AR 10 PPT Staff Presentation POWER POINT PRESENTATION — Pasadena City Council, March 2, 2026

Planning & Community Development
Quasi-Judicial Action:

Appeal of Design Commission’s Concept
Design Review Approval for a New
Research & Development Project
1364 East Green Street
City Council
March 2, 2026
Planning & Community Development
Project Background
2 • On August 8, 2025, the applicant filed an application for Concept Design Review (CDR) for a new research &
development (R&D) project at 1364 E. Green Street.
• On December 9, 2025, the Design Commission (DC)
reviewed the application and continued the application. • On January 27, 2026, DC unanimously approved the CDR
application (5-0) with conditions of approval and adopted a Categorical Exemption.
• On February 9, 2025, an appeal was filed by Building a Better Pasadena, LLC.

Planning & Community Development
Project Background
• Project Details
> 41,573-square-foot site at the southeast corner of E. Green Street and S. Holliston Avenue.
> One building; three-to-four-stories (93,539 sq. ft.). > 260 at-grade and subterranean parking spaces.
> Research & Development (R&D) land use.
• The project meets all applicable development
standards of the Zoning Code including the East
Colorado Specific Plan and the R&D standards.
• The R&D land use is allowed by right.
• No Variances are required.
• The only entitlement required is Design Review.
3 Planning & Community Development
Project Background
4 • Design Review is a 3-phase process: Preliminary
Consultation, Concept Design Review and Final
Design Review. Each phase builds upon the other,
as the applicant must respond to comments
provided at each phase.
• Applicable Design Guidelines:
> Design-related Goals & Policies of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
> Design Guidelines in the 2022 East Colorado Specific
Plan.
> Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial &
Multi-Family Residential Districts
Planning & Community Development
Council’s Purview
• City Council’s review is limited to the
Environmental Review and the Design Review
(specifically, the project’s consistency with
applicable design guidelines):
> Cannot reduce size of the building beyond what
the Zoning Code allows.
5 Planning & Community Development
Aerial Photograph of Project Site
Project Background

PROJECT SITE
Green St
Holliston Ave
6 Planning & Community Development
North and West Elevations
7 North Elevation (Green Street)
West Elevation (Holliston Avenue)
78’
62’
47’
78’
62’
47’
Planning & Community Development
Renderings
8 North & east elevations
Looking SW along Green Street from Hill Avenue Library Site

Planning & Community Development
Renderings
9 North & West Elevations
Looking SE from the corner of Green Street & Holliston Avenue

Planning & Community Development
Renderings
10 West & South Elevations
Looking NE from Holliston Avenue

Planning & Community Development
11 • The appellant makes two points related to the
approval:

1. Insufficient analysis to support the Categorical
Exemption; and

2. The project is not consistent with General
Plan/Specific Plan/Zoning Code.

Appeal Points
Planning & Community Development
Appeal Point #1
12 • 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.

Planning & Community Development
Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
• Staff finds that the project qualifies for a CE under Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects.
• To qualify for this exemption, a project is required to meet the following criteria:
> Consistent with General Plan designation & applicable policies and with zoning designation & regulations.
> Site within City limits, less than 5 acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses.
> Site has no value as habitat for special status species. > Approval of project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. 13 Planning & Community Development
14 • Project will adhere to applicable regulations & permitting requirements and will not have impacts to water quality. • EcoTierra Consulting and Fehr & Peers, environmental
consulting firms, completed the noise, air quality and traffic technical studies to support the CE, which conclude that there will be less than significant impacts on the
environment.
• The appeal application did 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 the DC review, several concerns were
raised.

Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
Planning & Community Development
15 • Noise & Vibration.
> A Noise & Vibration Analysis for the project was
prepared by EcoTierra and considered various local,
state and federal guidance.
> Both construction and operation.
> Reviewed for potential impacts to sensitive receptors including St. Phillips church, school & community
center; PCC Child Development Center and various
apartments.
> Noise and vibration impacts were found to be below all relevant criteria. No significant impact.

Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
Planning & Community Development
16 • Air Quality.
> An Air Quality Analysis for the project was prepared by EcoTierra following methodology in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Air Quality
Analysis Handbook.
> Both construction and operation.
> Reviewed for potential impacts to sensitive receptors including St. Phillips church, school & community
center; PCC Child Development Center and various
apartments.
> Construction and operational emissions found to be
below SCAQMD thresholds. No significant impact.

Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
Planning & Community Development
17 • Traffic.
> Metric 1: Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) analysis
was conducted as required by the CEQA
Guidelines.
 Project VMT per capita is below threshold. No
impact.
> Metric 2: Safety
 Project would not substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g.,
farm equipment). No impact.

Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
Planning & Community Development
18 • Local Mobility Analysis Conducted (Non-CEQA).
> Purpose: to understand the effect of the project on the local transportation network and whether any local
improvements would need to be made to accommodate
the project.
> Intersection Operational Analyses
 Intersection Level-of-Service (LOS) – operate acceptably  Exclusive Turn-Lane Queuing – adds to existing queuing issue > Neighborhood Intrusion/Cut-through (if needed)
 None meet criteria for study. Holliston Ave is a Project access. > Active Transportation Review
 No negative effect on existing pedestrian/bike/transit infrastructure.

Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
Planning & Community Development
Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
• Main concerns heard related to traffic:
> Project would cause congestion on nearby streets and
intersections.
> Project driveways would cause conflicts with school pick-ups/drop- offs, pedestrians and bicyclists.
> Project would cause queues to extend beyond storage capacity or add to an existing queuing issue.
• Appellants conducted a traffic study.
• DOT has reviewed the study and concluded that no further study is required and no effects were identified that were not already addressed.
• DOT staff can provide more detail.
19 Planning & Community Development
Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
• Other criteria for all CEs (exceptions to the exemptions):
> Location – classes 3-6 & 11 only.
 Project qualifies for class 32
> Significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place.
 No other proposed projects of the same type in the same place as the proposed project (closest comparable example is over a mile west at 26 N. Euclid Ave.) > Unusual circumstances.
 Project is an allowed land use on a standard, flat, rectangular parcel at a standard street intersection in a developed urban area of the City.
> Scenic highways.
 No scenic highways in the vicinity of the project.
> Hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
 Project is not on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
20 Planning & Community Development
Staff Response to Appeal Point #1
• Other criteria for a CE (exceptions to the exemptions):
> Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource.  “Substantial adverse change” means physical demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.
 The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or adversely alters those physical characteristics of that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the state or local register of historic resources.
 Property is a surface parking lot and does not contain any historic resources.  St. Philip the Apostle Church & School is adjacent to the east and south, but is not a designated historic resource and has not been evaluated for historical significance.  The church was designed by significant architect Roland Coate and built in 1950. Other buildings on the site were built between 1961 and 2021.  The project would not demolish or alter any of the physical characteristics of the St. Philip the Apostle Church and School property.
 If the church and school were determined to be historically significant, the setting surrounding the church and school has changed significantly and would not contribute to its potential historical significance.
 Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
21 Planning & Community Development
Appeal Point #2
22 • The project is inconsistent with the fundamental provisions of the City’s General Plan, and East Colorado Specific Plan and Zoning Code relating to design review.
22 Planning & Community Development
Staff Response to Appeal Point #2
• 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 large and does meet the intent of these plans.
• Property is designated Medium Mixed Use in the General Plan. > Designation is “intended to support the development of multi-story buildings with a variety of compatible commercial (retail and office) and residential uses. Development is characterized by shared open spaces, extensive landscaping, small to medium separations between buildings, and shared driveways and parking. Sites may be exclusively commercial or exclusively residential, or with buildings vertically integrating housing with non-residential uses.”
• Property is also consistent with a number of General Plan policies that encourage land use diversity, job opportunities, innovation and R&D flex space.
23 Planning & Community Development
24 • East Colorado Specific Plan.
> Property is within the Mid-City Innovation District
 Plan states: “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 Street, 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.”
> Project is consistent with ECSP policies related to providing new development that is compatible with surrounding residential uses and educational assets.
 Policy 7.c states: “Leverage proximity to higher learning and educational events on PCC and Caltech campuses to create economic benefits for local businesses and encourage growth in the local R&D and technology sectors.”
Staff Response to Appeal Point #2
Planning & Community Development
25 • Zoning Code.
> Research & Development land use is permitted by right in the EC-MU-N zoning district.
> Project complies with all applicable standards:
 Setbacks
 Stepbacks
 Modulation
 Frontage
 Open Space
 Parking
> Historic adjacency standards do not apply. St. Philips site is not a designated historic resource.

Staff Response to Appeal Point #2
Planning & Community Development
26 • Zoning Code.
> In 2024, Council adopted R&D to establish flexible development standards to incentivize R&D uses (for height, floor area and parking), streamline the review process and reduce permit fees.
> Project is consistent with R&D ordinance that allows:
 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. » Note: All buildings in the ECSP may exceed the base height limit by 12 feet over 30 percent of the building footprint.
 Appurtenances to exceed the height limit by 18 feet. 15 feet is proposed.  Mechanical space and appurtenances to be excluded when calculating floor area ratio. 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 mechanical space and appurtenance, the size of the building is 93,539 square feet and complies.

Staff Response to Appeal Point #2
Planning & Community Development
Design Review Finding
• 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, and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Districts > The project is consistent with the Medium Mixed Use land use designation of the site in the General Plan and many of the General Plan’s guiding principles, goals and policies. > The project is consistent with the East Colorado Specific Plan Mid-City Innovation District and EC-MU-N zoning designation.
> Staff and the Design Commission reviewed the project for consistency with the design guidelines and policies in 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 project integrates with the pedestrian experience through its street orientation and pedestrian access points along Green Street.
 Modulation and articulated stepped back massing is respectful to the surrounding context.  Contemporary design with high quality materials, rational grid configuration, high levels of transparency that respond to the solar orientation of each façade.
 Landscape design softens the development.
 Design is inspired by a number of precedents of the same style within the larger context due to its proximity to E.

Colorado Blvd., PCC, and Caltech and similar newer and older commercial, office, and institutional buildings of various architectural styles.
 Nearest adjacent parcel (St. Philip the Apostle church & school) has improvements located between 26 and 295 feet away from the proposed building.
 Recommended conditions will ensure further compatibility through study of the mechanical screening and fourth- floor step-back from the south façade.
27 Planning & Community Development
Design Evolution
• Preliminary consultation
comments:
> Study how project responds
to context, particularly PCC
buildings of similar scale &
approved hotel at
Colorado/Hill.
> Consider differentiating
facades based on solar
exposure.
> Consider stepping fourth
floor at the south side.
> Consider further
differentiating the fourth floor
from those below.
> Further study & minimize
mechanical screen.
> Ensure high-quality &
durable materials.
28 Planning & Community Development
Design Evolution
29 • Revised design presented
to DC on December 9,
2025:
> Addresses how project
responds to PCC buildings of
similar scale & approved
hotel at Colorado/Hill.
> Differentiates facades based
on solar exposure.
> All sides of the fourth floor
stepped back from floors
below.
> Fourth floor design
significantly differentiated
from those below.
> Mechanical screen materials
changed and lowered from
18’ to 16’.
> Materials & articulation
further refined.

Planning & Community Development
Design Evolution
• Revised design presented
to DC on January 27, 2026
(current design):
> Softens roof canopy edge.
> Lowers mechanical screen
from 16’ to 15’.
30 Planning & Community Development
Appellant’s Design Concerns
Concern Suggested Modification Staff Response
South elevation mass/scale Increase south setback,
Provide additional 4th floor stepback
Project complies with setbacks, DC
included condition to study 4
th-floor
additional stepback.

Mechanical screen prominence Reduce screen height, reduce mechanical area, adjust colors to
reduce visibility
DC included condition to this effect.

Privacy/overlook Reduce windows on south & east,
add screening
Windows on south & east are
reduced due to solar orientation.

Solar canopies proposed on south
side, but no screening.

Architectural compatibility Make ground floor more
substantial/solid, modify metal
panel colors
Colors/materials will be reviewed
during Final Design Review.

Pedestrian Scale Enlarge PAOS, provide more
substantial landscaping, reduce
ground-floor height
Landscaping will be reviewed
during Final Design Review.

Driveway/school interface Add warning systems at driveways, Add landscape buffers at Green St.
driveway
Landscaping will be reviewed
during Final Design Review.
31 Planning & Community Development
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Find that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Class 32, infill development projects;

2. Find 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 & Multi-Family Residential 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.
32 Planning & Community Development
Quasi-Judicial Action:

4.10: Locate and design buildings to relate to and frame major public streets, open spaces, and cityscape. New development at intersections should consider any number of corner treatments, and should balance safety and accessibility concerns with the vision of the area and the need for buildings to engage the street and create a distinct urban edge.

4.11: Require that development demonstrates a contextual relationship with neighboring structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing, orientation, setbacks, buffering, the arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, infrastructure, and aesthetics.

7.1: Design each building as a high-quality, long term addition to the City’s urban fabric; exterior design and buildings material shall exhibit permanence and quality, minimize maintenance concerns, and extend the life of the building.

7.2: Allow for the development of a diversity of buildings styles. Support innovative and creative design solutions to issues related to context and environmental sustainability.

7.3: Require that new and adaptively re-used buildings are designed to respect and complement the defining built form, massing, scale, modulation, and architectural detailing of their contextual setting.

10.7: Encourage sustainable practices for landscape materials, landscape design, and land development.

23.3: Provide appropriate setbacks, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, along the street frontage and, where there are setbacks, ensure adequate landscaping is provided.

25.4: Require that new development protect community character by providing architecture, landscaping, and urban design of equal or greater quality than existing and by respecting the architectural character and scale of adjacent buildings.
34 Planning & Community Development
East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan:

Goal 1: A public realm, including sidewalks, paseos, plazas, and pocket parks, that are safe and accessible to the general public and contribute to the ECSP area’s overall identity and sense of place.

Policy: 1.c: Enhanced Storefronts. Promote enhanced storefronts that engage the public realm with street-oriented entrances, modulated facades, and pedestrian amenities in the public realm.

Goal 5: Complementary building forms that fit the scale of the neighborhood and support a vibrant, walkable district.

Policy 5.a: Architectural Diversity. Allow for a range of architectural styles and forms that provide visual interest and quality design through massing and façade standards.

Policy 5.b: Scaled Transitions. Provide upper floor stepbacks where new development is adjacent to lower density residential districts.

Goal 6: Ample access to open space for both passive and active enjoyment.

Policy 6.b: Commercial Open Space. Require large nonresidential or mixed-use projects to provide open space for residents, employees, and visitors.

Policy 6.c: Quality Design. Introduce open space design standards meant to create usable and functional open space for residents, employees, and visitors alike.

Policy 6.d: Urban Greening. Use all open space areas to further environmental goals – such as carbon sequestration and reducing the urban heat island effect – through tree planting, stormwater capture, and native landscaping.

Goal 14: A commercial corridor supported by a mix of uses and housing opportunities connected by an enhanced public realm.

Policy 14.c: Pedestrian-Oriented Design. Balance the needs of auto-oriented uses with the desire for a walkable neighborhood character and enhanced pedestrian mobility by requiring pedestrian-oriented site design and features.

Policy 14.d: Lower-Scale Character. Maintain character to reflect existing form and strengthen neighborhood identity.

Applicable Design Guidelines
35 Planning & Community Development
Applicable Design Guidelines
Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Residential Districts:
• 2.2 Activating the street. New multi-family and mixed-use buildings should be designed with frontages that activate the street by providing direct access to their ground floor dwellings and commercial spaces. • 5.1: Provide well-marked, articulated building entrances oriented to streets and public space. • 11.1 All buildings should incorporate: A full array of architectural elements associated with their chosen style; the compositional, structural, and constructional logic associated with that style; and the material logic associated with that style. • 11.2 The style of a new building should be clear and consistent, whether traditional or contemporary. Hybrid projects are discouraged.
• 11.4 Contemporary architecture. Buildings designed in contemporary styles may adhere to a set of rules that is established and followed through by the designer. The design strategy must be described in conformance with Appendix A3 (Preliminary Review).
• 13. The means and methods of construction of new buildings should contribute to their durability, usefulness, and compatibility.
• 14.1 Details. Window and door assemblies should be chosen that conform to the precedents of traditional styles or the intentions of contemporary design in terms of material, dimension, and detail. • 14.3 Configurations. The orientation and proportion of openings should be consistent with the architectural language chosen for a project. Openings should relate to one another according to a clear system of composition and structure. • 18 Landscape and hardscape. Landscape and hardscape should enhance the character of new buildings, address the Pasadena climate, and facilitate sustainable water use and drainage strategies. • 18.1 Compatibility. Landscape and hardscape design should be compatible with the chosen architectural style of a building. 36 Planning & Community Development
Aerial
| 37
Rectory
~26 feet away
Church
~55 feet away
Hall
~190 feet away
School
~295 feet away
Ministry Center/Pre-K
~121 feet awayProject
Site
Green St
Holliston Ave
Cordova St
S Hill Ave
Planning & Community Development
St. Philip Campus Changes
38 Property line
Buildings demolished
since 2005
Green St
Holliston Ave
Cordova St
S Hill Ave
Planning & Community Development
St. Philip Campus Changes
39 Property line
Buildings constructed
since 2006
Parking or hardscape
reconfigured since 2006
Green St
Holliston Ave
Cordova St
S Hill Ave
Planning & Community Development
Mid-City Innovation District
GOAL #7. A supportive
environment for new
development and businesses
that is compatible with
surrounding residential uses
and educational assets.

Policy 7.c. PPC and
Caltech.

Leverage proximity to
higher learning and educational
events on PCC and Caltech
campuses to create economic
benefits for local businesses
and encourage growth in the
local R&D and technology
sectors.

East Colorado Specific Plan
Project Site
40 Planning & Community Development
Allowable Height
Project Site
41 Planning & Community Development
Proposed Height
42 47’
(19% of building)
62’
(33% of building)
78’
(48% of building)
42 Planning & Community Development
Prior to 2022
• Not in the 2003 East Colorado Specific
• South side of Green Street was also
not in the specific plan
• Site zoned Commercial General (CG)
• Allowed by-right:
o R&D – Offices
o R&D – Non-Offices
2022
• Site included in the updated 2022 East
Colorado Specific Plan.
• South side of Green Street was also
included.
• Site zoned EC-MU-N
• Allowed by-right:
o R&D – Offices
o R&D – Non-Offices
Site Zoning
Project Site
43 Project Site
2022 East Colorado Specific Plan
East Green St
2003 East Colorado Specific Plan
Planning & Community Development
R&D Ordinance (2024)
Targeted amendments:

1. R&D Land Use
> Consolidate the definition from R&D Office and R&D Non-Office into R&D > Allow by-right in areas where R&D was already allowed. > Introduced as an allowed use with a CUP in the PS Zone, limited to parcels not owned by PUSD or used as a K-12 school as of December 4, 2023

2. Conditional Use Permit Requirement
> Remove CUP requirement for major construction projects over 25,000 square feet > Remove the MCUP requirement for projects over 15,000 square feet in TOD areas

3. Parking Flexibility
> Allow a parking space ratio of 2 parking spaces per every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area

4. Building Height
> Allow additional 12 ft to building height by-right
> Allow additional height with an MCUP

5. Appurtenance Rooftop Coverage
> Allow additional rooftop coverage of 75% for appurtenance height of 18 ft > Allow additional coverage and appurtenance height with an MCUP 44 Planning & Community Development
R&D Ordinance (2024)
Targeted amendments (continued):

6. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
> Exempt mechanical spaces from the FAR requirements

7. Open Space
> Reduce Open Space requirements for the use up to 60% and exclude mechanical space from the gross floor area calculation in relation to open space requirements

8. Frontage (Ground Floor) Requirements
> Remove the ground floor prohibition for R&D uses in Central District, East Colorado, and South Fair Oaks Specific Plans
> Clarify that the use prohibition would remain in the Central District Specific Plan in the CD-MU-C zone along two key corridors:
o Colorado Boulevard (within the Old Pasadena and Playhouse area) o South Lake Avenue within the CD-CL zone (east side of Lake Avenue)

45 Planning & Community Development
R&D Ordinance (2024): Definition
Old R&D Definitions:
> R&D Office: Facilities that are primarily office uses for scientific research. This use can include the design, development, and testing of biological, chemical, electrical, magnetic, mechanical, and/or optical components in advance of product manufacturing. This use does not involve the fabrication, mass manufacture, or processing of the products. > R&D Non-Office: A laboratory facility that is primarily used for non-office scientific research. This use can include the design, development, and testing of biological, chemical, electrical, magnetic, mechanical, and/or optical components in advance of product manufacturing. This use does not involve the fabrication, mass manufacture, or processing of the products.

Definition simplified to:
> Remove the distinction between office and non-office. > Allow fabrication and manufacturing for research and development purposes. > Clarify that fabrication, manufacturing, or processing of products for mass distribution is not allowed.

New R&D Definition:

Facilities that are used for research and development. This use can include the design, development, assembling, prototyping and testing of, but not limited to, biological, chemical, electrical, magnetic, mechanical, and/or optical components or processes in advance of product manufacturing. This use may include fabrication and manufacturing for research and development purposes. This use does not involve the fabrication, manufacturing, or processing of products for mass distribution.
46 Planning & Community Development
Development Adjacent to Religious
Facilities
Pasadena Presbyterian Church, A/C Hotel across the street First Church of Christ, Scientist, Residential Care (2025), same site 47 Planning & Community Development
Development Adjacent to Religious
Facilities
First Baptist Church of Pasadena, Office Tower across the street, parking structure adjacent All Saints, The Westin and Western Asset
48 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Safety at Driveways
o Inbound on Holliston Ave and
outbound on Green St
o Ramp to underground parking
is within the site, not at the
driveway
49 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Safety at Driveways (cont.)
o Per PMC, driveways designed to
allow visibility for 50 feet or to
property line from driveway
o Finding: Driveways are designed
in accordance with PMC to
minimize conflicts with
pedestrians
50 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Truck Access
o Simulated to ensure Holliston
Ave had sufficient width to
accommodate largest vehicle
o Design vehicle: WB-40 or semi-
trailer truck
o Finding: Holliston Ave has
sufficient width
51 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Study Peak Periods
o Per Guidelines, standard study peak periods are AM and PM commute periods
o School peak periods are drop-off (overlap with AM) and pick-up times (earlier than PM)
o School peak periods can be studied when Project is a school o Existing traffic counts collected while school in session o Project outbound driveway on Green St would not conflict with school activity on Holliston Ave
o Existing traffic counts show that traffic is higher at PM peak than at pick-up
52 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Land Use Assumptions for Analyses
o LMA and CEQA have different methodologies for trip generation o LMA uses ITE Trip Generation Manual, which has R&D Land Use, and analyzes traffic operations and circulation during peak hour conditions
o CEQA uses City’s Travel Demand Model, which categorizes R&D under the General Office land use category umbrella, and focuses on daily travel characteristics
53 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Land Uses in Model
o Model Area 2
| 54
54 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Trip Generation Rates
o ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition
o Trip rates per 1,000 SF
Land Use Daily Trip Rate AM Peak Hour
Trip Rate
PM Peak Hour
Trip Rate
R&D 11.08 1.03 0.98
Office 10.84 1.52 1.44
55 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Accounting for Nearby Development
o VMT (CEQA) uses the land use assumptions based on City’s General Plan. The VMT metric is Project VMT per capita, which compares the VMT per capita of the Project with the citywide baseline VMT per capita to determine whether it is more VMT- efficient than the rest of the City.
o LMA uses an annual growth rate to increase the existing traffic counts to account for future growth. The growth rate includes anticipated nearby developments, including hotel.
o Sensitivity analysis shows that even if the hotel’s trips were added to our cumulative analysis, it would not change the conclusions of LMA.
56 Planning & Community Development
Transportation Comments Received
• Intersection Operation Analysis - Queuing
o Purpose: study whether the Project would cause queues to extend beyond storage capacity or add to an existing queuing issue. Identify corrective measures, if feasible, including TDM.
o LMA found that there are existing queuing issues at Hill/Cordova (NBL) and Hill Ave/Del Mar Blvd (NBL and SBL) and the Project would add to these queues.
o Project is already committed to TDM measures.
o Project is not responsible for fixing an existing deficiency. o Per Guidelines, microsimulation may be considered when Synchro doesn’t produce queue lengths comparable to existing observed conditions. Not the case for these intersections.
57 Planning & Community Development
Site Plan
58 58
Planning & Community Development
Ground Floor Plan
59 Planning & Community Development
Second Floor Plan
60 Planning & Community Development
Third Floor Plan
61 Planning & Community Development
Fourth Floor Plan
62 |
Planning & Community Development
Roof Plan
63 Planning & Community Development
South and East Elevations
64 South Elevation
East Elevation
Planning & Community Development
Existing Conditions
65 Project Site – Green St.

Project Site – Holliston Avenue
St. Philip Rectory (2022) St. Philip Church (1950)
PCC Child Development Center
(1995)Multi-Family Residential
(1985)
Hill Avenue
Library (1925)
St. Philip
Rectory (2022) PCC Building R
St. Philip Church
(1950)St. Philip
Classroom (1961)
Planning & Community Development
Existing Conditions
66 North side of E. Green Street
1299 E. Green St Surface Parking Lot – across from project site Hill Ave Branch Library St. Philip Apostle Church Parish Center PROJECT SITE PCC Child Development Center South side of E. Green Street
Planning & Community Development
Council Options
• Approve as proposed.
• Approve with modifications.
• Disapprove based on inconsistency with design
guidelines.
• Remand any new information provided to the
Design Commission for a report, prior to the
Council’s final decision on the appeal.
67 Planning & Community Development
Environmental Analysis
• 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 is required or warranted for the Project pursuant to the appellate court’s holding in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 80 (“McCorkle”).”
• Under McCorkle, CEQA applies only to discretionary projects, which are projects that require 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’s design 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 a court 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. 68 Planning & Community Development
Environmental Analysis
• 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 general plan 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 mixed-use 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. Potential impacts to water quality will be avoided by adherence to applicable regulations and permitting requirements by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City’s Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan ordinance.
> 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 serve the project. 69 Planning & Community Development
Environmental Analysis
• In addition, to qualify for any CEQA exemption, the project must meet the following 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 critical concern 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 on the 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 and located on a standard flat, rectangular parcel at a standard street intersection in a developed urban area of the City of Pasadena. 70 Planning & Community Development
Environmental Analysis
• Exceptions to Exemptions continued.
> 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 of Arroyo 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.
> 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.
71 Planning & Community Development
Environmental Analysis
• Exceptions to Exemptions continued
> 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 and east of the subject property. The church was constructed in 1949-1950 and designed by architect Roland Coate; however, it has not been evaluated for historical 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 adverse change to any of the buildings associated with the church and school. CEQA defines “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 would be materially impaired.
72 Planning & Community Development
Environmental Analysis
• Exceptions to Exemptions Continued
> f. Historical Resources continued.
 The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
» (A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
» (B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing 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 Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
73 Planning & Community Development
Environmental Analysis
• Exceptions to exemptions continued
> f. Historical Resources continued.
 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 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 church that would convey its potential historical significance.

In addition, the setting of the church and school itself has changed significantly over time including construction of a library/auditorium building in 1961, replacement of the convent with surface parking in 2005, demolition of the former parish hall and expansion of the existing school buildings in 2008, and construction of a new rectory in 2021. A Master Plan was approved for the site in advance of the more recent construction and the CEQA document for the Master Plan did not identify any historically significant structures on the site. The setting surrounding the school and church has also changed significantly over time including expansion of Pasadena City College to the east and construction of several new structures in the 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 historical resource. 74

Pasadena City CouncilMarch 2, 2026

Pasadena City Council
March 2, 2026