasadena.They provide stability, belonging, and continuity across generations. When large-scale development such as that at 1 364 E. Green Street is proposedimmediately beside these anchors, it raises serious concerns. Sacred spaces and neighborhoodinstitutions depend on peace, safety, and compatibility with their surroundings. Construction impacts, increased traffic, noise, and projects that are out of scale can disrupt more than routines — they can erode the sense of place that holds a community together. Pasadena has long been admired forthoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential. Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you to ensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough review and are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not opposition to progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.
Sincerely,
Katie Flares
Attadena.CA 91001 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OnedickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 5:58 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a Longtime parishioner of a historic church on HillAvenue.
For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, and quiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that hasstood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for our church and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure. It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too Large and out of proportion to their surroundings.
When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatibility and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance andrespect—for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor ourcommunity. I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process, require a full environmental review, andensure the project complies with the 51-foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planning decisions reflect this community's values.Sincerely,
Natalie Bolt
Pasadena, CA 91101 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPotitics provides online communications toots forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 6:02 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle ChurchMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on HilLAvenue.For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, and quiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that hasstood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for our church and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure. It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too large and out of proportion to their surroundings.
When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatibility and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance and respect—for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor our community. I respectfully ask the Councilto slow this process, require a full environmental review, andensure the project complies with the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planning decisions reflect thiscommunity's values.Sincerely, Ann Thompson
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1.20266:03PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Community Input for 1364 E Green St
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: RespectCommunity Input for 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,Please do not allow the 1364 E. Green Street project to proceed. I support development, innovation, andPasadena's role as a center for research and life sciences. At the same time, the East Colorado Specific Plan was developed through extensive public engagement, with hundreds of residents participating in person and thousands more providing input online. That process was intended to meaningfully guide where and how growth should occur. This project moved forward without a full environmental review and at a scale that exceeds what was envisioned for this location. Setting aside the ECSP's guidance here,especially for a project next to a school, a church, and homes, risks undermining the community vision that informed the plan. A project of this scale, in such close proximity to children, should not moveforward without a full Environmental Impact Report. By proceeding under a CEQA exemption, the City is allowing significant safety and traffic concerns to go unstudied. Approving the project would set a precedent for enhanced R&D development in Locations not clearly intended under adopted plans.
Granting the appeal would allow the City to honor its planning process while refining the project to betteralign with community expectations. Thank you.Sincerely,James Jordan Pasadena, CA 91106-3509 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 6:13 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseVoters Are Watching How You Prioritize [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Voters Are Watching How You Prioritize
Mr. MarkJomsky,
The City has formally acknowledged that the southbound Left-turn pocket at Hill and Del Mar is alreadyoperating at LOS F, with 620 feet of documented overflow. That is a current failure — not a future projection. Yet the Council is considering approval of a project at 1364 E. Green Street that would add 1,036 daily vehicle trips without requiring mitigation of that known deficiency. Residents are repeatedlytold that funding is limited when it comes to addressing congestion and safety concerns, while new enhancements and expansions continue to move forward. Taxpayers notice when core performance issues go unfixed. Voters notice when school-area congestion is treated as acceptable collateral.
Approving additional strain on a corridor the City already knows is failing will not be viewed as responsible sequencing or sound stewardship. Fix what is broken first. The community is paying attention.
Sincerely,
Lee Alien
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 6:15 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development ati 364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to uphold human dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I supportPasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concernsfor parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allow thisproject to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital rote our church plays in theneighborhood.
Sincerely,AnnabelleWatl
San Marino, CA 91108-1041 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.onectickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 6:17 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you toowthe content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the ApostleMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of the historic church on GreenStreet. For many of us, this parish is a second home — a place of prayer, peace, and community. It isalso a treasured Roland Coate landmark that has been part of Pasadena's character for generations. Iam deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street. Early-morning construction, heavy trucks, and vibration would disrupt Mass, funerals, and weddings, and could impact our historic church building. A project of this scale does not belong immediately beside a sacred space and an established neighborhood. This is not opposition to growth. It is a call for balance and respect. I urge the Council to require a full environmental review and ensure the project complies with the 51-foot heightLimit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect our church, our neighborhood, and the character that makes Pasadena special.
Sincerely,
Patrick Wall!• ••- '
' San Marino, CA 91 108 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 6:26 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseConcerns about 1364 E. Green St. project [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Concerns about 1364 E. Green St. project
Mr. MarkJomsky,I have heard the research activities to be conducted at the proposed project have not been disclosed.
This is concerning. Until such time as the activities are made public and the research is in line with moral science as well as care for the environment when it comes to research waste, I am opposed to this project moving forward.Sincerely,
Patrick Pavelski
Pasadena, CA 90650 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMilIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 6:30 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the Apostle
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Safeguarding Sacred Spaces- St. Philip the ApostleMr. MarkJomsky, I am writing as a resident who believes that sacred spaces deserve special care and protection.
Churches are not simply buildings —they are places of worship, reflection, community, and comfort during life's most important moments. They are where families gather for baptisms, weddings, funerals,and weekly prayer. They are anchors of stability in our neighborhoods. I am concerned about development proposals, such as the 1364 E. Green Street project, that place large, high-intensity projects directly beside active houses of worship. Construction noise, heavy truck traffic, vibration, and Long-term operational impacts can disrupt services and diminish the peaceful environment these spaces require. The City of Pasadena is doinga poor job of maintainingthe streets throughout Pasadena and seems to not have done any research or studies on traffic congestion or hindrances created by the city's poor infrastructure planning. For example, the bike Lanes on Cordova has created so much traffic and congestion on Cordova. The bicycle lanes are rarely used by anyone. The same thing occurred onGtenarm with the ridiculous roundabouts! Stop wasting Pasadena resident's taxpayer dollars on projectsthat are not well thought out or planned! Traffic is becoming increasingly congested in Pasadena because of the ineptness of Pasadena's incompetence city leaders! The close proximity of so many traffic lights on every block on both Union St and Lake Ave are beyond absurd! Who are the incompetent individuals making the decisions to cause congestion and gridlock on the streets throughout Pasadena? It's unacceptable how much horrific the traffic has become in Pasadena. Growth is important, but itmust be balanced with respect for community institutions. Pasadena has Long taken pride in thoughtfulplanning that protects historic buildings and sensitive uses. That tradition should continue by ensuring projects adjacent to churches undergo the highest Level of environmental scrutiny and are scaled appropriately to their surroundings. Safeguarding sacred spaces is not about resisting progress — it is about preserving the spiritual and cultural foundations that hold our community together. I respectfully urge the Council to prioritize the protection of our churches and ensure that development decisions reflect the care these institutions deserve.
Sincerely,
Robert Lean
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:Cc:
Subject:
DAVID OWEN < r
Sunday, March 1, 2026 6:40 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseLyon,Jason
Caltech's proposed innovation center at 1364 E. Green St..
Some people who received this message don't often get email from i Learn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnoM/the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
I am writing in support of Caltech's proposal to build an innovation center ati 364 E. Green St.. I wilt comment on twoaspects.
Firstly, We very much need new businesses in Pasadena. Because the internet has radically changed how businesses can operate profitably, many older enterprises are dying. Dead businesses no longer pay taxes. And their workers losetheir jobs and no longer have money to spend here. So economic activity and tax revenue to the city take a big hit. Ourcity's budget is already tight, and things wilt likely get worse if the folks back in Washington DC follow through with their threats to cancel grants. Caltech's proposed development is exactly what we need in order to have a good economy. Other cities would welcome it. IfCaltech's proposal is rejected, not only will we lose this opportunity: otherentrepreneurs will likely conclude that it's best to totally avoid Pasadena. And if we don't have new developments of the sort Cattech has proposed, then we will have to have either higher city taxes, or reduced city services, or a combination of both.
Secondly, Caltech's proposal fits within the zoning code for its location. No variance is needed. Approval should be routine. lfCaltechisdenied,thena pandora's box is opened, and the City Council will justifiably be appealed to on countless disputes in the future.
Thank you for your consideration,
1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 7:01 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know tine content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of the historic church on GreenStreet. For many of us, this parish is a second home — a place of prayer, peace, and community. It isalso a treasured Roland Coate landmark that has been part of Pasadena's character for generations. I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street. Early-morning construction, heavy trucks, and vibration would disrupt Mass, funerals, and weddings, and could impact our historic church building. A project of this scale does not belong immediately beside a sacred space and an established neighborhood. This is not opposition to growth. It is a call for balance and respect. I urge theCouncil to require a full environmental review and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot heightlimit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect our church, our neighborhood, and the characterthat makes Pasadena special.
Sincerely,
Lucia Verdin
Pasadena Ca., CA 911 06 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 7:02 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a longtime Catholic parishioner who attends Mass regularly and cares deeply about our church and its future. For many of us, this parish is the center of our spiritual lives. It is where I comeeach week to pray, find peace, and feel close to God. Our church, designed by Roland Coate, is abeautiful and historic place, and the quiet and reverence of the space mean so much to those of us who have worshipped here for many years. I support Pasadena's growth and understand the importance of innovation, but I worry that the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street would make it very difficult for parishioners Like me. Construction often begins as early as 7:00 in the morning, and the noise, heavy trucks, and ground vibration could easily disrupt daily and weekend Masses, funerals, weddings, and times of prayer. Many parishioners are older and move more slowly, and increased traffic and noise would make attending Mass more stressful and less safe. I am also concerned that vibration could affect our historic church building, which was never meant to sit next to a large-scale project like this. Catholic teaching reminds us to care for one another and work for the common good (Gaudiumet Spes). I do not feel that approving this project without a full environmental review reflects that care. I respectfully ask the City Council to require that this project follow the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan and undergo a thorough environmental review that truly considers noise, vibration, and construction hours. Please allow this project to return in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who depend on it. Thank you for Listening to my concerns and for protectingthe communities that make Pasadena special.Sincerely, Destiny Adams
Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
Lee Alien
Sunday, March 1,2026 7:19 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Cal Tech Innovation Lab Building
I
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
My name is Lee Alien. I want to note my opposition to building the Cal Tech Innovation Lab on the site of Green St and Holliston Ave. Not only that it's next to a well-established and historic catholic church andschool. But the fact is, its mere size is incongruent with the established neighborhood and would be better suited in an industrial and business corridor. The result of this project wilt increase vehicularcongestion, smog emissions, idling, and frustration of those trying to pick up and drop off children from the school. It has been documented that the congestion at the intersection of Del Mar and hlill is already an LOS-F that will only be untenable once the CalTech building is established.
I hear that Pasadena wants to convert the currently vacant Parsons building into yet more housing, 950units.Cal Tech should consider buying this parcel for its Innovation Laboratory as it's in a much moreamenable location, conducive to the business/science/technology corridor of Fair Oaks that Pasadena wants to be known for.
Please pause and redirect CalTech's Innovation Lab. Born and raised in Pasadena, I am proud to support this great, world-renowned institution.
But placing this Lab at this particular site is not what the residents and church members wani.as \I\N\[[permanently affect their daily Lives.Please reconsider other options.
Thankyou
1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMilIan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 7:23 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Students Near 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect Students Near 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I was born and raised in Altadena, and spent all of my schooling years in Pasadena. I attended St Phillip along with my three siblings and my family has been parishioners for 35 years. I am now an educator myself and can't imagine my school community being disrupted because of the selfish needs of Large corporation. Please do not place a targe construction zone next to where our children learn, play, andexercise every day. I am a parent of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School. Just steps from classroomsand outdoor spaces where students run, play sports, attend recess, and gather for school activities, a high-intensity R&D project at 1 364 E. Green Street is proposed to move forward. Our children spendhours each day outside — at recess, in physical education, at assemblies, and during after-schoolprograms. They are not separated from this site by distance. They will be living alongside it. The reality of years of heavy construction equipment, constant noise, dust, vibration, and Large-scale building activity next to an active school environment is deeply concerning. This is not simply about a building going up. Itis about young children exercising on playgrounds beside a major construction zone. It is about teachers trying to conduct lessons while heavy machinery operates nearby. It is about whether we are creating anenvironment that supports learning — or one that disrupts it. I support responsible development and Pasadena's innovation economy. But projects of this size and intensity, immediately adjacent to a school, demand full environmental review and careful reconsideration before moving forward. Pleasegrant the appeal and require this project to return in a form that does not place students next to a prolonged construction site and high-intensity facility. Our children deserve a safe, healthy, and stablelearning environment.
Sincerely,Sheila Roohan
Chicago, IL 60614 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMiIlan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 7:28 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Grant the Appeal - R&D Project at 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Grant the Appeal- R&D Project at 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am an alumni of St. Philip the Apostle School, Located near the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street, and I am writing to express serious concerns about this project's proximity to a school, church,and residential neighborhood. I am particularly worried about construction activity next to our children,increased and unsafe traffic on Green Street, and the placement of an R&D building with research uses that have not been clearly disclosed adjacent to a school. At this time, it has not been clearly demonstrated that this project would be safe or appropriate for such a sensitive location. I support responsible development and Caltech's contributions to Pasadena. However, development next to a school must meet the highest standards for safety, scale, and transparency. This project advancedwithout a comprehensive environmental review despite its immediate proximity to children and active school operations. Approving the project in its current form would set a concerning precedent by allowing intensified R&D development near schools without clear safeguards and full publictransparency. I respectfully urge the City Council to grant the appeal and require that this project return in a form that supports economic growth without compromising children's safety or the integrity of our neighborhoods. Please put the safety of children and families first and reconsider allowingthis project toproceed as proposed. Thank you for your careful consideration.
Sincerely,
NicoleJohnson
-- --~-J~" •• •
New York, NY 10011 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 7:29 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseParishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a parishioner deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation, economic growth, and research and development. At the same time, churches play a vital role in our city as places of worship, reflection, education, and service. These missions depend on safe, accessible, and appropriately scaled surroundings that respect sensitive uses and neighborhood character. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this Location or at the currently proposed scale. Proceeding without a full environmental review—and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street—raises serious concerns for parishioners, including traffic safety, noise, air quality, and overall compatibility with church activities. Requiring the project to return in a redesigned form that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's maximum height of approximately 51 feet andthat undergoes a thorough environmental analysis would better align the development with the surrounding neighborhood and sensitive institutions. This approach would help preserve community trust while still supporting Pasadena's broader innovation goals. Approving the project as proposed would set a troubling precedent for placing intensified R&D uses adjacent to churches and other sensitive community institutions in areas not clearly intended for such development under Pasadena's planning framework. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forward only in a form that reflects both economic ambition and respect for our church community and shared values.
Sincerely,Olga LouviereT Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.onectickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 8:30 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place of worship, sacrament, andservice. Catholic Social Teaching reminds us that decisions affecting our city must serve the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes). These values depend on a surrounding environmentthat is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses Like churches. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises serious concerns forparishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would reflect true stewardship, respect for faith communities, and a commitment to the common good. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors safety, community, and the vital role our parish plays in Pasadena.
Sincerely,
JefferyCarr
J "
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 8:35 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect the hleart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle ChurchMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on HiLLAvenue.For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, and quiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that hasstood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I amdeeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for ourchurch and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure. It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simplytoo Large and out of proportion to their surroundings.
When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatibility and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance and respect — for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor our community. I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process, require a full environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planning decisions reflect thiscommunity's values.
Sincerely,Jessica Gonzalez
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 8:37 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseProtect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a St. Philip the Apostle parishioner who believes we must protect the places that anchor our community. Our churches, schools, and long-established neighborhoods are not just structures on a map — they are the foundations of daily life in Pasadena. They provide stability, belonging, and continuity across generations. When large-scale development such as that at 1364 E. Green Street is proposed immediately beside these anchors, it raises serious concerns. Sacred spaces and neighborhoodinstitutions depend on peace, safety, and compatibility with their surroundings. Construction impacts,increased traffic, noise, and projects that are out of scale can disrupt more than routines — they canerode the sense of place that holds a community together. Pasadena has Long been admired for thoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential. Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you toensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough review and are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not oppositionto progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.
Sincerely,Arturo Gonzalez
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 8:38 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green Street [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A Catholic Parishioner's Appeal Regarding 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I write as a Catholic parishioner with deep concern for the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred place. It is where wegather to worship God, receive the sacraments, educate our children in faith, care for the poor, and offer refuge to those seeking peace and healing. The Church's mission depends not only on what happensinside our walls, but also on the surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of this sacred purpose. The Catholic tradition teaches us to value human dignity, stewardship of creation, and care for the most vulnerable among us. For these reasons, I am troubled that this project has not demonstratedthat it can operate safely at this location or at the scale currently proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, risks disrupting thelife of our parish and undermining the sense of safety and reverence that parishioners depend upon.
Traffic congestion, noise, air quality, and safety concerns are not theoretical. They affect families arrivingfor Mass, children attending religious education, elderly parishioners with limited mobility, and thosewho come to our church seeking prayer, counseling, or quiet refuge. A redesigned project that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergoes a thorough environmental review would better reflect the values of care, balance, and responsibility that Pasadena claims touphold. Approving this project as proposed would set a troubling precedent—suggesting that churchesand other sensitive institutions may be asked to bear the burdens of growth without adequate protectionor consideration. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors both economic progress and the spiritual and communal life of our city. Pasadena can grow in away that respects faith communities, protects human dignity, and reflects true stewardship. I ask thatyou choose that path.
Sincerely,
Tobias Gonzalez
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 8:39 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponseRespect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of the historic church on Green Street. For many of us, this parish is a second home — a place of prayer, peace, and community. It is also a treasured Roland Coate landmark that has been part of Pasadena's character for generations. Iam deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street. Early-morning construction, heavy trucks, and vibration would disrupt Mass, funerals, and weddings, and could impact our historicchurch building. A project of this scale does not belong immediately beside a sacred space and anestablished neighborhood. This is not opposition to growth. It is a call for balance and respect. I urge theCouncil to require a full environmental review and ensure the project complies with the 51-foot heightlimit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect our church, our neighborhood, and the character that makes Pasadena special.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Gonzalez
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCLickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 8:46 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of the historic church on Green Street. For many of us, this parish is a second home — a place of prayer, peace, and community. It is also a treasured Roland Coate Landmark that has been part of Pasadena's character for generations. I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street. Early-morning construction, heavy trucks, and vibration would disrupt Mass, funerals, and weddings, and could impact our historic church building. A project of this scale does not belong immediately beside a sacred space and an established neighborhood. As a bare minimum mitigation, please coordinate the construction, including the massive excavation during non-school days( summer, etc.) with the school principal. This is notopposition to growth. It is a call for balance and respect. I urge the Council to require a full environmental review and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot height Limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan.Please protect our church, our neighborhood, and the character that makes Pasadena special.
Sincerely,
David Olivas
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (trn) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 9:04 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponsehtonor Our Church and Honor Our City- 1364 East Green St. Concerns [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Honor Our Church and Honor Our City-1364 East Green St. Concerns Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as both a resident and a parishioner, and I believe that how we treat our sacred spacesreflects who we are as a city. To honor our church is to honor Pasadena itself. Our church is more than a structure. It is a historic landmark, a spiritual home, and a gathering place for generations of families. It is where we celebrate baptisms and weddings, mourn loved ones at funerals, and come each weekseeking peace and reflection. It stands as part of the architectural and cultural fabric that givesPasadena its identity. When large-scale development, such as the 1364 E. Green St. project, is proposeddirectly beside such a sacred and historic place, it raises serious concerns. Construction noise, truck traffic, vibration, and the sheer scale of adjacent buildings can disrupt worship and diminish the quiet dignity that a church requires. Sacred spaces deserve thoughtful protection, not simply technicalcompliance. Growth and innovation are important to our city's future. But they must be balanced withrespect for our history, our neighborhoods, and the institutions that anchor our community Life.
Pasadena has long prided itself on careful planning and stewardship. Upholding that Legacy meansensuring that development enhances—rather than overwhelms—the places that define us. Irespectfully urge you to require a thorough review and an appropriate scale for any project near ourchurch. By doing so, you will honor both a cherished house of worship and the values that have longguided Pasadena's development.Sincerely, Richard Woolery
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 9:14 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A note of opposition to the Caltech lab expansion.
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: A note of opposition to the Caltech Lab expansion.Mr. MarkJomsky, I cannot in good faith, as a parishioner of St Philip's and a student at Pasadena City College, allow anopportunity to speak out against the Caltech lab expansion to pass over me. I cannot help feel that sucha development, while perhaps helpful to the means by which our community is grown, is incompatible with the end goat of Pasadena's development, which is to foster an environment in which citizens feel comfortable living out their Lives, developing families, and making houses into homes.Sincerely,John Haskin South Pasadena, CA 91030-1 704 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPotitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1,2026 9:17 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of the historic church on Green Street. For many of us, this parish is a second home — a place of prayer, peace, and community. It isalso a treasured Roland Coate landmark that has been part of Pasadena's character for generations. I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street. Early-morning construction,heavy trucks, and vibration would disrupt Mass, funerals, and weddings, and could impact our historicchurch building. A project of this scale does not belong immediately beside a sacred space and anestablished neighborhood. This is not opposition to growth. It is a call for balance and respect. I urge theCouncil to require a full environmental review and ensure the project complies with the 51-foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect our church, our neighborhood, and the character that makes Pasadena special.
Sincerely,
Vivian Viltapudua
Pasadena, CA 91206 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 9:24 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship,designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena's architectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural andspiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment toinnovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safelyat this location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern giventhe church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damageand the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height Limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Pleasegrant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Angela Villapudua
Pasadena, CA 91206 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 9:48 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1 364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a parishioner deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation, economic growth, and research and development. At the same time, churches play a vital role in our city as places of worship, reflection, education, and service. These missions depend on safe, accessible, and appropriately scaled surroundings that respect sensitive uses and neighborhood character. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the currently proposed scale. Proceeding without a full environmental review—and at a height exceeding what wasenvisioned for this street—raises serious concerns for parishioners, including traffic safety, noise, airquality, and overall compatibility with church activities. Requiring the project to return in a redesigned form that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's maximum height of approximately 51 feet andthat undergoes a thorough environmental analysis would better align the development with the surrounding neighborhood and sensitive institutions. This approach would help preserve community trust while still supporting Pasadena's broader innovation goals. Approving the project as proposed would set a troubling precedent for placing intensified R&D uses adjacent to churches and othersensitive community institutions in areas not clearly intended for such development under Pasadena's planning framework. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forwardonly in a form that reflects both economic ambition and respect for our church community and shared values.Sincerely,
Laura DiPietro
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fry, Stephanie L
Sunday, March 1, 2026 9:57 PM.
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, JasonCaltech Green Street Innovation Center [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Dear Pasadena City Council,Re: Reference to the innovation center ati 364 E. Green Street and Appeal #DHP2025-00258 I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project is ideally positioned to nurture start-ups and attract companies focused on discovery. This development will help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub forinnovation, education, and opportunity. In this space, creative ideas will become products and services that benefit society and improve Life.The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:
Keep transformational ideas and new companies in Pasadena: The start-up companies that arise from cutting-edge research happening at Caltech will have the mix of office and laboratory space that allows them to put down roots and grow in Pasadena, rather than Leave for other cities.
Strengthen Pasadena as a center for discovery and invention: Private research firms are drawnto the steady flow of creative ideas and talented graduates coming from Cattech and nearby institutions. The center will attract these companies and strengthen partnerships.
Turn vision into reality: The site has been zoned for this type of building through the City's East Colorado Specific Plan. The innovation center is a by-right development that helps realize theintentions outlined in the plan and is fully compliant with Pasadena's vision for growth.Create local careers: The innovation center will create permanent high-quality STEM jobs.
Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schools will have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.
Boost the local economy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, the project will generateconstruction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants andshops.Engage education: The innovation center will connect students and faculty from Caltech withindustry partners while providing pathways for local schools and colleges to engage with cuttingedge science.
Enhance Pasadena's reputation: Innovation districts tied to universities are thriving in cities across the U.S. Pasadena has the talent and institutions to compete and lead, and this building isan important step.
Protect Pasadena's environment: The project incorporates sustainability features such as advanced shading, energy efficiency, water conservation, low VOC emitting materials and 14 newstreet trees to strengthen Pasadena's green canopy. •
•
1 03/02/2026
Item 10
Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.
I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to ourcommunity.
Thank you,
Stephanie Fry | Senior Administrative Coordinator
Assistant to the Chief Innovation Officer
Caltech | Technology Transfer and Corporate Partnerships I I MC 6-32 | Pasadena CA 91125
innovation.caltech.edu
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:14 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1 364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a parishioner deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation, economic growth, and research and development. At the same time, churches play a vital role in our cityas places of worship, reflection, education, and service. These missions depend on safe, accessible,and appropriately scaled surroundings that respect sensitive uses and neighborhood character. Theproposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the currently proposed scale. Proceeding without a full environmental review—and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street—raises serious concerns for parishioners, including traffic safety, noise, airquality, and overall compatibility with church activities. Requiring the project to return in a redesignedform that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's maximum height of approximately 51 feet and that undergoes a thorough environmental analysis would better align the development with the surrounding neighborhood and sensitive institutions. This approach would help preserve community trust while stilt supporting Pasadena's broader innovation goals. Approving the project as proposedwould set a troubling precedent for placing intensified R&D uses adjacent to churches and other sensitive community institutions in areas not clearly intended for such development under Pasadena's planning framework. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forward only in a form that reflects both economic ambition and respect for our church community and sharedvalues.
Sincerely,Annette Ricchiazzi
Pasadena , CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots forsupporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:46 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Accountability and Safety for 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Accountability and Safety for 1364 E. Green StreetMr. MarkJomsky,Pasadena has Long supported innovation, and I do as well. However, responsible governance requires that development be matched with accountability and public safety. The 1364 E. Green Street proposal does not currently meet that expectation. This is not anti-science. It is pro-transparency. While framedas supporting entrepreneurship, the majority of the proposed 79-foot facility is expected to house a largeexternal biotechnology company. Given its Location next to a TK-8 school, childcare facilities, homes, and a church, it is concerning that the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion without a fullEnvironmental Impact Report. Significant safety, traffic, and environmental questions remain unanswered. I have 3 neices and 2 nephews who attend this school. At minimum, the City should ensure a full Environmental Impact Report and clear disclosure and evaluation of health, traffic, and operationalrisks. Broad amendments to the R&D code should not override careful planning principles. Growth mustenhance public trust, not erode it. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and require a full review before allowing this project to proceed. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
SharonZabate
Whittier, CA 90604 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:To:Subject:
[email protected]
Sunday, March 1, 2026 10:50 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: 1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship Mr. MarkJomsky,I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena'sarchitectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold thecommon good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surroundingenvironment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment toinnovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safelyat this location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuing for many hours each day—raises serious concerns for ourparish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern given the church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on astructure never intended to be adjacent to large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damage and the loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a fullenvironmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that thisproject comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Pleasegrant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.
Sincerely,
Catherine Tosetti
San Marino, CA 91108 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (trn) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCtickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding ourpolicies and services, please contact info@onectickpo[itics.com 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 5:56 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponseh4onor Our Church and Honor Our City- 1364 East Green St. Concerns [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content issafe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on theDolT portal.
Re: Honor Our Church and Honor Our City-1364 East Green St. Concerns Mr. MarkJomsky,I am, a resident of Pasadena near the St. Philip Church, a parishioner of the Church, and a researcher employed by Caltech. I believe that how we treat our sacred spaces reflects who we are as a city. To honor our church is to honor Pasadena itself. Our church is more than a structure. It is a historicLandmark, a spiritual home, and a gathering place for generations of families. It is where we celebratebaptisms and weddings, mourn loved ones at funerals, and come each week seeking peace and reflection. It stands as part of the architectural and cultural fabric that gives Pasadena its identity. When large-scale development, such as the 1364 E. Green St. project, is proposed directly beside such asacred and historic place, it raises serious concerns. Construction noise, truck traffic, vibration, and thesheer scale of adjacent buildings can disrupt worship and diminish the quiet dignity that a church requires. Sacred spaces deserve thoughtful protection, not simply technical compliance. Growth and innovation are important to our city's future. But they must be balanced with respect for our history, our neighborhoods, and the institutions that anchor our community life. Pasadena has long prided itself on careful planning and stewardship. Upholding that Legacy means ensuring that development enhances — rather than overwhelms — the places that define us. I welcome growth and innovation, as long as it is done thoughtfully, responsibly, and considering holistically the impacts in the short and long terms. The spurt of building at Caltech is not being done as such. Consider, for example, the impact of their own campus facade along California Avenue, where their traditional Spanish Colonial and Revival and Mediterranean architectural style is being scarred by a large geometric, glass structure. The height and scale of the proposed building at Holliston and Green is dissonant with the surrounding buildings and the Church. It is also incompatible with Green being a one-way street, Holliston being a small residential street, and Hill St. already being heavily trafficked due to PCC. The project, as proposed, is effectively outside the scope of the site. With these and other grave concerns, I strongly urge you to require athorough review and an appropriate scale for any project near our church. By doing so, you will honor both a cherished house of worship and the values that have long guided Pasadena's development.