Pasadena City Council
March 2, 2026

of PA^
0 ^
^
^
0 "7
^ •St
2:
@
0 vs
0 <Q
^
^ <</
0?-<rEO ^:

Agenda Report
March 2, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Planning & Community Development Department
SUBJECT: QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION: APPEAL OF THE DESIGN COMMISSION'S

APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW
(DHP2025-00258) FOR A NEW FOUR-STORY, 93,539 SQUARE-FOOT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH 260 AT-GRADE

AND SUBTERRANEAN PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY OWNED
BY CALTECH AT 1364 EAST GREEN STREET
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Find that the action proposed in the agenda report is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects), and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and,therefore, there are no unusual circumstances;

2. Adopt the findings in Attachment A finding that the project 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 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan, and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily Districts; and,

3. Deny the appeal and approve the application for Concept Design Review subject to the conditions in Attachment B, which shall be further reviewed by the Design Commission during Final Design Review.

BACKGROUND:

On August 8, 2025, the applicant, TC LA Development, Inc., submitted an application for Concept Design Review for a new 93,539 square-foot research and development building with 260 at-grade and subterranean parking spaces on a 41,573-square-foot site owned by Caltech located at 1364 E. Green Street. The Design Commission MEETING OF.
3/2/2026
AGENDA ITEM NO.
10 Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

Attachments C and D. The January 27, 2026 staff report includes additional information in response to substantial public comments that were received at the December 9, 2025 meeting.On February 9, 2026, the appellant, Building a Better Pasadena, LLC, filed an appealapplication citing disagreements with the CEQA determination and consistency of the project with the General Plan, East Colorado Specific Plan and Zoning Code. See Attachment E for the appeal application.

Outside of the required meetings for Design Review, the applicant and appellants havemet on a few occasions to discuss matters of concern. The applicant did agree to delay the Concept Design Review hearing last year from November to December to allowtime for the school and church to meet internally on the project. The parties involved on both sides have been open to discussions, however resolution has not been met.

At the January 27, 2026 public hearing, the Design Commission did include some specific conditions of approval to respond to the concerns of the neighboring site including condition #2 requiring restudy and consideration of stepping the fourth floor along the south elevation and further reducing the height of the mechanical screen orstudying ways to reduce its visual prominence. In an attempt to address concerns related to construction traffic interfering with school drop-offand pick-up operations, theCommission included condition #9 which requests that the applicant consider utilizingGreen Street for construction traffic; the applicant is required to coordinate with theDepartments of Public Works and Transportation on any construction staging and trafficmanagement (Conditions #31 and #56).

REQUIRED APPROVALS:

The proposed Research & Development land use is allowed by right on the project site.The proposed project meets the development standards of the Zoning Code includingthose related to setbacks, parking, open space, floor area and height. The project is utilizing additional floor area and height provisions approved by the City Council in 2024 to accommodate and incentivize research and development projects (Section 17.50.240Attachment K).

The only entitlement required for the project is Design Review, where the Design Commission reviews the project for consistency with adopted design guidelines and thepurposes of the Design Review. Modifications to the buildings can be required related toarticulation, modulation, or other design-related standards. However, the square footage, maximum height and other development standards in the Zoning Code cannot be reduced beyond what the code allows. As this is an appeal of a Design Review application, the City Council's review is also limited to the project's consistency withapplicable design guidelines and the environmental determination.

Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

Design Review is a three-phase process starting with Preliminary Consultation, followed by Concept Design Review and then Final Design Review. Each phase builds upon theother as the applicant must respond to comments provided during the previous phase of review. Preliminary Consultation is informational only; Concept Design Review requires a public hearing, a CEQA determination, and if approved, grants the entitlement. Final Design Review focuses on items such as colors, materials, and final details.

The purpose of Design Review is to "implement urban design goals and policies and the Citywide design principles in the General Plan and to apply the City'sadopted design guidelines to Design Review." As part of the Design Review conducted,staff and the Design Commission reviewed the project as it relates to a number ofdesign guidelines/policies that are contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines forNeighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Residential Districts. Consistency with these guidelines is the basis for the findings for approval in Attachment A. The full analysis of this work is contained in the staff reports for the Concept Design Hearingson December 9, 2025 and January 27, 2026 (Attachments C and D, respectively). The CEQA exemption was also approved based on traffic, air quality and noise technicalreports that were prepared (Attachment F). The Design Commission reviewed andunanimously approved the application and CEQA determination (5-0 with threemembers absent) on January 27, 2026 (Attachment G). For additional information, theproject plans are provided in Attachment H and links to the Design Guidelines in the2022 East Colorado Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines for NeighborhoodCommercial & Multi-Family Residential Districts can be found in Attachment I. Further, the list of Design Guidelines staff determined applicable to the project during Preliminary Consultation is provided in Attachment L.

STAFF RESPONSE TO APPEAL:

The appeal application received states the following reasons for the appeal:
"Findings for Categorical Exemption cannot be made as there are sufficient technical inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the published technical studies. Furthermore, the studies fail to fully study and understand the impacts with the associated use relative to the operation of the building.Finally, the project is inconsistent with the fundamental provisions of theCity's General Plan, and East Colorado Specific Plan, and the Zoning Coderelating to Design Review." The appeal application does not include the specific inconsistencies that are the basis of the appeal, therefore this report evaluates and responds to the comments that have been submitted in opposition to the project.

Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

EcoTierra Consulting and Fehr & Peers, environmental consulting firms under contract to the City, prepared noise, air quality and traffic analyses for the project (Attachment F), which concluded that there will be less than significant impacts on the environment; the Design Commission therefore determined that the project is exempt fromenvironmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), §15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects.

The appeal application does not state the specific inconsistencies and inaccuracies that the appellants allege in the published technical studies or the aspects of the project operation that the technical studies allegedly fail to fully study or understand; however,during both public hearings for the Concept Design Review application, a number of public comments were received regarding the environmental studies. The staff report for the January 27, 2026 Design Commission meeting in Attachment D summarizes comments that were received and provides responses to these comments. The staff position is that the technical studies sufficiently study the project and it qualifies for aClass 32 exemption. No substantially new or different comments were presented to the Design Commission at the January 27, 2026 hearing. A summary of the CEQA determination for the project is provided beginning on page 5 of the report. This report, under ENVIROMENTAL ANALYSIS also provides a more detailed explanation of the Class 32 exemption and the supporting reasons the project qualifies.

The project is not consistent with General Plan/Specific Plan/Zoning Code Similarly, the appeal application does not state specific inconsistencies of the project with the General Plan, the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan or the Zoning Code however as part of past hearings concerns have been raised that the project is too largeand does meet the intent of these plans.

The General Plan designation of the property is Medium Mixed Use (0 - 2.25 FAR; 0-87 du/acre) and its Zoning designation is EC-MU-N (East Colorado Specific Plan, MixedUse Neighborhood). As stated in the Land Use Element, the Medium Mixed-Usedesignation is "intended to support the development of multi-story buildings with avariety of compatible commercial (retail and office) and residential uses. Development ischaracterized by shared open spaces, extensive landscaping, small to mediumseparations between buildings, and shared driveways and parking. Sites may beexclusively commercial or exclusively residential, or with buildings vertically integrating housing with non-residential uses." Additional information on the projects consistency with the General Plan is located on page 5 of this report, under the GENERAL PLAN CONSITENCY analysis.

The EC-MU-N Zoning designation repeats much of the language of land use designation in its purposes as outlined in Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) Section Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

17.31.030.C and allows Research and Development as a permitted by-right land use as reflected in PMC Section 17.31.041, Table ECSP-2. Staff reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the development standards of the EC-MU-N Zoning District and the standards for Research & Development Facilities in PMC Section 17.50.240and found the project to be in compliance with all of these standards. For research anddevelopment projects, Section 17.50.240 allows the following:

The height limit of the base zoning district to be exceeded by a maximum of 12 feet (excluding the appurtenance height).

The height limit for the base zoning district is 51 feet. The proposed building has a height of 63 feet and complies.

Appurtenances may exceed the height limit by a maximum of 18 feet.

The proposed appurtenance has a height of 15 feet and complies.

Mechanical space and appurtenances are excluded when calculating floor area ratio (FAR).

The FAR maximum for the base zoning district is 2.25 or 93,539 square feet. The proposed building has a floor area of 100,366 square feet, of which 6,827 square feet is devoted to mechanical space and appurtenance. Excluding the mechanicalspace and appurtenance, the size of the building is 93, 539 square feet andcomplies. •
It should also be noted that there are a number of goals and policies in the General Plan that are design-related and evaluated through the Design Review process. The Design Commission considered these goals and policies in its deliberations and determined theproject to be consistent with them. These include Goal 4 (Elements Contributing toUrban Form) and supporting policies 4.11 (Development that is Compatible), 4.12(Transitions in Scale) and Goal 7 (Architectural Design and Quality) and supportingpolicy 7.3 (Compatibility).

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:

As previously noted, the project site has a General Plan designation of Medium Mixed Use. The proposed project will develop a new research & development project that is consistent with this land use designation and with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This includes the following Guiding Principles of theLand Use Element:

Guiding Principle 1: "Growth will be targeted to sen/e community needs andenhance the quality of life. Higher density development will be directed awayfrom residential neighborhoods and into the Central District, Transit Villages, andNeighborhood Villages. These areas will have a diverse housing stock, job opportunities, exciting districts with commercial and recreational uses, and transitopportunities. New development will build upon Pasadena's tradition of strong sense of place, great neighborhoods, gardens, plazas, parks, and trees." Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

• Guiding Principle 3: "Pasadena will be an economically vital city by providing jobs, services, revenues, and opportunities. A diverse economic base with jobs for Pasadena residents will be fostered; existing businesses will be encouragedto stay or expand; affordable housing will be provided for the labor pool; thecontinued fiscal health of the city will be ensured."Guiding Principle 6: "Pasadena will be a cultural, scientific, corporate,entertainment and education center for the region. Long-term growthopportunities will be provided for existing institutions; a healthy economy will befostered to attract new cultural, scientific, corporate, entertainment andeducational institutions." Further, the project is consistent with Goal 2 (Land Use Diversity) and supportingpolicies 2.3 (Commercial Businesses) and 2.4 (Job Choices), Goal 4 (ElementsContributing to Urban Form) and supporting policy 4.2 (A Diversity of Places), Goal 5(Pedestrian-Oriented Places) and supporting policy 5.2 (Pedestrian-Oriented Development), Goal 11 (Job Opportunities) and supporting policies 11.1 (BusinessExpansion and Growth), 11.2 (Workforce Development) and 11.3 (New and Complementary Businesses), Goal 13 (Innovation) and all supporting policies 13.1 (Environment), 13.2 (Business Sectors), 13.3 (Adaptation to Evolving MarketDemands), 13.4 (New Businesses) and 13.5 (Creative/lnnovative EmploymentCenters), Goal 27 (R&D Flex Space) and supporting policies 27.1 (Diversity of Uses),

27.2 (Business Attraction) and 27.2 (Buffering from Adjacent Properties) and Goal 32 (East Colorado) and supporting policy 32.6 (Innovative Businesses).

The project provides a land use that will enhance the local economy by providing spacefor research and development of new technologies in close proximity to Caltech and PCC, where such space is needed and lacking in the City. The proposed use would serve local and regional needs, would provide job opportunities, and capture localspending and the economic value induced by proximity of the site to local businesses.

In addition, the project has been determined to be consistent with the adopted designrelated goals and policies of the General Plan and of the 2022 East Colorado SpecificPlan and meets all required standards of the Zoning Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Following a detailed environmental analysis conducted by EcoTierra Consulting andFehr & Peers, included in Attachment F, staff recommends that the project should be determined to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA, §15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects.

The City required the supporting technical studies for a Class 32, Categorical Exemption. The applicant asserts that this application is not a project that is subject to CEQA. The applicant argues "as a code compliant project that only requires Design Review approval and no other discretionary land use approval, no CEQA review isrequired or warranted for the Project pursuant to the appellate court's holding in Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2019) 31 Cal.App.Sth 80 ("McCorkle")."
Under McCorkle, CEQA applies only to discretionary projects, which are projects thatrequire the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity. The application of CEQA to a design review ordinance depends on the scope and interpretation of the local ordinance; CEQA will not apply if the city lacks discretion to address environmental effects. Pasadena'sdesign review approval process is different from the City of Saint Helena's design review process considered in McCorkle. In case this application is determined by acourt to be a discretionary project for the purposes of CEQA, the staff recommends that the City Council find this project is exempt from CEQA review under an in-fill exemption.To qualify for this exemption, a project is required to meet the following criteria:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

As described in detail in this report and supporting attachments, the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation, all applicable generalplan policies and the applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project does not require any variances and meets all applicable development standards. b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The project site is less than one acre in size and surrounded by urban uses including a school and church, a community college, a day care center, a mixeduse residential and commercial building and multi-family residences. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The site is a paved surface parking lot with no value as habitat for any special status species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

The technical studies in Attachment F demonstrate that the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise or air quality. The project will adhere to applicable regulations and permitting requirements by the Los AngelesRegional Water Quality Control Board and the City's Standard Urban StormwaterMitigation Plan ordinance and will not have impacts to water quality. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The project has been reviewed by all utility providers, which determined that they are able to sen/e the project.

Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

criteria per §15300.2 (Exceptions):
a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant.Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or criticalconcern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

The proposed project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption and therefore this exception is not applicable.
b. Cumulative Impact. 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.

There are no other proposed projects of the same type in the same place as the proposed project. There are no projects of the same type within the immediate area, and the nearest closest comparable facility is located more than a mile west at 26 N. Euclid Ave.
c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect onthe environment due to unusual circumstances.

There are no unusual circumstances associated with the proposed project. It is a land use that is authorized to be developed on the site by the Zoning Code andlocated on a standard flat, rectangular parcel at a standard street intersection in a developed urban area of the City of Pasadena. There are no other features thatdistinguish this from other in-fill projects in the exempt class. d. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The only designated state scenic highway in the City of Pasadena is the Angeles Crest Highway (State Highway 2), which is located north ofArroyo Seco Canyon in the extreme northwest portion of the City. The project site is not within the viewshed of the Angeles Crest Highway. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts to designated state scenic highways.

Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The project site is not included on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. See further discussion of hazardous materials concerns on page 9 of the staff report prepared for the January 27, 2026 Design Commission meeting in Attachment D. 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.

The property is a vacant surface parking lot and does not contain any historical resources. St. Philip the Apostle Church at 151 S. Hill Avenue is adjacent to andeast of the subject property. The church was constructed in 1949-1950 anddesigned by architect Roland Coate; however, it has not been evaluated forhistorical significance. Additional buildings associated with the church and school were built after the construction of the main church. A 2005 Initial Study prepared for the church and school's master plan did not identify any historical resources on the master plan site. Regardless of the church's potential for historical significance, the project would not result in a substantial adversechange to any of the buildings associated with the church and school. CEQAdefines "substantial adverse change" to a historical resource as follows:
".. .physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource wouldbe materially impaired. The significance of an historical resource is materiallyimpaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance andthat justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register ofHistorical Resources; or (B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historicalresources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or itsidentification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements ofsection 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agencyreviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of HistoricalResources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

The project would not demolish or alter any of the physical characteristics of the St. Philip the Apostle Church and School property. It would be built on an Request for Appeal - 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026Page 10 of 11
adjacent site that is currently a surface parking lot, which is not a characteristic of the church and school property that would contribute to its potential historical significance and, as such, replacement of the parking lot with a new structure would not have the potential to alter the physical characteristics of the churchthat would convey its potential historical significance. In addition, the setting ofthe church and school itself has changed significantly over time includingconstruction of a library/auditohum building in 1961, replacement of the conventwith surface parking in 2005, demolition of the former parish hall and expansionof the existing school buildings in 2008, and construction of a new rectory in2021. A Master Plan was approved for the site in advance of the more recentconstruction and the CEQA document for the Master Plan did not identify anyhistorically significant structures on the site. The setting surrounding the schooland church has also changed significantly over time including expansion ofPasadena City College to the east and construction of several new structures inthe immediate vicinity including the Pasadena City College Child Development Center at 1324 E. Green Street in 1995, several apartment buildings along Holliston Avenue constructed between 1953 and 1985, and a mixed-use building at 1299 E. Green Street in 2009. Therefore, construction at the adjacent site will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historicalresource.

LOCAL MOBILITY ANALYSIS:

Separate from the environmental (CEQA) analysis that was conducted for the project, traffic consultants Fehr & Peers, under contract to the City, conducted a Local MobilityAnalysis (Attachment J) to determine if the project should be required to contribute to roadway improvements to address any vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic deficiencies in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The non-CEQA analysisconcluded that the project would not result in traffic deficiencies that would warrant roadway improvements. A number of public comments have been received regarding traffic concerns, which staff responded to in the staff report: prepared for the January 27, 2026 Design Commission meeting in Attachment D.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Design Commission to determine the project to be exempt from CEQA under Class 32 as an infill development project and that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Design Commission decision to approve the Concept Design Review application subject to the findings in Attachment A and the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment B.

Staff and the Design Commission conducted a thorough analysis of the project through Preliminary Consultation and Concept Design Review.If the project is approved, the next step is Final Design Review. At the Final DesignReview stage, emphasis and focus is placed on construction details, finishes, materials, Request for Appeal ~ 1364 E. Green St.

March 2, 2026

landscaping, and consistency of the project with the design approved during Concept Design Review and compliance with adopted conditions of approval.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.

I
Prepared by:
'JOHNSON
Principal Planner
Approved by:
rt^J ^—
Mt@E)EL MARQUEZ
City Manager
Respectfully submitted,
^e^e.

JENNIFER PAIG^i^P
Director of Planning & Community
Development Department
Reviewed by:

ROCh
inning l^anager
Attachments (11):

A. Findings of Consistency with Design Review
B. Recommended Conditions of Approval
C. Concept Design Review Staff Report, dated December 9, 2025 (without attachments) D. Concept Design Review Staff Report, dated January 27, 2026 (without attachments) E. Request for Appeal Application (with Attachments)
F. Environmental DocumentationG. Concept Design Review Decision Letter dated January 28, 2026 (with Attachments)H. Development Plans I. Weblinks to the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan & Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial & Multi-Family Residential Districts
J. Local Mobility Analysis
K. Research and Development Facilities, PMC Section 17.50.240 L. Design Guidelines Applicable to the Project

ATTACHMENT A

SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW

1. 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 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan & the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial & Multi-Family Residential Districts.

The site is designated as Medium Mixed Use in the General Plan. This designation is intended to support the development of multi-story buildings with a variety of commercial and residential uses that are compatible. The staff report provides a detailed listing of the goals and policies with which this project complies, along with Guiding Principals 1, 3, and 6. The project provides a land use that will enhance the local economy by providing space for research and development of new technologies in close proximity to Caltech and PCC where the city has identified the space is needed. The use will serve local and regional needs, provide job opportunities and capture local spending.

The site is located within the East Colorado Specific Plan and is within the EC-MU-N (East Colorado Mixed-Use Neighborhood) zoning district. The purpose of which is to promote the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly neighborhood with a broad range of uses including retail, commercial, office and multi-family along with mixed use projects. The site is located within the Mid-City Innovation area. The Mid-City Subarea extends along Colorado Boulevard and Green Street between Hill Avenue and Wilson Avenue, the western edge of the ECSP area and adjacent to the Central District Specific Plan boundary. Mid-City is commercially focused and includes a range of existing uses including local- and community scale retail, neighborhood services, churches, hotels, and private and government offices.

Green Street is characterized by a combination of general office, retail, and medical office uses, in addition to government and PCC-related uses east of Michigan Avenue, including the State of California Employment Development Department and the PCC Child Development Center. Caltech, another institutional anchor located a quarter-mile to the south of the ECSP area, also contributes to the demand for office and R&D uses in the area. Goal 8 of the MidCity Innovation District is noted as “A cohesive mixed-use district with a strong sense of place and supportive land uses that takes advantage of close proximity to PCC, Caltech, and South Lake”. The project involves construction of a four-story, 93,539-square-foot research & development project that will include 260 at-grade and subterranean parking spaces. The project is a by-right use and meets all applicable development standards of the Zoning Code, including those of the East Colorado Specific Plan.

The purpose of Design Review is to “implement urban design goals and policies and the Citywide design principles in the General Plan and to apply the City’s adopted design guidelines to Design Review”. The project was evaluated for adherence to a number of design guidelines and policies that are contained within the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-Family Residential Districts. The full analysis of this work is contained in the Design Commission staff reports that are attached to this report and dated December 9, 2025 and January 27, 2026. Also, at Attachment “L” to this report are the citywide design principles and adopted design guidelines that staff identified as the applicable guidelines through the Preliminary Consultation application.

As an overview, the project design features a high degree of integration with the pedestrian experience through its orientation in relation to the street and a pedestrian access points along Green Street. The modulation and articulated stepped back massing of the proposed development includes a height and volume distribution that is respectful to the surrounding built context, reads as a new development precedent, and is in keeping with the applicable design guidelines. The architectural detailing of the building expresses a contemporary development that maintains a high quality of materials and features including flat roofs, a rational grid configuration with high levels of transparency that respond to the solar orientation of each façade, and a combination of concrete skim coat, EIFS with stucco finish, metal panels and transparent and spandrel glazing. The proposed design incorporates high quality materials and a landscape design that softens the development with a variety of plantings along its edges. All of these features will ensure consistency with the purposes of design review, including encouraging new structures that show creativity and imagination and add distinction, interest, and variety to the community, promoting architectural excellence, reflecting the values of the community, and ensuring that new landscaping provides a visually pleasing setting. Further,the project is consistent with Design Review Purpose 17.61.030.A.2 – environmentally sustainable structures. The project must meet all applicable standards related to energy and sustainability features contained in the adopted Building Code and those required by the City’s Climate Action Plan.

The proposed design is inspired by a number of design precedents of the same style and is consistent within the immediate and larger context due to its proximity to East Colorado Boulevard, PCC, and Caltech and similar newer and older commercial, office, and institutional buildings of various architectural styles. This will ensure consistency with design guidelines that promote contextual compatibility, enhancement of the surrounding environment, support and avoidance nostalgic misrepresentations that may confuse the relationships among structures over time (e.g., General Plan Land Use Element policies 4.11, 7.2, 7.3, 25.4; East Colorado Specific Plan policies 5.a, 5.b, 6.b, 6.c).

The nearest adjacent parcel, which is developed with a church and school, has improvements that are located 26 feet at the closest point to the proposed project and 295 feet at the furthest point. The recommended conditions of approval for the project will further ensure compatibility by requiring additional study of the mechanical screening and fourth-floor step-back from the south façade in an effort to reduce the perceived height of the building adjacent to the neighboring school/church parcel.

Further, the project is consistent with additional applicable design guidelines as identified in Attachment L, for example:

Design-Related Policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan • 7.1 – The project uses exterior materials that exhibit permanence and minimize maintenance concerns.
• 10.7 – Landscaping will be required, through Final Design Review, to demonstrate sustainability.
• 23.3 – Appropriate landscaped setbacks, consistent with Zoning Code requirements, are provided.

East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan
• 6.d – Tree planting, native landscaping and required stormwater capture will ensure urban greening.

Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial & Multi-Family Residential Districts • 11.1, 11.2 and 11.4 – The contemporary design is clear, consistent and logical, follows a set of rules established by the designer, and all related features strongly relate to the building’s design concept.
• 13. – The building’s materials are high-quality and durable and will be further evaluated in detail during Final Design Review.
• 14.1 & 14.3 – Windows are organized into a clear pattern that is consistent with the architectural language chosen for the project and sized to be consistent with the proposed use of the building and each façade’s solar orientation. • 18 – The landscape responds to Pasadena climate and facilitates sustainable water use and drainage strategies.

ATTACHMENT B

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1354 E. GREEN STREET

CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW
The applicant or the successor in interest shall comply with the following conditions, which shall be reviewed and approval by the Design Commission during Final Design Review, and shall consider implementing the recommendation:

Design & Historic Preservation

1. The project shall comply with all Zoning Code requirements except as modified during the design review process.

2. Restudy and consider stepping the fourth floor along the south elevation to reduce the perceived building height from the adjacent St. Philip the Apostle School parking lot and playground and further study reducing the height of the rooftop mechanical screen and/or study ways to reduce its visual prominence through materiality, color or other means.

3. Roof drainage shall be routed within the building walls rather than in exposed downspouts.

4. Show vents/vent caps and their arrangement on the elevations, which shall be routed to the roof or, if infeasible, located on secondary elevations to the degree possible and arranged in a logical pattern. If vents are required to penetrate the building walls, provide specifications and details of the vent caps for staff review and approval.

5. If proposed, show the location of driveway security gates on the site and landscape plans and include drawings depicting their design.

6. A final landscape and irrigation plan, in compliance with Chapter 17.44 (Landscaping) of the Zoning Code, identifying all remaining and proposed vegetation and trees shall be submitted along with plans for Final Design Review. The plan shall include a mix of plant size and materials. Plant materials shall emphasize drought-tolerant and/or native species.

7. The project shall comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and any changes to the proposed landscape design that may be required shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit.

8. The project shall demonstrate compliance with Climate Action Plan (CAP) requirements.

9. RECOMMENDATION: Consider establishing the truck route for construction hauling to occur via Green Street rather than Holliston Avenue and establishing a delivery schedule for the operational building that occurs during non-peak school pick-up and drop-off hours to avoid conflicts with the adjacent St. Philip the Apostle School.

Department of Public Works

10. No private improvements may be placed within the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, soldier beams, tie-backs, utility conduits, backflow preventers, transformers, fire sprinkler valve, decorative sidewalk and applicable parade post holes on Colorado Boulevard per Standard Drawing S-419. Private improvements may only be placed in the public right-of-way by submitting a license agreement, which must be approved by the City. The license agreement application for any private improvement within the public right-of-way shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and shall be approved by the City before any permits are granted. The applicant shall submit the application, plan and processing fee/deposit, associated with processing the license agreement, at least three to four (3-4) months prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits. An approved license agreement will allow the applicant to install and maintain the private improvements within the public right-of-way with conditions.

A license agreement for shoring requires an indemnity bond in order to guarantee that shoring and tie-backs are free from defect due to faulty material, workmanship and failure. Upon review of the license agreement exhibits, an indemnity bond estimate will be prepared and forwarded to the applicant. The estimated amount is equivalent to the cost of reconstructing the public right of way, including all affected utilities, public facilities, and infrastructures, based on the plane of failure at a 45-degree angle from the lowest point of excavation. The indemnity bond shall be submitted to the City prior to the execution of the agreement and the issuance of any building or demolition permits.

All steel rods in every tie-back unit shall be relieved of all tension and stresses, and any portion of soldier beams and any portion of the tie-backs located be removed entirely from the public right-of-way. A monthly monitoring report stamped and certified by a licensed surveyor shall be submitted to indicate that the deflection from any piles or soldier beams does not exceed one inch. Upon completion of construction, the developer or his contractor shall remove all tie-back rods within the public right-of-way.

The removal shall be documented by a report certified by a licensed deputy inspector.

The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The applicant will be charged a penalty of $7,000 for each tie-back rod not removed from the public right-ofway. For temporary tie-backs or shoring, the maximum width of the license area fronting the development frontage(s) shall only extend to the centerline of the public right-of-way.

11. Green Street along the frontage of the subject property has an existing sidewalk width of 11 feet. In order to provide for a 12-foot wide sidewalk per the East Colorado Specific Plan, the applicant shall dedicate to the City a 1-foot strip of land along the subject frontage for street purposes, and construct a 12-ft wide sidewalk. Construction of new sidewalk and curb and gutter along the Green Street frontage is required.

The applicant shall be responsible for all the costs required to complete the dedications.

The dedication documents and processing fee/deposit shall be submitted to this office, at least three to four (3-4) months prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication documents shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

12. The applicant shall demolish existing and construct all new public improvements along the along the subject development frontages of Green Street and of Holliston Avenue, including concrete drive approach per Standard Plan S-403; concrete sidewalk per Standard Plan S-421; concrete curb and gutter per Standard Plan S-406. All public improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

13. Green Street restoration, fronting the subject development, shall be a partial width (from the first lane line to gutter) cold milling and resurfacing of asphalt concrete roadway per Standard Plan S-415. The street restoration shall include the intersection at Holliston Avenue and shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Green Street contains asbestos paving material, see attached requirements for any work performed on said street.

14. The proposed development shall connect to the public sewer with one or more new sixinch diameter house sewers laid at a minimum slope of two percent. In accordance with PMC Chapter 13.24.010, house sewer “means that part of the horizontal piping beginning 24 inches from the exterior wall of the building or structure and extending to its connection with the public sewer.” The section of house sewers within the public right-ofway - from the property line to the public sewer, or within easement, shall be vitrified clay or cast iron pipe. The house sewer shall meet City Standards as determined by the Department of Public Works, and a permit issued by the Department of Public Works is required for work within the public right-of-way. The construction of all new house sewers shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

15. In order to accommodate an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramp, the applicant shall verify, and reconstruct if necessary, a standard curb ramp at all four corners of the Green Street and Holliston Avenue intersection, if possible, per Caltrans Standard A88A or City of Pasadena Standard No. S-414. The curb ramp construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. A separate permit from the Department of Public Works is required for all construction in the public right-ofway. Please contact [email protected] for the general process.

The applicant shall submit to the City for review any proposed designs that will comply with the ADA requirements. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of the new curb ramp. Plans for the curb return improvements shall be prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California. Upon submittal of improvement plans to the Departments of Public Works for review, the applicant will be required to submit fees, per the current General Fee Schedule, to cover the cost of plan checking and construction inspection of the improvements. Note that the building plans approved by the City’s Planning (Building) Department do not constitute approvals for work in the public right-of-way. Separate plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division – at 175 North Garfield Avenue Window 6. The applicant shall submit the curb return improvement plans and the plan check fees at least two (2) months prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits.

Upon review of the curb ramp improvement plans, the applicant may need to dedicate to the City for street purposes the land necessary at the subject property line corner rounding per Standard Plan S-423 to provide for the minimum clearance required by the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. If so, the applicant shall remove and reconstruct the sidewalk for the dedicated area, per Standard Plan No. S-421. The applicant shall be responsible for all the cost required to complete the dedication, if it is required. The dedication document and processing fee shall be submitted to this office, at least three to four (3-4) months, prior to issuance of any permits. The dedication documents shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

16. The existing street lighting along the Green Street and Holliston Avenue frontages is substandard. In order to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, the applicant shall replace/renovate three existing street lighting, on the frontages of the subject property per the City requirements and current standards. The renovation shall include but not limited to new LED light(s), conductors, lamp socket, fuse, globe/lantern, globe holder, photo cell, and miscellaneous related parts.

17. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of all required public improvements. Plans for the above improvements shall be prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California. Upon submittal of improvement plans to the Departments of Public Works for review, the applicant will be required to place a deposit with the department to cover the cost of plan checking. The amount of deposit will be based on the current City’s General Fee Schedule. Note that building plans approved by the City’s Planning (Building) Department do not constitute approvals for work in the public right-of-way. Separate plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division – at 175 North Garfield Avenue Window 6. The applicant shall submit public improvements plans and the plan check deposit at least two (2) months prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits.

18. Pruning of street trees may be required to facilitate the construction of the project. The work shall be done by the City’s crew. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of pruning the street trees and submit to the Department of Public Works the appropriate fee per General Fee Schedule, for the City crew to prune the street trees.

19. Any proposed removal of public street trees shall be subject to the review and support of the City’s Urban Forestry Advisory Committee.

20. All new drive approaches shall be at least seven (7) feet clear of the existing street trees measured from the edge of the trunk closest to the drive approach. All public trees shall be protected and fenced with a posting on the fences advising of the tree protection.

21. To protect existing City trees during construction, the applicant shall fully conform to the Tree Protection Guidelines signed by the City Manager. The full guidelines are available at the following link: https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-andconstruction/engineering/

22. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established for all existing City trees within the scope of a construction project. The TPZ extends from the base of the tree to four (4) radial feet beyond the dripline of a tree and applies to the entirety of the tree – from the roots to the canopy of the tree.

23. The applicant is prohibited from the following within a designated TPZ: construction vehicle access, construction vehicle operation, staging of materials, and trenching without the consent of the Department of Public Works.

24. The applicant shall at minimum provide the following within a designated TPZ: mulching, irrigation, and protective fencing.

25. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a Preliminary Tree Protection Plan (PMC Ch. 8.52 – City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance), prepared by a Landscape Architect or certified Arborist, showing the TPZ and all structures, footings, and grading that may impact City trees shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works, for review and approval. Given that each construction project poses unique conditions, it is the responsibility of the applicant to develop a Tree Protection Plan based off the TPZ standards to the extent feasible. The Plan shall conform to the Tree Protection Standards which specifically require showing the locations of all existing trees, their diameters, canopies, whether the tree is a public tree or private tree, as well as any trees to be planted with their canopy at mature size. The final conditions of the Tree Protection Plan shall be approved by the Forestry Superintendent. A nonrefundable flat fee, per the current General Fee Schedule, will be required for staff time to review the Tree Protection Ordinance compliance.

26. Prior to any construction, tree protections including the installation of fencing to protect public trees must be in place. The fencing material shall be chain-link attached to posts inserted into the ground at the edge of the dripline and shall be a minimum of 6’ in height. See Standard Plan S-642 – Tree Protection Chain Link Fencing. Fencing shall maintain visual lines of sight in order to avoid vehicle and pedestrian hazards. Fencing shall include a minimum 8.5” x 11” warning sign with the following information: ‘Tree Protection Zone’; name and contact information of project owner or authorized representative; ‘Please contact the City of Pasadena Citizen Service Center to report any concerns (626) 744-7311’. All protective fencing must be permitted, inspected and approved by Public Works prior to the commencement of any construction.

27. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a valuation assessment report of the existing public tree(s) along the boundary of their project. The report shall be prepared by a registered Arborist and submitted to PNR for review and approval. If it is determined that the applicant has failed to care for any City tree within their Tree Protection Plan, and the health of the tree(s) was critically compromised requiring its removal, the applicant shall be liable for the following costs: assessed value of tree determined by a PNR Arborist using a current ISA assessment methodology; the removal cost determined by PNR; and any applicable infraction or administrative fines determined by Code Compliance

28. Prior to issuance of any permit, a deposit in the amount of the applicant’s total liabilities based on the aforementioned approved tree assessment report shall be submitted to the City. The deposit is fully refundable, less administrative fees, upon the satisfaction of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

29. The applicant shall plant the officially designated street tree per the City’s approved Master Street Tree Plan along the boundary of the subject property – (4) maximum new Ficus (Ficus Microcarpa) trees on Green Street frontage, spaced 40 feet center-tocenter. The Department of Public Works will confirm eligible planting sites, and will provide the applicant the location, quantity and tree species to be planted as a result of the applicant’s project.

Trees planted by the applicant must meet the City’s tree stock standards, be inspected by the City, and be planted according to the details provided by the Parks and Natural Resources (PNR) Division. Planting shall include the installation of the following per tree:
no less than two tree stakes; one arbor guard; and the use of slow-release fertilizer tablets. The applicant shall contact PNR (626-744-3880) for tree planting approval, a minimum of two (2) months, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Trees planted by the applicant must be irrigated by either an existing or a new irrigation system constructed by the applicant. Plans for the irrigation system shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of California and submitted to PNR for review and approval. Irrigation facilities (main line, valve, pull box, timer, etc.) must be constructed within private property with the exception of the laterals and bubblers. The lateral shall be a minimum of 18” deep, and no above-ground structures are allowed.

Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Tree Guarantee Deposit equal to the cost of all new trees planted to guarantee that newly planted trees are maintained by the applicant for a minimum of three calendar years.

Tree maintenance during this period shall include the following: watering no less than once a week; weed removal; reconstruction of tree wells as needed; re-staking as needed; adjustment to grade of any trees that settle; and any other operations needed to assure normal tree growth. The applicant shall replace any newly planted trees which, for any reason, die or whose health is compromised, within the applicant’s three-year establishment period. The three-year tree establishment period shall commence on the day that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. PNR shall inspect all trees planted by the applicant at the end of the three-year establishment period, and if the trees are found to be in good health, the applicant’s deposit will be released. If the trees are found to be in poor health, the establishment period may be extended by PNR and the applicant’s deposit shall be held accordingly. Said deposit may be included as part of the construction guarantee if applicable, and is subject to partial refund or additional billing.

30. In order to ensure that the developer maintains a clean and safe site during the construction phase of development, the applicant shall place a $20,000 refundable deposit with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permit. This deposit is a guarantee that the applicant will keep the site clean and safe, and will make permanent repairs to the abutting street improvements that are damaged, including striping, slurry seal/ resurfacing, street trees, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, either directly or indirectly, by the construction on this site. This deposit may also be used for charges due to damage to existing street trees and for City personnel to review traffic control plans and maintain traffic control.

31. Prior to the start of construction or the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The template for the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan can be obtained from the Department of Public Works webpage at:
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-and-construction/engineering/ .

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 the impact of the various construction stages on the public right-of-way (and the private street) 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 Control 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 the Construction 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 General Fee Schedule that is in effect at the time these conditions are met.

In addition to the above conditions, the requirements of all applicable Pasadena Municipal 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 4.53
Residential Impact Fee – Chapter 4.17
City 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, or ACMs, in accordance with the US EPA definition of ACM. Those samples containing greater than 0.1% but less than or equal to 1% are considered asbestos containing construction materials, or ACCMs, in accordance with Cal/EPA definition.

Areas of Green Street containing ACMs:

Pasadena Avenue to De Lacey Avenue
Fair Oaks Avenue to Raymond Avenue
Los Robles Avenue to Hudson Avenue
Catalina Avenue to Holliston Avenue
Areas of Green Street containing ACCMs:

Hudson Avenue to Catalina Avenue
Holliston 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 but may 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 of ACMs 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 environmental 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 law.

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 following 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 containing asbestos.
(c) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.

Department of Transportation

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 Certificate of Occupancy and a review fee of $2,000 shall be paid prior to the issuance of 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 Analyzing Greenhouse 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 for the 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 are subject 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 the required width, the difference shall be provided through a private property dedication.

46. Pursuant to the adopted Street Design Guidelines, the applicant shall comply with the following:
• Holliston Avenue is an Access Street and should have a minimum eightfoot (8’) sidewalk, including a minimum five-foot (5’) walk zone and threefoot (3’) amenity zone.

47. Driveway visibility shall comply with the minimum requirement specified in PMC Section 17.40.180 & 17.46.170. Please note that the edge of driveway or back of sidewalk may change due to right-of-way dedication, as specified in the Public Realm – Sidewalks condition. Driveway visibility triangle shall be included in plans and be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

48. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of all required public improvements. For transportation, such changes include, but are not limited to, the removal, relocation, and reconstruction of traffic control devices (i.e., longitudinal markings, pavement markings, curb markings, signage, and channelizing devices). All required public improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Pasadena’s Department of Public Works.

Reference Public Works Conditions of Approval for more information.

49. Driveway approaches shall be located a minimum distance of fifty feet (50’) from the curb of any intersecting street. Driveway approaches design shall comply with the latest City of Pasadena standards. Driveway approach locations must be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). All required public improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Pasadena’s Department of Public Works. Reference Public Works Conditions of Approval for more information.

50. All existing bus zones and transit amenities shall remain in place and protected during and after construction. The existing bus zone will not be relocated without written approval from the Transit Division. Tree wells, streetlights, fire hydrants and other items shall not be placed in the public right of way within bus zone(s) without prior approval. The proposed project shall not interfere with bus operations (this includes, but is not limited to, building overhangs, awnings, landscaping, etc.).

51. Driveway design, width, and clearance shall comply with the minimum requirements specified in PMC Section 17.46.150.
• Given that the outbound driveway for the subterranean parking is located on Green Street, which is a one-way street (eastbound), install a porkchop or other type of physical diverter in the driveway to reinforce the right-out only access for this driveway.
• The driveway design shall be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

52. Ramp design shall comply with the minimum requirements as specified in PMC Section 17.46.270.
• To improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the driveway, the ramp shall have a two percent (2%) or less grade for the first twenty feet (20’) from the back of the sidewalk.
• The driveway apron width shall match the ramp width.
• To improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the driveway, the design plans shall indicate either a 20-foot (20’) flat area beyond the property line to improve vehicular sight distance or include the installation of an exit arm. • The ramp grade shall not exceed sixteen percent (16%), with the first and last ten feet (10’) of the ramp not exceeding eight percent (8%). • Diverter in the driveway to reinforce the right-out access for this driveway. • The ramp design shall be included in the plans and be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

53. If proposed, a vehicle entry gate shall be setback a minimum of twenty feet (20’) from the back of the sidewalk. The gate shall be included in plans and approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

54. Any loading/unloading spaces shall be off-street and on-site. A loading zone will not be installed in the public right of way. Off-Street loading shall comply with the minimum requirements as specified in PMC Section 17.46.260.

55. The parking, loading, and trash/recycling areas shall conform to the requirements of the Pasadena Municipal Code and a plan showing all pertinent dimensions for these areas shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building).

56. Prior to the start of construction or the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Staging & Traffic Management Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. This plan shall show the impact of the various construction stages on the public right-of-way including street occupations, parking space relocation agreements, closures, detours, staging areas, and routes of construction vehicles entering and exiting the construction site. Permitted hours for construction vehicles (delivery, haul) may be limited to the hours between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM.

57. The Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee (Ordinance No. 7076) will apply to all net new residential, retail, industrial, and office developments and is based on the City of Pasadena General Fee Schedule. The fee will be calculated and invoice prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The fee per unit is subject to change based on the time of the project completion. Affordable housing projects may receive fee credits.

This study and conditions have been prepared based on the project scope provided to DOT. An update of the traffic study and its finding might be required if a significant change is made to the project scope, or if additional analysis is requested by the City.

PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2025
TO: DESIGN COMMISSION
FROM: JENNIFER PAIGE, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADDRESS: 1364 E. GREEN STREET
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW (DHP2025-00258) NEW FOUR-STORY, 93,539 SQUARE-FOOT RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH 260 AT-GRADE AND SUBTERRANEAN

PARKING SPACES
___________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Design Commission:

Environmental Determination

1. Find that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation, with the General Plan goals and policies for the site, and with the applicable zoning designation and regulations; and that the project site has no value as habitat for endangered or threatened species, and can be served by utilities and public services;

2. Find that approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality or cultural resources, and, Conclude, therefore, that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under §15332, (Class 32) “in-fill development projects” and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances.

Findings for Compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance Acknowledge that there are no protected trees on the project site.

ATTACHMENT C
Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

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 Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and 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:

Project Overview
• General Plan Designation: Medium Mixed Use (0 – 2.25 FAR; 0-87 du/acre) • Zoning: EC-MU-N (East 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 for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Residential Districts.
• Site: The project site is 41,573 square feet, is located at the southeast corner 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 Colorado Boulevard. There are no trees located on the project site, but a tree inventory submitted with the application identifies four street trees located along the South Holliston Avenue frontage and 11 trees on the adjoining St. Philip the Apostle Church property along the east and south property lines in close proximity to the project site.

These trees include eight African Fern Pine trees (Afrocarpus falcatus), one Mexican Fan Palm tree (Washingtonia robusta), one Crape Myrtle tree (Lagerstroemia indica) and one Queen Palm tree (Syagrus 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, religious and educational buildings ranging from one- to three-stories with varying construction dates and architectural styles. Adjoining the east and south property lines is St. Philip the Apostle Church and School (the closest building to the project site is the St. Philip the Apostle Church rectory building, which is located near the northeast corner of the project site, along 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 (PCC) Child Development Center. The project site is also situated in close proximity to PCC and Caltech which are located directly one-half block east and two blocks south of the site, respectively. The majority of the nearby buildings are designed in contemporary or vernacular architectural styles. Additionally, there are a number of nearby designated historic resources including:

Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

• Hill Avenue Branch Library (1925, Marston, Van Pelt & Maybury) at 55 S. Hill Avenue • Early automobile-oriented milestone sign (1906) in the parkway in front of 1304 E.

Colorado Boulevard
• Early automobile-oriented property (1929, Pacific Steel Building Company) at 1271 E.

Green Street
• Burns R. Eastman Building (1926, Glenn Elwood Smith) at 1275 E. Green Street The closest historic and landmark districts to the site include Rose Villa-Oakdale Landmark District, located approximately two blocks southeast of the site and the Green Street Village landmark district, located about 3.5 blocks west of the project site.

• Project Description: The project involves the construction of a new four-story, 93,539 square-foot research and development building with 260 parking spaces located at-grade and within a three-level subterranean parking garage. Additionally, two (of four) protected street trees (trees no. 3 and 4), which are a California Fan Palm Tree and an Incense Cedar Tree, respectively, are proposed to be removed to facilitate the proposed project. The request to remove both trees was reviewed by the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (UFAC) on September 10, 2025 and was approved by the City Manager on September 22, 2025. The remaining two street trees (trees no. 1 and 2), which are also a California Fan Palm and Incense Cedar, will be retained and protected during construction. • 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 façade is oriented towards East Green Street and will accommodate the main pedestrian entry into the building. Vehicular access will enter and exit the site and parking structure through two dedicated driveways at the southwest and northeast corners of the building, respectively. The site design also incorporates PAOS adjoining the sidewalk along both street frontages. The primary PAOS is located along East Green Street that will be integrated with the design of the main building entrance that features benches/seatings as well as an enhanced hardscape design. The second and smaller PAOS is captured in the building/façade break along Holliston Avenue and will also incorporate seatings and a decorative hardscape design. Although not programmed or intended as a PAOS, another landscaped area is identified just south of the driveway at the southwest corner of the site.

Additionally, a bike parking area is also provided just east of the building entrance along Green Street.
• Architectural Style: Contemporary
• Developer: TC LA Development, Inc.
• Architects: Gensler
• Landscape Architect: Gensler
Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

ANALYSIS:

Design Commission Comments from Preliminary Consultation On May 13, 2025, the Design Commission reviewed an application for Preliminary Consultation for this project. The Commission’s comments from that meeting, with excerpts from the design team’s responses, and staff’s comments, are detailed in the chart below. The design team’s full responses are incorporated into the set of plans in Attachment C.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 1
Explore and consider how the project design is responsive to and reflects the unique character and design of the immediate and existing context and neighborhood, including mass and scale, design treatments, roof form, materiality and color. Consider drawing inspiration from buildings on the Pasadena City College campus, nearby historic buildings and landmark districts, and the approved mixed-use and hotel projects on nearby PD-35 zoned sites located at 1347-1365 E. Colorado Boulevard (hotel project) and 1336-1350 E. Colorado Boulevard (mixeduse project).

Applicant Response
“…Surveying E. Green Street in its entirety reveals an amalgamation of neighborhoods, historic character, and architectural variety. As a single line it traverses the Old Pasadena, Civic Center, Playhouse, and Green Street Village historic districts. The buildings in these districts of similar scale to 1364 E. Green Street are characterized by architecture as varied as their histories: from Spanish Colonial Revival at Castle Green to Mediterranean Revival at the Pasadena Civic Center, from the highly contemporary Kaiser-Permanente School of Medicine to the prominent office developments of 70 & 80 S. Lake. …After analyzing the PCC campus buildings and the recently approved hotel and mixed-use projects on Colorado Boulevard, 1364 E. Green Street implements a simple, yet highly rationalized grid for its façade, echoing the geometric rigor of its neighbors. This grid is softened using filleted pilasters, which lighten the project in both light and shadow. Composed primarily of glazing and metal panels, the building’s envelope offers a high degree of transparency throughout while the metal panels are arranged uniquely at each elevation. Along Green Street, where the building entrance is centered, the metal panels are aligned vertically, a subtle nod to the dominant verticality of the primary facades at both PCC and the approved developments. The proposed green color of the panels, solid vertical geometry, and flat rooflines further connect 1364 E. Green Street to those projects. Finally, the dominant material of the project features a neutral off-while tone, tying the project closer to the naturel plaster and stucco palette found in historic Green Street Village nearby, as well as the site’s neighboring church and school. The combined designed elements softly integrate architectural details that are responsive to and reflect the unique character and design of the immediate and existing context and neighborhood, including mass and scale, design treatments, roof form, materiality and color. More specifically, the design strengthens the connection between PCC and Green Street, while providing a sensitive transition to the adjacent residential neighborhoods and designated historic properties through upper story stepback and setbacks.” Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

The design team has studied the nearby and surrounding context in order to identify relevant architectural precedents across a number of historic districts and has concluded that there is no single predominant architectural style in the area. Instead, due to its location near the last parcel at the east end of Green Street and the site’s proximity to PCC and the newly approved mixed-use and hotel projects on the nearby PD-35 parcels, the proposed design incorporates architectural influences from these projects and the buildings on the PCC campus.

Some of these characteristics include the building’s form, fenestration and patterning, and detailing as well as its material and color palette to achieve a complementary visual relationship within the immediate area. The proposed design approach allows the proposed building to stand out while also fitting in.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 2
Consider a differentiated façade treatment to capture and reflect the resiliency of the building, its solar exposures and its programmatic goals.

Applicant Response
“Further façade studies have been developed with particular consideration given to orientation and solar exposure at each façade, as well the neighborhood context.

North Façade Strategy and Performance – Facing Green Street and marking the building’s main entrance, the north façade features vertically aligned metal panels. With lower solar exposure, the north façade prioritizes Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

contextual identify over shading, using uniform vertical panels to enhance daylight and frame views of the northern mountains.

West Façade Strategy and Performance – Facing Holliston Ave and adjacent to residential neighbors, the west façade has a staggered rhythm that is differentiated from that of the north and south. Due to the high solar exposure on the west façade, the design incorporates wider vertical panels to reduce area of solar exposure and enhance privacy for adjacent neighbors.

South Façade Strategy and Performance – To address higher solar exposure on the south façade, a horizontal shading shelf is incorporated to block direct sunlight. The staggered rhythm from the west elevation continues onto the south façade to maintain a cohesive and neighborhood-friendly façade. A study was conducted to apply the aligned Type A façade pattern to the south, but it was ultimately rejected, as the extra bay on the south side – caused by the absence of a central break – would have disrupted the visual rhythm and created an off-module condition.

East Façade Strategy and Performance – Like the west façade, the east façade is exposed to significant sunlight and is adjacent to a residential neighbor. To address this, wider vertical panels are used to reduce solar gain and enhance privacy.

The staggered rhythm from the south façade continues here to maintain visual continuity. Since both the south and east facades have one additional module compared to the north, applying the aligned Type A façade would disrupt the overall design harmony.

By having a strategy that deliberately addresses resilience, solar exposures, and contextual relationships for each façade, the project is enhanced by an overall 50% reduction in total solar radiation. This was achieved primarily by introducing both vertical and horizontal solid panels, thereby reducing the total area of glazing. This design strategy effectively reduces solar heat gain on all four elevations, with the most notable improvements observed on the south, west, and east facades. The width of solid panels varies on each side to strike a balance between minimizing solar gain and maximizing daylight penetration into the interior, as well as increasing privacy to adjacent neighbors.”
Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

The revised design reflects a subtle, but differentiated treatment of the facades in consideration to the solar orientation and exposure while maintaining visual consistency in the fenestration, proportion, and application of materials and color. As explained by the design team, the north façade facing Green Street reflects a consistent and uniform appearance through the arrangement of the vertical panels to assist the building establish a clear identity within its context along the primary façade while also framing the view of the mountains looking north. The differentiation was more actively pursued to address solar orientation on the south, east and west facades in the way the metal panels are shifted, staggered and/or sized in concert with the glazing to account for the direction of and level of sun exposure as well as privacy consideration. The resulting treatments, while differentiated, maintains a cohesive design throughout and consistent with the building’s architectural concept.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 3
With exception of the design treatment for the entrance, openings for driveway and loading zone and stepped north façade of the fourth floor, the facades appear rigid and repetitious, particularly the east and south elevations, which adjoin existing and lower scale developments. Consider if it would be more beneficial to step the fourth floor along the southern edge, similar to the front East Green Street façade, to create additional relief to the adjoining building by offsetting the mass (and height) away from the property line.

Applicant Response
“Since Preliminary Consultation, the facades at the fourth floor have been stepped back at every elevation to provide relief to the building mass and reduce the scale of the project towards its residential neighbors. Additional human-scale elements have been incorporated, including:
• Vertical and horizontal metal panels along the south façade to provide solar shading and architectural depth across the façade
• Landscaping extended along the east façade at Level 04 The architectural language of the fourth floor has also been simplified throughout, further distinguishing it as the building’s “top” section.

Facing Holliston Avenue and adjacent to residential neighbors, the west façade features a staggered rhythm that distinguishes it from the north and south elevations. The design incorporates wider vertical panels which enhances privacy for nearby residences. The staggered panel pattern-mirrored across the façade break – adds visual interest while reinforcing the unique character of this elevation. In addition, the stepping back at level 4 accentuates the three-story base, with a distinct upper volume framed by surrounding terraces. At the south elevation, the fourth floor façade recess and staggered pattern continues form the west, then turn the corner Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

towards the east. 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 pattern continues, differentiates this façade from that of the north. Since Preliminary Consultation, the project’s façade now carries a common architectural language and expression that allows for variation at each elevation. The stepping back of fourth floor facades at the north and east, together with the landscaped terrace, provides relief to the 2-story residential neighbor to the east. The wider metal panels on the east façade 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 unoccupiable or inaccessible space that will help minimize views onto the adjoining site, particularly along the south and east facades that share the boundary with St. Philip the Apostle Church and School.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 4
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 floor have been stepped back at every elevation to provide relief to the building mass and reduce the scale of the project towards its residential neighbors. Additional human-scale elements have been incorporated, including:
* Vertical and horizontal metal panels along the south façade to provide solar shading and architectural depth across the façade
* Landscaping extended along the east façade at Level 04 The architectural language of the fourth floor has also been simplified throughout, further distinguishing it as the building’s “top” section. Facing Holliston Avenue and adjacent to residential neighbors, the west façade features a staggered rhythm that distinguishes it from the north and south elevations. The design incorporates wider vertical panels which enhances privacy for nearby residences. The staggered panel pattern-mirrored across the façade break – adds visual interest while reinforcing the unique character of this elevation. In addition, the stepping back at level 4 accentuates the three-story base, with a distinct upper volume framed by surrounding terraces. At the south elevation, the fourth floor façade recess and staggered pattern continues form the west, then turn the corner towards the east. 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 pattern continues, differentiates this façade from that of the north. Since Preliminary Consultation, the project’s façade now carries a common architectural language and expression that allows for variation at each elevation. The stepping back of fourth floor facades at the north and east, together with the landscaped terrace, provides relief to the 2-story residential neighbor to the east. The wider metal panels on the east façade further enhances privacy.” Staff Analysis: Comment to be addressed through recommended condition of approval no. 4.

The revised design incorporates a fourth floor that is stepped back from the floors below it. This modification helps the building achieve a clear delineation of the fourth floor and establish a clear “top” section of the building. The expansive glazing and its proportion as well as the resulting fenestration pattern signify a departure from the floors below giving it a lighter appearance and further highlights the 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 roof top 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

Preliminary Consultation Comment 5
Further study the design of the two driveways relating to usability and circulation particularly at the southeast junction where they intersect and how that would impact the design. Also consider if it is more beneficial to consolidate the driveway approach into one and to a single location.

Applicant Response
“Since Preliminary Consultation, multiple studies have been conducted to provide a code compliant vehicular entrance that complements the building design and streetscape experience. The primary vehicular ingress has been relocated from Green Street to Holliston Ave, with traffic consolidated into a single driveway under the building footprint, rather than outside. The revised design pulls vehicular traffic off Holliston and Greet Street by providing longer driveways within the site. This design also dramatically cleans up the project’s Green Street façade, its primary elevation, minimized façade cutouts for vehicular traffic, and enhances the pedestrian experience at street-level. Circulation studies were conducted to determine whether one entry/exit driveway could serve the facility; however, it was determined to be infeasible when the building loading program, the turning radius and structural grids were taken into account. ”
Staff Analysis: Comment to be addressed through recommended condition of approval no. 5.

The applicant has studied various iterations of the parking design with particular emphasis on the circulation on and around the site, including the location and number of driveways, access into/out of the site and with consideration to how each design might impact the design quality of the site, treatment and design of the facades as well as potential impacts to the public realm. While consolidation of the two driveways into one could not be achieved due to the programmatic requirements of the project, the 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 corners 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 rhythm of the ground floor facades and respect the spans of the columns and window frames to achieve a consistent and appropriate alignment. The southwest driveway from Holliston Avenue traverses underneath the building and will serve as an entrance only to access at-grade, subterranean parking and loading spaces. The driveway at the northeast corner is located outside of the building footprint and will serve as an exit onto Green Street. If security gates are proposed in the driveway portals, their location and design shall be shown on the plans submitted for Final Design Review as well as the corresponding manufacturer’s specifications for the gates as recommended by condition no. 5 to ensure the material and design are complementary to the building design.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 6
Carefully consider and minimize the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to the degree possible to avoid the appearance of a fifth floor or unnecessary height. The screening material should be carefully considered to serve as an effective screen while also being high quality, and complementary to the building’s design and material palette.

Applicant Response
“The overall height of the mechanical screen has been reduced by 2’-0”. In addition, the design of the screen has been simplified and brought closer to the updated material palette of the project. The screen also introduces a perforated portion towards its tops, which functionally screens the equipment behind while also visually reducing its perceived height.”
Staff Analysis: Comment to be addressed through recommended condition of approval no. 4.

Although the height of the rooftop mechanical screen has been reduced by two feet, it’s overall height at 17 feet high continues to appear too high, especially when compared to the floors below it which are 15 feet high. The proposed perforated material in the top section helps minimize the visual impact due to its lighter and more porous appearance, but the overall height of the screen should continue to be studied and if possible, reduced to the degree possible so that it is lower than the height of the 4th floor to avoid overwhelming the building design while also reducing the building height as recommended by condition no. 4.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 7
Ensure that the communal spaces for the project are programmed and include amenities that will allow for their active use and appeal to different users. Similarly, the publicly accessible open spaces at the ground floor should also be adequately programmed and/or provided with seating or benches.

Applicant Response
“Ground level: The project has been deliberately held back to its maximum setbacks along Green Street and Holliston Ave, offering as much green space to the street level as possible, complementing the ECSP’s desire to implement wider sidewalks with a robust tree canopy and seating to create shaded, walkable connections between Colorado Boulevard and Green Street. Elements of the landscape design have been developed to incorporate Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

programmed spaces, such as benches and a canopy at the Entry Plaza and Holliston communal space, and meandering paths lined with purposeful hardscape and planting. The street level setbacks support the desired amenity/walk/setback zone within the ECSP, allowing for a consistent pedestrian walkway path from the east side of the property on Green Street, to the south side of the property on Holliston. Additional landscaping is provided along the frontage of the building.

Terrace level: Elements of the landscape design have been developed to incorporate programmed spaces and to create attractive and inviting views and spaces for tenants and the public. • Planters along the floor perimeter visible to the street • Planting and 4 trees on north side of outdoor deck
• Seatings and tables under shade structure
• Secluded seating terrace on West”
Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

Publicly accessible open spaces (PAOS) are provided on the ground floor at the building entrance facing Green Street and along Holliston Avenue. These areas will be enhanced with integrated seatings/benches, decorative hardscape/paving and shade trees. Additionally, common outdoor space for the building occupants is a 3,757 square-foot roof terrace located on the 4th floor. This outdoor space is situated along the north façade overlooking East Green Street and northward towards mountains. The design of this space is a mix of softscape and hardscape including shade trees and a variety of shrubs in raised planters along the exterior edge and interspersed between seating areas with tables and chairs in different configurations. The entire space is framed by two pergola structures positioned on the eastern and western side of the building flanking the entry below. The plans provided on Sheets COOR-L1.001 and COOR-L1.004 are conceptual at this stage of review and will be further developed for the Final Design Review submittal.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 8
The proposed project should carefully consider its site landscaping both at the ground and roof terrace, public and common outdoor spaces, and hardscape design as an opportunity to enhance the site and building design, while also highlighting important building features as well as create an attractive, inviting and usable outdoor spaces for employees, visitors and the public. The landscape on the ground floor should facilitate safe and attractive paths of travel while creating a seamless transition between the public and private realm at the sidewalk edge.

Applicant Response
Ground level: The project has been deliberately held back to its maximum setbacks along Green Street and Holliston Ave, offering as much green space to the street level as possible, complementing the ECSP’s desire to implement wider sidewalks with a robust tree canopy and seating to create shaded, walkable connections between Colorado Boulevard and Green Street. Elements of the landscape design have been developed to incorporate programmed spaces, such as benches and a canopy at the Entry Plaza and Holliston communal space, and meandering paths lined with purposeful hardscape and planting. The street level setbacks support the desired amenity/walk/setback zone within the ECSP, allowing for a consistent pedestrian walkway path from the east side of the property on Green Street, to the south side of the property on Holliston. Additional landscaping is provided along the frontage of the building.

Terrace level: Elements of the landscape design have been developed to incorporate programmed spaces and to create attractive and inviting views and spaces for tenants and the public. • Planters along the floor perimeter visible to the street • Planting and 4 trees on north side of outdoor deck
• Seatings and tables under shade structure
• Secluded seating terrace on West”
Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

As demonstrated on the conceptual landscape plans for the ground floor and roof terrace and discussed under Preliminary Consultation Comment 7, both publicly and privately accessible common open spaces will be attractively landscaped with a variety of landscape and hardscape features that include seating options and shade trees or shade structures. The proposed design enhances the usability and quality of the outdoor spaces while also complementing the building design and functionality of its interior spaces. At the ground floor, the setback along both street frontages, with the exception of pedestrian path of travel and driveways, will be landscaped and will soften and enhance the street edge and the pedestrian experience. Similar to the roof terrace, the publicly accessible open spaces on the ground floor are strategically situated along the building frontages and at the entrance that are complemented by benches, trees and enhanced hardscape design to create areas of respite for visitors and passerby.

Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

Preliminary Consultation Comment 9
Early consideration of the building materials should be studied by the design team to ensure the design incorporates a variety of high quality and durable materials along with an attractive color palette. Materials and colors should be carefully employed and in areas of the façades that will strengthen the architectural concept and achieve a cohesive design throughout the building while also 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. Additionally, exterior finishes should not be reflective and changes in materials and colors should not create in-plane transitions, but terminate or wrap at/along the inside corner or similar natural stopping points.

Applicant Response
“The material palette draws inspiration from notable building in the neighborhood, such as PCC, Caltech, and the upcoming developments on Colorado Blvd. The primary architectural element – the pilaster – is articulated with a high-quality stucco finish, echoing the character of these surrounding landmarks. Two shades of green metal panels define the secondary façade elements, introducing subtle contrast and depth. A green spandrel panel further enriches the composition, offering a nuanced interpretation of the color palette. Biophilic elements, such as planters and terrace landscaping, not only support programmatic goals but also enhance the building’s visual appeal for passersby. Finally, bronze-toned perforated and solid screens introduce warmth and an earthy quality to the overall expression. The façade design emphasizes clarity and cohesion but with a slight play on rhythm. The developed minimized the appearance of unresolved mass and avoided in-plane material transitions. A darker green panel is intentionally used at the ground level to distinguish the base and, together with perimeter landscaping and trees, fosters a grounded, vibrant, and welcoming atmosphere.” Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

The contemporary building will be supported and enhanced by a simple and high-quality material/color palette consistent with the finishes found within the surrounding context, including the buildings on the PCC and Caltech campuses as well as the newly approved mixed-use and hotel projects at the corner of Colorado Blvd and Hill Street/Holliston Avenue on the PD-35 site. The treatment of the facades includes extensive glazing, metal panels as accents and shade, spandrel glass panels, and perforated and solid equipment screens that are complementary to each other and provide visual richness and depth to the building.

Preliminary Consultation Comment 10
Study the design of the parking structure to ensure it does not impact the existing street trees along South Holliston Avenue. Work with staff in the Department of Public Works to determine appropriate methods to ensure public tree protection. Any public tree removals that may be proposed shall require review by the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee and approval by the City Manager.

Applicant Response
“In response to comments received from the City, numerous studies have been carried out to consolidate vehicular circulation and minimize disruptions along Green Street. The proposed entrance for parking and loading has been relocated from Green Street to Holliston Avenue. To achieve this, the project proposes the removal of 2 existing trees along Holliston Ave: 1 California Fan Palm and 1 Incense Cedar. Additionally, the project proposes a total of 18 new trees to meet both off-site and on-site tree requirements as follows:

Off-Site:
* Required per ESCP: Tree is to be provided every 30 feet * Proposed: 8 new trees total
Holliston Ave: Keep 2 existing, add 4 new. All 6 trees @30’ o.c.

Green St: 4 new trees @ 40’ o.c.”
Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

Due to the redesign of the vehicular access, two public trees (California Fan Palm and Incense Cedar) located along the Holliston Avenue frontage were recommended for removal by the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (UFAC) on September 10, 2025 and approved by the City Manager on September 22, 2025. As conditions of approval, the applicant is required to pay for the tree replacement fee and tree removal cost of both trees.

Additionally, the proposed project also includes the planting of 18 new trees on- and off-site.

Programming and Circulation
The proposed project is a four-story research and development building that will be programmed with office and laboratory spaces and situated above a three-level subterranean parking garage with 260 spaces. The ground floor features laboratory and office spaces within Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

the front portions of the building, flanking an entrance lobby that leads and is connected to the building’s vertical circulation consisting of three elevators and two stairwells within the building’s central core and which serve all occupiable floors and the subterranean parking levels. The rear section of the ground floor is dedicated to back-of-house features, such as a generator, refuse collection, and bike storage/parking rooms. A significant portion of the rear section of the ground floor will provide 14 at-grade parking spaces as well as two loading spaces. The second through fourth floors provide the majority of the office/lab space within the building. The fourth floor is pulled back 42’-5” from the front façade to accommodate a roof terrace overlooking East Green Street with outdoor seatings, landscape features, and related amenities, with additional 4’-6” setbacks from the facade on the east and south sides and 9’-11” on the west side.

As designed, pedestrian access is provided from East Green Street, which helps activate the site’s primary frontage. Vehicular access is achieved through a one-way ingress-only driveway located at the southwest corner of the site from South Holliston Avenue. This driveway serves all at-grade parking spaces before approaching the ramp to the subterranean levels. Vehicles exit the onsite parking via a second one-way egress-only driveway along the eastern edge of the site that leads to East Green Street. Additionally, fire access is provided along the southern and eastern property lines by a continuous pathway. The proposed circulation plan is provided on Sheet PAS-A1.103. The locations of the pedestrian entry and vehicular entrance/exits take advantage of the site characteristics and conditions to ensure safe paths of travel for both pedestrians and vehicles. Overall, the programming and proposed circulation are consistent with the building and site design and with the applicable design guidelines while also being responsive to the Design Commission’s Preliminary Consultation comments.

Orientation
The proposed project takes advantage of its corner site with a building design that addresses its primary frontage along East Green Street and its secondary frontage along South Holliston Avenue. Both street-facing north and west façades express a strong orientation toward both streets through their consistent design treatments, expansive glazing throughout, and location of pedestrian and vehicular access and exit. The main building entrance is positioned along the north façade facing East Green Street with an articulated and defined entry accented by a canopy that support a pedestrian scale. All facades feature expansive glazing that allow views and light into and out of the interior spaces and are consistently treated with variation to the placement and size of proposed metal panels to achieve a level of differentiation with consideration to solar orientation and exposure. The fourth-floor roof terrace is also oriented towards and overlooks the street below while also taking advantage of northern views of the mountains beyond. Driveway entrance and exit located at the southwest and northeast corners of the site are placed away from the pedestrian entrance to minimize disruption to the public realm and ensure safe paths of travel in and around the project site. As designed, staff finds that the project achieves an appropriate orientation to and engagement with the public realm that is consistent with its context and applicable 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. The proposed project incorporates a variety of design treatments to achieve an appropriate and compatible mass and Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

scale within its context through a stepped-back fourth floor, a façade break on each street facade, materiality, and fenestration. For example, both street-facing façades along East Green Street and South Holliston Avenue introduce recesses to articulate and signify the building entrance and accommodate the publicly accessible open space. Similarly, the fourth floor is stepped back on all sides and is significantly pulled back along the north façade to create a roof terrace. These design treatments help minimize the perceived mass and scale of the building and reduce its height to respond to the immediate context while also introducing a threedimensionality quality to the building form and volume. The design of the facades presents a simple arrangement of similarly sized windows enhanced with metal panels and spandrels to create a layered appearance, while the columns, horizontal banding, window frames and wide overhangs at the roof level add depth to the facades. Moreover, the differentiated design of the 4 th floor from the floors below it features continuous glazing on all sides and assists in minimizing the height of the building due to its light and transparent appearance. Overall, and for the reasons discussed above, the massing and modulation depicted in the elevation drawings are appropriate and responsive to the design guidelines.

Architectural Style and Detailing
The proposed building is designed in a contemporary 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 are subtly differentiated through the shifting/staggering of the metal panels and their size to address solar orientation. The “framing” element in stucco around each window/panel composition is a common feature that helps maintains a consistent pattern throughout the building. The 4th floor is set back from the floors below and is exclusively clad in glazing to achieve a differentiated, but complementary expression that is consistent with the contemporary style. The composition of the building expresses a base by way of a taller plate height and entry canopy, a middle section of the repeated 2nd and 3rd floors and finally a top section with the differentiated and stepped 4th floor. Finally, the design is supported by high quality, modern finishes in neutral colors such as concrete with a skim coat layer for the horizontal banding between the second and third floors and the fourth floor, metal panels, laminated spandrel and vision glass, and EIFS with stucco finish for the vertical framing element on the first to third floors. The geometric volume and modulated form of the building is consistent with the style and is further supported by the evenly distributed and stacked fenestration that is achieved through the arrangement of windows, metal panels and spandrel glass that results in a balanced solid to void relationship.

Overall, staff finds that the architectural concept of the proposed design is consistent with the design guidelines and will defer to Final Design Review for additional specifications and details of the proposed materials and details for the implementation of the 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 a compatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood. The project design team also found inspiration in the recently approved mixed-use and hotel projects located at the corner of Colorado Boulevard and Hill and Holliston Avenues on PD-35 sites. As Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

such, the proposed building fits well with its immediate surroundings, in terms of its height, massing, setbacks, materiality and architectural design. The revised design submitted for this review reflects an improved and compatible relationship to the immediate context while the massing and modulation of the building have been further refined since Preliminary Consultation to achieve consistency with the design guidelines and visually reduce the appearance of mass in response to lower-scaled buildings in the vicinity.

Conceptual Landscape Design
The proposed project will provide landscaping at the ground floor within the front setback and the PAOS located along Green Street and Holliston Avenue. These areas connect to the public right-of-way and the proposed landscape will enhance the street edge while also complementing and softening the building design. The PAOS will be further enhanced with seatings/benches and hardscape design. Additionally, a roof terrace is also proposed on the 4th floor as outdoor common space for the building occupants. Due to its expansive area, this outdoor space features different seating configurations within a variety of spaces and two pergola structures. The landscape design features plantings along the perimeter of the terrace and between the seating areas. The plant palette has been identified for both ground floor and roof terrace landscaping and includes a variety of shade trees and various shrubs. However, a detailed landscape plan that specifies the location and arrangement of the plants and their quantity has not been provided at this stage of review, but will be required as the project proceeds to Final Design Review. Based on the initial conceptual design, the proposed landscaping in both areas will further enhance the site and complement the development overall.

COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS:

Staff routed the project for comment to several City departments, as well as other divisions of the Planning & Community Development Department, including the Public Works, Transportation, Fire and Housing Departments and the Building, Current Planning and Cultural Affairs Divisions of the Planning & Community Development Department. In particular, the Department of Transportation conducted a Local Mobility Analysis, which is included in Attachment D and recommended conditions of approval resulting from that analysis, and from all reviewing City Departments, are included in Attachment A.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Staff recommends that the Commission determine the project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), §15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects. Based on the technical studies prepared by EcoTierra Consulting and Fehr & Peers (Attachments D and E), 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. The project is consistent with the General Plan, the 2022 ECSP and the site’s Zoning designation and applicable development standards. The project site is 41,573 square feet (less than five acres) and surrounded by other commercial and residential uses. The project site has been previously developed and graded and is currently improved with a 115- space surface parking lot. The project site is located in an urban area where utilities and public services can be adequately provided. Furthermore, there are no unusual circumstances that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class.

Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
December 9, 2025

CONCLUSION:

Subject to the recommended conditions of approval, the revised project design has satisfactorily addressed the comments provided during Preliminary Consultation and is consistent with the design-related goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the ECSP, and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily Districts. Staff recommends approval of the application for Concept Design Review for the project with the conditions of approval described above and included in Attachment A, which will be reviewed during Final Design Review.

Attachments:

A. Recommended Conditions of Approval
B. Current Plans & Elevations
C. Responses to Preliminary Consultation Comments
D. Local Mobility Analysis
E. Environmental Documentation
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Jennifer Paige, AICP
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Prepared by:
____________________________
Rathar Duong
Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
______________________________
Kevin Johnson
Principal Planner

PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026
TO: DESIGN COMMISSION
FROM: JENNIFER PAIGE, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADDRESS: 1364 EAST GREEN STREET
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW (DHP2025-00258) NEW FOUR-STORY, 93,539 SQUARE-FOOT RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH 260 AT-GRADE AND SUBTERRANEAN

PARKING SPACES
____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Design Commission:

Environmental Determination

1. Find that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation, with the General Plan goals and policies for the site, and with the applicable zoning designation and regulations; and that the project site has no value as habitat for endangered or threatened species, and can be served by utilities and public services.

2. Find that approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality or cultural resources.

Conclude, therefore, that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under §15332, (Class 32) “in-fill development projects” and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances.

Findings for Compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance Acknowledge that there are no protected trees on the project site.

ATTACHMENT D
Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

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 Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and 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 that hearing is in Attachment D for reference. The Commission provided comments on the design and continued the public hearing to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the design to address the comments provided. In responding to the Commission’s design comments, the overall scope of the project has not changed, but refinements to various design components were addressed and are discussed in the Analysis section.

Project Overview
• General Plan Designation: Medium Mixed Use (0 – 2.25 FAR; 0-87 du/acre) • Zoning: EC-MU-N (East 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 for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Residential Districts.
• Site: The project site is 41,573 square feet, is located at the southeast corner 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 Colorado Boulevard. There are no trees located on the project site, but a tree inventory submitted with the application identifies four street trees located along the South Holliston Avenue frontage and 11 trees on the adjoining St. Philip the Apostle Church property along the east and south property lines in close proximity to the project site.

These trees include eight African Fern Pine trees (Afrocarpus falcatus), one Mexican Fan Palm tree (Washingtonia robusta), one Crape Myrtle tree (Lagerstroemia indica) and one Queen Palm tree (Syagrus 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, religious and educational buildings ranging from one- to three-stories with varying construction dates and architectural styles. Adjoining the east and south property lines is St. Philip the Apostle Church and School (the closest building to the project site is the St. Philip the Apostle Church rectory building, which is located near the northeast corner of the project site, along Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

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 (PCC) Child Development Center. The project site is also situated in close proximity to PCC and Caltech which are located directly one-half block east and two blocks south of the site, respectively. The majority of the nearby buildings are designed in contemporary or vernacular architectural styles. Additionally, there are a number of nearby designated historic resources including:
• Hill Avenue Branch Library (1925, Marston, Van Pelt & Maybury) at 55 S. Hill Avenue • Early automobile-oriented milestone sign (1906) in the parkway in front of 1304 E.

Colorado Boulevard
• Early automobile-oriented property (1929, Pacific Steel Building Company) at 1271 E.

Green Street
• Burns R. Eastman Building (1926, Glenn Elwood Smith) at 1275 E. Green Street The closest historic and landmark districts to the site include Rose Villa-Oakdale Landmark District, located approximately two blocks southeast of the site and the Green Street Village landmark district, located about 3.5 blocks west of the project site.

• Project Description: The project involves the construction of a new four-story, 93,539 square-foot research and development building with 260 parking spaces located at-grade and within a three-level subterranean parking garage. Additionally, two (of four) protected street trees (trees no. 3 and 4), which are a California Fan Palm Tree and an Incense Cedar Tree, respectively, are proposed to be removed to facilitate the proposed project. The request to remove both trees was reviewed by the Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (UFAC) on September 10, 2025 and was approved by the City Manager on September 22, 2025. The remaining two street trees (trees no. 1 and 2), which are also a California Fan Palm and Incense Cedar, will be retained and protected during construction. • 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 façade is oriented towards East Green Street and will accommodate the main pedestrian entry into the building. Vehicular access will enter and exit the site and parking structure through two dedicated driveways at the southwest and northeast corners of the building, respectively. The site design also incorporates PAOS adjoining the sidewalk along both street frontages. The primary PAOS is located along East Green Street that will be integrated with the design of the main building entrance that features benches/seatings as well as an enhanced hardscape design. The second and smaller PAOS is captured in the building/façade break along Holliston Avenue and will also incorporate seating and a decorative hardscape design. Although not programmed or intended as a PAOS, another landscaped area is identified just south of the driveway at the southwest corner of the site.

Additionally, a bike parking area is also provided just east of the building entrance along Green Street.
• Architectural Style: Contemporary
Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

• Developer: TC LA Development, Inc.
• Architects: Gensler
• Landscape Architect: Gensler
ANALYSIS:

Recommended Conditions of Approval
At the December 9, 2025 Design Commission Hearing, Staff recommended approval of the proposed project subject to eight design-related conditions of approval. The revised proposal has addressed one of the previously recommended conditions of approval. Below is a disposition of each of the previously proposed conditions:

1. The project shall comply with all Zoning Code requirements except as modified during the design review process.

Still applicable as condition no. 1 in Attachment A. While the project has been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with Zoning Code requirements, this condition will ensure this remains the case as the project continues through the design review process.

2. Roof drainage shall be routed within the building walls rather than in exposed downspouts.

Still applicable as condition no. 2 in Attachment A. The more detailed Final Design Review submittal will require details of the building’s drainage features.

3. Show vents/vent caps and their arrangement on the elevations, which shall be routed to the roof or, if infeasible, located on secondary elevations to the degree possible and arranged in a logical pattern. If vents are required to penetrate the building walls, provide specifications and details of the vent caps for staff review and approval.

Still applicable as condition no. 3 in Attachment A. The more detailed Final Design Review 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, as detailed in the response to comment no. 1 below, have resulted in an additional one-foot height reduction in the mechanical screening.

5. If proposed, show the location of driveway security gates on the site and landscape plans and include drawings depicting their design.

Still Applicable as condition no. 4 in Attachment A. The more detailed Final Design Review Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

submittal will require details of any proposed gates and fencing.

6. A final landscape and irrigation plan, in compliance with Chapter 17.44 (Landscaping) of the Zoning Code, identifying all remaining and proposed vegetation and trees shall be submitted along with plans for Final Design Review. The plan shall include a mix of plant size and materials. Plant materials shall emphasize drought-tolerant and/or native species.

Still applicable as condition no. 5 in Attachment A. The more detailed Final Design Review submittal will require more detailed landscape and irrigation plans.

7. The project shall comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and any changes to the proposed landscape design that may be required shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit.

Still applicable as condition no. 6 in Attachment A. Review for compliance with MWELO requirements will be required during building plan check.

8. The project shall demonstrate compliance with Climate Action Plan (CAP) requirements.

Still applicable as condition no. 7 in Attachment A. Review for compliance with the CAP will be required during building plan check.

The updated list of recommended conditions of approval, based on the revised proposal, is provided in Attachment A.

Design Commission Comments from December 9, 2025 Concept Design Review Hearing The Design Commission’s comments from the December 9, 2025 Concept Design Review, along with responses from the design team and staff, are detailed in the chart below. The applicant’s full written and graphic responses are in Attachment B and the full revised plans and elevations are 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 and height/size of the roof top 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 1’-0”, from 18’-0” tall at Preliminary Consultation to 15’-0” currently, for a total reduction of 3’-0”. In addition, the roof edge has been tapered at every elevation to reduce the project’s visual weight towards its neighbors. The project’s design provides natural shading at the 4th floor to avoid unnecessary light glare into the neighboring school and playground parking. The outdoor spaces at the south and east elevations are accessible for maintenance only. The windows are non-operable and the shading elements reduce the amount of fullheight glass, in direct response to the neighbor’s request to incorporate a heightened 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 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. Furthermore, the required minimum interior setbacks at the east and south are 15’-0” from the property line. The project’s south facade is currently set back 16’-0”, while its east facade is set back nearly 23’-0,” when measured from the primary facade plane.

Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

The applicant has considered the Commission’s comment and has made slight modifications to the building to reduce its scale to the extent possible, without compromising allowable square footage and ensuring compliance with Zoning Code requirements for stepping back the fourth floor 50 feet from Green Street. In addition, the photo-simulations provided demonstrate that the existing landscaped buffer that will be retained on the shared south property line will adequately screen the majority of the south façade of the building from the adjacent church/school parking 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 buildings on the PCC campus, from which the project draws influence.

Applicant Response
Pasadena City College (PCC) is comprised of buildings with distinct architectural identities. 1364 E Green St draws 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 layered massing, broad canopies, and a finer articulation of components. The minimal material palette, however, is maintained. At Preliminary Consultation, the team was directed to reference the proposed mixed-use development at 1336 E Colorado Blvd. At a much larger scale, this project incorporates rhythm and repetition but introduces several balconies and terraces to break down its mass. It also adds a dark green 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 architectural qualities and translating them to the project’s unique site at the 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. The project strongly references PCC in its material palette, featuring an emphasis on light stucco accented by green and dark green metal panels
Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

The applicant has provided diagrams and analysis to demonstrate the building’s response to its context, specifically for the buildings at PCC and the Colorado/Hill PD approved designs. Staff finds that the rational grid design of the proposed building and the application of materials respond well to these reference contextual buildings of similar scale to the proposed project.

Commission Continuation Comment: 3
Reconsider and modify the design treatment of the north elevation and south and west elevations that achieves a better and more appropriate response to the amount of sunlight/solar orientation along these facades.

Applicant Response
The facade design for 1364 E Green St utilizes a rational grid where openings feature a modular design that responds specifically to the daylight/solar conditions at each elevation. The north elevation, which typically receives less direct sunlight throughout the day, is composed of Module A, which is 65% opaque and 35% clear. The west elevation, which typically receives significant direct sunlight in the afternoon, is composed of both Module A, which is 65% opaque and 35% clear, and Module B, which is 75% opaque and 25% clear. This leads to an overall reduction of direct sunlight and solar heat gain. The south elevation, which typically receives the most direct sunlight throughout the day, is composed of Module C, which is 65% opaque and 35% clear, and also includes a shade device to further reduce heat gain. The east elevation, which typically receives more direct sunlight in the morning, is designed similar to the west elevation, composed of both Modules A and B. This not only manages daylight and heat gain but also serves to offer a measure of privacy to the neighbors to the east, while maintaining the design symmetry holistic to the project. By designing the facade modules to respond specifically to the unique daylight and solar conditions at each elevation, the project is able Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

to achieve a 50% overall reduction of direct solar radiation when compared to the design at Preliminary Consultation.

Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed.

The applicant team has provided additional explanation and diagrams to demonstrate how each façade responds to its solar exposure through its materiality and inclusion of shading canopies. Staff finds that the project has demonstrated an appropriate response to the solar orientation of the building.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Staff recommends that the Commission determine the project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), §15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects. Based on the technical studies prepared by EcoTierra 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. The project is consistent with the General Plan, the 2022 ECSP and the site’s Zoning designation and applicable development standards. The project site is 41,573 square feet (less than five acres) and surrounded by other commercial and residential uses. The project site has been previously developed and graded and is currently improved with a 115-space surface parking lot. The project site is located in an urban area where utilities and public services can be adequately provided. Furthermore, there are no unusual circumstances that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class.

Responses to Previous Public Comments:

Public comment was submitted related to the project’s environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

As the project is exempt from CEQA, formal responses to comments are not required. However, the Design Commission requested that staff provide responses to the main points raised by the commenters. These comments and responses are provided below.

Comments regarding CEQA transportation impacts related to traffic safety Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about the project driveways potentially conflicting with school pick-up/drop offs or with pedestrians or cross-country runners.

Response: The transportation safety metric under CEQA is whether the Project would substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (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 vehicles using the driveways for access.

There are no transportation safety impacts under CEQA as there are no increased hazards due to a geometric design feature (the roadways are straight and the intersections are standard) or incompatible use (the project driveways will be used by standard vehicles, including delivery vehicles). The driveways are designed according to the City’s standards, which would reduce potential conflicts between vehicles using the Project driveway and 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

Project, most of the morning trips would be inbound trips 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-way street eastbound). The inbound driveway on Holliston Avenue may be temporarily blocked by the southbound queuing of vehicles on Holliston Avenue for school drop-off (which would affect the Project more than it affects the school) and there would likely be minimal interaction between the Project driveways and the school pick-up in the afternoon since the school pick-up hour occurs between the AM and PM peak periods for the Project.

Comments regarding CEQA transportation impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the CEQA transportation analysis did not accurately represent the transportation impact.

Response: Under CEQA, transportation impacts are measured using vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) per capita, which takes into account the number of daily vehicle trips generated by the project and the distance of those trips. This analysis is done using the City’s travel demand model and the inputs for the project are land use (the model does not have an R&D land use, so the analysis used the office land use instead, which is the closest to R&D), size (square foot) and location. The threshold for a VMT impact is 29.6 VMT per capita as is stated in the City’s transportation study guidelines.

The study found that the Project would not result in a VMT impact. The Project VMT was estimated to be 28.0 VMT per capita, which is below the City’s threshold of 29.6 VMT per capita.

Comments regarding non-CEQA traffic/congestion concerns Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the Project would result in congestion on the nearby streets and intersections.

Response: While intersection operations are not a CEQA performance metric, the City requires most projects to conduct a Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) to understand the transportation impact of the project on the nearby streets and intersections. An LMA was conducted for the Project that estimated the peak hour and daily trip generations of the Project based on the R&D land use and did not apply any transit reduction credit. The LMA studied seven intersections to forecast the delay and level-of-service (LOS) as well as the queueing with the addition of the Project traffic. The thresholds for the intersection analysis are in the City’s transportation study guidelines.

The LMA found that there would be no local impacts identified at the seven study intersections, meaning that the addition of the Project traffic would not result in the seven intersections operating at a level below the City’s acceptable threshold. These results can be found in Table 8 on page 23 of the LMA, and supported by Appendix A (traffic counts) and Appendix B (LOS calculation sheets).

Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

Comments regarding hazardous materials
Comment: Commenters noted that Project site is listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a RCRA Small Quantity Generator of hazardous material and that Pasadena City College’s (PCC) Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) indicates that the site required remediation.

Response: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is a federal law under which the U.S. EPA tracks the use and storage of certain types and quantities of hazardous materials.

In the U.S. EPA’s RCRA database, “Pasadena City College Shops” was listed as a “Small Quantity Generator” with a date of 11/12/1996. There is no other information provided on EPA website about this listing, including no report of any spills or contamination and no record of any corrective action needed. See:
https://rcrapublic.epa.gov/rcra-hwip/search/results/site/CAR000016402.

PCC prepared an EIR for their Master Plan 2010. On p. 3-50 of the EIR is Table 3-16: Database Results within One-Quarter Mile of the Pasadena City College Campus.

See: https://pasadena.edu/measure-p/docs/environmental-impact/SettingsImpac-B85B5.pdf.

The first two rows in this table identify the 1364 E. Green Site as a “GEN” and state, “This site has been remediated and is now used as a parking lot.” The EIR provides no further information and there is no mention of any contamination. It is unclear what remediation this table is referring to but, in describing the site as “remediated,” the EIR indicates that there was no remaining contamination of concern related to that listing.

The historical listing of the site as a RCRA Small Quantity Generator and the identification of the site in the PCC Master Plan 2010 EIR do not preclude the use of the Class 32 categorical exemption for this Project. A RCRA listing does not mean that there is a concern, but rather only indicates that PCC had registered the site with the EPA as a facility that was generating a small quantity of a regulated substance. The fact that the EPA listing for the site does not identify any other records for the site indicates that there were no documented spills, incidents, releases, or contamination as a result of the use. Moreover, the site is not listed on either the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Envirostor website or the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) Geotracker website, which are California’s comprehensive hazardous material databases that include all hazardous waste sites listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Comments regarding air quality
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that sensitive receptors, including children attending the St. Philip the Apostle School, could be exposed to dust and air pollution from the project, during both construction and operation of the Project.

Response: An Air Quality Analysis was prepared for the Project in December of 2025 by the consulting firm EcoTierra under contract to the City of Pasadena. The methodology for this study followed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Air Quality Analysis Handbook (see: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-qualityanalysis-handbook) and applied the SCAQMD’s thresholds for regional significance, localized significance, and toxic air contaminants. The Project’s Air Quality Analysis evaluated emissions from both Project construction and Project operation and considered all nearby sensitive Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

receptors, including but not limited to the rectory of the St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site; the Pasadena City College Child Development Center Day Care, located approximately 60 feet west of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center), located approximately 64 feet east of the site; various nearby apartment buildings; and the St. Philip the Apostle School located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site.

The analysis of Project construction evaluated all phases of construction, including demolition of the existing asphalt parking lot (including exporting an anticipated 950 tons of material), grading/excavation of the approximately 1-acre site (including excavation for three underground levels with export of an estimated 60,000 cubic yards of earth), construction of a 93,539-squarefoot, four-story R & D building on top of three levels of underground parking (with 260 parking spaces), and application of architectural coatings. Construction emissions were found to be below all SCAQMD thresholds, including those established for the protection of nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., localized significance thresholds).

The air quality analysis of Project operation evaluated all potential long-term sources of air pollution, including mobile sources (e.g., vehicles), area sources (e.g., emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment, and reapplication of architectural coatings), and energy usage (e.g., emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used onsite).

The Project’s operational emissions were found to be below all SCAQMD thresholds.

Comments regarding noise and vibration
Comment: Commenters expressed concern that sensitive receptors, including children attending the St. Philip the Apostle School, could be exposed to noise and vibration from the Project.

Response: A Noise Analysis was prepared for the Project in December of 2025 by the consulting firm EcoTierra under contract to the City of Pasadena. The methodology for this study considered regulations and guidance from various local, state, and federal agencies, including the City of Pasadena (Noise Restrictions Ordinance and General Plan Noise Element) and the Federal Transit Administration (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual). The project’s Noise Analysis evaluated noise generated from both Project construction and Project operation as well as vibration generated by construction (no measurable vibration is anticipated from Project operation). The analysis considered all nearby sensitive receptors, including but not limited to the rectory of the St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the Project site; the St. Philip the Apostle Church located approximately 43 feet southeast of the site; the Pasadena City College Child Development Center Day Care, located approximately 60 feet west of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center), located approximately 64 feet east of the site; various nearby apartment buildings; and the St. Philip the Apostle School located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site.

The analysis of project construction evaluated all phases of construction, including demolition of the existing asphalt parking lot (including exporting an anticipated 950 tons of material), grading/excavation of the approximately one-acre site (including excavation for three underground levels with export of an estimated 60,000 cubic yards of earth), construction of a 93,539-square-foot, four-story R & D building on top of three levels of underground parking (with Design Commission
Concept Design Review – 1364 E. Green Street
January 27, 2026

260 parking spaces), and application of architectural coatings. Construction noise levels were found to be within the levels allowed by the City’s Noise Restrictions Ordinance and construction-induced vibrations were found to be below all relevant criteria published by the Federal Transit Administration. Vibration levels are not expected to be perceptible at the St.

Philip the Apostle School.

The noise analysis of Project operation evaluated all potential long-term sources of noise, including parking noise, stationary noise sources (e.g., mechanical equipment), and traffic noise. The Project’s operational noise levels were found to be within the levels allowed by the City’s Noise Restrictions Ordinance and/or below a perceptible change in existing ambient noise levels.

CONCLUSION:

The revised project design has satisfactorily addressed the comments provided during the previous Concept Design Review hearing and, upon implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, will be consistent with the design guidelines in the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial & Multi-Family Residential Districts. Staff recommends approval of the application for Concept Design Review for the project with conditions included in Attachment A.

Attachments:

A. Recommended conditions of approval
B. Applicant’s graphic and narrative responses to previous Design Commission Comments C. Revised Concept Design Review plans and elevations
D. Staff report from December 9, 2025 Design Commission meeting (without attachments) E. Local Mobility Analysis
F. Environmental Documentation
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
Jennifer Paige, AICP
Director of Planning and
Community Development
Prepared by:
___________________________
Kevin Johnson
Principal Planner

R GEIVED

APPEAL APPLICATION
Date: 2/9/2026
Appellant: ,Building.a Batt�� Pasadena, LLC
\,. ' - 4, \I'.

Mailing�df�� 70 ��u� Avenue, Suite 810
City:' 'Pasadena State: CA Zip: ---"""9_1"""'
10'-1 ___ _
Phone#: (day)_ 6
_
2 _
6 -_7_
40_-0
_
4 _
7 _
6 __ (evening) $1Sa;Ld Fax#: ______ _
Contact Person: Susan Kun Phone#: --------------------
310.980.5598
E -ma i I Address of Contact Person: ____
lnfo@buildingab .;;....__....;....
etterpasade ___
na.org ;;;..._ _____________ _
Applicant (if different from appellant): TC LA Development. Inc./ Nancy Moses

APPEAL APPLICATION
Application# DHP202s-002sa Date of Decision _11
2_1_
12 _s _____ Appeal Deadline _
2 _1
9 _1
2 _
6 ___ _
Property Address: _1
_3_64_E_._G_r
e_e_
nS__tr_ee
_1 _______________________ _
I hereby appeal the decision of the: De
sign Commission
The decision maker failed to compl
y with the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the following manner:

Findings for the Categorical Exemption cannot be made as there are sufficient technical inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the published technical studies. Furthermore, the studies fail to fully study and understand the impacts with the associated use relative to the operation of the building. Finally, the project is inconsistent with the fundamental provisions of the City's General Plan, and East Colorado Spec1f1c Plan, and Zoning Code relating to design review.

If necessary, please attach additional sheets
ActMty #
Application Fee: $ _______ _
Data Received! _______ _ Received by:.

Date of Applicatkin
., ..... (
(.) -·
City Oerk • City of Pasadena • 100 North Gqrfleld Avenu, Room S.u8 • Pasadena, California 91109 • 626-744-4124 • 626-744.3921 (fax) Appeal application
10/2/25

ATTACHMENT E
PL,\ N N l NG & COM�[ UN I 'r Y DEV BL OP MEN ·r DEPA RT ME. N 1' PLAN'\j(NG DIV1$10N
January 28, 2026
Nancy Moses
c/o TC LA Development, Inc.
2221 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
El Segundo, CA 90245
Via email: [email protected]

NOTICE OF DECISION
Concept Design Review - New Research and Development Project 1364 E. Green Street
Case #: DHP2025-00258
Dear Ms. Moses:

Council District 7
On January 27, 2026, at a public hearing at the Pasadena Convention Center, Room 211, the Design Commission. acting under the provisions of Section 17.61.030 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, reviewed your application for Concept Design Review for the construction of a new four-story 93,539 square-foot research and development project at the above-referenced address. The design guidelines applied to this review were the design-related goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily Districts. In its decision, the Commission:

Environmental Determination
Found that the application for Concept Design Review is Categorically Exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-fill Development Projects) and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances.

Findings for Compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance Acknowledged that there are no protected trees on the project site.

Findings for Concept Design Approval
Found that the project, upon implementation of the conditions of approval. will comply with the purposes of design review, the design-related goals and policies 1n the Land Use Element of the General Plan. the Design Guidelines in the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Districts; and 175 r/•,rh ,,,,,J;,l,/ 1'11•,,,u,, I f',q1JJr11,r r.:..t 9/ftJI .. J --u� 'l•�•M r,,(�-4Ul/li
•• .,,- /lr'!/Jt•l•,I,.. #II
Nancy Moses
1364 E. Green Street (DHP2025-00258)

Based on these findings, approved the application for Concept Design Review subject to the conditions in Attachment A to be further reviewed during Final Design Review.

Effective Date Appeals Call for Review
You are hereby notified that any person affected or aggrieved by the decision of the Design Commission has the right to appeal this decision within ten days. The regular appeal fee is $5,287.51 If the tenth day falls on a day when City offices are closed, the appeal deadline is extended through the next day when offices are open. The last day to file an appeal is February 9, 2026. This decision becomes effective on February 10, 2026. Prior to such effective date, a member of the City Council may request that it be called for review to the City Council. However, if there is a request for a call for review, the appeal period will continue to run. Appeals must cite a reason for objecting to a decision. Please note that appeals and calls far review are conducted as de novo reviews, meaning that the lower decision is set aside and the entire application is reviewed as a new proposal.

This approval expires one year from the effective date. The approval may be extended for one year by filing a written request with the Planning Director before the expiration of the effective date (along with the fee for renewal of an approval). Any changes in the approved design for the project must be submitted to City staff for review and approval. Major or minor changes must be reviewed as part of a separate application for changes to an approved project. Major changes must be reviewed by the Design Commission at a noticed public hearing. Two applications for changes to the project may be filed during a calendar year. Changes may be approved only if there are findings of changed circumstances that justify the revisions.

Please contact me if you have any questions about this letter.

Sincerely,
�
Rathar Duong
Senior Planner
Design & Historic Preservation Section
Tel 626-744-7346
Email: [email protected]
Attachments:

A. Conditions of Approval
B. Approved Plans, Elevations & Renderings (Abridged - full plan set Is available to view upon request)
cc: Address File; Energov; City Manager, City Clerk; City Council; City Council District 7 Liaison; Director of Planning & Community Development; Deputy Director of Planning & Community Development

ATTACHMENT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1354 E. GREEN STREET

CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW
The applicant or the successor in interest shall comply with the following conditions, which shall be reviewed and approval by the Design Commission during Final Design Review, and shall consider implementing the recommendation:

Design & Historic Preservation

1. The project shall comply with all Zoning Code requirements except as modified during the design review process.

2. Restudy and consider stepping the fourth floor along the south elevation to reduce the perceived building height from the adjacent St. Philip the Apostle School parking lot and playground and further study teducing the height of the rooftop mechanical screen and/or study ways to reduce its visual prominence through materiality, color or other means.

3. Roof drainage shall be routed within the building walls rather than in exposed downspouts.

4. Show vents/vent caps and their arrangement on the elevations, which shall be routed to the roof or, if infeasible, located on secondary elevations to the degree possible and arranged in a logical pattern. If vents are required to penetrate the building walls, provide specifications and details of the vent caps for staff review and approval.

5. If proposed, show the location of driveway security gates on the site and landscape plans and include drawings depicting their design.

6. A final landscape and irrigation plan, in compliance with Chapter 17.44 (Landscaping) of the Zoning Code, identifying all remaining and proposed vegetation and trees shall be submitted along with plans for Final Design Review. The plan shall include a mix of plant size and materials. Plant materials shall emphasize drought-tolerant and/or native species.

7. The project shall comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and any changes to the proposed landscape design that may be required shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit.

8. The project shall demonstrate compliance with Climate Action Plan (CAP) requirements.

9. RECOMMENDATION: Consider establishing the truck route for construction hauling to occur via Green Street rather than Holliston Avenue and establishing a delivery schedule for the operational building that occurs during non-peak school pick-up and drop-off hours to avoid conflicts with the adjacent St. Philip the Apostle School.

Department of Public Works

10. No private irnprovements rnay be placed within the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, soldier beams, tie-backs, utility conduits, backflow preventers, transformers, fire sprinkler valve, decorative sidewalk and applicable parade post holes on Colorado Boulevard per Standard Drawing S-419. Private improvements may only be placed in the public right-of�way by submitting a license agreement, which must be approved by the City. The license agreement application for any private improvement within the public right-of-way shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and shall be approved by the City before any permits are granted. The applicant shall submit the application, plan and processing fee/deposit, associated with processing the license agreement, at least three to four (3-4) months prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits. An approved license agreement will allow the applicant to install and maintain the private improvements within the public right-of-way with conditions, A license agreement for shoring requires an indemnity bond in order to guarantee that shoring and tie-backs are free from defect due to faulty material, workmanship and failure. Upon review of the license agreement exhibits, an indemnity bond estimate will be prepared and forwarded to the applicant. The estimated amount is equivalent to the cost of reconstructing the public right of way, including all affected utilities, public facilities, and infrastructures, based on the plane of failure at a 45-degree angle from the lowest point of excavation. The indemnity bond shall be submitted to the City prior to the execution of the agreement and the issuance of any building or demolition permits.

All steel rods in every tie-back unit shall be relieved of all tension and stresses, and any portion of soldier beams and any portion of the tie-backs located be removed entirely from the public right-of-way. A monthly monitoring report stamped and certified by a licensed surveyor shall be submitted to indicate that the deflection from any piles or soldier beams does not exceed one inch. Upon completion of construction, the developer or his contractor shall remove all tie-back rods within the public right-of-way.

The removal shall be documented by a report certified by a licensed deputy inspector.

The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The applicant will be charged a penalty of $7,000 for each tie-back rod not removed from the public right-ofway. For temporary tie-backs or shoring, the maximum width of the license area fronting the development frontage(s) shall only extend to tne centerline of the public right-of-way.

11. Green Street along the frontage of the subject property has an existing sidewalk width of 11 feet. In order to provide for a 12-foot wide sidewalk per the East Colorado Specific Plan, the applicant shall dedicate to the City a 1-foot strip of land along the subject frontage for street purposes, and construct a 12-ft wide sidewalk. Construction of new sidewalk and curb and gutter along the Green Street frontage is required.

The applicant shall be responsible for all the costs required to complete the dedications. rhe dedication documents and processing fee/deposit shall be submitted to this office, at least three to four (3-4) months prior to the issuance of any permits. The dedication documents shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

12. The applicant shall demolish existing and construct all new public improvements along the along the subject development frontages of Green Street and of Holliston Avenue, including concrete drive approach per Standard Plan S-403; concrete sidewalk per Standard Plan S-421; concrete curb and gutter per Standard Plan S-406. All public improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

13. Green Street restoration, fronting the subject development, shall be a partial width (from the first lane line to gutter) cold milling and resurfacing of asphalt concrete roadway per Standard Plan S-415. The street restoration shall include the intersection at Holliston Avenue and shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Green Street contains asbestos paving material, see attached requirements for any work performed on said street.

14. The proposed development shall connect to the public sewer with one or more new sixinch diameter house sewers laid at a minimum slope of two percent. In accordance with PMC Chapter 13.24.010, house sewer "means that part of the horizontal piping beginning 24 inches from the exterior wall of the building or structure and extending to its connection with the public sewer." The section of house sewers within the public right-ofway- from the property line to the public sewer, or within easement, shall be vitrified clay or cast iron pipe. The house sewer shall meet City Standards as determined by the Department of Public Works, and a permit issued by the Department of Public Works is required for work within the public right-of-way. The construction of all new house sewers shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.

15. In order to accommodate an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramp, the applicant shall verify, and reconstruct if necessary, a standard curb ramp at all four corners of the Green Street and Holliston Avenue intersection, if possible, per Caltrans Standard A88A or City of Pasadena Standard No. S-414. The curb ramp construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. A separate permit from the Department of Public Works is required for all construction in the public right-ofway. Please contact [email protected] for the general process.

The applicant shall submit to the City for review any proposed designs that will comply with the ADA requirements. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of the new curb ramp. Plans for the curb return improvements shall be prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California. Upon submittal of improvement plans to the Departments of Public Works for review, the applicant will be required to submit fees, per the current General Fee Schedule, to cover the cost of plan checking and construction inspection of the improvements. Note that the building plans approved by the City's Planning (Building) Department do not constitute approvals for work in the public right-of-way. Separate plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works - Engineering Division - at 175 North Garfield Avenue Window 6. The applicant shall submit the curb return improvement plans and the plan check fees at least two (2) months prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits.

Upon review of the curb ramp improvement plans, the applicant may need to dedicate to the City for street purposes the land necessary at the subject property line corner rounding per Standard Plan S-423 to provide for the minimum clearance required by the Americans with Disabilities Act standards. If so, the applicant shall remove and reconstruct the sidewalk for the dedicated area, per Standard Plan No. S-421. The applicant shall be responsible for all the cost required to complete the dedication, if it is required. The dedication document and processing fee shall be submitted to this office, at least three to four (3-4) months, prior to issuance of any permits. The dedication documents shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

16. The existing street lighting along the Green Street and Holliston Avenue frontages is substandard. In order to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, the applicant shall replace/renovate three existing street lighting, on the frontages of the subject property per the City requirements and current standards. The renovation shall include but not limited to new LED light(s), conductors, lamp socket, fuse, globe/lantern, globe holder, photo cell, and miscellaneous related parts.

17. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of all required public improvements. Plans for the above improvements shall be prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California. Upon submittal of improvement plans to the Departments of Public Works for review, the applicant will be required to place a deposit with the department to cover the cost of plan checking. The amount of deposit will be based on the current City's General Fee Schedule. Note that building plans approved by the City's Planning (Building) Department do not constitute approvals for work in the public right-of-way. Separate plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works - Engineering Division - at 175 North Garfield Avenue Window 6. The applicant shall submit public improvements plans and the plan check deposit at least two (2) months prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits.

18. Pruning of street trees may be required to facilitate the construction of the project. The work shall be done by the City's crew. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of pruning the street trees and submit to the Department of Public Works the appropriate fee per General Fee Schedule, for the City crew to prune the street trees.

19. Any proposed removal of public street trees shall be subject to the review and support of the City's Urban Forestry Advisory Committee.

20. All new drive approaches shall be at least seven (7) feet clear of the existing street trees measured from the edge of the trunk closest to the drive approach. All public trees shall be protected and fenced with a posting on the fences advising of the tree protection.

21. To protect existing City trees during construction, the applicant shall fully conform to the Tree Protection Guidelines signed by the City Manager. The full guidelines are available at the following link: https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-andconstruction/engineering/

22. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established for all existing City trees within the scope of a construction project. The TPZ extends from the base of the tree to four (4) radial feet beyond the dripline of a tree and applies to the entirety of the tree - from the roots to the canopy of the tree.

23. The applicant is prohibited from the following within a designated TPZ: construction vehicle access, construction vehicle operation, staging of materials, and trenching without the consent of the Department of Public Works.

24. The applicant shall at minimum provide the following within a designated TPZ: mulching, irrigation, and protective fencing.

25. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a Preliminary Tree Protection Plan (PMC Ch. 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance), prepared by a Landscape Architect or certified Arborist, showing the TPZ and all structures, footings, and grading that may impact City trees shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works, for review and approval. Given that each construction project poses unique conditions, it is the responsibility of the applicant to develop a Tree Protection Plan based off the TPZ standards to the extent feasible. The Plan shall conform to the Tree Protection Standards which specifically require showing the locations of all existing trees, their diameters, canopies, whether the tree is a public tree or private tree, as well as any trees to be planted with their canopy at mature size. The final conditions of the Tree Protection Plan shall be approved by the Forestry Superintendent. A nonrefundable flat fee, per the current General Fee Schedule, will be required for staff time to review the Tree Protection Ordinance compliance.

26. Prior to any construction, tree protections including the installation of fencing to protect public trees must be in place. The fencing material shall be chain-link attached to posts inserted into the ground at the edge of the dripline and shall be a minimum of 6' in height. See Standard Plan S-642 - Tree Protection Chain Link Fencing. Fencing shall maintain visual lines of sight in order to avoid vehicle and pedestrian hazards. Fencing shall include a minimum 8.5" x 11" warning sign with the following information: 'Tree Protection Zone'; name and contact information of project owner or authorized representative; 'Please contact the City of Pasadena Citizen Service Center to report any concerns (626) 744-7311 '. All protective fencing must be permitted, inspected and approved by Public Works prior to the commencement of any construction.

27. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a valuation assessment report of the existing public tree(s) along the boundary of their project. The report shall be prepared by a registered Arborist and submitted to PNR for review and approval. If it is determined that the applicant has failed to care for any City tree within their Tree Protection Plan, and the health of the tree(s) was critically compromised requiring its removal, the applicant shall be liable for the following costs: assessed value of tree determined by a PNR Arborist using a current ISA assessment methodology; the removal cost determined by PNR; and any applicable infraction or administrative fines determined by Code Compliance

28. Prior to issuance of any permit, a deposit in the amount of the applicant's total liabilities based on the aforementioned approved tree assessment report shall be submitted to the City. The deposit is fully refundable, less administrative fees, upon the satisfaction of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

29. The applicant shall plant the officially designated street tree per the City's approved Master Street Tree Plan along the boundary of the subject property - (4) maximum new Ficus (Ficus Microcarpa) trees on Green Street frontage, spaced 40 feet center-tocenter. The Department of Public Works will confirm eligible planting sites, and will provide the applicant the location, quantity and tree species to be planted as a result of the applicant's project.

Trees planted by the applicant must meet the City's tree stock standards, be inspected by the City, and be planted according to the details provided by the Parks and Natural Resources (PNR) Division. Planting shall include the installation of the following per tree:
no less than two tree stakes; one arbor guard; and the use of slow-release fertilizer tablets. The applicant shall contact PNR (626-744-3880) for tree planting approval, a minimum of two (2) months, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Trees planted by the applicant must be irrigated by either an existing or a new irrigation system constructed by the applicant. Plans for the irrigation system shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of California and submitted to PNR for review and approval. Irrigation facilities (main line, valve, pull box, timer, etc.) must be constructed within private property with the exception of the laterals and bubblers. The lateral shall be a minimum of 18" deep, and no above-ground structures are allowed.

Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a Tree Guarantee Deposit equal to the cost of all new trees planted to guarantee that newly planted trees are maintained by the applicant for a minimum of three calendar years.

Tree maintenance during this period shall include the following: watering no less than once a week; weed removal; reconstruction of tree wells as needed; re-staking as needed; adjustment to grade of any trees that settle; and any other operations needed io assure normal tree growth. The applicant shall replace any newly planted trees which, for any reason, die or whose health is compromised, within the applicant's three-year establishment period. The three-year tree establishment period shall commence on the day that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, PNR shall inspect all trees planted by the applicant at the end of the three-year establishment period, and if the trees are found to be in good health, the applicant's deposit will be released. If the trees are found to be in poor health, the establishment period may be extended by PNR and the applicant's deposit shall be held accordingly. Said deposit may be included as part of the construction guarantee if applicable, and is subject to partial refund or additional billing.

30. In order to ensure that the developer maintains a clean and safe site during the construction phase of development, the applicant shall place a $20,000 refundable deposit with the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permit. This deposit is a guarantee that the applicant will keep the site clean and safe, and will make permanent repairs to the abutting street improvements that are damaged, including striping, slurry seal/ resurfacing, street trees, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, either directly or indirectly, by the construction on this site. This deposit may also be used for charges due to damage to existing street trees and for City personnel to review traffic control plans and maintain traffic control.

31. Prior to the start of construction or the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The template for the Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan can be obtained from the Department of Public Works webpage at:
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-works/engineering-and-construction/engineering/ 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 the impact of the various construction stages on the public right-of-way (and the private street) 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 Control 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 the Construction 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 General Fee Schedule that is in effect at the time these conditions are met.

In addition 1o the above conditions, the requirements of an applicable Pasadena Municipal 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 4.53
Residential Impact Fee - Chapter 4.17
City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance - Chapter 8.52 Construction and Demolition Waste Ordinance - Chapter 8.62 Holiday Moratorium of activities within public right-0f-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, or ACMs, in accordance with the US EPA definition of ACM. Those samples containing greater than 0.1 % but less than or equal to 1 % are considered asbestos containing construction materials, or ACCMs, in accordance with CaVEPA definition.

Areas of Green Street containing ACMs:

Pasadena Avenue to De Lacey Avenue
Fair Oaks Avenue to Raymond Avenue
Los Robles Avenue to Hudson Avenue
Catalina Avenue to Holliston Avenue
Areas of Green Street containing ACCMs:

Hudson Avenue to Catalina Avenue
Holliston 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 but may 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 of ACMs 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 environmental 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 law.
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 following 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 containing asbestos.
(c) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.

Department of Transportation

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 (TOM) Plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy and a review fee of $21000 shall be paid prior to the issuance of 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 TOM strategies from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse 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 TOM Plan requirements and associated review fees for the report submittal, contact the Multi modal Planning Division at (626) 7 44- 7 494 for submittal requirements.
• The review fee is based 011 the current General Fee Schedule and are subject 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 the required width, the difference shall be provided through a private property dedication.

46. Pursuant to the adopted Street Design Guidelines, the applicant shall comply with the following:
• Holliston Avenue is an Access Street and should have a minimum eightfoot (81 ) sidewalk, including a minimum five-foot (5') walk zone and threefoot (3') amenity zone.

47. Driveway visibility shall comply with the minimum requirement specified in PMC Section 17. 40. 180 & 17.46.170. Please note that the edge of driveway or back of sidewalk may change due to right-of-way dedication, as specified in the Public Realm - Sidewalks condition. Driveway visibility triangle shall be included in plans and be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

48. The applicant is responsible for the design, preparation of plans and specifications, and construction of all required public improvements. For transportation, such changes include, but are not limited to, the removal, relocation, and reconstruction of traffic control devices (i.e., longitudinal markings, pavement markings, curb markings, signage, and channelizing devices). All required public improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Pasadena's Department of Public Works.

Reference Public Works Conditions of Approval for more information.

49. Driveway approaches shall be located a minimum distance of fifty feet (50') from the curb of any intersecting street. Driveway approaches design shall comply with the latest City of Pasadena standards, Driveway approach locations must be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). All required public improvements shall be coordinated with the City of Pasadena's Department of Public Works. Reference Public Works Conditions of Approval for more information.

50. All existlng bus zones and transit amenities shall remain in place and protected during and after construction. The existing bus zone will not be relocated without written approval from the Transit Division. Tree wells, streetlights, fire hydrants and other items shall not be placed in the public right of way within bus zone(s) without prior approval. The proposed project shall not interfere with bus operations (this includes, but is not limited to, building overhangs, awnings, landscaping, etc.).

51. Driveway design, width, and clearance shall comply with the minimum requirements specified in PMC Section 17.46. 150.
• Given that the outbound driveway for the subterranean parking is located on Green Street, which is a one-way street (eastbound), install a porkchop or other type of physical diverter in the driveway to reinforce the right-out only access for this driveway.
• The driveway design shall be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolitlon, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

52. Ramp design shall comply with the minimum requirements as specified in PMC Section 17. 46. 270.
• To improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the driveway, the ramp shall have a two percent (2%) or less grade for the first twenty feet (20') from the back of the sidewalk.
• The driveway apron width shall match the ramp width.
• To improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the driveway, the design plans shall indicate either a 20-foot (20') flat area beyond the property line to improve vehicular sight distance or include the installation of an exit arm. • The ramp grade shall not exceed sixteen percent (16%), with the first and last ten feet (1 0') of the ramp not exceeding eight percent (8%). • Diverter in the driveway to reinforce the right-out access for this driveway. • The ramp design shall be included in the plans and be approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

53. If proposed, a vehicle entry gate shall be setback a minimum of twenty feet (20') from the back of the sidewalk. The gate shall be included in plans and approved by the Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building). Any deviations will have to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer.

54. Any loading/unloading spaces shall be off-street and on-site. A loading zone will not be installed in the public right of way. Off-Street loading shall comply with the minimum requirements as specified in PMC Section 17.46.260.

55. The parking, loading, and trash/recycling areas shall conform to the requirements of the Pasadena Municipal Code and a plan showing all pertinent dimensions for these areas shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first permit for construction (demolition, grading, or building).

56. Prior to the start of construction or the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Staging & Traffic Management Plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. This plan shall show the impact of the various construction stages on the public right-of-way including street occupations, parking space relocation agreements, closures, detours, staging areas, and routes of construction vehicles entering and exiting the construction site. Permitted hours for construction vehicles (delivery, haul) may be limited to the hours between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM.

57. The Traffic Reduction and Transportation Improvement Fee (Ordinance No. 7076) will apply to all net new residential, retail, industrial, and office developments and is based on the City of Pasadena General Fee Schedule. The fee will be calculated and invoice prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The fee per unit is subject to change based on the time of the project completion. Affordable housing projects may receive fee credits.

This study and conditions have been prepared based on the project scope provided to DOT. An update of the traffic study and its finding might be required if a significant change is made to the project scope, or if additional analysis is requested by the City.

ATTACHMENT C
,
-==·"'=�=R=D00===::------""-""'-""'""'-----------·- - -·----1'YC--------1CALTECH L ... -.-:;--C .. I --- --- •- --·· • r INNOVATION
i';ltl 11t tf J :::iS::'"'.S:. • CENTER
GJiU
�
P.J
�
�� ��
_____ ___ ..., __ ...,_...__.,.. ___ _
--:::=-=..-.. - ===:==- --- -----
'"'_ .. _., ...... _....
!= ...... -.. -·-
=-·•--·-
::,
-·---
====--�·
_________ __,Gensler
===-·· ;::.i-
======- .� .. A<IOITIDNAL----------.. -"""------....,--...,.------------1 =�;.._ §t_ :::----:=:=:----""iiooo::=:;;:;;ie:=1-1 �:r.:- ··-- ........ __
;-
:.�:·- ............. , ........ ... -.
�===­
�=-

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1::-­ CM.,f[CHNQIAT� C[MU
lT-
,___ _
PAS.G0.101 cw::

E GREEN STREET
I
'-·-----------·-· ------· ---·-----------��
I
l r.:--------"--· · .._ ______ _

C C C C C
C ,I!.---� --"""""'" / /
0 0 0 C C C
z ,1
� II
0 "'
lltfflllOfR ----1 CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
$0,.. --,c.-t1• ........ Gensler
·-­
=--·
= -
===== -==,-U.'"-•
-=

NOT FOR
COMSTl\UCTION
�-:-· wci-,-.. , -,. CEHIEJI
0 © ®
-�- -
• . '
. .._
•
""'"' "'"'"
-- ,-
I
• •
• I • I
i
•
---
;;.,cvcu,AMtQHQ.
• •
11 : I • •
-e
..I
(i)
©
'""'"',ei CALTECH 1;..;--� I INNOVATION
CENTER
�ti.,,_
l.llf ... 0--..... Gensler
,.,,.,,.,.,..i,en.-c .... .-,.
t.�!..-
e-­
=--• 1:..-.........
0 (l) ©
--·--------' ----- -·----·-,- -
■ ■ ■
■
■ ■ ■ ■
-
■
e- .
·e- f)
• ■ ■ •
■ ■ ■ ■•
©
■ ■
■ ■ (i)
■ • 0
-e,
• 0
■- ■
■ •
'""'"°""
VIONll'l'MAP

I CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
............ ....... CA ...

T,-�•11 e� ... c.,.,...,.
·-r-:::-.-
11:__=-=
-=:---­ ... c.:r�
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
"'""""
,_
PAS-A1.202
--=----
©
•
• • • • •
""""·"""
•
e-
. I ·e-� , I
• • • • •
• • • • I0
•
•
•
-e,
l
•
j
•
0 ©
©
0 -0
1-
1 -""'-""'°----ICALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
LIOPll
Gensler
�::-=-= -=:---........ -t:::.::::t::::

N0TF0R
C0NSlRUCTI0N
-_,,--.. -,---1 :-�""'----
------1 ftQIIIDlilOI\.OQll!Vll•lM"
'�=,;;----- -- 1�
1 � ,�- .. c......."'""'---'--- I ------' ------- - -S -- - ·------ �------------J 01 �(!_9;'l€DR.OORPUoN·LE\'El.03
'=--- -EB
PAS-A1.203
fflf41. �00, AltP,A;
AWOf'ltOOf'O!CIC.1 CO'IW<)IO,II00'- 11"""!
• •
©
• • •
UNOCQJl!fD
I q, AltlA
0 0
©
'""'"""' CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
Gensler

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1 1
-
,-"--
----
.,., .... ---1
1 :-� �fl-
""-...... -�t ..... -
'�� ------lier□ ' 1;;--:----
--------------- €,- _____________________ J
01 !!�EDFLOORP\AN-l.E'/ELO<
EB
PAS-A1.20-4
'-=-----'
.1 .,
® © ® 0
----'='--"-=----=--=-=-----=----=------------€;). �. � -=-:.=-=----- --,;----7 - - - ---,, " - • � - _I /
cc
ro =
IY..T.ll
""'' -e I
©
{!l

1."'"'..;;;....;"""'..;;;. __ ICALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
IBlfJII)
�- ... ,. ...

T, ... uull Ct•"' c-pa•r
�-t-=:.-:..-
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
CALKCHNDAU::t• CINIIJI �..,,000 __ _
�� =��::;�:,::::l
�
l
�
�-.-�-�-.-�-
1�=::-:-::-:::::=,-;,:-:a-
----_-_--_--_-_-_- _ ---_
01 ��HOORPl-'H•ROOfl£VEI.
_--e_--__--_--------_--_ -_--+_-_- ___J_ I��-, '. ,
EB
PAS-A1.205
'------'
F� I • I �
I
-"""------I CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
1: I ,I
..
..
gi��·=:'J.
:::::-========-===-:;;;;-------------------------------' ms.- IIIE:- 02 !:fl<)!'.�08UUJltlG El.EVATICN •NORTli/Gl'EEW ST (COl� 1.a.::--=-='----------------------------------------------liiz- •= Q::;_,C!)5i
�I$
"";:,
• 111!♦
.,_.,..,
Q1 !:!,l�D l!Ul.OING B.EVATION • NORT!t IGIOEEN ST
"'M• V =·
T,_,.,.IC:.-..,C-p••"
=--t;;!,,.-
1=·==

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1--
�TF;�NiOYAID -,�
�-
oi•ooi
........ \Ml-
·-
PAS-A2.101
��� I r1
I; I �1 =------------,-----+--r ii
---�-'-0---ICALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
-+-·
I
-:�ip
..
"�
l "'II&
-,10
""""'
.::: --- .......... ,
livi..;ii'Fcis.iiinii:iiii.'r.;;;;.;;;;;;;:.:.;:;;::;;;-;.;;;;:�;-;;::;::-;::;;;-----------------------------------1 1D
�;"' El;..-
02 �DUl.Dll<OElfVA110N-\'IES1/HOUJSfON•v(JCl).OAJ
1=-=.:""----------------------------------------1 ·=-·= .. '•
·-----..
o:::;_rns
□!:F.'-:
···�, =--
"X•
"':!$
-?:•
_ .. ,
-� V
.......
u.i ... � ...
"""· Gensler
.. , ...... .......
1,..,1n.nc,,. ... c..,,,p•.,7
e;:;-...
:.,:;';.-
==\·
���
l--
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
,-CAI.TeCHtl-OIAT�
0fNIER
,_
Clil<IIICCO
,............. -
-
.. _
PAS-A2.102
••=
-'"'-ff-'°""---1CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
1, JI
;
I
.. . ,
......
--====,.,....,==,,..---------------------------- Ol�o;- 111e:- 1 �0!.2..:�:.:..: ·0POSEO.. ., ... ,___e...w __ NG_a.ev __ �no_•_•so _111>1_1c_a._OA_1 ________________________________________ 1 ll;S- •= □==--□s
□�:='
'frwu1111U (,..., (..,,,,.,.,
e..-t':':i,<;.-

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
CM.TEQ-1 IXN!tR H«JYATION
I �=====,,,.--=::,,,_..-----------------1--�-9, �
___J • ,� ,-
=i:."L.'"::::.
01 !:!j�EllBULOINOELEVATION,60UrH l.,,._.,_=-----•I
PAS-A2.103
1---""'-11-- CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
UM ........ .. � ...
"'"'•
T,-a•IICni .. c.taf"""'r
.,_ ... =.<.-
��
.,.,...======.,..,,.,==:--------------------------------- ID;;s_- 1:1::-• 0:.:2:...�=•(1iWfi.�•:::. ... _o_au_l,OtNG __ •LEV_ATI_oo_._EA_sr_1c01._011_1 -------------------------------- ■=.- •= □==-C:l�
□-��
..,_: ..

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
1-----1 ,,.�,,.,-c,..,,00) __ _ -"""""....,..""'---I M"'°Uf«!'ONI ----�-=-·_·_ ....... ..,.........,....,.....-------------------------------...,- 1 -
8 -� •�AS-A2.104
01 ���IIEO BUl.Dl'G ELEVATION • EAST � -, : MC
VfffifftOMGMDIJT. L.OOKNIIIOUTI< 1.�..;m.;....,o,e;..;· "----I CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
T,-melJCn.,.C-,..)'
!:::-..
t,.-;;.':,.-
_.._ ___ _

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
-...,-.....,---
-·
l
,�co�•�oco ___ _
-..,.,.--
--1-�- v
"""------ dlGtcal
PAS-A4.101
i■C:

'l/tl\Yl'ftONHOIJ.WTOMA "'"''"'"' -""""'
...

QBtfltAL N0ffl
Y11.W,MOMM)JJfTI)ff,1.V11,
"'""""""""

CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
--.c,,,, ..
, .... a-...

Gensler
t:.."'C.-- -- �!:.t:
'1',.-.n c,., ... c .. ,,."',.
ti;-:..-
g;_
��
i::::-::.- �;
'C:r.:.::.- 'I:::-:;:..-
11:1- -
-i�-·
NOTFOR

CONSTRUCTION
(II_..,
�-.. �-=�---
lo(lll'tlUC.11.I VPAS-A4.10l
-------------------------------------------- --...----' WW rlllOM AOJACfHT
PAIIIQNO LOl,
LOOKNONOffTH
----========================
oeHtRAL.MOTfJ
m"""'

CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
Gensler
Tr.n1r1,IICnr,.C.m,-,7
i:.--
t.":":,�-

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION
CAlT'EOiNDIAT�
QINf(A
PAS-A4.104
··-
CITY OF PASADENA GENERAL RECEIPT Mri' 'S.1:1:m �"'., ..

RECEIV
ADDREss
ED
_:]_0
FROM
�L_
__B;��� ,.
lflx
}
1 �y,i;b,
c�-W�1.�
�
PHONE
f._ Q_
#1.,Q
1 /
��i..JO::.O:llo _
D MUNICIPAL SERVICES-ACCOUNT# _________ _
□ LICENSE __ _
U PARAMEDIC - INV. # ___ _ INV. AMT. $ __ _
PAID THIS DATE $
BALANCE DUE $ __ _
U PARKING CITATIONS$
)4. OTHER A �ea_\�\J,.r:*'t.:i' INV. AMT. $ --,,,C--
�\>d-OQS"-CO d°S8 PAID THIS DATE $
\ ¼L\ t,. �("�\'\ ..-*, BALANCE DUE
AMT. PA10 '::; ;)q, 1 sl
CODE: _____ _
D CASH
� CHECK #tfbU'\ ':,\1:{!:_ 3_
□ MONEY
ORDER#
�J �OERJ)j
MID8Y
nfi_
NOTE: NOT A VALID RECEIPT UNLESS ENDORSED ABOVE BY REGI TEA OR SIGNATURE

CASHIER-WHITE CUSTOMER COPY-CANARY OFFICE COPY-PINK
CTCK0013 (4/99)
Air Quality Analysis
1364 E. Green Street Project
December 2025

CITY OF PASADENA
Planning and Community Development Department
Planning Division
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
Lead Agency: Consultant to Lead Agency:
633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071

ATTACHMENT F
1364 E. Green Street Project Table of Contents
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 1

1. Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives ................................................................................ 1

2. Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 1

3. Project Description.................................................................................................................... 2

4. Sensitive Receptors in Project Vicinity ...................................................................................... 3

5. Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................. 5 A. Construction-Source Emissions ...................................................................................... 5 B. Operational-Source Emissions......................................................................................... 5 C. Climate Action Plan Consistency ..................................................................................... 5 II. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 6

1. Existing Air Quality Conditions.................................................................................................. 6 A. Local Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 6 B. Pollutants ........................................................................................................................ 7 C. Other Pollutants of Concern.......................................................................................... 10

2. Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................... 11 A. Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency ......................................... 12 B. State – California Air Resources Board ......................................................................... 14 C. Regional......................................................................................................................... 16 D. Local – City of Pasadena ................................................................................................ 21

3. Monitored Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 21 A. Ozone ............................................................................................................................ 22 B. Carbon Monoxide.......................................................................................................... 23 C. Nitrogen Dioxide............................................................................................................ 23 D. Particulate Matter......................................................................................................... 23

4. Air Quality Standards ..............................................................................................................23 A. Significance Thresholds................................................................................................. 23 B. Regional Air Quality.......................................................................................................24 C. Local Air Qualityand Localized Significance Thresholds ................................................ 26 City of Pasadena COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project Table of Contents
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
ii
D. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) ......................................................................................26 E. Odor Impacts.................................................................................................................27

5. Short-Term Construction Emissions........................................................................................ 28 A. Methodology .................................................................................................................28 B. Construction-Related Regional Impacts........................................................................29 C. Construction-Related Local Impacts..............................................................................30 D. Construction-Related Toxic-Contaminant Impacts........................................................31 E. Construction-Related Odor Impacts.............................................................................. 32

6. Long-Term Operational Emissions ..........................................................................................32 A. Operations-Related Regional Air Quality Impacts.........................................................32 B. Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts...............................................................33 C. Operations-Related Odor Impacts.................................................................................35

7. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts...............................................................................................35 A. Project Specific Impacts................................................................................................. 36 B. Air Quality Mangement Plan Consistency ..................................................................... 37 III. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 39

1. Existing Greenhouse Gas Environment................................................................................... 39

2. Greenhouse Gas Standards and Regulation............................................................................ 39 A. Local – City of Pasadena ................................................................................................ 39

3. Methodology...........................................................................................................................40

4. Consistency with Applicable Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans and Policies..........................40 IV. EMISSIONS/EXPOSURE REDUCTION MEASURES ........................................................................... 43

1. Construction Measures........................................................................................................... 43

2. Operational Measures............................................................................................................. 43 V. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... 44 VI. REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 46

APPENDICES
Appendix A: CalEEMod Emissions Output Printout
Appendix B: CAP Checklist
City of Pasadena COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project Table of Contents
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location Map ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Site Plan..................................................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Local Monthy Climate Data....................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards.......................................................................13 Table 3: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status................................................................................14 Table 4: Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................................................................ 22 Table 5: SCQAMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ......................................................................... 25 Table 6: Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions...............................................................30 Table 7: Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors......................................................... 31 Table 8: Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions ..............................................................................33 1364 E. Green Street Project I. Introduction and Summary Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
1 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1. PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this air quality and Climate Action Plan consistency analysis is to provide an assessment of the impacts resulting from development of the 1364 E. Green Street Project and to identify measures that may be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts. This study was performed to address the possibility of regional/local air quality impacts from project-related pollutant emissions and to determine the project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan. The objectives of the study include:
§ documentation of the atmospheric setting
§ discussion of criteria pollutants
§ discussion of the air quality regulatory framework
§ discussion of the air quality thresholds of significance § analysis of the construction related air quality emissions § analysis of the operations related air quality emissions § analysis of the conformity of the proposed project with the SCAQMD AQMP § Climate Action Plan consistency analysis
§ recommendations for emissions reduction measures
The City of Pasadena is the lead agency for this air quality and Climate Action Plan (CAP) consistency analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act authorizing legislation. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with terms unique to air quality and global climate change, a definition of terms has been provided in Appendix A.

2. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 1364 E. Green Street, in the City of Pasadena. The 41,573-square-foot project site is comprised of three adjoining parcels located at the southeast corner of East Green Street and South Holliston Avenue and is currently developed with a surface parking lot with 115 parking spaces. Immediate adjacencies include a surface parking lot to the north on the opposite side of Green Street, St. Philip the Apostle Church and Parish Center to the south and east, and Pasadena City College Child Development Center is located west of the site on the opposite side of S. Holliston Avenue.

Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site/building and subterranean parking would be achieved from East Green Street, while access to the loading zone would be provided from South Holliston Avenue. A vicinity map showing the project location of the Site is provided on Figure 1, Project Location Map.

Project Site

N NOT TO SCALE
Project Site
Scale (Feet)
0 250 500 750 1,000
N
Project Location Map
Source: Google, 2025 Figure 1
City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project I. Introduction and Summary Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
3 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves construction of a new four-story, 93,539-square-foot, research and development project above three levels of subterranean parking for 280 spaces situated on an approximately 1-acre corner parcel. A large rooftop terrace is also proposed on the fourth floor that extends across the entire façade facing East Green Street. All existing improvements would be demolished to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. Figure 2, Site Plan, illustrates the Site.

The project is anticipated to start construction no sooner than January 2026 and take approximately 20 months to complete. The Project is anticipated to be operational in 2027. The Project would include approximately 950 tons of demolished material during demolition and 60,000 cubic yards (CY) of export during excavation. Even if construction was to occur any time after the respective dates, the analysis represents “worst-case” since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent.1

4. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS IN PROJECT VICINITY
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain on-site for 24 hours.

Sensitive sites are land uses where sensitive receptors are most likely to spend time, including schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Site are: the rectory of the St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site; the Pasadena City College Child Development Center Day Care, located approximately 60 feet west of the site; the apartment building located at 107 S. Holliston, approximately 60 feet west of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center), located approximately 64 feet east of the site; the apartment building located at 125 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 100 feet south west of the site; the Aqua Courtyard Suites apartment building located at 1299 E. Green Street, approximately 105 feet northwest of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle School located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 135 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the 1 As shown in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0, Section 4.3.2 “OFFROAD Equipment” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.

Site Plan
Source: Gensler, 2025 Figure 2
City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project I. Introduction and Summary Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
5 apartment building located at 145 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 220 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 165 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 285 feet southwest of the site; and the tennis courts belonging to Pasadena City College, located approximately 280 feet east of the site.

Other air quality sensitive land uses are located further from the project site and would experience lower impacts.

5. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
A. Construction-Source Emissions
Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional or local thresholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

As discussed herein, the project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD construction-source emission reduction rules and guidelines. Project construction source emissions would not cause or substantively contribute to violation of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or result in toxic air contaminant (TAC)-related impacts.

Established requirements addressing construction equipment operations, and construction material use, storage, and disposal requirements act to minimize odor impacts that may result from construction activities. Moreover, construction-source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction-source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

B. Operational-Source Emissions
The project operational-sourced emissions would not exceed applicable regional or local thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Additionally, project-related trips will not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards (CO hotspots). Project operationalsource emissions would therefore not adversely affect sensitive receptors within the project vicinity of the project. The project's emissions are below SCAQMD regional thresholds and would not result in a significant cumulative impact. The project does not propose any such uses or activities that would result in potentially significant operational-source toxic air contaminants or odor impacts.

Potential operational-source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant.

C. Climate Action Plan Consistency
The project will comply with the actions of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Checklist. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts are considered to be less than significant.
1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
6 II. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

1. EXISTING AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS
A. Local Air Quality
The project site is located within the City of Pasadena, within the west San Gabriel Valley portion of Los Angeles County; which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, the Basin is an area of high air pollution potential. The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Air quality within the Basin is influenced by a wide range of emissions sources—such as dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industry. Climate change within the Basin is influenced by a wide range of emission sources, such as utility usage, heavy vehicular traffic, industry, and meteorology.

The annual average temperature varies throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to mid 60s to over 100 degrees during the summer, measured in Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas.

The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion, which is characterized by increasing temperature with increasing altitude. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer.

Aside from a persistent temperature inversion, the vertical dispersion of air contaminants in the Basin is also affected by wind conditions. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. Conversely, on days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas in the Basin are transported eastward, predominantly into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Santa Ana winds, which are strong and dry north or northeasterly winds that occur during the fall and winter months, disperse air contaminants differently through the Basin, generally resulting in worse air conditions in the inner basin areas. Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time. Wind speeds in Pasadena area average about 6.9 miles per hour (mph).
2 2
Weather Spark, Average Weather in Pasadena, website: https://weatherspark.com/y/1718/Average-Weatherin-Pasadena-California-United-States-Year-Round.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
7 The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between December and March. Summer rainfall is minimal and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions. The annual average total of rainfall in the Pasadena area is approximately 21 inches. 3 In the winter, light nocturnal winds result mainly from the drainage of cool air off of the mountains toward the valley floor while the air aloft over the valley remains warm. This forms a type of inversion known as a radiation inversion. Such winds are characterized by stagnation and poor local mixing and trap pollutants such as automobile exhaust near their source. While these inversions may lead to air pollution “hot spots” in heavily developed coastal areas of the basin, there is not enough traffic in inland valleys to cause any winter air pollution problems. Despite light wind conditions, especially at night and in the early morning, winter is generally a period of good air quality in the project vicinity.

The temperature and precipitation levels for the Pasadena area (Pasadena, CA Station), the closest monitoring station to the project site, are shown below in Table 1, Local Monthly Climate Data. Table 1 shows that August is typically the warmest month and December is typically the coolest month. Rainfall in the project area varies considerably in both time and space. Almost all the annual rainfall comes from the fringes of mid-latitude storms from late November to early April, with summers being almost completely dry.

Table 1
Local Monthly Climate Data
Descriptor Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. Max.

Temperature 66.5 67.8 69.9 73.4 76.3 81.7 88.4 89.2 87.1 80.6 73.8 67.2 Avg. Min.

Temperature 42.6 44.1 45.1 48.8 52.2 55.7 59.9 60.3 58.5 53.4 47.2 43.2 Avg. Total
Precipitation (in.) 4.39 4.54 3.39 1.39 0.43 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.36 0.7 1.67 3.14 Source: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6719
Data from the Pasadena, CA station (046719) for period 1/1/1898 to 6/10/2016 B. Pollutants
Pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non-criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non-criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health. For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or 3 Best Places, Climate in Pasadena, California, website:
https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/california/Pasadena.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
8 avoidance of nuisance conditions). A summary of federal and state ambient air quality standards is provided in the Regulatory Framework section.
i) Criteria Pollutants
The criteria pollutants consist of: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter. These pollutants can harm your health and the environment, and cause property damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health-based and/or environmentally-based criteria for setting permissible levels. The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants. ii) Nitrogen Dioxides
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and oxygen. While most NOx is colorless and odorless, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. NOx form when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary manmade sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOx reacts with other pollutants to form, ground-level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which cause respiratory problems. NOx and the pollutants formed from NOx can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of prevailing winds. Therefore, controlling NOx is often most effective if done from a regional perspective, rather than focusing on the nearest sources. iii) Ozone
Ozone (O3) is not usually emitted directly into the air but at ground-level is created by a chemical reaction between NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOx and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOx and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOx and VOC emissions. iv) Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes about 56 percent of all CO City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
9 emissions nationwide. In cities, 85 to 95 percent of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust.

Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO. The highest levels of CO in the outside air typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. The air pollution becomes trapped near the ground beneath a layer of warm air. CO is described as having only a local influence because it dissipates quickly. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations.

CO is a public health concern because it combines readily with hemoglobin and thus reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. The health threat from lower levels of CO is most serious for those who suffer from heart disease such as angina, clogged arteries, or congestive heart failure. For a person with heart disease, a single exposure to CO at low levels may cause chest pain and reduce that person’s ability to exercise; repeated exposures may contribute to other cardiovascular effects. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death. v) Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Oxide (SOx) gases (including sulfur dioxide [SO2]) are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, and from the refining of gasoline. SOx dissolves easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment.
vi) Lead
Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been motor vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions to the air. High levels of lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants, and children to low levels of lead can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
10 vii) Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air.

Particulate matter is made up of a number of components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further. viii) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)
Although not a criteria pollutant, reactive organic gases (ROGs), or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are defined as any compound of carbon—excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate—that participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Although there are slight differences in the definition of ROGs and VOCs, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Indoor sources of VOCs include paints, solvents, aerosol sprays, cleansers, tobacco smoke, etc. Outdoor sources of VOCs are from combustion and fuel evaporation. A reduction in VOC emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. VOCs are transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility.

C. Other Pollutants of Concern
i) Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the above-listed criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important of these toxic air contaminants, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to toxic air contaminants can result from emissions from normal operations as well as from accidental releases. Health effects of toxic air contaminants include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Toxic air contaminants are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than criteria air pollutants, however they are linked to short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects.

There are hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
11 of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust.

According to the 2013 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB 2013), the majority of the estimated health risk from toxic air contaminants can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is diesel particulate matter (DPM). Diesel particulate matter is a subset of PM2.5 because the size of diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and smaller. The identification of diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant in 1998 led the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles in September 2000. The plan’s goals are a 75-percent reduction in diesel particulate matter by 2010 and an 85-percent reduction by 2020 from the 2000 baseline. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter or PM, which includes carbon particles or “soot”. Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other cancer-causing substances. California’s identification of diesel particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant was based on its potential to cause cancer, premature deaths, and other health problems. Exposure to diesel particulate matter is a health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems.

Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s potential airborne cancer risk from combustion sources.
ii) Asbestos
Asbestos is listed as a TAC by the ARB and as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by the EPA. Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral formations and crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestiform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos-containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining.

The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Naturally occurring asbestos is not present in Los Angeles County. The nearest likely locations of naturally occurring asbestos, as identified in the General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, is located at Asbestos Mountain in the San Jacinto Valley, over 102 miles southeast of the Site. Due to the distance to the nearest natural occurrences of asbestos, the project site is not likely to contain asbestos.

2. REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed project is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
12 through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality are discussed below.

A. Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. The NAAQS pollutants were identified using medical evidence and are shown below in Table 2, State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards.

The EPA and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the Federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard. Attainment status is shown in Table 3, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status.

As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP.

As indicated below in Table 3, the South Coast Air Basin has been designated by the EPA as a nonattainment area for ozone (O3), suspended particulates (PM2.5), and lead. Currently, the Basin is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10).

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
13 Table 2
State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards
Air Pollutant
Concentration / Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects
California Standards Federal Primary
Standards
Ozone (O3) 0.09 ppm/1-hour

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

Carbon
Monoxide (CO)

20.0 ppm/1-hour

9.0 ppm/8-hour

35.0 ppm/1-hour

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

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)

0.18 ppm/1-hour

0.03 ppm/annual
100 ppb/1-hour

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

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)

0.25 ppm/1-hour

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

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

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

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

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

Visibility
Reducing
Particles
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per kilometervisibility of 10 miles or
more due to particles
when humidity is less
than 70 percent.

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

Sources: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national-ambient-air-quality-standards and https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
14 Table 3
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme)
Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance)
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment (Moderate)
Lead (Pb) Attainment Nonattainment
Source: (Federal and State Status): California Air Resources Board, 2023, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations and SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, December 2022, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-managementplans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16.

B. State – California Air Resources Board
The CARB, which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California.

In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CAAQS for criteria pollutants are shown in Table 2. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

The SCAQMD-portion of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) has been designated by the CARB as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. Currently, the SCAB is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, lead, SO2, NO2, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and Hydrogen Sulfide.

On June 20, 2002, the CARB revised the PM10 annual average standard to 20 µg/m3 and established an annual average standard for PM2.5 of 12 µg/m3. The national annual average PM2.5 standard was most recently revised in 2024 following an exhaustive review of new literature pointing to evidence for continued risk of premature mortality and other health effects at lower PM2.5 concentrations than the existing standard. The latest review resulted in retention of the existing 24-hour average PM2.5 and PM10 standards. The South Coast Air Basin is designated as an "extreme" nonattainment area for the 2015 8- hour ozone standard and is required to meet the standard by 2037. On December 2, 2022, South Coast AQMD adopted the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which provides the blueprint for how the Basin will meet the standard by 2037. While the 2022 AQMP largely fulfilled Clean Air Act requirements for "extreme" nonattainment areas, it did not formally address contingency measure requirements as U.S.

EPA was in the process of developing updated contingency measure guidance. The 2022 AQMP committed City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
15 to address these requirements once new guidance was issued. On December 3, 2024, the U.S. EPA released updated guidance for contingency measures. The South Coast Air Basin Contingency Measure SIP Revision for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS has been developed in response to U.S. EPA's new guidance to satisfy contingency measure requirements in the Basin.

Effective October 1, 2023, the CARB Advanced Clen Fleets Regulation (ACF) requires certain fleets to phase-in medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) into their California fleets through 2042; The regulations pertain to three fleet types:

1. State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and State agency fleets;

2. Trucks performing drayage operations at seaports and railyards; and

3. High Priority Fleets including federal agencies and entities that have $50 million or more in gross annual revenue or entities that own, operate, or control 50 or more vehicles.

Beginning January 1, 2024, State and local government fleets, including city, county, special district, and state agency fleets, are required to add ZEVs to the fleet as a percentage of their purchases each year.

Starting January 1, 2024, 50% of vehicle purchases must be zero-emission vehicles and 100% of purchases must be zero-emission starting January 1, 2027. Small government fleets(those with 10 or fewer vehicles) and those in designated counties must start their ZEV purchases beginning in 2027. Alternatively, State and local government fleet owners may elect to meet ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for electrification. Beginning January 1, 2024, only zero-emission drayage trucks may be reported in the TRUCRS system. All drayage trucks entering seaports and intermodal railyards will be required to be zero-emission by 2035. Starting January 1, 2024 High Priority Fleets, including federal fleets, must comply with the Model Year Schedule OR may choose to use the ZEV Milestones Option to phase zero-emissions vehicles (ZEV) into their fleets Starting January 1, 2024, fleet owners may only add ZEVs to their California fleet and, starting January 1, 2025, must remove internal combustion engine vehicles that have exceeded their useful life as specified in the regulation.

Alternatively, fleet owners may elect to meet ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for electrification. However, CARB has issued an Enforcement Notice that it has decided to exercise its enforcement discretion for drayage trucks and high priority fleets, and will not take enforcement action as to the reporting requirements or registration prohibitions of the drayage or high priority fleet requirements until U.S. EPA grants California a preemption waiver applicable to those regulatory provisions, or determines a waiver is not necessary.

The CARB is also responsible for regulations pertaining to toxic air contaminants. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588, 1987, Connelly) was enacted in 1987 as a means to establish a formal air toxics emission inventory risk quantification program. AB 2588, as amended, establishes a process that requires stationary sources to report the type and quantities of certain City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
16 substances their facilities routinely release into the South Coast Air Basin. The data is ranked by high, intermediate, and low categories, which are determined by: the potency, toxicity, quantity, volume, and proximity of the facility to nearby receptors.
i) AB 617 Nonvehicular Air Pollution: Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants
This bill requires the state board to develop a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for use by certain categories of stationary sources. The bill requires those stationary sources to report their annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, as specified. This bill required the state board, by October 1, 2018, to prepare a monitoring plan regarding technologies for monitoring criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants and the need for and benefits of additional community air monitoring systems, as defined. The bill requires the state board to select, based on the monitoring plan, the highest priority locations in the state for the deployment of community air monitoring systems. The bill requires an air district containing a selected location, by July 1, 2019, to deploy a system in the selected location. The bill would authorize the air district to require a stationary source that emits air pollutants in, or that materially affect, the selected location to deploy a fence-line monitoring system, as defined, or other specified real-time, on-site monitoring. The bill authorizes the state board, by January 1, 2020, and annually thereafter, to select additional locations for the deployment of the systems. The bill requires air districts that have deployed a system to provide to the state board air quality data produced by the system. The bill requires the state board to publish the data on its Internet Web site.

C. Regional
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin. To that end, as a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state agencies. i) SCAG
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that affect air quality. SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifies growth forecasts that are used in the development of air quality-related land use and transportation control strategies by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
17 On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council unanimously voted to approve and fully adopt Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy), and the addendum to the Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report. Connect SoCal is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal outlines more than $638 billion in transportation system investments through 2045. It was prepared through a collaborative, continuous, and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. ii) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs. a) AQMP
In May 2022, the SCAQMD completed the 2022 Draft AQMP. The 2022 Draft AQMP is focused on attaining the 2015 8-hour ozone standard (70 ppb) for the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley. The Draft 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emission technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOx technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other CAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP was adopted December 2, 2022, by SCAQMD Governing Board. The 2022 AQMP was approved and adopted by CARB on January 26, 2023. The 2022 AQMP utilizes information from the 2020 RTP/SCS. The 2022 AQMP strategy includes the following:4
• Wide adoption of zero emissions technologies anywhere available. • Low NOx technologies where zero emissions aren’t feasible. • Federal Action.
4 SCAQMD, 2022 AQMP Infographic, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgtplan/2022-aqmp-infographic.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
18 • Zero emissions technologies for residential and industrial sources such as water and space heaters in buildings and homes regionwide.
• Incentive funding in environmental justice areas.
• Prioritize benefits on the most disadvantaged communities. b) SCAQMD Rules
During construction and operation, the project must comply with applicable rules and regulations. The following are rules that the project may be required to comply with, either directly, or indirectly:
1) SCAQMD Rule 402
Prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. 2) SCAQMD Rule 403
Governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction and operation activities. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites.

Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component). Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Rule 403 measures may include but are not limited to the following:
§ Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). § Water active sites at least three times daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.)
City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
19 § Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 0.6 meters (2 feet) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code section 23114. 3) SCAQMD Rule 445
Prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet-fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space-heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. 4) SCAQMD Rule 481
Applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment. The rule states that a person shall not use or operate any spray painting or spray coating equipment unless one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The spray coating equipment is operated inside a control enclosure, which is approved by the Executive Officer. Any control enclosure for which an application for permit for new construction, alteration, or change of ownership or location is submitted after the date of adoption of this rule shall be exhausted only through filters at a design face velocity not less than 100 feet per minute nor greater than 300 feet per minute, or through a water wash system designed to be equally effective for the purpose of air pollution control.
(2) Coatings are applied with high-volume low-pressure, electrostatic, and/or airless spray equipment. (3) An alternative method of coating application or control is used which has effectiveness equal to or greater than the equipment specified in the rule.
5) SCAQMD Rule 1108
Governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in asphalt used in the South Coast Air Basin. This rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.
6) SCAQMD Rule 1113
Governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coating and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. This rule regulates the VOC content of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
20 7) SCAQMD Rule 1143
Governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must comply with this rule. 8) SCAQMD Rule 1186
Limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide sweeping services to any federal, state, county, agency, or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district. 9) SCAQMD Rule 1403
Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM). c) SCAQMD and CEQA
Although the SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) prepared by the SCAQMD (1993) with the most current updates found at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook, was developed in accordance with the projections and programs of the AQMP.

The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a proposed project’s potential air quality impacts.

Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that the SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. SCAQMD is in the process of developing an "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" to replace the CEQA Air Quality Handbook approved by the AQMD Governing Board in 1993. The 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook is still available but not online. In addition, there are sections of the 1993 Handbook that are obsolete. In order to assist the CEQA practitioner in conducting an air quality analysis while the new Handbook is being prepared, supplemental information City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
21 regarding: significance thresholds and analysis, emissions factors, cumulative impacts emissions analysis, and other useful subjects, are available at the SCAQMD website5 .

D. Local – City of Pasadena
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of Pasadena, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the 2016 AQMP and SCAQMD Attainment Plans. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy-efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation.

3. MONITORED AIR QUALITY
The air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates of the existing emissions in the Basin provided in the Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan prepared by SCAQMD (December 2022) indicate that collectively, mobile sources account for 46 percent of the VOC, 85 percent of the NOx emissions, 89 percent of the CO emissions and 29 percent of directly emitted PM2.5, with another 18 percent of PM2.5 from road dust.

The EPA and the CARB designate air basins where ambient air quality standards are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified”. National nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. Each standard has a different definition, or ‘form’ of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the Federal 8- hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the Federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.

The SCAQMD has divided the South Coast Air Basin into 38 air-monitoring areas with a designated ambient air monitoring station representative of each area. The project site is located in the West San Gabriel Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 8). The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Pasadena 5 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
22 – S. Wilson Avenue Monitoring Station (Pasadena Station). The Pasadena Station is located approximately

0.77 miles southwest of the Site, at 752 S. Wilson Avenue, Pasadena. Table 4, Air Quality Monitoring Summary, presents the monitored pollutant levels from the Pasadena Station. However, it should be noted that due to the air monitoring station distance from the project site, recorded air pollution levels at the air monitoring station reflect with varying degrees of accuracy, local air quality conditions at the project site. As PM-10 data was not available for the Pasadena station, data was obtained from the Los Angeles- North Main Street Station.

Table 4 summarizes 2022 through 2024 published monitoring data, which is the most recent 3-year period available. The data shows that during the past few years; the project area has exceeded the State ozone and Particulate Matter (PM10) standards.

Table 4
Air Quality Monitoring Summary

Pollutant (Standard)1
Year
2022 2023 2024
Ozone:

Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.143 0.109 0.143
Days > CAAQS (0.09 ppm) 12 24 21
Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.102 0.090 0.099
Days > NAAQS/CAAQS (0.070 ppm) 22 33 42
Carbon Monoxide:

Maximum 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) * * *
Days > CAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Days > NAAQS (9 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide: Maximum 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.0659 0.0492 0.0615 Days > CAAQS (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Inhalable Particulates
(PM10):2
Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 61.0 58.0 78.0
Days > NAAQS (150 µg/m3) 0 * *
Days > CAAQS (50 µg/m3) 0 1 2
Annual Average (µg/m3) 24.1 21.8 21.8
Ultra-Fine
Particulates (PM2.5):

Maximum 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) 22.1 52.0 117.2
Days > NAAQS (35 µg/m3) 0 1 3
Annual Average (µg/m3) 9.1 9.0 11.7
Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Data from the Pasadena-S. Wilson Avenue Monitoring Station, unless otherwise noted.
(1) CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard; ppm = parts per million (2) Data obtained from the Los Angeles - North Main Street Station. * Means there was insufficient data available to determine value.

A. Ozone
During the 2022 to 2024 monitoring period, the State 1-hour concentration standard for ozone was exceeded between 12 and 24 days per year at the Pasadena Station. The State/Federal 8-hour ozone standard has been exceeded between 22 and 42 days each year over the past three years at the Pasadena City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
23 Station. Ozone is a secondary pollutant as it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of chemical reactions between other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and NO2, which occur only in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the area. Many areas of the SCAQMD contribute to the ozone levels experienced at the monitoring station, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind.

B. Carbon Monoxide
CO is another important pollutant that is due mainly to motor vehicles. The Pasadena Station did not record an exceedance of the state or federal 8-hour CO standard for the last three years.

C. Nitrogen Dioxide
The Pasadena Station did not record an exceedance of the State or Federal NO2 standards for the last three years.

D. Particulate Matter
From 2022 to 2024, the State 24-hour concentration standard for PM10 was exceeded between 1 and 2 days per year at the Los Angeles Station. There was no exceedance of the Federal standards for PM10.

Over the past three years, the Federal 24-hour standards for PM2.5 were exceeded between 1 and 3 days at the Pasadena Station.

According to the EPA, some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death due to breathing these fine particles. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in fine particles. Children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive, because many breathe through their mouths during exercise.

4. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
A. Significance Thresholds
i) Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines
Pursuant to Appendix G, the project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would:
§ Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
24 § Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; § Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or § Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 provides the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district, when available, may be relied upon to make determinations of significance. The potential air quality impacts of the Project are, therefore, evaluated according to thresholds developed by SCAQMD in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, and subsequent guidance, which are listed below.6 Therefore, the project would
result in a potentially significant impact to air quality if it would:

AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; AIR-2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation as a result of:
§ Criteria pollutant emissions during construction (direct and indirect) in excess of the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds,
§ Criteria pollutant emissions during operation (direct and indirect) in excess of the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds.

AIR-3: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); AIR-4: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations that would:
§ Exceed SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds,
§ Cause or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots.

AIR-5: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

B. Regional Air Quality
Many air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution generators in the basin, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have 6 While the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains significance thresholds for lead, Project construction and operation would not include sources of lead emissions and would not exceed the established thresholds for lead. Unleaded fuel and unleaded paints have virtually eliminated lead emissions from industrial land use projects such as the Project. As a result, lead emissions are not further evaluated herein.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
25 converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure.

Therefore, the SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the South Coast Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes to this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds identified in Table 5, SCQAMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

Table 5
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds
Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Toxic Air Contaminants, Odor and GHG Thresholds
TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial projects
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant SCAQMD Standards
NO2 -1-hour average
Annual arithmetic mean

0.18 ppm (338 µg/m^3)

0.03 ppm (state) and 0.0534 (federal)
PM10 -24-hour average
Construction
Operations
Annual average

10.4 µg/m^3

2.5 ug/m^3

1.0 µg/m^3
PM2.5 -24-hour average
Construction
Operations

10.4 µg/m^3

2.5 µg/m^3
SO2
1-hour average
24-hour average

0.25 ppm (state) and 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th percentile)

0.04 ppm (state)
CO
1-hour average
8-hour average
20 ppm (23,000 µg/m^3)
9 ppm (10,000 µg/m^3)
City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
26 Table 5
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Lead
30-day average
Rolling 3-month average
Quarterly average

1.5 µg/m^3

0.15 µg/m^3

1.5 µg/m^3
Source: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=f7601d61_25 C. Local Air Quality and Localized Significance Thresholds Project-related construction air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) to assess the project-related air emissions in the project vicinity. The SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), revised July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The Localized Significant Threshold Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The significance thresholds for the local emissions of NO2 and CO are determined by subtracting the highest background concentration from the last three years of these pollutants from Table 4 above, from the most restrictive ambient air quality standards for these pollutants that are outlined in the Localized Significant Thresholds. Table 5 shows the ambient air quality standards for NO2, CO, and PM10 and PM2.5.

D. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
i) Construction
Temporary TAC emissions associated with DPM emissions from heavy construction equipment would occur during the construction phase of the Project. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)7 and the SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (August 2003),8 health effects from TACs are described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. Additionally, the SCAQMD CEQA guidance does not require 7 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessment, February 2015, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, August 2003,http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis.doc?sfvrsn=2.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
27 a HRA for short-term construction emissions. Construction activities associated with the project would be sporadic, transitory, and short-term in nature (approximately 20 months). Thus, construction of the project would not result in a substantial, long-term (i.e., 30-year) source of TAC emissions. Nonetheless, a qualitative assessment of TAC emissions associated with short-term construction TAC emissions is provided in the analysis section below.
ii) Operation
CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook in April 2005 to serve as a general guide for considering impacts to sensitive receptors from facilities that emit TAC emissions. The recommendations provided therein are voluntary and do not constitute a requirement or mandate for either land use agencies or local air districts. The goal of the guidance document is to protect sensitive receptors, such as children, the elderly, acutely ill, and chronically ill persons, from exposure to TAC emissions. Some examples of CARB’s siting recommendations include the following: (1) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day; (2) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units per day, or where transport refrigeration unit operations exceed 300 hours per week); (3) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation using perchloroethylene and within 500 feet of operations with two or more machines; and (4) avoid siting sensitive receptors within 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (3.6 million gallons per year or more) or 50 feet of a typical gasoline dispensing facility (less than 3.6 million gallons per year). However, the project will be an R & D facility and is not considered to be a sensitive receptor.

E. Odor Impacts
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if the proposed project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

If the proposed project results in a violation of Rule 402 with regards to odor impacts, then the proposed project would create a significant odor impact.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
28 5. SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would have the potential to generate air emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and odor impacts. Assumptions for the phasing, duration, and required equipment for the construction of the proposed project were obtained from the project applicant. The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include: Demolition of the existing asphalt parking lot, grading/excavation of the approximately 1-acre site, construction of a 93,539 square foot, 4-story R & D building on top of 3 levels of underground parking (with 280 parking spaces), and application of architectural coatings. The project is anticipated to export 950 tons of material during the demolition phase, and 60,000 CY of material during the grading/excavation phase. See Appendix A for more details.

The project is anticipated to start construction no sooner than January 2025 and be complete by September 2027. The project is anticipated to be operational in 2027.

A. Methodology
The following provides a discussion of the methodology used to calculate regional construction air emissions and an analysis of the proposed project’s short-term construction emissions for the criteria pollutants. The construction-related regional air quality impacts have been analyzed for both criteria pollutants and GHGs.

Emissions are estimated using the CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.30) software, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod was developed in collaboration with the air districts of California. Regional data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the various California air districts to account for local requirements and conditions. The model is considered to be an accurate and comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality and GHG impacts from land use projects throughout California.

Daily regional emissions during construction are forecasted by assuming a conservative estimate of construction activities (i.e., assuming all construction occurs at the earliest feasible date) and applying the mobile source and fugitive dust emissions factors. The input values used in this analysis were adjusted to be project-specific for the construction schedule and the equipment used was based on CalEEMod defaults. The CalEEMod program uses the EMFAC2021 computer program to calculate the emission rates specific for Los Angeles County for construction-related employee vehicle trips and the OFFROAD2017 computer program to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. EMFAC2021 and OFFROAD2017 are computer programs generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles.

Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
29 hour. Daily truck trips and CalEEMod default trip length data were used to assess roadway emissions from truck exhaust. The maximum daily emissions are estimated values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would occur for every day of project construction. The maximum daily emissions are compared to the SCAQMD daily regional numeric indicators. Detailed construction equipment lists, construction scheduling, and emission calculations are provided in Appendix A.

The project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. In addition, projects that disturb 50 acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD. Based on the size of the Project area (approximately 1.16 acres) a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification would not be required.

SCAQMD’s Rule 403 minimum requirements require that the application of the best available dust control measures is used for all grading operations and include the application of water or other soil stabilizers in sufficient quantity to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes. Compliance with Rule 403 would require the use of water trucks during all phases where earth moving operations would occur. Compliance with Rule 403 has been included in the CalEEMod modeling for the proposed project.

Per SCAQMD Rule 1113 as amended on June 3, 2011, the architectural coatings that would be applied to buildings will be limited to an average of 50 grams per liter or less. CalEEMod defaults have been adjusted accordingly.

The phases of the construction activities which have been analyzed below for each phase are: (1) demolition, (2) grading/excavation, (3) building construction, and (4) application of architectural coatings.

Details pertaining to the project's construction timing and the type of equipment modeled for each construction phase are available in the CalEEMod output in Appendix A of this technical report.

B. Construction-Related Regional Impacts
The construction-related criteria maximum daily pollutant emissions for each phase are shown below in Table 6 Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions. Table 6 shows the worst-case of either summer or winter criteria pollutant emissions and that none of the project's emissions would exceed regional thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
30 Table 6
Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions

Activity
Maximum Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions1,2 21.7 11.2 17.8 0.04 1.78 0.62 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
(1) Includes emissions from both on-site and off-site emissions. Site preparation and excavation PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions show compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
(2) Construction and painting phases may overlap.

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30.

C. Construction-Related Local Impacts
Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local air quality impacts created from: construction-related fugitive dust and diesel emissions; from toxic air contaminants; and from construction-related odor impacts. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Localized Significant Threshold Look-up Tables and the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology prepared by SCAQMD (revised July 2008). The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD in order to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. The emission thresholds were calculated based on the West San Gabriel Valley source receptor area (SRA) 8 and a disturbance value of one acre per day (the site is

1.16 acres). According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Site are: the rectory of the St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site; the Pasadena City College Child Development Center Day Care, located approximately 60 feet west of the site; the apartment building located at 107 S. Holliston, approximately 60 feet west of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center), located approximately 64 feet east of the site; the apartment building located at 125 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 100 feet south west of the site; the Aqua Courtyard Suites apartment building located at 1299 E. Green Street, approximately 105 feet northwest of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle School located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 135 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 145 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 220 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 165 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 285 feet southwest of the site; and the tennis courts belonging to Pasadena City College, located approximately 280 feet east of the site; therefore, the SCAQMD 25-meter Look-up Tables was used. Table 7, Local Construction Emissions at the City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
31 Nearest Receptors, shows the on-site emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the LST screening criteria. As stated previously, other air quality sensitive land uses are located further from the project site and would experience lower impacts.

The data provided in Table 7 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the LST screening criteria at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant local air quality impact would occur from construction of the proposed project.

Table 7
Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 5.93 7.36 0.78 0.323
Excavation/Grading 4.78 7.62 0.12 0.11
Building Construction 8.84 10.65 0.28 0.26
Architectural Coating 0.83 1.13 0.02 0.02
SCAQMD LST Screening
Criteria1 69 535 4 3
Exceeds Screening Criteria? No No No No
Notes:
(1) The nearest sensitive receptors to the site are: the rectory of the St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site; the Pasadena City College Child Development Center Day Care, located approximately 60 feet west of the site; the apartment building located at 107 S. Holliston, approximately 60 feet west of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center), located approximately 64 feet east of the site; the apartment building located at 125 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 100 feet south west of the site; the Aqua Courtyard Suites apartment building located at 1299 E. Green Street, approximately 105 feet northwest of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle School located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 135 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 145 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 220 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 165 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 285 feet southwest of the site; and the tennis courts belonging to Pasadena City College, located approximately 280 feet east of the site; therefore, the 25-meter threshold was used.

Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 1 acre, at a distance of 25 m in SRA 8 West San Gabriel Valley.

D. Construction-Related Toxic Contaminant Impacts
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (August 2003), health effects from TACs are described in terms of individual cancer risk and noncancer (chronic) health impacts based on a lifetime (i.e., 30-year) resident exposure duration. Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule (approximately 20 months), the Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure as a result of project construction. Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
32 The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes at a location, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would further minimize emissions of TACs during construction.

Therefore, impacts from TACs during construction would be less than significant.

E. Construction-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the proposed project. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors.

6. LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term increase in air emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project-generated vehicle trips and through other operational emissions from the on-going use of the proposed project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to regional air quality impacts with the on-going operations of the proposed project.

A. Operations-Related Regional Air Quality Impacts
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through the use of the CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on the year 2027, which is the anticipated opening year for the proposed project. The operations daily emissions printouts from the CalEEMod model are provided in Appendix A. The CalEEMod analyzes operational emissions from area sources, energy usage, and mobile sources, which are discussed below. i) Mobile Sources
Mobile sources include emissions from the additional vehicle miles generated from the proposed project.

Per the Transportation Analysis Memorandum of Understanding (Pasadena Department of Transportation/Fehr and Peers, June 2025), the Project will generate 11.08 daily trips/KSF. The Saturday and Sunday trip generation rates were based on CalEEMod default trip generation rates for the R and D land use. The highest mobile source emissions for weekdays and weekends were reported in Table 8, Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions. The CalEEMod program then applies the emission factors for City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
33 each trip, which is provided by the EMFAC2021 model, to determine the vehicular traffic pollutant emissions.
ii) Area Sources
Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape equipment and architectural coatings. Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. As specifics were not known about the landscaping equipment fleet, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate emissions from landscaping equipment. It was assumed that heating would be electric to meet current building code requirements. No other changes were made to the default area source parameters.
iii) Energy Usage
Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on-site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.

Table 8
Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.01 3.23 37.3 0.07 6.45 1.71
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:

Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.30. the higher of summer or winter emissions (see Appendix A for details). iv) Project Impacts
The worst-case summer or winter maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions created from the proposed project’s long-term operations have been calculated and are shown in Table 8 above. Table 8 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant regional air quality impact would occur from the operation of the proposed project.

B. Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts
Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
34 quality impacts from on-site operations. The following analysis analyzes the vehicular CO emissions, local impacts from on-site operations per SCAQMD LST methodology, and odor impacts. i) Local CO Emission Impacts from Project-Related Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards which were presented above.

To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards discussed above, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Basin by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the South Coast Air Basin. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region’s unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans.

In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included: South Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the Level of Service in the vicinity of the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be Level of Service E during the morning peak hour and Level of Service F during the afternoon peak hour.

The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard.

The project generates 1,036 daily vehicle trips, with 96 peak hour trips. Therefore, as the peak hour volumes at intersections in the project vicinity fall far short of 100,000 vehicles per day, no CO “hot spot” modeling was necessary, as clearly no significant long-term air quality impact would occur to local air quality with the operation of the proposed Project.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
35 i) Local Air Quality Impacts from On-Site Operations Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, on-site usage of natural gas appliances as well as the operation of vehicles on-site may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the South Coast Air Basin.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the Site are: the rectory of the St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site; the Pasadena City College Child Development Center Day Care, located approximately 60 feet west of the site; the apartment building located at 107 S. Holliston, approximately 60 feet west of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center), located approximately 64 feet east of the site; the apartment building located at 125 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 100 feet south west of the site; the Aqua Courtyard Suites apartment building located at 1299 E. Green Street, approximately 105 feet northwest of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle School located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 135 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 145 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 220 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 165 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 285 feet southwest of the site; and the tennis courts belonging to Pasadena City College, located approximately 280 feet east of the site.

According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources (such as heavy-duty trucks) that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site; such as industrial warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed project consists of a commercial R & D facility, and does not include such industrial uses. Therefore, due the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is warranted.

C. Operations-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project would include odor emissions from the intermittent trash truck emissions and trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed project.

7. CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
There are a number of cumulative projects in the project area that have not yet been built or are currently under construction. Since the timing or sequencing of the cumulative projects is unknown, any quantitative analysis to ascertain daily construction emissions that assumes multiple, concurrent City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
36 construction projects would be speculative. Further, cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area. The SCAQMD recommends using two different methodologies: (1) that project-specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality;9 and (2) that a project’s consistency with the current AQMP be used to determine its potential cumulative impacts.

A. Project Specific Impacts
A significant impact may occur if a project would add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or state non-attainment pollutant. As stated previously, the Air Basin is currently in non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. In accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact.

The project would result in the emission of criteria pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment during both construction and operation. The emissions from construction of the project are not predicted to exceed any applicable SCAQMD regional or local impact threshold and therefore, are not expected to result in ground level concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of non-attainment pollutants or ozone precursors and would result in a less than significant impact for construction emissions.

Project operations would generate emissions of NOx, ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, which would not exceed the SCAQMD regional or local thresholds and would not be expected to result in ground level concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Since the project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of emissions, CO is the benchmark pollutant for assessing local area air quality impacts from post-construction motor vehicle operations. As indicated earlier, no violations of the state and federal CO standards are projected to occur for the project, based on the magnitude of traffic the project is anticipated to create. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase for non-attainment of criteria pollutants or ozone precursors. As a result, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact for operational emissions. 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution White Paper, 1993, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
37 B. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plans and Regional Plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan related to air quality that applies to the proposed project is the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP.

The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended General Plan Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP". Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2022 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

Both of these criteria are evaluated below.
i) AQMP Consistency Analysis
a) Criteria 1 – Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this Air Quality Analysis, short-term construction impacts would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. This Air Analysis also found that long-term operations impacts would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. b) Criteria 2 – Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP?
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation/Sustainable Communities Strategy prepared by SCAG (2020) includes chapters on: the City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Air Quality Analysis
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
38 challenges in a changing region, creating a plan for our future, and the road to greater mobility and sustainable growth. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA.

For this project, the City of Pasadena General Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The project consists of the construction and operation of a 93,539 square foot, 4-story R & D building with 3 levels of underground parking (280 parking spaces). The project is located in the EC-MU-N East Colorado Specific Plan Zoning District and has a Mixed-Use General Plan Land Use designation.

Therefore, as stated above, the City’s General Plan is based on the requirements laid out in the AQMP, which, in turn is based on the latest RTP/SCS. A project that is consistent with the existing zoning/land use, would not exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site. Therefore, as the project is consistent with the existing zoning/land use, the proposed project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion.

Based on the analysis above, the project meets both criteria and the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. 1364 E. Green Street Project III. CAP Consistency Analysis Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
39 III. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

1. EXISTING GREENHOUSE GAS ENVIRONMENT
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses.

Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide (NOx) are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

2. GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS AND REGULATION
A. Local – City of Pasadena
The City of Pasadena adopted the Pasadena Climate Action Plan (CAP) on March 5, 2018. The purpose of the CAP is to analyze GHG emissions at a programmatic-level, outline a strategy to reduce and mitigate municipal and community-wide GHG emissions, demonstrate Pasadena’s commitment to achieving the state-wide emissions reduction targets, and serve as a qualified GHG reduction plan consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5. The timeframe for the CAP extends from the date of adoption through the year 2035, consistent with the horizon year of Pasadena’s 2015 General Plan Land Use Element. The CAP includes the following components:
• Summary of existing state and local initiatives addressing climate change; • Community-wide GHG inventory and emissions forecasts; • GHG reduction goals, measures, and actions;
• Implementation and monitoring of the plan; and
• Adaptation strategies and climate change preparedness.

The Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is intended to be a tool for new development projects to demonstrate consistency with Pasadena’s CAP. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows lead City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project III. CAP Consistency Analysis Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
40 agencies to analyze the impacts associated with GHG emissions at a programmatic level in plan-level documents such as CAPs, so that project-level environmental documents may tier from the programmatic review. Projects that meet the requirements of the CAP Consistency Checklist are deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b).

Projects subject to CEQA review have three options to demonstrate consistency with the CAP: Option A, incorporate mandatory and selective sustainable development actions that will become conditions of the entitlement; Option B, quantify the project’s GHG emission levels and demonstrate that the project is below Pasadena’s service population efficiency threshold; and Option C, quantify the project’s GHG emission levels and demonstrate that the project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions.

3. METHODOLOGY
This analysis uses Option A, to demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the Pasadena CAP by incorporating applicable actions intended to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to the City’s cumulative GHG reduction goals. The City’s CAP Checklist was completed by the applicant and can be found in Appendix B of this report.

4. CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLANS AND

POLICIES
As stated above, the Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist is intended to be a tool for new development projects to demonstrate consistency with Pasadena’s CAP, which is a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The Checklist is only required for discretionary projects10 that are subject to and not exempt from CEQA.

Projects that are exempt from CEQA are deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP, and no further review is necessary, except for the Class 32 “In-Fill Development Projects” categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332), for which Projects are required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through this Checklist.

Per the CAP Checklist, the Project can demonstrate consistency with Pasadena’s CAP through one of three options:
10 City of Pasadena, Pasadena Climate Action Plan (CAP), March 5, 2018, page 90.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project III. CAP Consistency Analysis Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
41 • Option A: Sustainable Development Actions – Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the Pasadena CAP by incorporating applicable actions intended to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to the City’s cumulative GHG reduction goals • Option B: GHG Efficiency - Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with Pasadena’s per person GHG efficiency thresholds
• Option C: Net Zero GHG Emissions – Demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions
As shown in the CAP Checklist in Appendix B of this report, the project is consistent with the Land Use Element in the General Plan, will complete all of the mandatory sustainable development actions. In addition to the mandatory actions, the proposed project must implement the following:
• One additional action in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation category • One additional action in the Sustainable Mobility and Land Use category • Three additional actions from any category
The project will complete all six of the CAP Checklist mandatory actions:
• Action T-1.2: Continue to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety; • Action T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles; • Action T-4.1: Expand the availability and use of alternative fuel vehicles and fueling infrastructure;
• Action E-1.2: Encourage the use of energy conservation devices and passive design concepts that make use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency; • Action WC-1.1: Reduce potable water usage throughout Pasadena; and • Action WR-1.1: Continue to reduce solid waste and landfill GHG emissions.

In addition, the project would implement the following CAP Checklist GHG Reduction Strategy Actions:
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation, Action E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency requirements of new buildings to perform better than 2016 Title 24 Standards, satisfying the Energy Efficiency and Conservation category;
• Sustainable Mobility and Land Use, Action T-4.1: Expand the availability and use of alternative fuel vehicles and fueling infrastructure, satisfying the Sustainable Mobility and Land Use category;
• Additional Actions, Action T-5.1: Facilitate high density, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill development,; Action UG-1.1: Continue to preserve, enhance, and acquire additional green space throughout Pasadena to improve carbon sequestration, reduce the urban heat-island effect, and increase opportunities for active recreation, and Action UG-2.1: Continue to protect City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project III. CAP Consistency Analysis Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
42 existing trees and plant new ones to improve and ensure viability of Pasadena’s urban forest, satisfying the requirement for three additional actions from any category.

The project will complete a total of 11 Actions and 11 Actions are required to be consistent with the CAP.

Please see Appendix B of this report, CAP Checklist, for details and an explanation of how the project complies with such actions.

As the project meets the requirements of the CAP Checklist, it is deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP and has a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Impacts are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
1364 E. Green Street Project IV. Emissions Reduction Measures Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
43 IV. EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES

1. CONSTRUCTION MEASURES
Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 is required.

2. OPERATIONAL MEASURES
No measures required.
1364 E. Green Street Project V. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Air Quality CAP Consistency Analysis
44 V. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technologies
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HIDPM Hazard Index Diesel Particulate Matter
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particulate matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project V. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
45 PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
1364 E. Green Street Project VI. References
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
46 VI. REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2008 Resolution 08-43
2008 Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act
2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change. 2011 Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document 2013 California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality – 2013 Edition.

Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/resource-center/technical-assistance/airquality-and-emissions-data/almanac 2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May. 2017 California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. 2022 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16. 2025 Historical Air Quality, Top 4 Summary
City of Pasadena
2015 General Plan Draft EIR. January
2018 Pasadena Climate Action Plan. March 5.
2025 Transportation Analysis Memorandum of Understanding. June.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
2008 CEQA and Climate: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review
2018 CEQA Guideline Sections to be Added or Amended
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook
2005 Rule 403 Fugitive Dust
2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Revised City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. References
Air Quality and CAP Consistency Analysis
47 2016 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
2022 2022 Air Quality Management Plan
Southern California Association of Governments
2020 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
2017 Understanding Global Warming Potentials
(Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials) U.S. Geological Survey
2011 Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California
1364 E. Green Street Project Appendices
Noise Analysis

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Study Area Photographic Index and Noise Measurement Data Appendix B: Noise Meter Print Outs
Appendix C: RCNM Construction Noise and FHWA Road Noise Calculations 1364 E. Green Street Project Appendix A: CalEEMod Emissions Output Printout Air Quality and Global Climate Change Analysis
APPENDIX A: CALEEMOD EMISSIONS OUTPUT PRINTOUT
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
1 / 44
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Excavation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.9. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
2 / 44

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
3 / 44

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
4 / 44

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
5 / 44

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
6 / 44

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
7 / 44

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 1364 E. Green Street
Construction Start Date 1/5/2026
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency City of Pasadena
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 0.50
Precipitation (days) 20.4
Location Parking lot, 1364 E Green St, Pasadena, CA 91106, USA County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Pasadena
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 4939
EDFZ 7
Electric Utility Pasadena Water & Power
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.30

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Research &
Development

93.5 1000sqft 0.00 93,539 0.00 — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
8 / 44
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
280 Space 1.16 112,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 21.7 10.9 17.8 0.04 0.30 1.50 1.78 0.27 0.40 0.62 — 6,159 6,159 0.34 0.79 11.3 6,413 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.31 11.2 15.5 0.04 0.30 1.47 1.65 0.27 0.40 0.58 — 6,153 6,153 0.34 0.79 0.29 6,396 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.01 7.34 9.59 0.02 0.18 0.92 1.10 0.17 0.23 0.40 — 3,180 3,180 0.15 0.27 2.29 3,265 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.55 1.34 1.75 < 0.005 0.03 0.17 0.20 0.03 0.04 0.07 — 526 526 0.03 0.04 0.38 541

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
9 / 44
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2026 1.31 10.9 16.2 0.04 0.30 1.47 1.65 0.27 0.40 0.58 — 6,159 6,159 0.34 0.79 11.3 6,413 2027 21.7 10.8 17.8 0.03 0.28 1.50 1.78 0.26 0.36 0.62 — 4,334 4,334 0.18 0.20 6.51 4,406 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.31 11.2 15.5 0.04 0.30 1.47 1.65 0.27 0.40 0.58 — 6,153 6,153 0.34 0.79 0.29 6,396 2027 1.26 10.0 15.1 0.03 0.26 1.29 1.56 0.24 0.32 0.56 — 3,943 3,943 0.14 0.19 0.15 4,005 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.73 7.34 9.59 0.02 0.18 0.92 1.10 0.17 0.23 0.40 — 3,180 3,180 0.15 0.27 2.29 3,265 2027 3.01 4.42 6.77 0.01 0.11 0.57 0.69 0.11 0.14 0.24 — 1,736 1,736 0.06 0.08 1.12 1,764 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.13 1.34 1.75 < 0.005 0.03 0.17 0.20 0.03 0.04 0.07 — 526 526 0.03 0.04 0.38 541 2027 0.55 0.81 1.24 < 0.005 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.04 — 287 287 0.01 0.01 0.19 292

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.01 3.08 37.3 0.07 0.11 6.34 6.45 0.10 1.61 1.71 92.0 8,148 8,240 10.0 0.51 23.6 8,667 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.51 3.23 26.2 0.07 0.09 6.34 6.43 0.09 1.61 1.70 92.0 7,824 7,915 10.0 0.53 2.94 8,326 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
10 / 44
Unmit. 5.70 2.66 26.5 0.05 0.09 4.71 4.81 0.09 1.20 1.28 92.0 6,270 6,362 9.96 0.46 9.27 6,757 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.04 0.49 4.83 0.01 0.02 0.86 0.88 0.02 0.22 0.23 15.2 1,038 1,053 1.65 0.08 1.54 1,119

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.26 2.37 27.8 0.07 0.04 6.34 6.39 0.04 1.61 1.65 — 6,916 6,916 0.32 0.27 21.2 7,026 Area 3.72 0.08 8.94 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.8 36.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.9 Energy 0.04 0.64 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,138 1,138 0.26 0.02 — 1,151 Water — — — — — — — — — — 88.1 56.9 145 9.07 0.22 — 437 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 3.83 0.00 3.83 0.38 0.00 — 13.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.39 2.39
Total 7.01 3.08 37.3 0.07 0.11 6.34 6.45 0.10 1.61 1.71 92.0 8,148 8,240 10.0 0.51 23.6 8,667 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.22 2.59 25.6 0.06 0.04 6.34 6.39 0.04 1.61 1.65 — 6,629 6,629 0.34 0.28 0.55 6,722 Area 2.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.64 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,138 1,138 0.26 0.02 — 1,151 Water — — — — — — — — — — 88.1 56.9 145 9.07 0.22 — 437 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 3.83 0.00 3.83 0.38 0.00 — 13.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.39 2.39
Total 5.51 3.23 26.2 0.07 0.09 6.34 6.43 0.09 1.61 1.70 92.0 7,824 7,915 10.0 0.53 2.94 8,326 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
11 / 44
Mobile 2.41 1.97 19.8 0.05 0.03 4.71 4.75 0.03 1.20 1.23 — 5,050 5,050 0.25 0.21 6.88 5,127 Area 3.26 0.05 6.12 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 25.2 25.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.3 Energy 0.04 0.64 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,138 1,138 0.26 0.02 — 1,151 Water — — — — — — — — — — 88.1 56.9 145 9.07 0.22 — 437 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 3.83 0.00 3.83 0.38 0.00 — 13.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.39 2.39
Total 5.70 2.66 26.5 0.05 0.09 4.71 4.81 0.09 1.20 1.28 92.0 6,270 6,362 9.96 0.46 9.27 6,757 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.44 0.36 3.61 0.01 0.01 0.86 0.87 0.01 0.22 0.22 — 836 836 0.04 0.04 1.14 849 Area 0.59 0.01 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.17 4.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.18 Energy 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 188 188 0.04 < 0.005 — 191 Water — — — — — — — — — — 14.6 9.42 24.0 1.50 0.04 — 72.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.06 0.00 — 2.22 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 0.40
Total 1.04 0.49 4.83 0.01 0.02 0.86 0.88 0.02 0.22 0.23 15.2 1,038 1,053 1.65 0.08 1.54 1,119

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.63 5.93 7.36 0.01 0.27 — 0.27 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,227 1,227 0.05 0.01 — 1,231 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
12 / 44
Demoliti — — — — — 0.52 0.52 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.39 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 80.7 80.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 81.0 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.01 163 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.88 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 648 648 0.04 0.10 0.04 679 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.6 42.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 44.7 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
13 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.77 1.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.05 7.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.40

3.3. Excavation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.46 4.78 7.62 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,167 1,167 0.05 0.01 — 1,171 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.46 4.78 7.62 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,167 1,167 0.05 0.01 — 1,171 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
14 / 44
Off-Road 0.10 1.05 1.67 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 256 256 0.01 < 0.005 — 257 Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.19 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 42.4 42.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 169 169 0.01 0.01 0.57 172 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 6.08 2.51 0.03 0.06 1.30 1.37 0.06 0.36 0.42 — 4,822 4,822 0.28 0.77 10.7 5,069 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.01 163 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.08 6.33 2.54 0.03 0.06 1.30 1.37 0.06 0.36 0.42 — 4,825 4,825 0.28 0.77 0.28 5,062 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.7 35.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 36.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
15 / 44
Hauling 0.02 1.40 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,057 1,057 0.06 0.17 1.01 1,110 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.91 5.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.99 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.26 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 175 175 0.01 0.03 0.17 184

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.00 8.84 10.6 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.26 — 0.26 — 1,943 1,943 0.08 0.02 — 1,950 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.00 8.84 10.6 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.26 — 0.26 — 1,943 1,943 0.08 0.02 — 1,950 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 3.75 4.52 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 825 825 0.03 0.01 — 828 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
16 / 44
Off-Road 0.08 0.68 0.83 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Equipment
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.30 4.97 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24 — 1,043 1,043 0.04 0.04 3.53 1,058 Vendor 0.03 1.16 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,050 1,050 0.04 0.15 2.84 1,099 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.34 4.24 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24 — 989 989 0.04 0.04 0.09 1,001 Vendor 0.03 1.21 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,051 1,051 0.04 0.15 0.07 1,097 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.15 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 426 426 0.02 0.02 0.65 432 Vendor 0.01 0.52 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 — 446 446 0.02 0.06 0.52 466 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 70.5 70.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 71.5 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 73.9 73.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 77.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
17 / 44
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.96 8.56 10.6 0.02 0.25— 0.25 0.23— 0.23— 1,943 1,943 0.08 0.02— 1,950 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.96 8.56 10.6 0.02 0.25— 0.25 0.23— 0.23— 1,943 1,943 0.08 0.02— 1,950 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 3.67 4.54 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.10— 0.10— 833 833 0.03 0.01— 836 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.67 0.83 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 138 138 0.01 < 0.005— 138 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.27 0.27 4.62 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24— 1,023 1,023 0.04 0.04 3.19 1,038 Vendor 0.03 1.11 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09— 1,030 1,030 0.04 0.14 2.69 1,076 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
18 / 44
Worker 0.27 0.33 3.92 0.00 0.00 1.01 1.01 0.00 0.24 0.24 — 970 970 0.01 0.04 0.08 981 Vendor 0.03 1.15 0.54 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,031 1,031 0.04 0.14 0.07 1,074 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.14 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 422 422 0.01 0.02 0.59 427 Vendor 0.01 0.50 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 — 442 442 0.02 0.06 0.50 461 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 69.8 69.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 70.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 73.1 73.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 76.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

20.3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
19 / 44
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 Architect
ural
Coatings

2.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.67 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 205 205 0.01 0.01 0.64 208 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.7 23.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 24.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.93 3.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.98 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
20 / 44
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development

3.26 2.37 27.8 0.07 0.04 6.34 6.39 0.04 1.61 1.65 — 6,916 6,916 0.32 0.27 21.2 7,026 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.26 2.37 27.8 0.07 0.04 6.34 6.39 0.04 1.61 1.65 — 6,916 6,916 0.32 0.27 21.2 7,026 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development

3.22 2.59 25.6 0.06 0.04 6.34 6.39 0.04 1.61 1.65 — 6,629 6,629 0.34 0.28 0.55 6,722 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 3.22 2.59 25.6 0.06 0.04 6.34 6.39 0.04 1.61 1.65 — 6,629 6,629 0.34 0.28 0.55 6,722 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
21 / 44
Researc
&
Development

0.44 0.36 3.61 0.01 0.01 0.86 0.87 0.01 0.22 0.22 — 836 836 0.04 0.04 1.14 849 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.44 0.36 3.61 0.01 0.01 0.86 0.87 0.01 0.22 0.22 — 836 836 0.04 0.04 1.14 849

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — 303 303 0.15 0.02 — 312
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 75.1 75.1 0.04 < 0.005 — 77.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 378 378 0.19 0.02 — 390
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — 303 303 0.15 0.02 — 312
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
22 / 44
Enclosed — — — — — — — — — — — 75.1 75.1 0.04 < 0.005 — 77.4 Parking
with
Elevator
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 378 378 0.19 0.02 — 390
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — 50.1 50.1 0.02 < 0.005 — 51.7
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.4 12.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 12.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 62.6 62.6 0.03 < 0.005 — 64.5

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development

0.04 0.64 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 760 760 0.07 < 0.005 — 762 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.64 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 760 760 0.07 < 0.005 — 762 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
23 / 44
Researc 0.04 0.64 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 760 760 0.07 < 0.005 — 762 h
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.64 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 760 760 0.07 < 0.005 — 762 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development

0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 126 126 0.01 < 0.005 — 126 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.12 0.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 126 126 0.01 < 0.005 — 126

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products

2.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
24 / 44
Landsca 1.47 0.08 8.94 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.8 36.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.9 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 3.72 0.08 8.94 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.8 36.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products

2.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 2.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products

0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.18 0.01 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.17 4.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.18 Total 0.59 0.01 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.17 4.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.18

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
25 / 44
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — 88.1 56.9 145 9.07 0.22 — 437
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 88.1 56.9 145 9.07 0.22 — 437 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — 88.1 56.9 145 9.07 0.22 — 437
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 88.1 56.9 145 9.07 0.22 — 437 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — 14.6 9.42 24.0 1.50 0.04 — 72.3
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 14.6 9.42 24.0 1.50 0.04 — 72.3

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
26 / 44

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — 3.83 0.00 3.83 0.38 0.00 — 13.4
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.83 0.00 3.83 0.38 0.00 — 13.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — 3.83 0.00 3.83 0.38 0.00 — 13.4
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.83 0.00 3.83 0.38 0.00 — 13.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.06 0.00 — 2.22
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
27 / 44
Enclosed — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.06 0.00 — 2.22

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.39 2.39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.39 2.39
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.39 2.39
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.39 2.39
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Researc
h
&
Development
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 0.40
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.40 0.40
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
28 / 44

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
29 / 44
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
30 / 44
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
31 / 44
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————
Annual—————————————————
Avoided—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Sequest
ered
—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
Remove d—————————————————
Subtotal—————————————————
——————————————————

5. Activity Data
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
32 / 44

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/5/2026 2/5/2026 5.00 24.0 —
Excavation Grading 2/6/2026 5/28/2026 5.00 80.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/29/2026 8/7/2027 5.00 311 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/2/2027 9/30/2027 5.00 44.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Demolition Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 423 0.48
Excavation Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50 Excavation Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Excavation Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
33 / 44

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 15.0 12.5 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Excavation — — — —
Excavation Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Excavation Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Excavation Hauling 93.8 15.0 HHDT
Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 77.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 33.7 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 15.4 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
34 / 44
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 142,573 47,021 3,019

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 950 —
Excavation — 60,000 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Research & Development 0.00 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1.16 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
35 / 44
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 68.5 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 66.3 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Research &
Development
1,036 178 104 284,888 8,946 1,534 896 2,458,992
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 142,573 47,021 3,019

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
36 / 44

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Research & Development 1,666,892 66.3 0.0330 0.0040 2,370,883 Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
413,440 66.3 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Research & Development 45,992,560 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Research & Development 7.11 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
37 / 44
Research & R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Development
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
Research &
Development
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
38 / 44

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.8 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.85 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 6.20 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
39 / 44

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
40 / 44
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 76.9
AQ-PM 52.3
AQ-DPM 64.5
Drinking Water 86.5
Lead Risk Housing 37.8
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 65.8
Traffic 34.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 68.9
Groundwater 30.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 89.0
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 52.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 14.2
Cardio-vascular 14.2
Low Birth Weights 0.56
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
41 / 44
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 0.42
Housing 41.9
Linguistic 54.6
Poverty 18.2
Unemployment 35.0

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 67.0088541
Employed 57.44899269
Median HI 67.1885025
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 98.19068395
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 57.19235211
Transportation —
Auto Access 9.174900552
Active commuting 97.12562556
Social —
2-parent households 93.82779417
Voting 50.17323239
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 21.27550366
Park access 12.47273194
Retail density 99.62787117
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
42 / 44
Supermarket access 84.69138971
Tree canopy 65.49467471
Housing —
Homeownership 15.97587579
Housing habitability 43.59040164
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 19.64583601 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 86.46220968
Uncrowded housing 65.16104196
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 88.23302964
Arthritis 97.1
Asthma ER Admissions 81.8
High Blood Pressure 96.6
Cancer (excluding skin) 60.5
Asthma 96.9
Coronary Heart Disease 94.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 97.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 96.2
Cognitively Disabled 44.8
Physically Disabled 60.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 83.0
Mental Health Not Good 95.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 97.1
Obesity 97.0
Pedestrian Injuries 88.3
Physical Health Not Good 98.5
Stroke 95.7
1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
43 / 44
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 10.6
Current Smoker 94.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 97.2
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 56.6
Elderly 61.3
English Speaking 41.1
Foreign-born 70.2
Outdoor Workers 90.7
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 42.6
Traffic Density 61.8
Traffic Access 70.8
Other Indices —
Hardship 7.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 44.3

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 20.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 85.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 1364 E. Green Street Detailed Report, 9/10/2025
44 / 44
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use 93,539 SF, 4 story R+D building with 3 levels of underground parking (280 spaces) on 1.155 acres
Construction: Construction Phases Demolition and construction to start January 2026 and be complete by September 2027 Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment list provided by client. No asphalt paving per client.

Construction: Trips and VMT Round trip distance to dump site during demolition = 25 miles, 15 trips per day during demo.

Round trip to soil disposal site during excavation = 30 miles.

Operations: Vehicle Data Per MOU, daily trip generation rate is 11.08 trips/TSF 1364 E. Green Street Project Appendix B: CAP Checklist
Air Quality and Global Climate Change Analysis
APPENDIX B: CAP CHECKLIST
APPENDIX d
climate action plan
consistency checklist
Appendices
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
1 Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
Introduction
The Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist (Checklist) is intended to be a tool for new development projects to demonstrate consistency with Pasadena’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which is a qualified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plan in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5.

This Checklist has been developed as part of the CAP implementation and monitoring process and will support the achievement of individual CAP measures as well as Pasadena’s overall GHG reduction goals. In addition, this Checklist will further Pasadena’s sustainability goals and policies that encourage sustainable development and aim to conserve and reduce the consumption of resources, such as energy and water, among others.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allows lead agencies to analyze the impacts associated with GHG emissions at a programmatic level in plan-level documents such as CAPs, so that project-level environmental documents may tier from the programmatic review. Projects that meet the requirements of this Checklist will be deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b). Projects that do not meet the requirements in this Checklist will be deemed to be inconsistent with Pasadena’s CAP and must prepare a project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible.

Applicability
This Checklist is only required for discretionary projects1that are subject to and not exempt from CEQA. Projects that are exempt from CEQA are deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP, and no further review is necessary, with the exception of the Class 32 “In-Fill Development Projects” categorical exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332), for which Projects are required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through this Checklist.

1 In this context a project is any action that meets the definition of a “Project” in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
2 Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
Application Form
When required, the Checklist must be included in the project submittal package. The requirements in the Checklist will be included in the project’s conditions of approval. The applicant is required to provide supporting documentation on how the proposed project will implement the measures identified in the Checklist to the satisfaction of the Planning & Community Development Department.

Step 1: Complete a Master Land Use Application Form (separate attachment) Step 2: Demonstrate consistency with the Land Use Element of the General Plan The growth projections outlined in the 2015 General Plan Land Use Element were used in Pasadena’s CAP to estimate community-wide GHG emissions over time. Therefore, new development projects must be consistent with the Land Use Element to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP. In order for City staff to determine a project’s consistency with the Land Use Element, please answer the following question and provide explanation with supporting documentation for each response.

Is the proposed project consistent with the existing land use designation of the Land Use Element? Yes No
If “Yes,” proceed and complete Step 3 of the Checklist.

If “No,” the proposed project may not tier from this document and must prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions and incorporate the measures in this Checklist to the extent feasible.

The project consists of the construction and operation of a 93,539 square foot, 4-story R & D building with 3 levels of underground parking (280 parking spaces). The project is located in the EC-MU-N East Colorado Specific Plan Zoning District and has a Mixed-Use General Plan Land Use designation.

Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
3 Step 3: Demonstrate consistency with Pasadena’s CAP
Proposed projects which complete one of the following three options will be deemed to be consistent with Pasadena’s CAP and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG emissions (i.e., the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG effects is not cumulatively considerable), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b).

Please select one of the following options:

Option A: Sustainable Development Actions – Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the Pasadena CAP by incorporating applicable actions intended to ensure that the project contributes its fair share to the City’s cumulative GHG reduction goals
Option B: GHG Efficiency - Demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with Pasadena’s per person GHG efficiency thresholds
Option C: Net Zero GHG Emissions – Demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions
Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
4 Option A: Sustainable Development Actions
In order to complete this option, a proposed project must incorporate applicable Sustainable Development Actions to the satisfaction of the applicable City Departments. Incorporating these actions will ensure that the project is reducing its fair share of GHG emissions and support the achievement of Pasadena’s overall GHG emissions reduction goals. For each action selected, please submit the requested documentation. If a mandatory action is not applicable to the project, please provide a description as to why that action cannot be implemented.

Mandatory Actions (all of the actions below are required) GHG Reduction
Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s
CAP)
Sustainable Development Actions Yes N/A
Check the appropriate
box and provide
explanation
T-1.2: Continue to improve
bicycle and pedestrian safety
Bicycle Storage: Does the project provide bicycle storage lockers, racks, or other bicycle storage facilities for residents/employees?
Check “N/A” only if the project does not include residents or employees.

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

T-4.1: Expand the availability
and use of alternative fuel
vehicles and fueling
infrastructure
Alternative Vehicle Fueling Wiring: For projects with more than three parking spaces, does the project provide wiring for at least one 240V Type II electric car charger? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Check “N/A” only if the project does not include more than three parking spaces.

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

WC-1.1: Reduce potable
water usage throughout
Pasadena
Irrigation Efficiency: Will the project utilize drought tolerant landscaping and/or drip irrigation and/or weather controllers to reduce outdoor water use? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Check “N/A” only if the project does not include any landscaping.

WR-1.1: Continue to reduce
solid waste and landfill GHG
emissions
Facilitate Recycling: Does the project include a space for separate trash and recycling bins as well as provide informational signage/handouts for residents/employees outlining materials to be recycled? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
5 Selective Actions
In addition the mandatory actions, the proposed project must implement the following:
 One additional action in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation category  One additional action in the Sustainable Mobility and Land Use category  Three additional actions from any category
Energy Efficiency and Conservation (select a minimum of one action) GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Actions Yes No
E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency
requirements of new buildings to perform
better than 2016 Title 24 Standards
Zero-Net Energy (ZNE): Does the project generate 100% of electricity required on site? ZNE calculations must be provided.

E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency
requirements of new buildings to perform
better than 2016 Title 24 Standards
Energy Efficiency (Exceed 2016 Title 24): Does the project exceed the 2016 Title 24 Efficiency Standards by at least 5%? Please include Title 24 energy model.

E-4.1: Increase city-wide use of carbonneutral energy by encouraging and/or supporting carbon-neutral technologies
Renewable Energy: Does the project generate at least 60% of the building’s projected electricity needs through renewable energy? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Sustainable Mobility and Land Use (select a minimum of one action) GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
T-1.1: Continue to expand Pasadena’s
bicycle and pedestrian network
End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (Commercial Development): Does the project provide at least one shower for every 50 employees? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

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

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

Please include these specifications on the project plans.

T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles
traveled by single occupancy vehiclesT-3.1
Parking De-Coupling: Does the project separate the cost of parking from the cost of commercial space and/or residential housing by charging for each individually? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles
traveled by single occupancy vehicles
Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Does the project include a TDM plan? Please submit the TDM plan for review (Note: this measure cannot be combined with the mandatory measure that requires a TDM plan for projects that meet certain size thresholds.)
T-4.1: Expand the availability and use of
alternative fuel vehicles and fueling
infrastructure
Alternative Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure: Does the proposed project include functioning 240V Type II electric car chargers at 3% of parking spaces (at least one charger) AND conduit to allow for future charger installation to 25% of spaces?
T-5.1: Facilitate high density, mixed-use,
transit-oriented, and infill development
Transit Oriented Development: Is the project located within 0.25 mile of a major transit stop as defined in the Zoning Code. Please include a map outlining the nearest transit stop.

T-6.1: Reduce GHG emissions from heavyduty construction equipment and vehiclesReduce GHG emissions from heavy-construction equipment: Will the project utilize at least 30% alternative fueled construction equipment (by pieces of equipment) and implement an equipment idling limit of 3 minutes? Please provide idling limit plan including implementation strategies along with the total pieces of equipment and those utilizing alternative fuels.

Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
6 Water Conservation
GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
WC-1.1: Reduce potable water use
throughout Pasadena
Indoor Water Efficiency: Will the project achieve at least a 35% reduction in indoor water use per the LEED V4 Indoor Water Use Reduction Calculator? Please attach the calculator output.

WC-2.1: Increase access to and use of nonpotable waterRainwater Capture and Reuse: Does the project utilize a rainwater capture and reuse system to reduce the amount of potable water consumed on site? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

WC-2.1: Increase access to and use of nonpotable waterIndoor & Outdoor Recycled Water: Will the project be plumbed to utilize recycled water for either indoor or outdoor water use? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

WC-2.1: Increase access to and use of nonpotable waterGreywater: Will the project be plumbed to take advantage of greywater produced on site such as a laundry to landscape system or another on-site water reuse system? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

WC-3.1: Improve storm water to slow, sink,
and treat water run-off, recharge
groundwater, and improve water quality
Permeable Surfaces: Is at least 30% of the hardscape (e.g., surface parking lots, walkways, patios, etc.) permeable to allow infiltration? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

WC-3.1: Improve storm water to slow, sink,
and treat water run-off, recharge
groundwater, and improve water quality
Stormwater Capture: Is the project designed to retain stormwater resulting from the 95th percentile, 24 hour rain event as defined by the Los Angeles County 95th percentile precipitation isohyetal map? Please provide the engineered stormwater retention plan with the project plans (http://dpw.lacounty.gov/wrd/hydrologygis/)
Waste Reduction
Urban Greening
GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
UG-1.1: Continue to preserve, enhance, and
acquire additional green space throughout
Pasadena to improve carbon sequestration,
reduce the urban heat-island effect, and
increase opportunities for active recreation
Greenspace: Does the project include at least 500 sq. ft. of public use greenspace (landscaped yards, parklets, rooftop garden, etc.)? At a minimum, 50% of the required greenspace must include softscape landscaping (e.g., trees, plants, grass, etc.).

UG-2.1: Continue to protect existing trees
and plant new ones to improve and ensure
viability of Pasadena’s urban forest
Trees: Does the project result in a net gain of trees? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

GHG Reduction Strategy
(Measure in Pasadena’s CAP)
Sustainable Development Action Yes No
WR-1.1: Continue to reduce solid waste and
landfill GHG emissions
Recycled Materials: Does the project utilize building materials and furnishings with at least 50% (pre- or post-consumer) recycled content or products which are designed for reuse? At a minimum, projects must show at least 10% of the material by cost meets the recycled content requirement? Please submit the plan for review.

WR-3.1: Implement a city-wide composting
program to limit the amount of organic
material entering landfills
On-Site Composting: Does the project include an area specifically designated for on-site composting? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
7 Total Actions Taken
Sector Actions Selected (#) Actions Required
Mandatory Actions 6
Energy Efficiency and Conservation 1
Sustainable Mobility and Land Use 1
Water Conservation 0
Waste Reduction 0
Urban Greening 0
Total # of Actions Selected
Total Required 11
Supporting Documentation
Use the section below to provide supporting information describing how each selected Sustainable Development Action will be implemented in the proposed project. Additional information such as model outputs, invoices, and project plans should be noted below and attached to this submittal as needed.

Sustainable
Development Action Description of Project Implementation Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
8 Sustainable
Development Action Description of Project Implementation Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
9 Option B: GHG Efficiency
The efficiency threshold assesses the GHG efficiency of a proposed project on a service person (residents + full time employees) basis. This method recognizes that highly efficient projects (e.g., compact and mixed-use development) with relatively high mass emissions may nevertheless meet the local and State GHG reduction goals/targets. Using the demographic projections developed for the CAP, Pasadena has developed service person efficiency thresholds for the years of 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 which are consistent with Pasadena’s GHG emission goals included in the CAP and the State targets it is designed to achieve (AB 32, SB 32, and substantial progress towards EO S-3-05). Applicants may decide to assess their proposed project’s GHG emissions relative to Pasadena’s GHG efficiency thresholds in lieu of completing the Sustainable Development Actions. Applicants should utilize standard GHG modeling techniques (such as CalEEMod2) to estimate total GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Models should include all construction emissions (amortized over 30 years) and operational emissions. Total annual emissions should be divided by the proposed project’s service population (residents + full time employees) to determine the efficiency of the proposed project using the following equation:

Proposed Project’s GHG Efficiency = Annual GHG Emissions / Service Population (Residents + Full Time Employees)
The proposed project must be able to demonstrate a GHG efficiency which is less than or equal to the threshold listed below for the projects first operational year to be considered consistent with the Pasadena CAP and State targets it is designed to achieve. Refer to Appendix B for a complete description of the methodology used to calculate the efficiency thresholds.

Project First Operational Year Threshold
2017 – 2020 5.63 MT CO2e/Service Person
2021 – 2025 4.56 MT CO2e/Service Person
2026 – 2030 3.57 MT CO2e/Service Person
2031 – 2035 2.73 MT CO2e/Service Person

2 The California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for assessing air quality and GHG impacts associated with construction projects. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ Appendix D – Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
December 28, 2017
10 Option C: Net Zero GHG Emissions
In lieu of Option A or B, applicants can demonstrate consistency with this CAP by demonstrating their proposed project would result in no net increase of GHG emissions. A proposed project can reduce its GHG emissions through the purchasing of carbon offsets issued by Climate Action Reserve3 or other validated carbon offset registry to a level which results in zero net GHG emissions. The following methodology must be followed to prove zero net GHG emissions.

1. The applicant must model the proposed project’s annual emissions using the most recent version of CalEEMod or equivalent model accepted by SCAQMD and/or CARB for CEQA purposes. Each model must include all emissions associated with the project including land clearing, demolition, earth moving, construction activities and operational related emissions such as energy use, water use, waste generation, transportation, area sources, and vegetation change, if applicable. The total annual operational emissions over 30 years as projected by the model should then be summed and added to the construction emissions to estimate the total lifetime GHG emissions associated with the project. CalEEMod is able to estimate operation related emissions over time taking into account changes to grid mix and vehicle fleet mandated by state legislation such as Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Pavley. Applicants should use CalEEMod forecasting to show overall GHG emissions and existing conditions (if applicable) should be modeled separately using CalEEMod for operations only and then subtracted from the project total to show the net change in GHG emissions.

Example:

Construction Emissions (1,000 MT of CO2e) + Sum of Annual Emissions over 30 years (90,000 MT of CO2e) – Existing Conditions (500 MT CO2e) = 90,500 MT of CO2e

2. The total emissions for the project must then be offset by Climate Reserve Tonnes or CRT’s through the Climate Action Reserve marketplace. In the above example, the proposed project would be required to purchase 90,500 CRT’s through the carbon marketplace. Offsets cost between $12-$15 as of September 2017 but prices are subject to changes in the carbon market. The marketplace can be found here:
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/crt-marketplace/ The full CalEEMod output and verification of the CRT’s purchased must be provided to the City of Pasadena as part of the review process.

3 The Climate Action Reserve can be considered a bank which holds credits that amount to 1 metric ton of CO2e per Climate Reserve Tonne (CRT). These credits get their reduction value through projects which reduce GHG emissions such as renewable energy development or through carbon sequestration. Those projects can sell CRT’s equal to the amount of GHG emissions reduced. Other projects, can then purchase those CRT’s to offset their own emissions. For more information see the Technical Appendix B of the Climate Action Plan














./


0123
4
.5
6

1
4
./
7
!"#$%&'$()"*+$,$()- 89
4:

;.5
6

1 <=>?=@<AB?C?DBEF EGHIJKLBMNOAB>?PDBQBRHSSKBTOABEGUGVSKGABWXBY>>ZPBONBTOG[[BEGHIJKLB\NOB]N^B>ABTB_JMMBX`SABEGUGVSKGABWXBY>>ZPBaBRNNLMSBFGbU cOObUC==ddd^LNNLMS^eNf=fGbU=VJH=?D^>DD<<PgAa>>h^>@@>YhP=?D^>D<h<?>Aa>>h^>@>>ZY?=i?D^>DDY>@Aa>>h^>@@gghgA?YZf=VGOGjk?f>k>S?kDf@kDf>k?S@lSKOHmjOOnoLpSbjQLNmFqr>FqstFTDdruvFqTw >=? Noise Analysis
1364 E. Green Street Project
December 2025

CITY OF PASADENA
Planning and Community Development Department
Planning Division
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
Lead Agency: Consultant to Lead Agency:
633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
1364 E. Green Street Project Table of Contents
Noise Analysis
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 1

1. Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives ................................................................................ 1

2. Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 1

3. Project Description.................................................................................................................... 1

4. Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................. 4 A. Construction Noise Impacts ............................................................................................ 4 B. Operational Noise Impacts.............................................................................................. 4 C. Vibration Impacts............................................................................................................ 4 D. Airport Noise Impacts...................................................................................................... 4 II. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS................................................................................................................... 5

1. Noise Descriptions..................................................................................................................... 5

2. Tone Noise ................................................................................................................................ 6

3. Noise Propagation..................................................................................................................... 6

4. Ground Absorption ................................................................................................................... 6

5. Traffic Noise Prediction............................................................................................................. 7

6. Noise Barrier Attenuation ......................................................................................................... 7 III. GROUND BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS............................................................................... 8

1. Vibration Descriptors ................................................................................................................ 8

2. Vibration Perception ................................................................................................................. 8

3. Vibration Propagation............................................................................................................... 8

4. Constrution-Related Vibration Level Prediction........................................................................ 9 IV. REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................................... 11

1. Federal Regulations................................................................................................................. 11

2. State Regulations .................................................................................................................... 11 A. California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................ 12

3. Local Regulations .................................................................................................................... 14 A. City of Pasadena General Plan....................................................................................... 14 B. City of Pasadena Municipal Code .................................................................................. 14 City of Pasadena COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project Table of Contents
Noise Analysis
ii
V. EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................ 16

1. Measurement Procedure and Criteria .................................................................................... 16 A. Noise Measurement Equipment ................................................................................... 16 B. Noise Measurement Locations...................................................................................... 16 C. Noise Measurement Timing and Climate ...................................................................... 16

2. Noise Measurement Results................................................................................................... 18 VI. NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSES ...................................................................................19

1. Exceedance of Noise Standards ..............................................................................................19 A. Construction Noise ........................................................................................................19

2. Groundborne Vibration........................................................................................................... 23 A. Construction Vibration .................................................................................................. 23 B. Operation Vibration....................................................................................................... 26

3. Operational Noise ................................................................................................................... 27 A. Parking Noise................................................................................................................. 27 B. Stationary Noise Sources............................................................................................... 27 C. Traffic Noise................................................................................................................... 28

4. Airport Noise ........................................................................................................................... 28 VII. NOISE/VIBRATION REDUCTION TECHNIQUES ...............................................................................29

1. Construction Techniques.........................................................................................................29

2. Operational Techniques..........................................................................................................29 VIII. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... 30 IX. REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Study Area Photographic Index and Noise Measurement Data Appendix B: Noise Meter Print Outs
Appendix C: RCNM Construction Noise Calculations
City of Pasadena COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project Table of Contents
Noise Analysis
iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location Map ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Site Plan..................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Noise Monitoring Locations.................................................................................................... 17

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment............................................................... 9 Table 2: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ................................................................................. 10 Table 3: City of Pasadena Noise Compatiblity Guidelines .................................................................... 15 Table 4: Existing Noise Level Measurements (dBA).............................................................................. 18 Table 5: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ........................................................................ 21 Table 6: Construction Noise by Phase – 100 feet from Source............................................................. 22 Table 7: Closest Receptors to the Project Site ...................................................................................... 25 1364 E. Green Street Project I. Introduction and Summary Noise Analysis
1 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1. PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
This Noise Impact Study has been prepared by EcoTierra Consulting to determine the offsite and onsite noise impacts associated with the 1364 E. Green Street Project. The following is provided in this report:
§ A description of the study area and the proposed project. § Information regarding the fundamentals of noise.
§ Information regarding the fundamentals of vibration.
§ A description of the local noise guidelines and standards. § An evaluation of the current noise environment.
§ An analysis of the potential short-term construction-related noise and vibration impacts from the proposed project.
§ An analysis of long-term operations-related noise and vibration impacts from the proposed project.
§ An evaluation of airport-related noise impacts to the proposed project.

2. PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 1364 E. Green Street, in the City of Pasadena. The 41,573-square-foot project site is comprised of three adjoining parcels located at the southeast corner of East Green Street and South Holliston Avenue and is currently developed with a surface parking lot with 115 parking spaces. Immediate adjacencies include a surface parking lot to the north on the opposite side of Green Street, St. Philip the Apostle Church and Parish Center to the south and east, and Pasadena City College Child Development Center is located west of the site on the opposite side of S. Holliston Avenue. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the site/building and subterranean parking would be achieved from East Green Street, while access to the loading zone would be provided from South Holliston Avenue. A vicinity map showing the project location of the Site is provided on Figure 1, Project Location Map.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves construction of a new four-story, 93,539-square-foot, research and development project above three levels of subterranean parking for 280 spaces situated on an approximately 1-acre corner parcel. A large rooftop terrace is also proposed on the fourth floor that extends across the entire façade facing East Green Street. All existing on-site improvements will be demolished to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. Figure 2, Site Plan, illustrates the Site. The project is anticipated to start construction no sooner than January 2026 and take approximately 20 months to complete. The Project is anticipated to be operational in 2027. The Project would include approximately 950 tons of demolished material during demolition and 60,000 cubic yards (CY) of export during excavation.

Project Site

N NOT TO SCALE
Project Site
Scale (Feet)
0 250 500 750 1,000
N
Project Location Map
Source: Google, 2025 Figure 1
Site Plan
Source: Gensler, 2025 Figure 2
City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project I. Introduction and Summary Noise Analysis
4 4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
A. Construction Noise Impacts
Construction noise levels were modeled for each phase using methodology presented in the Road Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide. Modeled unmitigated noise levels will not exceed 85 dBA when measured within a radius of 100 feet from the source. Construction noise levels are considered to be less than significant.

B. Operational Noise Impacts
The proposed project would not result in a perceptible increase in noise due to the increase of projectrelated traffic on roadways in the project vicinity. As the project-related increase in traffic noise would not exceed 5 dBA, the project would not contribute to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Impacts are considered less than significant.

On-site noise sources (HVAC and parking structure noise) associated with the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels at closest receptor locations. Impacts related to project operational noise would be less than significant.

C. Vibration Impacts
The groundborne vibration levels associated with vibration-generating equipment that may be utilized during project construction would not exceed any FTA damage criteria. The project would not be a significant source of operational vibration.

D. Airport Impacts
The project is not located within an airport noise contour and airport-related noise impacts are considered to be less than significant.
1364 E. Green Street Project II. Noise Fundamentals
Noise Analysis
5 II. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit, which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies that are audible to the human ear.

1. NOISE DESCRIPTIONS
Noise equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in dBA. The equivalent sound level (Lea) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. The peak traffic hour lea is the noise metric used by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for all traffic noise impact analyses.

The Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. While the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is similar to the Ldn, except that it has another addition of 4.77 dB to sound levels during the evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. These additions are made to the sound levels at these times because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason, the sound is perceived to be louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly. Many cities rely on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportation-related impacts on noise sensitive land uses.

Another noise descriptor that is used primarily for the assessment of aircraft noise impacts is the Sound Exposure Level, which is also called the Single Event Level (SEL). The SEL descriptor represents the acoustic energy of a single event (i.e., an aircraft overflight) normalized to one-second event duration. This is useful for comparing the acoustical energy of different events involving different durations of the noise sources. The SEL is based on an integration of the noise during the period when the noise first rises within 10 dBA of its maximum value and last falls below 10 dBA of its maximum value. The SEL is often 10 dBA greater, or more, than the LMAX since the SEL logarithmetically adds the Leq for each second of the duration of the noise.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Noise Fundamentals
Noise Analysis
6 2. TONE NOISE
A pure tone noise is a noise produced at a single frequency and laboratory tests have shown the humans are more perceptible to changes in noise levels of a pure tone (Caltrans 1998). For a noise source to contain a “pure tone,” there must be a significantly higher A-weighted sound energy in a given frequency band than in the neighboring bands, thereby causing the noise source to “stand out” against other noise sources. A pure tone occurs if the sound pressure level in the one-third octave band with the tone exceeds the average of the sound pressure levels of the two contagious one-third octave bands by: 5 dB for center frequencies of 500 Hertz (Hz) and above; by 8 dB for center frequencies between 160 and 400 Hz; and by 15 dB for center frequencies of 125 Hz or less (Department of Health Services 1977).

3. NOISE PROPAGATION
From the noise source to the receiver, noise changes both in level and frequency spectrum. The most obvious is the decrease in noise as the distance from the source increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the source is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects, and refraction, and shielding by natural and manmade features. Sound from point sources, such as air conditioning condensers, radiate uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The noise drop-off rate associated with this geometric spreading is 6 dBA per each doubling of the distance (dBA/DD). Transportation noise sources such as roadways are typically analyzed as line sources, since at any given moment the receiver may be impacted by noise from multiple vehicles at various locations along the roadway. Because of the geometry of a line source, the noise drop-off rate associated with the geometric spreading of a line source is 3 dBA/DD.

4. GROUND ABSORPTION
The sound drop-off rate is highly dependent on the conditions of the land between the noise source and receiver. To account for this ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models: soft-site and hard-site conditions. Soft-site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. For point sources, a drop-off rate of 7.5 dBA/DD is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 6.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone, and very hard packed earth. For line sources a 4.5 dBA/DD is typically observed for soft-site conditions compared to the 3.0 dBA/DD drop-off rate for hard-site conditions. To be conservative, hard-site conditions were used in this analysis where applicable.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project II. Noise Fundamentals
Noise Analysis
7 5. TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION
The level of traffic noise depends on the three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. Because of the logarithmic nature of traffic noise levels, a doubling of the traffic volume (assuming that the speed and truck mix do not change) results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. Based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) community noise assessment criteria, this change is “barely perceptible,” for reference a doubling of perceived noise levels would require an increase of approximately 10 dBA. However, the 1992 findings of Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which assessed changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations, found that noise increases as low as 1.5 dB can cause annoyance, when the existing noise levels are already greater than 65 dB. The truck mix on a given roadway also has an effect on community noise levels. As the number of heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise levels increase.

6. NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers, such as those found along freeways, can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of a road. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. A noise barrier can achieve a minimum of 5-dBA noise level reduction when it is tall enough to break the line-of-sight. When the noise barrier is a berm instead of a wall, the noise attenuation can be increased by another 3 dBA.1

1 Source: FHWA Noise Barrier Design Handbook. February 2000. Section 3. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/noise_barriers/design_construction/design/design03.cfm. 1364 E. Green Street Project III. Ground Borne Vibration Fundamentals Noise Analysis
8 III. GROUND BORNE VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of groundborne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings may occur. Although groundborne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable. Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.

1. VIBRATION DESCRIPTORS
Several different methods are used to quantify vibration amplitude such as the maximum instantaneous peak in the vibrations velocity, which is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) amplitude of the vibration velocity. Because of the typically small amplitudes of vibrations, vibration velocity is often expressed in decibels and is denoted as LV and is based on the RMS velocity amplitude. A commonly used abbreviation is VdB, which in this text, is when vibration level (LV) is based on the reference quantity of 1 microinch per second.

2. VIBRATION PERCEPTION
Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB.

Offsite sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible groundborne noise or vibration.

3. VIBRATION PROPAGATION
The propagation of groundborne vibration is not as simple to model as airborne noise. This is because noise in the air travels through a relatively uniform median, while groundborne vibrations travel through the earth, which may contain significant geological differences. There are three main types of vibration propagation: surface, compression, and shear waves. Surface waves, or Rayleigh waves, travel along the ground’s surface. These waves carry most of their energy along an expanding circular wave front, similar to ripples produced by throwing a rock into a pool of water. P-waves, or compression waves, are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal (i.e., in a “push-pull” fashion). P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves. S-waves, or shear waves, are also body waves that carry energy along an expanding spherical wave front. However, unlike P-waves, the particle motion is transverse, or side-to-side and perpendicular to the direction of propagation.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project III. Ground Borne Vibration Fundamentals Noise Analysis
9 As vibration waves propagate from a source, the vibration energy decreases in a logarithmic nature and the vibration levels typically decrease by 6 VdB per doubling of the distance from the vibration source. As stated above, this drop-off rate can vary greatly depending on the soil but has been shown to be effective enough for screening purposes, in order to identify potential vibration impacts that may need to be studied through actual field tests.

4. CONSTRUCTION-RELATED VIBRATION LEVEL PREDICTION
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 1, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. The data in Table provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

Table 1
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
(LV) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range)

0.644 (typical)
112
104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range

0.170 typical
105
93 Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill
(slurry wall)

0.008 in soil

0.017 in rock
66 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, Table 7-4. September 2018.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project III. Ground Borne Vibration Fundamentals Noise Analysis
10 There are no federal vibration standards or regulations adopted by any agency that are applicable to evaluating vibration impacts from land use development projects such as the proposed Project.

However, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has adopted vibration criteria for use in evaluating vibration impacts from construction activities.1 The vibration damage criteria adopted by the FTA are shown in Table 2, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.

Table 2
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.50 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-5, page 186, 2018. 1364 E. Green Street Project IV. Regulatory Setting
Noise Analysis
11 IV. REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed project is located in the City of Pasadena and noise regulations are addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, and local government agencies. The agencies responsible for regulating noise are discussed below.

1. FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
§ Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce. § Assisting state and local abatement efforts.
§ Promoting noise education and research.

The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) was initially tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, the ONAC has since been eliminated, leaving the development of federal noise policies and programs to other federal agencies and interagency committees. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency limits noise exposure of workers to 90 dB Leq or less for 8 continuous hours or 105 dB Leq or less for 1 continuous hour. The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various operating agencies.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit noise is regulated by the federal Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA), while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Finally, the federal government actively advocates that local jurisdictions use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being sited adjacent to a highway or, alternately that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation sources, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.

2. STATE REGULATIONS
Though not adopted by law, the State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (OPR Guidelines), provides guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. The OPR Guidelines identify the suitability of various types of construction relative to a range of outdoor noise levels and provide each local community some flexibility in setting local noise standards that allow for the variability in community City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project IV. Regulatory Setting
Noise Analysis
12 preferences. Findings presented in the Levels of Environmental Noise Document (EPA 1974) influenced the recommendations of the OPR Guidelines, most importantly in the choice of noise exposure metrics (i.e., Ldn or CNEL) and in the upper limits for the normally acceptable outdoor exposure of noise-sensitive uses.

The OPR Guidelines include a Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix which identifies acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. Where the “normally acceptable” range is used, it any special acoustical is defined as the highest noise level that should be considered for the construction of the buildings which do not incorporate treatment or noise mitigation.

The “conditionally acceptable” or “normally unacceptable” ranges include conditions calling for detailed acoustical study prior to the construction or operation of the proposed project. The City of Pasadena has adopted their own version of the State Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for land use planning and to assess potential transportation noise impacts to proposed land uses (see Table 3).

Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise Insulation Standards) requires noise insulation in new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings (other than single-family detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more than 45 dBA CNEL. When such structures are located within a 60-dBA CNEL (or greater) noise contour, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45-dBA CNEL annual threshold. In addition, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code requires that all habitable rooms, hospitals, convalescent homes, and places of worship shall have an interior CNEL of 45 dB or less due to aircraft noise.

Government Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.

A. California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Appendix G) establishes thresholds for noise impact analysis. This noise study includes analysis of noise and vibration impacts necessary to assess the project in light of the following Appendix G Checklist Thresholds.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project IV. Regulatory Setting
Noise Analysis
13 Substantial increases in ambient noise levels are usually associated with project construction noise (temporary) and project operational noise (permanent).

Project Construction Noise (temporary): The City of Pasadena’s noise ordinance regulates the timing of construction activities. No construction is permitted within 500 feet of a residential district outside of the hours specified under Section 9.36.070 of the City of Pasadena’s Municipal Code (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday, and at no time on Sundays or holidays). Section

9.36.080 of the City Municipal Code prohibits noise from operation of any powered construction equipment from exceeding 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet. The City of Pasadena restricts construction activities to the daytime hours. The potential for construction noise impacts to be objectionable depends on the magnitude of noise generated by the construction equipment, the frequency of noise sources during a construction day, and total duration of construction activities.

Although construction activity may be exempt from the noise standards in the City’s Municipal Code, CEQA requires that potential noise impacts still be evaluated for significance.

Project Operational Noise (permanent): Potential noise impacts are evaluated by local criteria established by the City of Pasadena for stationary source noise control. Section 9.36.090 of the City Municipal Code regulates machinery, equipment, and fans and air conditioning units and prohibits these sources from generating noise that exceeds the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB at the property line of the receiving property.

The City of Pasadena does not have adopted thresholds to assess off-site project-related traffic noise impacts. Therefore, the significance threshold for off-site traffic noise is based on human perceptibility to changes in noise levels (increases), with consideration of existing ambient noise conditions, and the City’s guidelines for noise compatible land use. For off-site project generated noise, increases in ambient noise along affected roadways due to project generated vehicle traffic is considered substantial if they result in an increase of at least 5 dBA CNEL and: (1) the existing noise levels already exceed the applicable land use compatibility standard for the affected sensitive receptors set forth in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan; or (2) the project increases noise levels by at least 5 dBA CNEL and raises the ambient noise level from below the applicable standard to above the applicable standard. b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The City of Pasadena does not have an adopted significance threshold to assess vibration impacts during construction. The vibration level at which there is a risk of architectural damage is based on the FTA structural damage criteria (0.12 in/sec for historic structures, 0.2 in/sec for typical wood-framed buildings, or 0.5 in/sec for reinforced concrete, steel, or timber).

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project IV. Regulatory Setting
Noise Analysis
14 3. LOCAL REGULATIONS
The City of Pasadena General Plan and Municipal Code establish the following applicable goals policies related to noise and vibration.

A. City of Pasadena General Plan
The Noise Element of the City’s General Plan (revised in December 2002) incorporates noise standards for various land uses, which are based on the California Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines. Table 3, City of Pasadena Noise Compatibility Guidelines, presents the City’s noise guidelines for land use planning. The objective of the noise compatibility guidelines is to provide a means of identifying acceptable noise exposure levels for a proposed use in relation to the existing noise environment. Since the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street is a commercial use, the clearly acceptable noise level would be below 70 dBA CNEL, the normally acceptable noise levels would be below 75 dBA CNEL, the conditionally acceptable noise levels would be less than 85 dBA CNEL.

B. City of Pasadena Municipal Code
In addition to any measures to reduce noise levels recommended in this report, project operations will be subject to City ordinances.

Chapter 9.36, Noise Restrictions (Noise Ordinance), of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) establishes exterior noise standards by land use and the maximum duration of time that the noise standards may be exceeded without being considered a nuisance punishable by law. As such, the City’s Noise Ordinance prohibits any “unnecessary, excessive, or annoying noises” in the City. The Noise Ordinance does not control traffic noise but applies to all noise sources located on private property.

According to Section 9.36.050 of the PMC, the City generally limits intrusive noises from exceeding the ambient level at the property line by more than 5 dB, with adjustments made for steady audible tones, impulsive noise, and noise emitted for limited durations. The ambient noise is the actual measured noise level. In addition, Section 9.36.060 sets the interior noise limit for multi-family residential uses to 60 dB during 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and 50 dB during 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. This section of the PMC pertains to General Noise sources and does not apply to noise sources that are otherwise specified in the Noise Ordinance (e.g., construction noise).

The Noise Ordinance also includes restrictions for construction activities in residential districts. PMC Section 9.36.070 prohibits noise levels generated by construction in or within 500 feet of a residential district from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM on weekdays, 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM on Saturday, or anytime on Sundays and holidays. Also, PMC Section 9.36.080 prohibits the operation of powered construction equipment if such equipment emits noise at a level in excess of 85 dB when measured within a radius of 100 feet from City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project IV. Regulatory Setting
Noise Analysis
15 the source. PMC Section 9.36.120 states that it is unlawful for any person to create any noise on any street, sidewalk or public place adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use or adjacent to any hospital, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets, sidewalk or public place indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital.

Table 3: City of Pasadena Noise Compatibility Guidelines Exterior Noise Level (CNEL dBA)
Land Use Category 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential – low density single family, duplex,
mobile homes
Residential- multiple family and mixed-use
commercial/residential uses
Transient lodging – motels, hotels
Schools, libraries, churches,
hospitals, nursing homes
Auditoriums, concert halls,
amphitheaters
Sports arena, outdoor spectator
sports
Playground, neighborhood parks
Golf courses, riding stables, water
recreation, cemeteries
Office buildings, business commercial
and professional
Industrial, manufacturing, utilities
Agriculture, mining
Clearly
Acceptable
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Normally
Acceptable
New construction or development should be undertaken after an analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Conditionally
Acceptable
New construction or development proceeds, an analysis of the noise reduction requirements should be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design Normally
Unacceptable
New construction or development should generally not be undertaken, unless it can be demonstrated that an interior level of 45 dBA can be achieved.

Source: City of Pasadena General Plan Noise Element
1364 E. Green Street Project V. Existing Noise Conditions Noise Analysis
16 V. EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS

To determine the existing noise level environment, short-term noise measurements were taken in the project study area at four locations in the project vicinity. The following describes the measurement procedures, measurement locations, and the noise measurement results.

1. MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To ascertain the existing noise at and adjacent to the project site, field monitoring was conducted on June 4, 2025. The field survey noted that noise within the proposed project area is generally characterized by traffic noise. The nearest airport is the San Gabriel Valley Airport, which is located approximately 6.3 miles southeast of the project site. The project site falls well outside the 65 dBA airport noise contour, and is not considered as a source that contributes to the ambient noise levels on the project site.

A. Noise Measurement Equipment
Noise monitoring was performed using an American National Standards Institute (ANSI Section SI4 1979, Type 1) Larson Davis model LxT sound level meter. The sound level meter was programmed in “slow” mode to record the sound pressure level at one second intervals for in A-weighted form. The sound level meter and microphone were mounted approximately five feet above the ground and equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. The sound level meter was calibrated before monitoring using Larson Davis Cal 250. The noise level measurement equipment meets American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (S1.4-1983 identified in Chapter 19.68.020.AA).

B. Noise Measurement Locations
The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current noise sources impacting the vicinity of the project site and to provide a baseline for any potential noise impacts that may be created by development of the proposed project. The site is shown in Figure 3, Noise Monitoring Locations, on the following pages. Appendix A (of this analysis technical report) includes a photographic index of the study areas and noise level measurement locations.

C. Noise Measurement Timing and Climate
The noise measurements were recorded between 2:52 PM and 4:30 PM on June 4, 2025. At the start of the noise monitoring, the temperature was 72°F, 60 percent humidity, 5 percent clouds, hazy sunshine, and calm wind conditions (6 mph).

Scale (Feet)
0 100 200 300 400
N
NM# Noise Measurement Location
Project Site
NM3
NM1
NM4 NM2
Noise Monitoring Locations
Source: GoogleEarth Pro, 2025
Figure 3
City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project V. Existing Noise Conditions Noise Analysis
18 2. NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements were taken at four (4) locations in the project vicinity. The results of the noise level measurements are provided below in Table 4, Existing Noise Level Measurements (dBA). The dominant noise source in the area was traffic, with secondary noise from the Pasadena City College Campus east of the site, city ambiance, pedestrians, birds, and the occasional overhead aircraft.

Table 4
Existing Noise Level Measurements (dBA)
Site Location Description Leq LMAX LMIN
NM 1 North of the site, adjacent to the Hill Avenue Branch Library at 55 S. Hill Avenue 65.3 75.0 53.5
NM 2 East of the site, adjacent to the church building at 151 S.

Hill Avenue 65.3 78.2 52.9
NM 3 South of the site, on the sidewalk adjacent to Saint Philip the Apostle School located at 1363 Cordova Street. 69.2 85.2 57.1 NM 4 West of the site, in proximity to the Pasadena City College Child Development Day Care Center located at 1324 E.

Green Street and the multi-family residential use at 107 S.

Holliston Avenue.

55.5 70.5 45.3
As shown in Table 4, receptors in the project vicinity are subject to average noise levels ranging from 55.5 dBA leq to 69.2 dBA leq, with maximum noise levels reaching as high as 85.2 dBA adjacent to the property line of the Saint Philip the Apostle School located at 1363 Cordova Street, approximately 175 feet southeast of the site.
1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
19 VI. NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSES
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to noise would occur if a proposed project were determined to result in:
§ Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. § Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
§ Exposure of persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft.

To determine whether impacts to noise resources are significant environmental effects, the following topics are analyzed and evaluated:
§ Exceedance of noise standards for construction and operational noise. § Construction noise.
§ Groundborne vibration.
§ Operational noise.
§ Airport noise.

Each of these topics is analyzed below.

1. EXCEEDANCE OF NOISE STANDARDS
This impact discussion analyzes the potential for project construction noise to cause an exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of established City of Pasadena noise standards or applicable standards of other agencies.

Noise levels in the project area would be influenced by construction activities.

A. Construction Noise
As stated previously, according to Section 9.36.070, noise from construction activity is prohibited within 500 feet of a residential district from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM on weekdays, 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM on Saturday, or anytime on Sundays and holidays. In addition, PMC Section 9.36.080 prohibits the operation of powered construction equipment if such equipment emits noise at a level in excess of 85 dBA when measured at a radius of 100 feet from the source.

The State of California defines sensitive receptors as those land uses that require serenity or are otherwise adversely affected by noise events or conditions. Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, single and multiple-family residential, including transient lodging, motels and hotel use make up the majority of City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
20 these areas. The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the Site include: the rectory of the St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church, located adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site; the St. Philip the Apostle Church located approximately 43 feet southeast of the site; the Pasadena City College Child Development Center Day Care, located approximately 60 feet west of the site; the apartment building located at 107 S. Holliston, approximately 60 feet west of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center), located approximately 64 feet east of the site; the apartment building located at 125 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 100 feet south west of the site; the Aqua Courtyard Suites apartment building located at 1299 E. Green Street, approximately 105 feet northwest of the site; the St. Philip the Apostle School located approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 135 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 150 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 145 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 220 feet southwest of the site; the apartment building located at 165 S. Holliston Avenue, approximately 285 feet southwest of the site; and the tennis courts belonging to Pasadena City College, located approximately 280 feet east of the site Please see Figure 3, Noise Monitoring Locations above, and Table 5 below.

Short-term noise impacts could occur during construction activities from either the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of construction materials to and from the project site, or from the noise generated onsite during demolition, excavation/grading, building, and architectural coating activities.

Construction noise levels would vary significantly based upon the size and topographical features of the active construction zone, duration of the work day, and types of equipment employed, as indicated in Table 5, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential, resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect in long-term ambient noise levels would be small when averaged over longer time. As shown by the ambient noise level measurements in Table 3, Existing Noise Level Measurements (see Section V. Existing Noise Conditions of this report), the project vicinity is already exposed to a maximum noise level of 85.2 dBA Lmax.

Construction noise levels associated with the Project were calculated utilizing noise prediction methodology presented in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) together with several key construction parameters including: distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the Project Site (see Appendix C for details). Such noise levels are compared with the noise standard in PMC Section 9.36.080, which prohibits the operation of powered construction equipment if such equipment emits noise at a level in excess of 85 dB when measured at a radius of 100 feet from the source.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
21 Table 5
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET
60 70 80 90 100 110

EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EARTH MOVING
Compacters (Rollers)
Front Loaders
Backhoes
Tractors
Scrapers, Graders
Pavers
Trucks

MATERIAL HANDLING
Concrete Mixers
Concrete Pumps
Cranes (Moveable)
Cranes (Derrick)

STATIONARY
Pumps
Generators
Compressors

IMPACT EQUIPMENT
Pneumatic Wrenches
Jack Hammers and Rock
Drills
Pile Drivers
OTHER
Vibrators
Saws
Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," NTID 300-1.

Construction noise levels were calculated for each phase. To be conservative, the noise generated by each piece of equipment was added together for each phase of construction; however, it is unlikely (and unrealistic) that every piece of equipment would be used at the same time, at the same distance from the receptor, for each phase of construction.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
22 Table 6
Construction Noise by Phase - 100 feet from Source
Construction Phase and
Equipment Type
No. of
Equipment
Equipment
Lmax at 50 feet,
dbA1,2
Equipment Usage
Percent
Noise Level Leq (dBA)
at 100 feet
Demolition
Crawler Tractor
1 84 40 74.0
Excavators
2 81 40 74.0
Forklift
1 58 50 49.0
Scrapers
1 84 40 74.0
Total Noise Level For Phase 78.8
Excavation/Grading
Bore/drill rig
1 79 20 66.0
Excavators
3 81 40 75.8
Forklift
1 58 50 49.0
Total Noise Level For Phase 76.2
Building Construction
Cranes 1 81 16 67.0
Forklifts 2 58 50 52.0
Generator Sets 1 81 50 72.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 79 40 72.0
Welders 3 73 40 67.8
Total Noise Level For Phase 76.3
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors 1 78 40 68.0
Total Noise Level For Phase 68.0
Notes:
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018).
(2) Source: Seixas, N. and Neitzel, R. (2004) "Noise exposure and hearing protection device use among construction workers in Washington state," Univ. of Washington Dept. of Env. and Occup. Health Sciences Rept., accessed Sept 10 2005 at http://staff.washington.edu/rneitzel/Noise_HPD.pdf City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
23 As shown in Table 6, Construction Noise by Phase – 100 feet from Source, the highest construction noise level, 78.8 dBA, would occur during the demolition phase. Therefore, construction noise levels would not exceed 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the source.1

Impacts from construction noise are considered to be less than significant, no noise reduction measures are required.

2. GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
This impact discussion analyzes the potential for the proposed project to cause an exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Vibration levels in the project area would be influenced by construction activities and from the ongoing operations of the proposed project.

As described in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, groundborne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard.2 In contrast to airborne noise, groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem, as it is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads.

Some common sources of groundborne vibration are trains, heavy trucks traveling on rough roads, and certain construction activities, such as blasting, pile-driving, and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment.3 Ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities (e.g., road traffic, construction operations) typically weakens with greater horizontal distance away from the source of the vibration.

The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. The City of Pasadena does not consider annoyance from construction vibration in an urban environment a significant impact. Significant impacts would only occur for building damage and/or if the vibrations would interfere with the use of sensitive receptors.

A. Construction Vibration
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to 1 See Appendix C for calculations at a distance of 100 feet from the source. 2 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Section 7, 2018. 3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Section 7, 2018.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
24 generate substantial construction vibration levels. The highest degree of groundborne vibration would be generated during the excavation/grading phase due to the use of a both a drilled and a vibrated pile driver used for shoring. Based on the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) data (see Table 1), vibration velocities from sonic pile driver operations are estimated to be approximately 0.170 inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.4 Drilled piles create much less vibration and used when pile driving is needed close to structures. Drilled piles generate approximately 0.1 inch-per-second or less PPV at a distance of 10 feet from the source.5 Per the project applicant, only drilled piles would occur along the eastern and southern property lines, for a distance of 50 feet along the southern edge of the western property line, and for a distance of 50 feet along the western edge of the northern property line. The remaining project property line would have vibratory (sonic) pile driving. Please see the graphic of the location and types of the pile installation methods included in Appendix C of this report.

As shown in Table 7, Closest Receptors to the Project Site, the nearest buildings that could incur vibration damage from construction-related activities at the site would be the buildings located on the St. Philip the Apostle Parish Center campus, located at 101 S. Hill Avenue, as there is the rectory building façade located approximately 7 feet from the project site’s eastern boundary. The project site is separated from this church building by a concrete block wall. The next closest building that may be affected by vibration is the St. Philip the Apostle Church, located at 151 S. Hill Avenue, with the façade of the church located approximately 43 feet from the southeastern portion of the project site. The façade of the St. Philip the Apostle Newman Center (a Catholic community center) is located approximately 64 feet east of the site.

The multi-family residential use apartments located at 107 S. Holliston Avenue have a building façade located approximately 80 feet from the project’s western boundary. The building façade of the Pasadena City College Child Development Day Care Center located at 1324 E. Green Street is approximately 115 feet from the project’s western boundary. Other vibration-sensitive buildings are located further than 115 feet from the project boundaries and would not be affected by vibration from construction activities(see Table 7 for details and other receptors).
4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 5 Duoterra. News. https://tinyurl.com/264s9ybs City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
25 Table 7
Closest Receptors to the Project Site
Type of use Description
Closest Noise
Measurement
Location ID
Structure type/FTA
building category
Distance
from the
façade of the
receptor to
the project
boundary
Institutional Hill Avenue Branch Public Library at
55 S. Hill Avenue (Historic) NM1
IV. Buildings
extremely susceptible
to vibration damage
~180 feet
Institutional St. Philip the Apostle Parish Center
Rectory at 101 S. Hill Avenue NM2
III. Non-engineered
timber and masonry
buildings
~7 feet
Institutional St. Philip the Apostle Church at 151 S.

Hill Avenue NM2
III. Non-engineered
timber and masonry
buildings
~43 feet
Institutional
The Newman Center (community
center), St. Philip the Apostle, located
at 101 S. Hill Avenue
NM2
III. Non-engineered
timber and masonry
buildings
~64 feet
Institutional St. Philip the Apostle School at 1363
Cordova Street NM3
III. Non-engineered
timber and masonry
buildings
~175 feet
Institutional
Pasadena City College Child
Development Day Care Center at
1324 E. Green Street
NM4
II. Engineered
concrete and masonry
(no plaster)
~115 feet
Residential Multi-family residential building
located at 107 S. Holliston Avenue NM4
III. Non-engineered
timber and masonry
buildings
~80 feet
Residential
Multi-family residential Aqua
Courtyard Suites apartment building
located at 1299 E. Green Street.

NM4
II. Engineered
concrete and masonry
(no plaster)
~120 feet
At a distance of 7 feet, the vibration level from the drilled piles would be 0.171 inches-per-second PPV, which would not exceed the 0.20 inches-per-second PPV threshold for category III buildings (nonengineered timber and masonry buildings). The façade of the St. Philip the Apostle Church is located approximately 43 feet from the southeastern boundary of the project. As the distance is greater than the 7 feet analyzed above, and vibration levels decrease with distance, the vibration level at the church would also not exceed the 0.02 inches-per-second PPV threshold. This also holds true for the Newman Center (community center), whose closest façade is located approximately 64 feet from the project’s eastern City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
26 boundary, and the St. Philip the Apostle School, whose closest building façade is located approximately 175 feet from the site, even further from the project’s southeastern boundary.

A bulldozer/excavator would also be used onsite. At a distance of 7 feet, the bulldozer would generate a vibration level of 0.02 inches-per-second PPV which also would not exceed the 0.2 inches-per-second PPV threshold for category III buildings (non-engineered timber and masonry buildings). No church-related buildings would be impacted by construction-related vibration impacts and there would not be any vibration- impacts related to the functionality of the church or community center uses.

The closest residential use that could be affected by construction vibration would be the multi-family residential apartment building located at 107 S. Holliston, with a building façade approximately 80 feet from the project’s western boundary. The project would be drilling piles along the boundary at this location. At a distance of 80 feet, the drilled piles would have a vibration level of 0.004 inches-per-second PPV, which would not exceed the 0.20 inches-per-second PPV threshold for category III buildings (nonengineered timber and masonry buildings). The Hill Avenue Branch Public Library at 55 S. Hill Avenue is a historic land use and has a building façade located approximately 180 feet from the project’s northeastern boundary. As the vibration level from drilled piles is 0.004 inches-per-second PPV at 80 feet, and vibration levels decrease with distance, the vibration level at the library (100 feet further away) would not exceed the 0.12 inches-per-second PPV threshold for category IV buildings (buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage).

The building located closest to the area where vibratory (sonic) pile driving would occur is the Pasadena City College Child Development Day Care Center, with the building façade located approximately 115 feet from the western project boundary. At 115 feet, vibratory pile driving would generate a vibration level of

0.017 inches-per-second PPV, which would not exceed the 0.30 inches-per-second PPV threshold for category II buildings (engineered concrete and masonry [no plaster]). The multi-family residential Aqua Courtyard Suites apartment building located at 1299 E. Green Street would also be subject to vibratory pile driving, but at a distance of approximately 120 feet to the façade, the vibration level would be less than 0.017 inches-per-second PPV and would also not exceed the 0.20 inches-per-second PPV threshold for category III buildings (non-engineered timber and masonry buildings). Other land uses further from the project site would experience even lower vibration-related impacts. Therefore, the project would not exceed any FTA damage criteria to nearby buildings and construction-related impacts are considered to be less than significant.

B. Operational Vibration
As the proposed project consists of proposed R & D facility uses, the project does not include any significant sources of operational vibration. The project itself would be sensitive to vibrations (as precision equipment would be used on-site). Given the vibration-free needs of the proposed facility, and the distance to offsite receptors, operation of the project would not generate vibrations in a manner that City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
27 could damage any nearby structures. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

3. OPERATIONAL NOISE
This impact discussion analyzes the potential for a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity associated with operation of the proposed project, including impacts related to offsite vehicular noise and exposure of neighboring land uses to onsite noise.

A. Parking Noise
The proposed parking areas have the potential to generate noise due to cars entering and exiting, engines accelerating, braking, car alarms, squealing tires, and other general activities associated with people using the parking areas (i.e., talking, opening/closing doors, etc.). Noise levels within the parking areas would fluctuate with the amount of automobile and human activity. Activity levels would be highest in the early morning and evening when the largest number of people would enter and exit. However, these events would occur at low exiting and entering speeds, which would not generate high noise levels. During these times, the noise levels can range from 44 to 63 dBA Leq6 . The parking area at project site is subterranean
and, other than the driveway ramp leading down to the parking spaces, would be shielded by the walls of the parking structure. Therefore, noise generated from within the parking areas would not adversely affect off-site sensitive receptors. Chapter 9.36, of the PMC establishes exterior noise standards by land use and the maximum duration of time that the noise standards may be exceeded without being considered a nuisance punishable by law. As such, the City’s Noise Ordinance prohibits any “unnecessary, excessive, or annoying noises” in the City. The Noise Ordinance does not control traffic noise but applies to all noise sources located on private property. Therefore, through project design, and compliance with existing PMC regulations, noise impacts associated with parking would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

B. Stationary Noise Sources
As part of the Project, HVAC units are anticipated to be installed for the proposed use. A typical HVAC unit operates at a noise level of 66 dBA Leq at 3 feet from the source.7 If ten HVAC systems were running simultaneously, the resulting noise level would be 76 dBA Leq at 3 feet from the source. The HVAC units would be placed on the flat roof in the middle of the building, shielded from the neighboring uses by a screen for mechanical equipment that would 18 feet tall, and would completely block the HVAC units from view. The closest receptor would be located at least 80 feet from the closest HVAC unit8 , at this distance,
6 Source: Gordon Bricken & Associates, 1996. Estimates are based on actual noise measurements taken at various parking lots. 7 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015. No details were provided regarding the number and type of HVAC systems to be installed; therefore, ten HVAC systems were estimated to be simultaneously used on-site. 8 Using a distance of 66 feet from the edge of the building to the MEP mechanical equipment wall, and a height of approximately 45 feet above the height of the closest receptor (the 2nd story of the rectory adjacent to the northeastern corner of the project site). Based on the site plan dated 03.05.2025.

City of Pasadena Complete Administrative Draft December 2025 1364 E. Green Street Project VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Noise Analysis
28 the noise level from the HVAC would be 47 dBA Leq (not including any attenuation from the 18-foot-tall barrier). As the existing noise levels in the project vicinity exceed range between 55.5 to 69.2 dBA Leq (see Table 4), the HVAC would not exceed the ambient noise levels at the closest receptors in the project vicinity.

The design of all mechanical equipment would be required to comply with the regulations. According to Section 9.36.050 of the PMC, the City generally limits intrusive noises from exceeding the ambient level at the property line by more than 5 dB, with adjustments made for steady audible tones, impulsive noise, and noise emitted for limited durations. The project would also be subject to Section 9.36.090 of the PMC that regulates machinery, equipment, and fans and air conditioning units and prohibits these sources from generating noise that exceeds the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB at the property line of the receiving property. The project is required to comply with the PMC. Therefore, as the HVAC noise level would not exceed ambient noise levels and the project is required to comply with the PMC, impacts related to stationary noise sources are considered to be less than significant.

C. Traffic Noise
For off-site project generated noise, increases in ambient noise along affected roadways due to project generated vehicle traffic is considered substantial if they result in an increase of at least 5 dBA CNEL. In order for a new noise source to be audible, there would need to be a 3 dBA or greater CNEL noise increase9
. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project are a result of project-generated vehicular traffic on the project vicinity roadways. Per the Transportation Analysis Memorandum of Understanding (Pasadena Department of Transportation/Fehr and Peers, June 2025), the project generates 1,036 daily vehicle trips, with 96 peak hour trips. The traffic volume on any given roadway would need to double in order for a 3 dBA increase in ambient noise to occur.10 With only 96 peak hour trips on roadways within the project’s vicinity, the project would not cause a doubling in the traffic volume on these streets. Therefore, the noise impact from project-related traffic is considered to be less than significant.

4. AIRPORT NOISE
This impact discussion analyzes the potential for nearby airports or private airstrips to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The nearest airport is the San Gabriel Valley Airport, which is located approximately 6.3 miles southeast of the project site. The project site falls well outside the 65 dBA noise contour11 and is not considered as a source that contributes to the ambient noise levels on the project site. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. 9 FTA Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, page 9. 10 2018. FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Page 210. and https://www.codot.gov/programs/research/assets/Brochures/NoiseBrochureFinal.pdf 11 Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan – 12-19-91 website: https://planning.lacounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2022/10/Los-Angeles-County-Airport-Land-Use-Plan.pdf 1364 E. Green Street Project VII. Noise Reduction Techniques Noise Analysis
29 VII. NOISE/VIBRATION REDUCTION TECHNIQUES

1. CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
None required.

2. OPERATIONAL TECHNIQUES
None required.
1364 E. Green Street Project VIII. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Noise Analysis
30 VIII. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADT average daily traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
dBA/DD A-weighted decibel per each doubling of distance DOT Department of Transportation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Hz Hertz
Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
Lmax, Lmin RMS (root mean squared) maximum level of a noise source or environment measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast meter response. Lmin is the minimum level.

LV Vibration Level
ONAC Federal Office of Noise Abatement Control
ONC California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PPV peak particle velocity
PMC Pasadena Municipal Code
RMS root mean square
SEL Single Event Level
sq ft square feet
UMTA Urban Mass Transit Administration
VdB LV at 1 microinch per second
1364 E. Green Street Project IX. References
Noise Analysis
31 IX. REFERENCES
Anon. 1977. Model Community Noise Control Ordinance. Berkley, CA: California Department of Health Services, Office of Noise Control.

California, State of. Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/vibrationmanFINAL.pdf California, State of. Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009 and 1998. Technical Noise Supplement. November. Website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September.

Website: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.

Pasadena, City of. 2025. Transportation Analysis Memorandum of Understanding. June Pasadena, City of. 2021. Municipal Code, Section 9.36.080, Noise Ordinance Pasadena, City of. 2002. Revised Noise Element of the General Plan. December Pasadena, City of. 2015. General Plan Draft EIR. January U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.

January. Website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. 1364 E. Green Street Project Appendices
Noise Analysis

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Study Area Photographic Index and Noise Measurement Data Appendix B: Noise Meter Print Outs
Appendix C: RCNM Construction Noise and FHWA Road Noise Calculations 1364 E. Green Street Project Appendix A: Study Area Photographic Index and Noise Analysis Noise Measurement Data
APPENDIX A: STUDY AREA PHOTOGRAPHIC INDEX AND NOISE

MEASUREMENT DATA
KWAQN Office 7404 Kingsley Way, Riverside, CA
Project: 1364 East Green Street Project, Pasadena Site Observations:

Site Address/Location: 1364 East Green Street Project, Pasadena, CA 91106 Date:Field Tech/Engineer: Ian Edward GallagherGeneral Location: 1364 East Green Street Project, Pasadena, CA 91106Sound Meter: Larson Davis Sound Track LxT1 SN: 3099 Site Topo: Urban, campus. M & SF medium density residencences to the W.Settings: A‐weighted, slow, 10‐sec, 15‐minute interval Ground Type: Urban like conditions, acoustically refractive, absorptive butMeteorological Con.: 72 deg F, 6 mph wind, 60% humidity, <5% cloud, hazy sunshine. mostly reflective off of  buildings and hard surfaces.Site ID: NM‐1 thru 4 NM locations, latitude , longitude :Figure 1: Monitoring Locations 15‐Minute Noise Measurement Datasheet
Main noise sources are ground traffic & residential ambiance from  human  activity. Traffic noise from passing vehicles on E Green St, Cordova St, S Holliston Ave, S Hill Ave & other sorrounding roads. Site area & E of site area college campus. W of site area mostly residential. The bldgs reflect & refract much of the sound.  Other noise sources include general residential ambiance, bird song & pedestrians. Occasional overhead air traffic. Leaf rustle due 6mph to breeze. 6/4/2025
NM1 Meter:  34° 8'42.08"N  118° 7'17.39"W NM2 Meter:  34° 8'38.41"N  118° 7'17.38"W NM3 Meter:   34° 8'33.85"N  118° 7'19.78"WNM4 Meter:   34° 8'38.59"N  118° 7'22.73"W KWAQN 1364 E Green St  Project NM ( 1 thru 4 ) 15 Min_NM Field Sheet.xlsx KWAQN Office 7404 Kingsley Way, Riverside, CA
Project: 1364 East Green Street Project, PasadenaSite Address/Location: 1364 East Green Street Project, Pasadena, CA 91106Site ID: NM‐1 thru 4 Figure 3: NM2 Photo
NM1 looking  WNW from  S Hill Avenue sidewalk towards Hill Avenue Branch Library, building 55 S Hill NM2 looking SSW from S HilL Avenue sidewalk, across exit way tp parking lot. S Hill Avenue on the left,   Avenue, Pasadena. church building 151 S Hill Avenue, Pasadena on the right.

Figure 2: NM1 Photo
15‐Minute Noise Measurement Datasheet ‐ Cont.

KWAQN 1364 E Green St  Project NM ( 1 thru 4 ) 15 Min_NM Field Sheet.xlsx KWAQN Office 7404 Kingsley Way, Riverside, CA
15‐Minute Noise Measurement Datasheet ‐ Cont.

Project: 1364 East Green Street Project, PasadenaSite Address/Location: 1364 East Green Street Project, Pasadena, CA 91106Site ID: NM‐1 thru 4Figure 4: NM3 Photo Figure 5: NM4 Photo NM3 looking S from sidewalk across Cordova Street towards residence 1364 Cordova Street, Pasadena. NM4 looking SW from sidewalk S Holliston Avenue towards multifamily residence 107 S Holliston Avenue Pasadena.

KWAQN 1364 E Green St  Project NM ( 1 thru 4 ) 15 Min_NM Field Sheet.xlsx KWAQN Office 7404 Kingsley Way, Riverside, CA
15‐Minute Noise Measurement Datasheet ‐ Cont.

Project: 1364 East Green Street Project, PasadenaSite Address/Location: 1364 East Green Street Project, Pasadena, CA 91106Site ID: NM‐1 thru 4Table 1: Noise Measurement Summary Location Start Stop Leq/ dB Lmax/ dB Lmin/ dB L2/ dB L8/ dB L25/ dB L50/ dB L90/ dB NM1 2:52 PM 3:07 PM 65.3 75.0 53.5 71.7 69.5 66.4 63.2 57.4 NM2 3:18 PM 3:33 PM 65.3 78.2 52.9 71.3 69.0 66.2 63.5 57.6NM3 3:47 PM 4:02 PM 69.2 85.2 57.1 75.0 72.1 69.7 67.5 67.5NM4 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 55.5 70.5 45.3 63.1 60.0 55.4 51.4 47.5 KWAQN 1364 E Green St  Project NM ( 1 thru 4 ) 15 Min_NM Field Sheet.xlsx 1364 E. Green Street Project Appendix B: Noise Meter Printouts Noise Analysis
APPENDIX B: NOISE METER PRINTOUTS

1364 E. Green Street Project Appendix C: RCNM Calculations Noise Analysis
APPENDIX C: RCNM CONSTRUCTION NOISE CALCULATIONS

A B C DE FGH I
Equipment Type
# of
Equipment
Equipment Lmax at
50 feet, dBA1, 2
Distance to
Receptor3
Equipment
Usage
Percent Usage Factor
Dist.

Correction
dB
Usage Adj.
dB
Noise Level
Leq (dBA) at
Receptor
Crawler Tractor 1 84 100 40 0.40 ‐6.0 ‐4.0 74.0
Excavators 2 81 100 40 0.80 ‐6.0 ‐1.0 74.0
Forklift 1 58 100 50 0.50 ‐6.0 ‐3.0 49.0
Scrapers 1 84 100 40 0.40 ‐6.0 ‐4.0 74.0
Log Sum 78.8
Excavation/Grading
Bore/drill rig 1 79 100 20 0.20 ‐6.0 ‐7.0 66.0
Excavators 3 81 100 40 1.20 ‐6.0 0.8 75.8
Forklift 1 58 100 50 0.50 ‐6.0 ‐3.0 49.0
Log Sum 76.2
Cranes 1 81 100 16 0.16 ‐6.0 ‐8.0 67.0
Forklifts 2 58 100 50 1.00 ‐6.0 0.0 52.0
Generator Sets 1 81 100 50 0.50 ‐6.0 ‐3.0 72.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 79 100 40 0.80 ‐6.0 ‐1.0 72.0 Welders 3 73 100 40 1.20 ‐6.0 0.8 67.8
Log Sum 76.3
Air Compressors 1 78 100 40 0.40 ‐6.0 ‐4.0 68.0
Log Sum 68.0
Notes:
(2) Source: Seixas, N. and Neitzel, R. (2004) "Noise exposure and hearing protection device use among construction workers in Washington state," Univ. of Washington Dept. of Env. and Occup. Health Sciences Rept., accessed Sept 10 2005 at http://staff.washington.edu/rneitzel/Noise_HPD.pdf Architectural Coating
(1) Source: Referenced noise levels from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018).

Building Construction
Table A
Construction Noise by Phase ‐ 100 feet from Source
Demolition
Project:   1364 E. Green St Date: 9/12/25
Source: Drilled piles
Scenario: At the eastern boundary
Location:

Address: church uses adjacent to eastern boundary
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.1 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 10 ft.

D = 7.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.171 IN/SEC
Equipment PPV Reference Levels
Type Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)*
1 Vibratory Roller 0.210
2 Large Bulldozer 0.089
3 Drilled Pile 0.100
4 Loaded Trucks 0.076
5 Jackhammer 0.035
6 Small Bulldozer 0.003
7 Crack and Seat 2.400
*Drilled pile reference PPV is at 10 feet (in/sec)(source: https://tinyurl.com/264s9ybs) Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2013, pgs  35‐40.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Project Site
INPUT
3 Drilled Pile INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Project:   1364 E. Green St Date: 9/12/25
Source: Drilled piles
Scenario: At the western boundary
Location:

Address: Muti‐family residential use 80 feet from the western boundary PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.1 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 10 ft.

D = 80.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.004 IN/SEC
Equipment PPV Reference Levels
Type Equipment Reference PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec)*
1 Vibratory Roller 0.210
2 Large Bulldozer 0.089
3 Drilled Pile 0.100
4 Loaded Trucks 0.076
5 Jackhammer 0.035
6 Small Bulldozer 0.003
7 Crack and Seat 2.400
*Drilled pile reference PPV is at 10 feet (in/sec)(source: https://tinyurl.com/264s9ybs) Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2013, pgs  35‐40.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Project Site
INPUT
3 Drilled Pile INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Project:   1364 E. Green St Date: 9/12/25
Source: Virbrated piles
Scenario: At the northern boundary
Location:

Address: Historical library use 180 feet to the north
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.17 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 180.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.009 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2013, pgs  35‐40.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Project Site
INPUT
3 Pile Driver (sonic) INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Project:   1364 E. Green St Date: 9/12/25
Source: Vibrated piles
Scenario: At western boundary
Location:

Address: PCC child care located 115 feet from western boundary PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.17 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 115.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.017 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2013, pgs  35‐40.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Project Site
INPUT
3 Pile Driver (sonic) INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
Project:   1364 E. Green St Date: 9/12/25
Source: Small Bulldozer
Scenario: At the area of activity
Location:

Address: Church building use adjacent to eastern boundary PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment =
Type
PPVref = 0.003 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 7.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.50 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.020 IN/SEC
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2013, pgs  35‐40.

RESULTS

OUTPUT IN BLUE
GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ANALYSIS
Project Site
INPUT
6 Small Bulldozer INPUT SECTION IN GREEN
1 0' -
0 "
5' -
0 "
8' -
0 "

CURB FACE

AMENITY ZONE

WALK ZONE

PROPERTY LINE

CURB FACE

MIN SETBACK

MAX SETBACK

SIDEWALK LINE
3' -
0 "
5' -
0 "

AMENITY ZONE

WALK ZONE

PROPERTY LINE

MIN SETBACK

MAX SETBACK

BELOW-GRADE

PARKING SETBACK

INTERIOR SETBACK

INTERIOR SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
15' - 0"
1 5' -
0 "
GREEN ST STEPBACK @ 51' H
8' -
0 "
HOLLISTON STEPBACK @ 45' H

SIDEWALK

E GREEN STREET

S HOLLISTON AVENUE
1' - 0"
12' - 0"
7' - 0" 5' - 0"

STREET SETBACK
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
5' - 0"

DEDICATION
50' - 0"

FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH

FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH
(N) PROPOSED

LAB/OFFICE BUILDING

CENTERLINE OF STREET

CENTERLINE OF STREET
(E) PARISH CENTER

BUILDING
5' - 0"
5' -
0 "

FACADE BREAK
GREEN ST STEPBACK @ 20' H

FACADE BREAK
10' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 0"
10' - 0"
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(N) PROPOSED
TREE
(E) TREE TO
REMAIN
(E) TREE TO
REMAIN
(E) TREE TO BE

REMOVED
(E) TREE TO BE

REMOVED
(E) WALL TO REMAIN
(E) WALL TO REMAIN
(N) SUBTERRANEAN DRY WELL
(N) TRANSFORMER VAULT ACCESS HATCH

DRIVEWAY
26' - 0"
DRIVEWAY 18' - 8"

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

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
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 818.539.1110
KPFF
700 S Flower St
Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel 213.418.0201
SWA
811 W 7th St
8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel 213.236.9090

DPR CONSTRUCTION
4665 MacArthur Ct
Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel 949.955.3771
As indicated
8/8/2025 9:06:16 AM Autodesk Docs://005.4988.000 TCC E Green St/Caltech Innovation Center - ARCH.rvt PAS-A1.102

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

05.4988.000

CALTECH INNOVATION
CENTER

CALTECH

INNOVATION
CENTER
1364 East Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
PROPOSED SITE PLAN 01
1 08/08/2025 CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL
1364 E. Green
Street
Final CEQA Report
Prepared for: Submitted on:

City of Pasadena December 4, 2025
P
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Project Description ..............................................................................................................................................4

2. Existing Transportation Network............................................................................................. 6

2.1 Existing Street System .......................................................................................................................................6

2.2 Existing Transit Service ....................................................................................................................................8

3. Transportation Analysis Methodology .................................................................................... 9

3.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita.................................................................................................................10

3.2 Vehicle Trips per Capita..................................................................................................................................10

3.3 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network..................................................................................................10

3.4 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network ...................................................................................................11

3.5 Pedestrian Accessibility ..................................................................................................................................12

4. Transportation Impact Analysis..............................................................................................13

4.1 VMT and VT Analysis.........................................................................................................................................13

4.2 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle and Transit Networks .........................................................................14

4.3 Pedestrian Accessibility ..................................................................................................................................14

5. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................15 Appendices
Appendix A. TDF Model Outputs
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Plan ...............................................................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Roadway Classifications ...............................................................................................................................7 P
List of Tables
Table 1. Existing Transit Service Stop Locations ......................................................................................................8 Table 2. City of Pasadena CEQA Performance Measures & Thresholds of Significance.............................9 Table 3. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy............................................................................................................................11 Table 4. Transit Facilities Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................11 Table 5. VMT and VT Performance Measures Analysis Results..........................................................................13 Table 6. Proximity and Quality of Bicycle and Transit Network Performance Measures Analysis Results ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 7. Pedestrian Accessibility Analysis Results ................................................................................................ 14 4 1. Introduction
This report summarizes the results of a transportation analysis for the proposed Research and Development building located at 1364 E. Green Street (Project) in the City of Pasadena. This report provides California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis including the net changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, vehicle trips (VT) per capita, the project impact on service population proximity access to transit and bike facilities and walk accessibility score.

1.1 Project Description
The Project site is located at 1364 E. Green Street and is currently improved with 115 stalls of existing surface parking spanning all 3 parcels. The proposed project will be a 4-story Research and Development building, with Lab/Office spaces on the ground level, a terrace on the top occupiable floor, along with 3 subterranean levels of parking. Vehicle access to the parking garage will be provided via an inbound driveway on Holliston Avenue, at the west side of the site, and an outbound driveway on Green Street, at the north side of the site. Figure 1 shows the project site plan. 


























































 













































  









  
 
 
Pedestrian
Vehicular | Tenant / Visitor
Vehicular | Service
Fire Access
Common Use
LEGEND
Project Site Plan
FIGURE 1
6 2. Existing Transportation Network
This chapter describes the roadway system in the vicinity of the Project. The existing configurations of the transportation network within the study area are described below.

2.1 Existing Street System
Colorado Boulevard, oriented in an east-west direction, is designated as a City Connector. The roadway consists of two lanes in each direction with a painted median within the study area. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 30 mph and on-street parking is provided.

Green Street, oriented in an east-west direction, is designated as a City Connector. The roadway is a one-way street in the eastbound direction that consists of three lanes. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 30 mph and on-street parking is provided.

Cordova Street, oriented in an east-west direction, is designated as a Neighborhood Connector. The roadway consists of one lane in each direction with a center two-way left-turn lane and a Class II bicycle lane. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and on-street parking is provided.

Del Mar Boulevard, oriented in an east-west direction, is designated as a City Connector. The roadway consists of two lanes in each direction. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and on-street parking is provided.

Wilson Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is designated as a Neighborhood Connector. The roadway consists of one lane in each direction, with a Class II bicycle lane. On-street parking is provided.

Michigan Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is designated as an Access roadway. The roadway consists of one lane in each direction and has an offset configuration at Colorado Boulevard.

On-street parking is provided on the west side of the street north of Colorado Boulevard and both sides of the street south of Colorado Boulevard.

Chester Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is designated as an Access roadway. The roadway consists of one lane in each direction and has an offset configuration at Colorado Boulevard.

On-street parking is provided.

Holliston Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is designated as an Access roadway. The roadway consists of one lane in each direction. On-street parking is provided on the west side of the street except between Colorado Boulevard and Green Street where parking is on the east side of the street.

Hill Avenue, oriented in a north-south direction, is designated as a City Connector within the study area. The roadway consists of two lanes in each direction in the study area. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 30 mph and on-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street.

Figure 2 shows the existing street network and classifications in the study area.

Roadway Classifications
Project Site
Neighborhood
Connector-City
ConnectorAccess
Access-Alley
Roadway Classifications
E Colorado Boulevard
Cordova Street
S Wilson Avenue
Holliston Avenue
S Hill Avenue
E Del Mar Avenue
S Michigan Avenue
S Chester Avenue
FIGURE 2
E Green Street
8 2.2 Existing Transit Service
LA Metro, Pasadena Transit and Foothill Transit provide transit services in the study area. The bus stop locations, per line, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Existing Transit Service Stop Locations
Location LA Metro Route Foothill Transit Pasadena Transit Colorado Blvd / Hill Ave
Northwest corner
180
187 None
267
Southeast corner
180
None None
267
Del Mar Blvd / Hill Ave
Northwest corner 267 None 10
Southwest corner 267 None 10
Source: Fehr & Peers.
9 3. Transportation Analysis Methodology
This chapter discusses the methodologies and thresholds used in the CEQA transportation analysis.

As detailed in Table 2, several performance measures were analyzed for this study to assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular activity in the City. After calculating each of the performance measures, the resulting values were compared to the City of Pasadena CEQA thresholds of significance to determine impact significance.

Table 2. City of Pasadena CEQA Performance Measures & Thresholds of Significance Metric Description Impact Threshold
VMT Per Capita
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
in the City of Pasadena per
service population (population
+ jobs).

Net change in VMT per SP is 16.8%
below Citywide average baseline.
2017 Baseline: 35.6

16.8% Below Baseline Threshold: 29.6
VT per Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City
of Pasadena per service
population (population + jobs).

Net change in VT per SP is 16.8%
below Citywide average baseline.
2017 Baseline: 4.2

16.8% Below Baseline Threshold: 3.5
Proximity and Quality of Bicycle
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) within a ¼
mile of bicycle facility types.

Any decrease in baseline Citywide SP
within a ¼ mile of Levels 1 & 2 bike
facilities.
2017 Baseline: 32.3%
Threshold: 32.3%
Proximity and Quality of Transit
Network
Percent of service population
(population + jobs) located
within a ¼ mile of transit facility
types.

Any decrease in baseline Citywide SP
within a ¼ mile of Levels 1 & 2 transit
facilities.
2017 Baseline: 66.8%
Threshold: 66.8%
Pedestrian Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility
Score uses the mix of
destinations and a networkbased walk shed to evaluate
walkability.

Any decrease in the Citywide
Pedestrian Accessibility Score.
2017 Baseline: 3.9
Threshold: 3.9
Source: Fehr & Peers.
10 3.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Capita measure sums the vehicle miles traveled using the current City of Pasadena Citywide Travel Demand Model. The total VMT considers trips that begin inside Pasadena, end inside Pasadena, or both, and includes 100% of the distance traveled on these trips. The City’s VMT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.

A project’s contribution to the citywide VMT per capita is determined by comparing the citywide VMT per service population without the project to the citywide VMT per service population with the project. The project’s incremental influence/contribution on Citywide VMT per capita is compared to the adopted CEQA threshold to determine the significance of environmental impacts.

Although VMT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, the City can reduce VMT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance from home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.

3.2 Vehicle Trips per Capita
Vehicle Trips (VT) per Capita is a measure of motor vehicle trips associated with the City. The measure sums the trips with origins and destinations within the City of Pasadena, as generated by the current City of Pasadena Citywide Travel Demand Model. The total VT is calculated by adding the VT associated with trips generated and attracted within the City of Pasadena boundaries, and 100% of the VT associated with trips that either begin or end in the City, but have one trip end outside of the City. The City’s VT is then divided by the City’s total service population, defined as the population plus the number of jobs.

A project’s contribution to the citywide VT per capita is determined by comparing the citywide VT per service population without the project to the citywide VT per service population with the project.

The project’s incremental influence/contribution on Citywide VT per capita is compared to the adopted CEQA threshold to determine the significance of environmental impacts.

As with VMT, VT itself will likely increase with the addition of new residents, but the City can reduce VT on a per-capita basis with land use policies that help Pasadena residents meet their daily needs within a short distance from home, reducing trip lengths, and by encouraging development in areas with access to various modes of transportation other than auto.

3.3 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network
The Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within 0.25-miles of each of three bicycle facility types. The facility types are aggregated into three hierarchy levels, obtained from the City’s Bicycle Transportation Action Plan categories shown in Table 3 below.
11 Table 3. Bicycle Facilities Hierarchy
Level Description Facilities Included
1 Advanced Facilities
• Bike Paths
• Multipurpose Paths
• Cycle Tracks/Protected Bike Lanes
2 Dedicated Facilities
• Buffered Bike Lanes
• Bike Lanes
• Bike Boulevards
3 Basic Facilities
• Bike Routes
• Enhanced Bike Routes
• Emphasized Bikeways
Source: Fehr & Peers.

The proximity and quality of the bicycle network is assessed by estimating the percent of service population access within 0.25-miles of Levels 1 and 2 bicycle facilities with the construction and occupancy of a proposed project. The resulting percent of service population is compared to the adopted CEQA threshold to determine the significance of environmental impacts.

The City can improve the measure of Bike Facility Access by improving and expanding existing bike facilities and by encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with high-quality bike facilities.

3.4 Proximity and Quality of Transit Network
The Proximity and Quality of Transit Network provides a measure of the percent of the City’s service population (population + jobs) within 0.25-miles of each of three transit facility types, as defined in the City’s Streets Types Plan and shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Transit Facilities Hierarchy
Level Facilities Included
1 Includes all L (“Gold”) Line stops as well as corridors with transit service, whether it be a single route or multiple routes combined, with headways of five minutes or less during the peak periods. 2 Includes corridors with transit headways between 6 and 15 minutes in peak periods.
3 Includes corridors with transit headways of 16 minutes or more in peak periods.

Source: Fehr & Peers.

The proximity and quality of the transit network is assessed by estimating the percent of service population access within 0.25-miles of Levels 1 and 2 transit facilities with the construction and occupancy of a proposed project. The resulting percent of service population is compared to the adopted CEQA threshold to determine the significance of environmental impacts. 12 The City can improve the measure of Transit Proximity and Quality by reducing headways on existing transit routes, by expanding transit routes to cover new areas, and by encouraging residential and commercial development to occur in areas with an already high-quality transit service.

3.5 Pedestrian Accessibility
The Pedestrian Accessibility metric provides a measure of the average walkability in the transportation analysis zone (TAZ) surrounding Pasadena residents. The metric is a simple count of the number of land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or employee in a given TAZ within a 5-minute walk. The ten categories of land uses are:
• Retail
• Personal Services
• Restaurant
• Entertainment
• Office (including private sector and government offices) • Medical (including medical office and hospital uses)
• Culture (including churches, religious, and other cultural uses) • Park and Open Space
• School (including elementary and high schools)
• College
The City can improve the Pedestrian Accessibility Score by:
• Encouraging residential and commercial development in areas with high existing Pedestrian Accessibility Scores; and
• Attracting mixed-use development and new land use types to increase the Pedestrian Accessibility metric values of other areas
13 4. Transportation Impact Analysis
This chapter presents the results of the CEQA transportation impact analysis utilizing the methodologies described in Chapter 3.

4.1 VMT and VT Analysis
VMT per Capita and VT per Capita are analyzed using the City of Pasadena travel demand model (model) which utilizes the TransCAD software environment. The proposed Project land use was entered into the model’s land use database as a 93,539 square foot office1 . Table 5 summarizes the
results of the proposed Project’s VMT and VT impacts on the transportation system. The results are based on the Project’s motorized and non-motorized travel patterns, trip lengths, surrounding land uses, the City’s transportation network, and the VMT reducing effects of proposed project design features that would encourage non-motorized travel to and from the Project site. The proposed project design features comprise a combination of transportation demand management (TDM) strategies detailed in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (2024), including implementation of a commute trip reduction program with mandatory monitoring (Strategy T-6) and employee parking cash-out (Strategy T-13). The CAPCOA Handbook summarizes the state of the practice regarding the quantification of greenhouse gas emission and VMT reduction measures, with a focus on project-level actions.

Appendix A includes the model post-processor worksheet used to calculate the performances measures and the worksheet used to calculate the reduction in project-related VMT resulting from implementation of the proposed project design features.

Table 5. VMT and VT Performance Measures Analysis Results Performance Measure 16.8% Baseline
Threshold
Project-Related
Incremental Change Significant Impact?
VMT per Capita 29.6 VMT per Capita 28.0 VMT per Capita No VT per Capita 3.5 VT per Capita 2.4 VT per Capita No
Source: Fehr & Peers.

As summarized in Table 5, the incremental/net change in VMT per capita and VT per capita is not forecasted to exceed the City’s adopted thresholds.
1 While the City of Pasadena travel demand model does not include an R&D land use category, the proposed Project’s daily trip generation and arrival/departure patterns are anticipated to be similar to the model’s ‘General Office’ land use category.
14 4.2 Proximity and Quality of Bicycle and Transit
Networks
The proposed Project is located within 0.1 miles of the bicycle lanes on Cordova Street, which qualifies as a Level 2 facility. As such, the proposed Project would result in a small increase in the service population that lives or works within 0.1 miles of a Level 1 or Level 2 bicycle facility and would not result in a significant impact to the Proximity and Quality of the Bicycle Network. Additionally, the proposed Project would result in a small increase in the service population that lives or works within

0.25 miles of a Level 1 or Level 2 transit facility. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to the Proximity and Quality of the Transit Network. Table 6 summarizes the existing and existing plus project evaluation of the Proximity and Quality of Bicycle and Transit networks.

Table 6. Proximity and Quality of Bicycle and Transit Network Performance Measures Analysis Results
Performance Measure Existing Value Existing Plus Project Value Significant Impact?
Proximity and Quality
of Bicycle Network

32.3% of population
and jobs

32.3% of population
and jobs No
Proximity and Quality
of Transit Network

66.8% of population
and jobs

66.8% of population
and jobs No
Source: Fehr & Peers.

As summarized in Table 6, the project is not forecasted to exceed the Proximity and Quality of Bicycle and Transit Network thresholds.

4.3 Pedestrian Accessibility
Given the average walkability in the zone because of the number of land use types accessible to the service population, the Pedestrian Accessibility score would not be decreased. Therefore, the project is not forecasted to result in a decrease in the existing Pedestrian Accessibility Score threshold. Table 7 summarizes the existing and existing plus project evaluation of the pedestrian accessibility.

Table 7. Pedestrian Accessibility Analysis Results
Performance Measure Existing Value Existing Plus Project Value Significant Impact?
Pedestrian
Accessibility C – 3.9 land use types C – 3.9 land use types No Source: Fehr & Peers.

As summarized in Table 7, the project is not forecasted to exceed the pedestrian accessibility threshold.
15 5. Conclusions
Fehr & Peers prepared a CEQA transportation impact analysis for the proposed Research and Development building located at 1364 E. Green Street in the City of Pasadena. The following describes the results of the CEQA analysis:
• The project is not forecasted to exceed the VMT per capita threshold. • The project is not forecasted to exceed the VT per capita threshold. • The project is not forecasted to exceed the proximity and quality of bicycle network thresholds.
• The project is not forecasted to exceed the proximity and quality of transit network thresholds.
• The project is not forecasted to exceed the pedestrian accessibility threshold.

Appendix A. TDF
Model Outputs
Daily Trips Internal External Pop 136,911
Internal 381,586 335,959 Emp 113,476
External 335,959 534,534 Ext. Factor 100%
EMFAC
Speed Internal External Regional Total INPUT
5 178 0 5,275 5,453 0%
10 1,338 900 28,857 31,096 0%
15 9,948 2,873 89,142 101,963 1%
20 19,066 11,182 184,705 214,953 2%
25 107,910 24,258 344,511 476,678 5%
30 513,907 115,301 677,271 1,306,479 15%
35 856,449 262,423 761,197 1,880,070 21%
40 156,157 89,795 477,917 723,869 8%
45 100,998 41,610 366,607 509,215 6%
50 79,414 14,077 441,598 535,089 6%
55 70,105 169,499 460,985 700,589 8%
60 97,106 37,221 425,498 559,825 6%
65 506,504 90,600 319,819 916,922 10%
70 1,883 412 802,501 804,796 11%
75 0 0 137,793 137,793
80 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 0 0
SUM 2,520,961 860,152 5,523,679 8,904,791 100%
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,520,961 860,152 5,523,679 8,904,791 35.6
VT 381,586 671,918 ‐ 1,053,503 4.2
Length 6.6 1.3 ‐ 8.5 ‐
Metric Internal External Regional Total Capita
VMT 2,520,961 860,152 5,523,679 8,904,791 35.6
VT 381,586 671,918 ‐ 1,053,503 4.2
Length 6.6 1.3 ‐ 8.5 ‐
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
136,911 113,476 8,904,791 1,053,503 35.6 4.2
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
136,911 113,160 8,893,871 1,052,731 35.6 4.2
Pop Emp VMT VT VMT/Cap VT/Cap
0 316 10,920 773 34.6 2.4

PASS PASS

FINAL REDUCED DAILY VMT BY SPEED BIN

REDUCED DAILY SUMMARY
2017 EXISTING SUMMARY

INCREMENTAL SCENARIO RESULTS

FINAL DAILY SCENARIO SUMMARY

TOTAL RAW DAILY SUMMARY
1364 E. Green Street
VMT Reduction Calculations for Project Design Features
Project Design Feature CAPCOA Strategy Calculated VMT
Reduction
Percent of VMT
Remaining
Commute Trip
Reduction Program
with Mandatory
Monitoring and
Reporting1
T-6 26% 74%
Employee Parking
Cash-Out2 T-13 12% 88%
Product 65%
VMT Reduction 35%
Employee Share of Total VMT 55%
Total VMT Reduction 19.18%
Project-Related VMT per Capita Without Project Design Features 34.6 Project-Related VMT per Capita With Project Design Features 28.0 Notes:
1 Per the requirements described in the CAPCOA Handbook, this program must include commute trip reduction marketing (Strategy T-7), provision of a ridesharing program (Strategy T-8), implementation of subsidized or discounted transit program (Strategy T-9), provision of end-of-trip bicycle facilities (Strategy T-10), and provision of employer-sponsored vanpool (Strategy T-11). 2 The calculated reduction assumes that all employees would be eligible to participate in the employee parking cash-out program.

P L A N N I N G & C O M M U N I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T

PLANNING DIVISION
January 28, 2026
Nancy Moses
c/o TC LA Development, Inc.
2221 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
El Segundo, CA 90245
Via email: [email protected]

NOTICE OF DECISION
Concept Design Review – New Research and Development Project 1364 E. Green Street
Case #: DHP2025-00258 Council District 7
Dear Ms. Moses:

On January 27, 2026, at a public hearing at the Pasadena Convention Center, Room 211, the Design Commission, acting under the provisions of Section 17.61.030 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, reviewed your application for Concept Design Review for the construction of a new four-story 93,539 square-foot research and development project at the above-referenced address. The design guidelines applied to this review were the design-related goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multifamily Districts. In its decision, the Commission:

Environmental Determination
Found that the application for Concept Design Review is Categorically Exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32: In-fill Development Projects) and that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class and, therefore, there are no unusual circumstances.

Findings for Compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance Acknowledged that there are no protected trees on the project site.

Findings for Concept Design Approval
Found that the project, upon implementation of the conditions of approval, will comply with the purposes of design review, the design-related goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the 2022 East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Districts; and

ATTACHMENT G
Nancy Moses
1364 E. Green Street (DHP2025-00258)