AR 10 SUPP CORR PART 1 CORRESPONDENCE PART 1 — Pasadena City Council, March 2, 2026

McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:22 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you /mow the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a St. Philip the Apostle parishionerwho believes we must protect the places that anchor our community. Our churches, schools, and long-established neighborhoods are not just structures on a map — they are the foundations of daily life in Pasadena. They provide stability, belonging, and continuity across generations. When large-scale development such as that at 1364 E. Green Street is proposed immediately beside these anchors, it raises serious concerns. Sacred spaces and neighborhood institutions depend on peace, safety, and compatibility with their surroundings. Construction impacts, increased traffic, noise, and projects that are out of scale can disrupt more than routines—they can erode the sense of place that holds a communitytogether. Pasadena has long been admired for thoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential. Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you to ensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough review and are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not opposition to progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.

Sincerely,
EtisaAlderete
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCLickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:58 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ i ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on Hill Avenue.

For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, and quiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that has stood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. My parents were married in the original church building during World War II, as were many other couples of the "greatest generation." Finally, this parish is responsible for my consecration as a Discalced Secular Carmelite and for my becoming a member of the St. John Paul II Discalced Secular Carmelite Community in Alhambra, CA. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for our church and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure.

It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too targe and out of proportion to their surroundings. When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatjbjlity and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance and respect — for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor our community. I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process, require a full environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planning decisions reflect this community's values.

Sincerely,
Barbara Ower
IPasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 6:14 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Prayerful Request for Care Near St. Philip the Apostle School [ i ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: A Prayerful Request for Care Near St. Philip the Apostle School Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a parent at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing with a humble and prayerful request regarding the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street, near our school, church, and neighborhood. As parents, we entrust our children to God's care each day, hoping they are Learning in a safe and nurturing environment. For this reason, I am concerned about construction activity near the school, increased traffic on Green Street, and the presence of an R&D facility whose research uses have not been clearly explained. These uncertainties are difficult for families when children's safety is involved. I am grateful for your service to the City and respectful of Cattech's role in Pasadena. At the same time, schools and churches are sacred spaces that deserve special care. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and thoughtfully discern whether this project, as proposed, serves the common good, and to require a thorough safety and environmental review. I pray that your decision will be guided by wisdom, compassion, and a deep sense of responsibility for the most vulnerable in our community. Thankyou for yourtime and consideration.

Sincerely,
Bells Moreno
Pasadena , CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:14 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on Hill Avenue.

For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, and quiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that has stood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for our church and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure. It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too large and out of proportion to their surroundings.

When projects appear driven by maximum height and density rather than compatibility and care, public confidence in the planning process erodes. This is not opposition to growth. It is a plea for balance and respect—for our neighborhoods, our historic buildings, and the sacred spaces that anchor our community. I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process, require a full environmental review, and ensure the project complies with the 51-foot height Limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan. Please protect what makes Pasadena special and restore trust that our planning decisions reflect this community's values.

Sincerely,
Anne Marie Simoneau
Pasadena, CA 91101 PASADENA, CA, CA 911 01 -3259 Constituent Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCtickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street [ 1 ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you taoivthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Longtime Catholic parishioner who attends Mass regularly and cares deeply about our church and its future. For many of us, this parish is the center of our spiritual lives. It is where I come each weekto pray, find peace, and feel close to God. Our church, designed by Roland Coate, is a beautiful and historic place, and the quiet and reverence of the space mean so much to those of us who have worshipped here for many years. I support Pasadena's growth and understand the importance of innovation, but I worry that the proposed development at 1 364 E. Green Street would make it very difficult for parishioners like me. Construction often begins as early as 7:00 in the morning, and the noise, heavy trucks, and ground vibration could easily disrupt daily and weekend Masses, funerals, weddings, and times of prayer. Many parishioners are older and move more slowly, and increased traffic and noise would make attending Mass more stressful and less safe. I am also concerned that vibration could affect our historic church building, which was never meant to sit next to a Large-scale project like this. Catholic teaching reminds us to care for one another and work for the common good (Gaudium et Spes). I do not feel that approving this project without a full environmental review reflects that care. I respectfully ask the City Council to require that this project follow the 51-foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan and undergo a thorough environmental review that truly considers noise, vibration, and construction hours. Please allow this project to return in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who depend on it. Thank you for listening to my concerns and for protecting the communities that make Pasadena special.

Sincerely,
Lauren Thompson
Pasadena, CA 91107 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPotitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 7:08 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Prayerful Request for Accountability and Care Near St. Philip the Apostle School [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: A Prayerful Request for Accountability and Care Near St. Philip the Apostle School Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a parent at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing with a sincere and prayerful request regarding the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street, near our school, church, and neighborhood. As parents, we entrust our children to God's care each day, hoping they are Learning in a safe and nurturing environment. For this reason, I am deeply concerned about construction activity near the school, increased traffic on Green Street, and the placement of an R&D facility whose research uses have not been clearly explained. Given the proximity to a school and a church, I must ask how a project of this scale and intensity was permitted to advance this far without clear, publicly demonstrated assurances of children's safety. I am grateful foryour service to the City and respectful of Caltech's role in Pasadena.At the same time, schools and churches are sacred spaces and sensitive uses. Decisions that affect them should reflect the highest level of care, transparency, and accountability—especially when the most vulnerable members of our community are involved. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and seriously discern whether this project, as proposed, serves the common good, and to require a thorough and meaningful safety and environmental review before it proceeds any further. I pray that your decision will be guided by wisdom, humility, and a deep responsibility to protect children and families. Thankyou foryourtime and consideration.

Sincerely,
Andrea Milam
Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 8:09 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. I am very concerned about the next many decades of children and families who will attend facilities in this neighborhood should this project go ahead. This building does not fit in the proposed location from a Pasadena local point of view. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Cattech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project complywith the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities.

Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in the neighborhood. Robert Bolger Sincerely,
Robert Bolger
Sierra Made, CA 91024 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (trn) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCLickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 11:15 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 East Green St. Building Concerns
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: 1364 East Green St. Building Concerns
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I Live on S Holliston across the street from the proposed building project. I work from home and attended church at St. Philip's, so this neighborhood is where I spend the overwhelming majority of my time. It is a beautiful residential street capturing the dream of Pasadena - a walkabte, small-town environment with big-city amenities. It is absolutely not the appropriate location for a multi-storey research facility.

Holliston is already used as a shortcut and access street by through traffic, and the presence of a Large workplace will only exacerbate the large number of cars and unsafe driving speeds present on the street.

Moreover, this neighborhood is not zoned for this sort of development - and for good reason! Families with young children Live, work, and attend school on this street. Since I work from home, I am intimately familiar with the day-to-day rhythm of Holliston. There is already a substantial amount of noise and regular construction work, electrical work, and other maintenance which disturbs the neighborhood and interferes with the internet connection that I rely on for my job. This new building would not only destroy the beautiful views of the mountains, the nearby Mill Library, and the church, but it would contribute to the disruptions which already harm the otherwise pleasant life in this part of Pasadena. Finally, St.

Phillip's church is one of the vital centers of life in this part of the city. Thus new construction would harm its mission by negatively impacting the priests who live less than 10 feet from the proposed building and the elementary-age schoolchildren who attend the preschool and grade school at the church. I love Caltech; it is a gift to have it near my neighborhood. But Caltech is not in my neighborhood - nor should it be. This building represents a profound misunderstanding of the university's relationship to Pasadena and a betrayal of its duty to the families who live here. I urge you to not allow this project to move forward.

Sincerely,
Geoffrey Blum
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 12:11 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know {he content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Protect the Heart of Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle Church Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a longtime parishioner of a historic church on Hill Avenue.

For many of us, this parish is a second home. It is where we gather for Mass, funerals, weddings, and quiet prayer. It is a place of peace — and a beautiful historic building designed by Roland Coate that has stood as part of Pasadena's character for generations. I understand that Pasadena must grow. But I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and what it would mean for our church and the surrounding neighborhood. Early-morning construction, heavy truck traffic, and ground vibration would disrupt worship and could damage our historic structure. It is hard to pray amid noise and shaking. Our church was never meant to sit beside a project of this scale. More broadly, many residents feel that recent developments are simply too large and out of proportion to their surroundings.

Sincerely,
Robert KESSINGER
Pasadena, CA 91101 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 1:18 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Parishioner Concerns About 1 364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to uphold human dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions like Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises real concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would better reflect both Pasadena's planning goals and respect for faith communities. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors stewardship, safety, and the vital role our church plays in the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
AdeleAmurao
Pasadena, CA 91107-4757 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPotitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:22 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Serious Safety Concerns Regarding Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Serious Safety Concerns Regarding Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School Mr. MarkJomsky,
How is it possible that a large construction project and proposed R&D facility at 1 364 E. Green Street could move forward directly adjacent to an active elementary school and church without clear and public assurances that children's safety has been fully protected? I am a parent of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing to express serious concern about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street. The prospect of prolonged construction next to the school, increased and unsafe traffic on Green Street, and an R&D buildingwith unclear research uses raises fundamental questions about oversight, planning, and public safety. Parents rely on the City to act with heightened care when projects affect schools and places of worship. It is troubling that a development of this scale and intensity appears to have progressed so far, given its proximity to children and a residential neighborhood. At a minimum, families deserve transparency about what activities will take place on this site and how risks will be mitigated. I respect the City Council's service and acknowledge Caltech's importance to Pasadena.

However, respect for institutions must never outweigh the responsibility to protect children. I urge the Council to pause this project, require a thorough and meaningful safety and environmental review, and reconsider whether this location is appropriate for high-intensityR&D use. I ask that your decisions reflect sound judgment, accountability, and a clear commitment to the well-being of families who depend on you to safeguard their community. Thankyou for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Katie Brow
South Pasadena, CA 91030 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCtickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:33 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Request for Additional Review of Proposed Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Request for Additional Review of Proposed Development Near St. Philip the Apostle School Mr. MarkJomsky,
I'm a graduate of St. Philip the Apostle School (Class of 2006), and I'm reaching out to share some concerns about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street. I look back very fondly on my 9 years at St. Philip's, which provided me with a safe, quiet, and healthy environment to learn and grow in. As I've begun to better understand the proposed development on Green Street, it has made me worried about the impact this project will have - specifically, that the the long-term construction and increased traffic will materially diminish the experience of current and future students at St. Philip's. I appreciate everythingthe City Council does and the incredible work Caltech brings to Pasadena (I remember thinking it was so cool to be going to grade school down the street from such a prestigious institution and havingfriends whose parents worked there). Give the potential impact this development has on students (as well as their parents and the community more broadly), I believe that this review process and decision should be handled with the utmost care and transparency. I'm asking the City Council take some additional time to really consider if this project is the right fit for this specific spot. A full environmental and safety review, compliance with the existing height and zoning limits, and meaningful consideration of the voices of the community follow what I believe to be a critical precedent. A precedent that ensures ensure Pasadena continues to grow and develop in the coming years but that it does so in a responsible way that takes into account the local community who is most impacted. Thanks for your time and for everything you do for Pasadena.

Sincerely,
Joe Roohan
Pasadena, CA 91001 Constituent
Prepared by OneCtickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods - 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods - 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I support innovation and responsible growth in Pasadena, but development and community safety must move forward together. The proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street does not meet that standard. This is not opposition to science — it is a call for more science, transparency, and accountability. While the project is described as supporting a startup ecosystem, the majority of the building is slated to become home to a large external biotechnology company. Despite its proximity to sensitive uses — including hundredsofschoolchildren—the project is proceeding under a CEQA exclusion, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Report. Key safety, traffic, and environmental impacts have not been fully studied or disclosed. Pasadena residents deserve developments that prioritize public safety. Health, traffic, and operational impacts must be clearly evaluated before approval. Recent broad code amendments have opened the door to projects that may be inconsistent with established neighborhood planning.

Pasadena's growth should strengthen— not compromise—the safety and character of our community.

I urge the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that 1364 E. Green Street proceeds only if it truly protects nearby schools, churches, homes, and children. Our city's safety, accountability, and quality of life are at stake. Thank you.

Sincerely,
BobAronoff
South Pasadena. CA 91031 Constituent
Prepared by OneCLickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneCtickPotitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 2:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
[ ,| ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I support Pasadena's goal of growing the life-sciences sector, strengthening the tax base, and retaining Caltech-affiliated research and jobs. For that reason, I am askingyou to grant the appeal of the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and not allow it to proceed. The General Plan and East Colorado Specific Plan exist to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale and in appropriate locations— especially near schools, churches, and residential neighborhoods. As currently configured, this project exceeds what was envisioned for this location and moved forward without a full environmental review.

Given its location next to a TK-8 school, childcare facilities, homes, and a church, it is concerning that the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion without a full Environmental Impact Report. Significant safety, traffic, and environmental questions remain unanswered. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and require a full review before allowing this project to proceed.Thank you.

Sincerely,
FiLippo Fanara
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:05 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods (1364 E. Green Street)
[ A ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods (1364 E. Green Street) Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a resident who supports responsible economic development, innovation, and the continued success of research institutions such as Caltech. However, I believe that discretionary land-use approvals must be consistent with adopted planning policies, supported by adequate environmental review, and compatible with surrounding uses, particularly where sensitive receptors are present. I am concerned that the R&D project at 1364 E. Green Street has not been sufficiently demonstrated to be appropriate for its location adjacent to a school, a church, and established residential neighborhoods.

From a planning perspective, this raises significant Land-use compatibility issues. The current environmental analysis appears insufficient to fully evaluate potential project impacts related to traffic generation, air quality, noise, operational intensity, and public health, particularly as they affect sensitive receptors. I respectfully request that the City Council require a full environmental impact report consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Such analysis should include a detailed evaluation of site-specific impacts, feasible project alternatives, and enforceable mitigation measures, as welt as an assessment of cumulative impacts in the surrounding area. I also urge the Council to revisit its November 2023 General Plan modification that permitted R&D facilities citywide. Allowing high- intensity R&D uses with increased height allowances on residentially adjacent streets represents a significant departure from long-standing Land-use planning principles. I believe that R&D facilities with greater height and intensity should be directed to established commercial and transit-oriented corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake, ratherthan locations immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods, including Green Street. Finally, I am concerned that recent broad amendments to the R&D zoning code were adopted without sufficient consideration of their cumulative, area-wide, and site- specific impacts near sensitive land uses. These amendments have enabled discretionary approvals that may introduce traffic, health, and safety impacts into areas that were previously buffered through zoning, height limits, and use restrictions. In our view, this reflects a process failure that warrants corrective action through policy refinement and clearer development standards. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this project reflects Pasadena's commitment to safety, transparency, and community character. Thank you.

Sincerely,
AndersTroedsson
Pasadena, CA 91103 Constituent
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:10 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please Do Not Approve the 1364 E Green Street Project
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Please Do Not Approve the 1364 E Green Street Project Mr. MarkJomsky,
I value Pasadena's commitment to innovation, research, and economic growth. At the same time, our city has invested significant effort in establishing clear plans to guide where that growth belongs and how it should relate to surrounding neighborhoods, schools, and community institutions. Despite its intensity and location, the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion, avoiding a full Environmental Impact Report. This approach leaves unresolved questions about environmental, traffic, and health impacts.

Recent code amendments may permit greater height and intensity, but permission does not equal prudence. Pasadena's long-term planning integrity depends on careful review and contextual development. I ask the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this project aligns with the safety, scale, and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Thiel
• Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPotitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:32 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
[ ,1 ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Re: Support Responsible Growth at 1364 E Green St
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I support Pasadena's goal of growing the life-sciences sector, strengthening the tax base, and retaining Caltech-affiliated research and jobs. For that reason, I am asking you to grant the appeal of the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street and not allow it to proceed. The General Plan and East Colorado Specific Plan exist to ensure development occurs at an appropriate scale and in appropriate locations— especially near schools, churches, and residential neighborhoods. As currently configured, this project exceeds what was envisioned for this location and moved forward without a full environmental review.

Sincerely,
Karen McClintock
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
February 26, 2026
Elizabeth Hong, Ph.D.
1200 E. California Blvd
MC 216-76
Pasadena, CA91125

RECEIVED
20?6FEB27 AM (I: 52

CJTY CLERK

CITY OF PASADENA
Dear Pasadena City Council,
As a member of the Pasadena community, I write to express concern about the proposal to situate the Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green St. I have studied, worked, or taught at Caltech for nearly 15 years between 1998 and present day, and I am very familiar with the neighborhood, having lived just blocks away on Chester Ave. years ago. The proposed site sits within the city block bounded by Green St. and Cordova St. (on the north and south, respectively), and Holliston Ave and Hill Ave (on the west and east, respectively), which has been the historic home of St. Philip the Apostle parish and school. The construction of a large, multistory, commercial for-profit building immediate adjacent to buildings where young children learn and souls are nurtured is inappropriate and does not respect the work that St. Philip does in our community, nor the spiritual needs of its parishioners. The families of St. Philip worship and mark the deepest events of their lives at this site - births, marriages, deaths - and to be forced to conduct their rituals in the shadow of a for-profit, commercial building that towers higher than the steeple of the church is incongruous and unnecessary.

I understand the economics of the proposed project likely requires a certain sized footprint for the building to achieve financial viability. Additionally, the nature of the work being proposed in the building (wet lab biomedical research) requires specific facilities and equipment for transporting, containing, and neutralizing hazardous materials, such as toxic chemicals, flammables, radioactive materials, biomedical waste, and/or compressed gases. I am highly familiar with the many specialized procedures that are required for safely conducting this kind of research, since I run a wet lab myself, and I am concerned that I have not seen a plan for how this will be achieved safely and without undue burden on the parish. I was shocked to learn that Caltech is seeking an exemption from a full environmental impact review of the project, especially given its proximity to a school and daycare. This is completely inappropriate and does not align with Caltech's stated commitment to rigorous inquiry.

Common sense leads to the conclusion that the proposed Innovation Center building requires a certain size and scope of specialized resources that are inappropriate for the proposed site 3/2/2026
Item 10
on Green Street. Pasadena as a whole, and this neighborhood in particular, has no shortage of underutilized land in commercial corridors that would be far more appropriate for a building of this size and specialized function, for instance, one block away along Colorado Blvd. The Innovation Center project could anchor revitalization of that stretch of historic Colorado, conveniently and prominently located just steps from Pasadena City College.

I apologize that a prior obligation prevents me from being able to attend the City Council meeting on 3/2 to share my perspectives in person. However, I wanted to write so that you are aware that support for the construction of the Center at 1364 E. Green St. among members of the Caltech community is far from unanimous. While faculty at Caltech are excited about their science and want to see it commercialized for the benefit of society, many of us are do not want it to be done at the immediate expense of our neighbors and community members.

I understand the tremendous time, energy, and money that has already been sunk by the City, Caltech, and Trammell Crow into this project. I understand there are no financial incentives to delay, but there are so many moral imperatives that should give us pause. I know that there are solutions that allow Caltech and Pasadena to pursue this project and reap the innovation and economic benefit, while also respecting the integrity of the local community. I sincerely ask you to reflect whether you feel right about standing behind elite private universities, private developers, and deep-pocketed corporate giants like Eli Lilly in their efforts to steamroll the concerns of a historic community parish and school.

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hong, Ph.D.

Professor of Neuroscience
California Institute of Technology
[email protected]
(617)935-6403(0)

STONER CARLSON LLP
Attorneys at Law
Scott W. Carlson, Partner
Richard A. McDonald, Of Counsel
www-.carlsonnicholas.com
30 IE. Colorado Blvd.

Suite No. 320
Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 356-4801

RECEIVED
2026 FEB 27 PH 3^53

CITY CLERK

CITY OF PASADENA
[email protected]
RMcDonald(%stonercarlson.com
February 27, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Mayor Victor M. Gordo
Vice-Mayor Jess Rivas,
Honorable Councilmembers Cole, Hampton, Jones, Lyon, Madison, and Masuda c/o City Clerk
City of Pasadena
100 N. Garfield Avenue, 2d Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
Re: Cal-Tech Innovation Center- 1364 E. Green Street
Dear Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas, and Honorable Councilmembers:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the appellant Building A Better Pasadena, LLC, which is a community organization focused on promoting the City's economic growth with contextual development that fits its surroundings and adheres to the City's General Plan and Specific Plans.

Those plans were adopted after more than a decade of community meetings where the public repeatedly emphasized that it wanted growth that is compatible with the City's history, values, culture, neighborhoods and historical structures so that we preserve our sense of place. The proposed project is the opposite of that compatibility and sense of place and Appellant thus opposes the project. Specifically:

First, attached to this letter as Exhibit A is our January 22, 2026 submittal to the Design Commission that explains how the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan, not consistent with the East Colorado Specific Plan, not consistent with the City's 2023 restriction on research and development uses at or near schools and residential neighborhoods, and not eligible for a categorical exemption under CEQA.
3/2/2026
Item 10

Page 2 ends

Second, attached as Exhibit B is a legal memorandum that identifies five specific design deficiencies and how they could possibly be addressed. However, the Design Commission failed to do so. As such, the Commission's required finding that the project "will comply with the purposes of design review" cannot be made based on the current design.

Third, attached as Exhibit C is the February 16, 2026 submittal by Erika Foy that includes the traffic study and drone video footage contradicting the City's analysis along with her memorandum on the traffic issues not addressed by the City. Both show visually and in writing that there are significant traffic impacts that were not studied by the City and that preclude the use of a categorical exemption under CEQA.

Fourth, attached as Exhibit D are the City Council's Minutes from its December 4, 2023 meeting, wherein it adopted the proposed amendments to the City's regulations for research and development uses. There, the Mayor and Council expressed concerns about allowing such uses near schools and neighborhoods and prohibiting them on public school sites with instmctions to staff to work with the Planning Commission on the issue. Specifically, Councilmember Madison expressed concerns that vacant school properties in residential neighborhoods may not be viable or suitable sites for research and development uses/businesses; and, Mayor Gordo also expressed concerns with R&D uses of vacant school sites in neighborhoods; and suggested that the use of vacant schools for non-educational purposes be carved out of the proposed ordinance if the location is in residential areas to prevent traffic and employment impacts on neighborhoods.

Please note that (1) it has been two years, and staff has still not reported back to the Council as directed, and (2) two of the three speakers in support of the amendments were from Biocom California.

Fifth, with that in mind, attached as Exhibit E is the Biocom California Case Study on how Biocom "began an 18-month endeavor to change the local hazardous materials ordinance and the land use zoning codes" in the City of Pasadena. In and of itself, this may seem innocuous until you realize that the changes mean that this facility can operate at a Biosafety Level 2 or 3, involving hazards that are more likely to be chemical (flammables, solvents, compressed gases) rather than infectious disease; although, there is nothing in the zoning code prohibiting infectious disease research. As the City's maps show, there is a school and historic Church next door to it, and multi-family residential across the street. Is this actually what you

Page 3 ends

mean to approve and allow? Appellants are shocked that this is even being considered let alone potentially approved.

Under CEQA, at a minimum, this type of facility's immediate proximity to a church, school, and residential neighborhood should trigger a Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment with an analysis of:

Accidental release scenarios
Toxic air contaminant exposure
Emergency response times•
Evacuation conflicts
• Cumulative risk
Here, no such assessment or analysis was done. Instead, staff claims it does not know who the tenant will be. But a simple review of the record from the December 4, 2023 meeting shows the likely tenant to be Protomer Technologies, which is developing "next generation protein therapeutics". See, Exhibit F. A simple review of its website shows chemical research that inherently has risks: https://ww'-\v.protomer.comyscience/ The Applicant and Cal-Tech also have made clear that other tenants will be in the building, any of which may conduct biological or chemical testing and none of which has been considered or studied. In particular, the environmental studies for the proposed categorical exemption were limited to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality and cultural resources. There is no discussion of laboratory classifications, research categories, or biosafety levels (e.g., BSL-1, BSL-2, BSL-3). In other words, there is nothing that analyzes the safety levels, types of research, or intensity of research that could occur inside the R&D building that will have a significant environmental impacts outside the building on the adjacent properties.

Indeed, there is not one condition of approval that addresses the potential risks of placing such a use adjacent to a historic church, school, and residential neighborhoods just like there is not one condition of approval that addresses the significant traffic and other environmental impacts shown to the Design Commission and City. Nothing, therefore, limits or restricts the type of research that could occur in the building, the levels of laboratory classification, the nature of materials that could be stored or used, any operational safety protocols, any hazardous material thresholds specific to R&D uses, or anything that addresses the proximity concerns

Page 4 ends

related to a school or church from a safety-use perspective.

Sixth, since the January 27, 2026 Design Conimission hearing, Appellant has been provided the January 28, 2026 Decision Letter which lists numerous conditions of approval under the heading "Excavation ofAsbestos-Containing Asphalt on Green Street" and beginning with Condition #32. For your convenience, they are attached as Exhibit G to this letter.

As you will see, the conditions of approval are actually mitigation measures imposed to avoid significant air quality impacts. Specifically, the conditions identify the location of the asbestos, set the thresholds for remediation, impose health and safety protections, and regulate what equipment can and cannot be used for the remediation of it. Given the proximity of residential buildings and schools, under CEQA the significant known environmental impact of the removal of the existing asbestos has to be studied, not found to be exempt and then saddled with conditions of approval. In other words, there is no such thing as a mitigated categorical exemption. See, Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County ofMarin (2004) 125 Cal.

App. 4th 1098 (If a project may have a significant effect on the enviromnent, CEQA review must occur and only then are mitigation measures relevant. . . . Mitigation measures may support a negative declaration but not a categorical exemption."). Simply put, rather than rushing the project through the process, there should have been community engagement, adequate environmental review including a Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment, various mitigation measures and conditions of approval that address the objections and opposition presented, and a dialogue on the various design issues that render the project incompatible with the neighborhood.

None of that occurred.

Seventh, since the January 27, 2026 Design Commission hearing. Appellant also has discovered architectural drawings and contemporaneous newspaper clippings documenting the work of Roland Coate, the original architect of St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church. We understand that the drawings and other information recently discovered were filed with you on February 20, 2026 so that you have them in the administrative record at the hearing on this matter.

As you will see, these materials constitute substantial evidence of the architectural and historical significance of the Church campus, none of which was studied and all of which preclude the use of a categorical exemption under CEQA. Specifically, the environmental I

Page 5 ends

review failed to recognize that Roland Coate was the original architect of the Church and did not analyze the implications of his authorship in determining whether the campus qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. This omission also renders the categorical exemption invalid because there is no historical resources analysis. See, Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15300.2 (f) ("Historical Resources, A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.").

Eighth, given its historic eligibility under CEQA, the damage that will be caused by the excavation and jack hammering a fifty (50) feet deep hole spanning almost 40,000 square feet of soil literally feet away from a church with multiple large stained-glass windows further mandates a historical resources analysis. Regardless of the equipment used, experience in December 2025 with the disassembly of the surface metal elevations shows the likely significant impact that needs to be studied under CEQA and mitigated. Then, daily masses and classes were rocked with vibrations and disruptions, not to mention shaking buildings. These facts are not conjecture but rather real-life impacts experienced by parishioners and the school when that work was done.

Ninth, as stated in Public Resources Code §21002, et. seq., "The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant enviromnental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identiiying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." How can this be done when there is no historical resources analysis, a traffic study that is incomplete and in error, no hazardous materials assessment, and the acknowledgement of asbestos but no study or legally proper mitigation measures? As you are well aware, under the "fair argument" standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse enviromnental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency's decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(l); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 931.) The "fair argument" standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The "fair argument" standard is virtually the opposite of the

Page 6 ends

typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

The 'fair argument' standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations] . The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.

The lead agency's decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274 (CEB). The Courts have explained that "it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency's detennination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [emphasis in original].

Further, as a matter of law, "substantial evidence includes . . . expert opinion." (PRC § 21080(e)(l); 14 CCR § 15064(f)(5).) Where experts have presented conflicting evidence on the extent of the environmental effects of a project, the agency must consider the environmental effects to be significant and prepare an EIR. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(5); PRC § 21080(e)(l); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 935.) An effect on the environment need not be "momentous" to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are "not trivial." (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 83. And "if there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of an effect, the agency is to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR. [Citations.]" (Moss v. Cty. of Humboldt {7.QW) 162 Cal,App.4th 1041, 1049.

Our letter to the Design Commission explains the Project's problems under CEQA in detail, and why it does not qualify for an in-fill exemption. But in short, "[w]ith narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment."! Laurel Heights, supra, 47

1. "Significant effect on the environment" means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21068, emphasis added. "CEQA requires that an agency determine whether a project may have a significant environmental impact, and thus whether an EIR is required, before it approves that project." Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 394, emphasis original; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Page?
Cal.3d at p. 391, citations omitted; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(a). Specifically, contrary to staffs assertion that the Project is exempt from environmental review, "categorical exemptions are not absolute. Even if a project falls within the description of one of the exempt classes, it may nonetheless have a significant effect on the environment based on factors such as location, cumulative impact, or unusual circumstances. '[W]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper.' " Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 688-689 ("Save Our Carmel River"), citing to Ass n for Protection ofEnv 't Values in Ukiah v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 726 (emphasis added).2 Finally, when a lead agency chooses to dispose ofCEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to the exemption. This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 [lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects]; see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex r el. 14th Disl. Agriculture Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 [lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project falls within a categorical exemption and must support the determination with substantial evidence]; accord Assn. for Protection etc. Values v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 [lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact].) See also, Davidon Homes, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p.115;Dehne, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 842. "Substantial evidence is evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." Banker's Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 261, fn.IO.

Here, however, the record is devoid of any evidence "that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value" regarding the lack of any possible cumulative environmental Cal.3d 68, 79. (Emphasis added).

2. "A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances;' Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15300.2.

Page 8 ends

impacts; particularly, cumulative traffic impacts. Moreover, the discovery of the historical eligibility based upon the renowned architect's drawings that are being submitted renders the exemption invalid altogether as explained above.

In sum, the Project must respect the existing built environment and be contextual with its surrounding uses. It fails to do so for the reasons explained herein. It is, therefore, not consistent with the General Plan, the ECSP, and not eligible for any exemption under CEQA. Appellant thus respectfully requests that its appeal be granted and a full environmental review be prepared so that all the significant environmental impacts we have identified, and all the alternatives for properly mitigating them, are properly and thoroughly analyzed.

Last, regardless of the undeniable sanctity of the Church and its constitutionally protected use, any structure similar to the newly built Keck/USC building at the southeast comer of Fair Oaks Avenue and California Blvd. should never be deemed appropriate for a comer lot at Green Street and Holliston Avenue. This neighborhood should not and must not become a Central Business District, even with Caltech's proximity, particularly given the ECSP policies to achieve the opposite type of development. Appellant does not oppose the location of this Project in the Central Business District, such as on Colorado Boulevard as an alternate more fitting location, but strongly opposes it here.

Sincerely,
4^^^^>
Richard A. McDonald, Esq.

Of Counsel, Stoner Carlson LLP
I

EXHIBIT A

STONER CARLSON LLP
Attorneys at Law
Scott W. Carlson, Partner
Richard A. McDonaId, Of Counsel
\v..'.-
301 E. Colorado Blvd.

Suite No. 320
Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 356-4801
[email protected]
[email protected]
January 22, 2026

VIA E-MAIL
Chair Julianne Delgado, Vice-Chair Marie-Claude Fares & Honorable Members of the Design Comniission
c/o Planning & Community Development Department
City of Pasadena
175 N. Garfield Avenue, 3d Floor
Pasadena, CAP 1101
Re: Cal-Tech Innovation Center - 1364 E. Green Street
Dear Chair Delgado, Vice-Chair Fares, and Honorable Commissioners:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the parishioners, members, parents, and neighbors of the historic St. Philip the Apostle Catholic Church and St. Philip the Apostle School (collectively, "Parishioners"), which has been a community institution since 1921 serving a community of several thousand people, many of whom are long-time residents of the City/ )(^ Specifically, Parishioners are concerned about the proposed 93,539 square foot research

1. St. Philip the Apostle, History of the St. Philip the Apostle Church:
https://\vww.stphiliptheapostle.or&/histon' (Accessed May 21, 2025).

2. While the conceptual plans include photos of the Parish, they suggest the Project is far away from the Project Site. Note that other commercial facilities are shown in close-up photos even though they are farther away from the Project Site, so as to hide the proximity of the Church, Parish and School that surround two sides of the Project Site.

Page 2 ends

and development building with on-site laboratory space above th-ee levels of subterranean parking (the "Project") located next door to the Church and School at 1364 Green St-eet ( the "Site"). See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

As stated on the website for the California Institute of Technology ("Caltech"), the Project is "a building to be developed by Trammell Crow Co. on a Caltech-owned parking lot.

This future research and development building at 1364 E. Green St. will have laboratory and office space to support Caltech's start-up companies and Pasadena's growing biotech and innovation ecosystem." (Emphasis added).

As such, the Project is a speculative for-profit investment for the applicant who has submitted plans that conflict with the City's General Plan, Specific Plan, applicable development standards, and is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. The resulting detrimental effects to a religious and educational institution that have been serving the community for over 100 years are discussed below. But given the size, scope and proposed use for the Project, at a minimum, a robust analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub.

Res. Code § 21000 etseq.) is required, not a categorical exemption.

Parishioners, therefore, are asking you not to approve the Project until a complete EIR has been done, which will insure public input and full mitigation measures to protect and preserve the sanctity of the Church, the School, and their neighborhood.

Lest you be concerned whether requiring an ED?- is within your purview, California courts have consistently held that planning and design review bodies retain independent discretion to deny or condition projects and may rely on technical experts for analysis, but discretionary bodies are not required to accept expert conclusions where the design raises Page3
unresolved safety or land-use compatibility concerns (see Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 1 1 Cal.3d 506 (1974); Berkeley Hillside Preservation v.

City of Berkeley, 60 Cal.4th 1086 (2015)). Transportation studies inform decision-making; they do not compel approval where substantial evidence supports design-level concerns.

I. Religious Values Have Been Ignored By The Applicant And The Cit^ The proposed 80 feet high structure, in its mass, dominating profile, bulk, and height is not only incompatible with but affirmatively (and quite obviously) invades the religious purpose, sanctity, and sacredness of the Church and School, which for over 100 years have served as a venue for healing, spiritual nourishment, hope, community fellowship and restoration of the spirit. These are constitutionally protected rights that no City can or should ignore.

Thousands of parishioners and guests mamfest their adherence to these values daily and weekly by attending 18 masses per week, funerals, weddings, baptisms and other sacramental rituals and events at the Church. Also, on the St. Philip the Apostle parish grounds, approximately 550 children in grades TK through 8th receive a quality Catholic education from dedicated and committed faculty and staff throughout the school year. None of these appear in any Staff report, nor is the impact on them given its due weight. Indeed, recently at the 12:05 Mass there was concrete breaking activity going on with a backhoe that was so noisy that it drowned out the mass and homily, knocked over some supporting colunms, and shook the buildings.

Similarly, December 8, 2025 was a Holy Day of Obligation, and the Church offered four masses for parishioners and non-parishioners. Some of the masses were in English and others in Spanish with hundreds of attendees and approximately 550 children going to school next door.

Page 4 ends

The detrimental impact of constmcting three subterranean levels of parking and an 80-foot-high building are exponentially greater than what already has occurred.

No religious mstitution or school - be it public (like PUSD) or parochial— should have its very purpose of providing peace, tranquility, solace and restoration trampled upon by some massive adjacent biiilding simply because it is profitable regardless of whether it serves science, innovation, or other secular values. The City has done nothing to measure these impacts on the religious purpose and unique function of this beautiful and historic Church.

In short, Caltech knew it was buying a site oext to the Church and knows the purpose of the Church and its School. But now it and the City pretend that Parishioners' religious values have no place in their analysis of a zoning matter. It thus never held a town hall meeting with Parishioners about its plans nor surveyed the thousands of weekly users of the Church and School on the impact of such a massive building overshadowing, dwarfing, and looming over their sacred and holy Church, not to mention the dismption to their peace and spiritual journeys.

II. The Project Is Not Consistent with The Cih 's General Plan The Project is adjacent to St, Philip's Parish and School. It also is across the storeet from Pasadena City College Child Development Center, which provides childcare for children between four months and 5 years old (3); and, across the street from low-density multi-family housing that does not exceed 30 feet in height. As proposed, the Project at 80 feet thus will dwarf the existing neighborhood, which typically does not exceed 30 feet.(4)

3. Pasadena City College, Available at: https://pasadena.edu/cdc/index.php (Accessed May 21, 2025).

4. City of Pasadena, Plaiming and Community Development Department Staff Report, Application for Preliminary Consultation of a Three-to-Four Story Research and Development

Page 5 ends

Contrary to the assertions in the Staff Report, therefore, the Project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Specifically:

A. Guiding Principle 1 and 2 provide that, "Growth will be targeted to serve community needs and enhance the quality of life. Higher density development will be directed away from residential neighborhoods and into the Central District, Transit Villages, and Neighborhood Villages. These areas will have a diverse housing stock, job opportunities, exciting districts with commercial and recreational uses, and transit opportunities. New development will build upon Pasadena's tradition of strong sense of place, great neighborhoods, gardens, plazas, parks, and trees"; and that, "Pasadena's historic resources will be preserved.

Citywide, new development will be in harmony with and enhance Pasadena's unique character and sense of place. New construction that could affect the integrity of historic resources will be compatible with, and differentiated from, the existing resource." B. The General Plan zones the Site as "Medium Mixed-Use", which is defmed as "Medium Mixed Use. 0.0-2.25 FAR, 0-87 dwelling units per acre. Intended to support the development ofmulti-story buildings with a variety of compatible commercial (retail and office) and residential uses. Development is characterized by shared open spaces, extensive landscaping, small to medium separations between buildings, and shared driveways and parking. Sites may be exclusively commercial or exclusively residential, or with buildings vertically integrating housing with non-residential uses. Mixed use development projects containing housing shall Building with 93,539 sqiiarefeet of office and laboratory space and three levels of subterranean parking, ("Staff Report") (Mary 13, 2025): Available at:

Iiyj2S^/www^cm^ot]T^^
Cornmission-4A4j64^Gree (Accessed May 21,
2025).

Page 6 ends

incorporate amenities contributing to a quality living environment for residents including courtyards, recreation facilities, and similar elements. Where buildings face the street frontage, they shall be designed to enhance pedestrian activity with transparent facades for retail uses and distinctive entries for housing. Parking shall be located below or to the rear of the street. Projects consfa'ucted at Medium Mixed-Use densities may be required to develop pedestrian-oriented streetscape amenities along their primary street frontages, consistent with the improvement concepts and plans defined by the City."
C. As the Commission knows, "Goals" in the General Plan are statements that describe the City's purpose and direction in reducing its natural hazards. "Policies" are guidelines that can be implemented to reduce the City's risk and maximize the commumty's emergency preparedness, "Programs" are the specific actions that the City has coimnitted to implement over a given number of years to reduce its hazards.

Here, the Project is not consistent with Goal 3, which emphasizes a "mix and distribution of land uses characterized by their compatibility." Goal 3.1 further seeks to avoid "the concentration of uses and facilities in any neighborhood or district where their intensities, operations, and/or to-affic could adversely impact the character, safety, health, and quality of life.

And Goal 3.5 prohibits "land uses which pose potential health and environmental hazards to Pasadena's neighborhoods and districts." Given the unknown nature of the potential users of the Project, each of these goals is at issue.

Similarly, Goal 4 is to develop a "safe, well-designed, accessible City with a diversity of uses and forms. These diverse forms include distinct, waUcable districts, corridors, and transit and neighborhood villages and cohesive, unique single and multi-family residential Page?
neighborhoods and open spaces where people of all ages can live, work, shop and recreate." Toward that end. Goal 4. 11 requires that "development demonstrates a contextual relationship with neighbormg structures and sites addressing such elements as building scale, massing, orientation, setbacks, buffering, the arrangement of shared and private open spaces, visibility, privacy, automobile and truck access, impacts of noise and lighting, landscape quality, in&asfanicture, and aesthetics"; and. Goal 4.12 requires that "the scale and massing of new development in higher-density centers and corridors provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk and are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining lower-density neighborhoods." Nothing about the Project even remotely achieves these goals. Simply put, it is not contextial, it does not address any of the requisite elements, it does not provide any transition let alone an appropriate one, and it is not sensitive to the adjoining neighborhood in any way, shape, or form.

Finally, Goal 6 requires development "that evolves while maintaining Pasadena's unique »•
sense of place, character, and the urban fabric'. Policy 7.3 requires that new buildings "are designed to respect and complement the defining built form, massing, scale, modulation, and architectural detailing of their contextual setting", and Policy 23.3 mandates "appropriate Setbacks, consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, along the street frontage and, where there are setbacks, ensure adequate landscaping is provided." Nothing about the Project even remotely achieves these goals either.

HI. The Project Is Not Consistent with the Cih 's East Colorado Snccific Plan After the General Plan was updated in 2015, the East Colorado Specific Plan ("ECSP") was updated in 2022, which is only three years ago. The Our Pasadena update process was a Page8
multi-year effort that consisted of numerous hearings in front of every city commission and special community meetings, that were attended by hundreds if not thousands of residents - all expressing their vision for what the City should be.

Under Zoning Code Section 17.31.030.C, the purpose of the ECSP zoning districts (Figure ECSP-1) is to implement the Plan's vision for each of the subareas described in the ECSP adopted in 2022. For example, the Plan states that the vision for East Colorado is to transform it from largely auto oriented uses into a series ofpedestrian-oriented villages and districts with unique identities, bolstered by their vibrant mix of uses, amenities and streetscapes improving their walkability and appearance. Toward that end, the overall objective for the planning area is to break up long stretches of commercial uses with residential uses and cluster commercial uses in nodes. Neighborhood Villages then could be established along Colorado Boulevard in the vicmity of Hill Street and Sierra Madre Boulevard containing a mix of commercial and residential uses with pedestrian-oriented amenities and plazas. Those mix of uses and design would serve as a gathering place and be walkable from adjoining neighborhoods.

Of relevance to this case is the Plan for the Village near Pasadena City College that would offer unique opportunities to serve and provide new housing opportunities for students and faculty. Conversely, the Plan shows the Lamanda Park sub-area would offer the opportunity to serve as an mcubator for creative technology, and medical start-up industries, capitalizing on their proximity to Pasadena's esteemed academic institutions like Caltech.

As proposed, the Project thus is in the wrong place, which explains why it does not fit within the neighborhood context and is not consistent with the ECSP.

For example, the Project Site requires a minimum 15-foot setback since it is located

Page 9 ends

adjacent to parcels zoned PS and RM. The Project also disregards the required setbacks for Green Street and Holliston Street as well as setbacks that are intended to respect the neighborhood context.(5) In fact, the existing Parish Rectory was built to the property line before the adoption of the current setback requirements, which means that the Church clergy who reside there would be detrimentally impacted by the constmction and operations of the Project just 15 feet away. The sole exit for the vehicles parked in the 260 underground parking spaces at the Project and the tractor trailers and box vans that deliver materials daily is right outside the clergy's bedrooms and dining area.

Similarly, the Project Site as Mixed-Use Neighborhood ("EC-MU-N"), which is intended to promote the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood with a broad range of retail, office, services and multi-family housing.(6) The Project, however, proposes a commercial use that does not contain "mixed uses" nor does it create any pedestrian friendly neighborhood. While the Project was initially reviewed by the City Design Commission on May 13, 2025, the Project still fails to meet several required development standards that are mandated by the Specific Plan, and7or fails to demonstrate how it complies with those standards. As noted in the Staff Report, the Project has not demonstrated that it provides sufficient parkway amenities, street trees, walk zones, open space, and other pedestrian amenities/71 Further, despite the Staff Report stating the Project meets contextual setting by

5. Staff Report, Attachment A, pp. 4-5.

6. City of Pasadena, East Colorado Specific Plan, p. 61(emphasis added) (February 28, 2022).

Available at: |^T^l//'www_cit^oJ;fiasadena^n^
Cok^^-^^iilc-Pianj5df?Y=1747M (Accessed May 21, 2025).
7 Staff Report, Attachment A, p. 3.

Page 10 ends

comparing it to larger buildings on Fair Oaks, Colorado, Los Robles, and Lake Avenue, the only building referenced DOES NOT EXIST as it has yet to be consfa-ucted. The fact of the matter is that Holliston Avenue is not Lake Avenue or Colorado Boulevard. That comparison is disingenuous and a disservice to all the community members and City planners that worked so hard to develop and constmct a very thoughtful and well-done East Colorado Specific Plan.

And in every specific plan that encompasses Green Street, heights have been limited - in some areas as low as 35' - for the specific purpose of maintaining a very low-scale, pedestrian oriented feel that would not conflict or compete with the tree canopy. The ECSP pennits a height of 51' however, the concept design review package presents an inappropriate building height of 79' when including the appurtenance for much of the building's mass. Not only were densities and Floor Area Ratios established (development volume and intensity) so too were heights, in the ECSP. This decision to keep Green Street at a lower scale has long been the plan, but the Project destroys that lower scale, walkability, context, feel, and sense of place.

As proposed, therefore, the Project is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood context and does not take into consideration the existing built environment, nor has it provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate it even meets the applicable development standards under the ECSP.

Moreover, were this building built on Caltech's campus under its Master Plan ("MP"), it would have to comply with a variety of setbacks and height limitations that would make it almost impossible to be built as proposed; and it would not be categorically exempt. In fact, a simple comparison of the renderings for the proposed Project (Exhibit "A") and the recently built Chen Neuroscience building (Exhibit "B") show the stark contrast, which raises the issue on why the

Page 11 ends

Project is not having to meet Caltech's MP higher standards when it is for its own use.

Further, in 2021 the Design Commission considered an Addendum to Caltech's FSEIR when it was presented with the Resnik Sustainability Center for Concept Design Review rather than a categorical exemption. That 80,000 building used a basement to reduce height and was set back 90 feet from S. Wilson Avenue. See Exhibit "D" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Last, how does the Project comply with the historic adjacency standards under Section

17.31.070.F? Figure EC SP-14, 15, and 16 set forth those standards such as transition massing, streets setbacks, interior setbacks, street wall heights ("A maximum street wall height shall not exceed the height of the historic resource for a minimum of 20 feet from the shared property line"), stepbacks, and facade lengths and area. All of these standards are in play given the Project's location, but a simple review of the elevations and renderings show that only a few have been addressed. While alternative means of compliance are available for the modulation requirements under the Code, the Design Commission would need to make the five required fmdings in Section 17.31 .070.0., none of which can be made nor are they supported by any substantial evidence. Exhibit "A" shows it does not meet the standards and that the findings cannot be made.

IV. The Project Does Not Belon& Next To A School
The ECSP was amended in 2023 to allow the R&D land use as a permitted use. But, as the City Council's December 4, 2023 minutes show, the Council had specific concerns about the R&D land use on Pasadena Unified School Disfa'ict sites noting the school sites, in residential neighborhoods were not appropriate for R&D projects.
i

Page 12 ends

In fact, the City Council opted to prohibit the establishment ofR&D uses on school district property after the Planning Commission in their communication to the Council explained that the idea ofR&D uses stemming from school uses applied only to PCC and Caltech, not school sites in close proximity to residential zones. (Note: This paragraph is a little clunky as I had to read it a few times to get the message and I knew the message we were makmg.) In this case, the Project is adjacent to an RM district, contiguous to residential uses, and proximate to sensitive users - an elementary school and historic church full of daily parishioners.

Every condition that caused the City Council and Planning Commission not to permit such uses in such proximity to schools exists m this case making this Site equally inappropriate and impermissible.

Again, the City Council's minutes clearly show the Council's intent to protect schools and their surrounding neighborhoods from R &D uses: "Following discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Hampton, seconded by Councilmember Masuda, to approve staff recommendation, amended as follows: prohibiting Research and Development (R&D) uses at K-12 school sites that are in PS Zones, with direction to City staff to work with the Planning Commission on possible uses and to report back in 8 months. (Motion unanimously approved) (Absent: None)"
It has been two years, and staff has still not reported back to the Council as directed. The processing of this Project raises suspicions on why. Regardless, there is no doubt that the proposed R&D Land Use at this location conflicts with Council's directions and is thus another reason it is not consistent with the ECSP.

Page 13 ends

V. The Project Is Not Eligible for a Catesorical Exemption A. CEQA - The Analytical Framework.

In enacting CEQA, the California Legislatu-e declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties. See Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21001. "The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act 'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.'" Laurel Heights Improvement Ass 'n v. Regents ofUniv. ofCal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 ^Laurel Heights"), Citizens ofGoleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors of Santa Barbara Cnty. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 563-64 ^Citizens ofGoleta Valley"). "With narrow exceptions, CEQA requires an EIR whenever a public agency proposes to approve or to carry out a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. "8 Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 391, citations omitted; Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21100(a). "CEQA is primarily a procedural statute" (1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act 17 (January 2011)), and states that the purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21061. It is therefore critical that CEQA's procedural mles be "scmpulously followed." Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392.

Toward that end, CEQA's implementing regulations in Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15000 et. seq. (the "Guidelines") set forth a three-tier process for CEQA review.

8. "Significant effect on the environment" means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21068, emphasis added. "CEQA requires that an agency determine whether a project may have a significant environmental impact, and thus whether an EIR is required, before it approves that project." Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 394, emphasis original; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) f3 Cal.3d 68, 79. (Emphasis added).

Page 14 ends

The first tier requires a determination whether the proposed action. is a project. If so, the second tier requires a detennination whether the project is exempt from environmental review under either a statutory or categorical exemption. If not, the third tier requires the preparation of an initial study to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano Cnty. Airport Land Use Comm'n (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380-81.

In this case, the City asserts that the Project is a project under Tier One, but exempt from any environmental review under Tier Two. In that regard, "categorical exemptions are not absolute. Even if a project falls within the description of one of the exempt classes, it may nonetheless have a significant effect on the environment based on factors such as location, cumulative impact, or unusual circumstances. ' [W]here there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper.' " Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 688-689 ^Save Our Carmel River"), citing to Ass 'n for Protection ofEnv't Values in Ukiah v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 726 (emphasis added).9 The Guidelines specifically state: "All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant." 10 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §^ 15300,2. The issue, therefore, is whether the Project

9. "A categorical exemption shall not be iised for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the envii-omnent due to unusual circumstances." Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15300.2.

10. "Cumulative impacts" refer to "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a)The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects, (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of tune." Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15355. With respect to the cumulative impact exception, an agency is required to consider the issue of significant effects and cumulative impacts of a proposed project

Page 15 ends

creates a cumulative impact or "any reasonable possibility" of a significant effect on the environment, and the neighborhoods around it. Under CEQA, any doubt that it has such an effect requires environmental review under Tier Three.

B. Exemptions Are Construed Narrowly and Not Applicable. "In keeping with general prmciples of statutory constmction, exemptions are construed narrowly and will not be unreasonably expanded beyond their terms." County ofAmador, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 966. "Strict constmction allows CEQA to be interpreted in a manner affording the fullest possible environmental protections within the reasonable scope of statutory language. It also comports with the statutory directive that exemptions may be provided only for projects which have been determined not to have a significant envirofimental effect" (Id., citations omitted, emphasis added.) Put another way, "where there is any reasonable possibility that a project or activity may have a significant effect on the environment, an exemption would be improper." Save Our Carmel River, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 689, emphasis added.

More specifically, The CEQA Guidelmes(ll) include a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ m detenniniag whether the project is exempt from CEQA where there is some information or evidence in the record that the project might have a significant environmental effect. Ass 'n for Prot. ofEnvtl. Values in Ukiah, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 732 (citing to East Peninsula Educ.

Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula UnifiedSch. Dist. (1989) 210 Cal.App.Sd 155,172). "[T]he purpose of the requirement that cumulative impacts be considered ... isto ensure review of the effects of the project in context with other projects of the same type." Save Our Carmel River., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at 703-04 (footnote omitted). "Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum." Cmtys. For a Better Envtl. v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98,1 14, disapproved on other grounds by Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086;

11.14 CCR section 15000 et seq are referred to herein as the "CEQA Guidelines." The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 etseq are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natiiral Resources Agency for the implementation ofCEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given "great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . .. clearly unauthorized or erroneous." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204,217.

Page 16 ends

15300-15332.) Nevertheless, such CEQA exemptions must be "construed narrowly" (Cnty. of Amador v. El Dorado Cnty. Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966) and interpreted "to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statiitory language" (Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 (hereafter, "Save Our CarmeF)). CEQA exemptions are resented for projects without potential to have significant environmental effects. (See Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. Cnty. ofMarin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107 ["If a project may have a significant effect on the enviroimient, CEQA review must occur"].) In addition, when a lead agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to the exemption. This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 [lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects]; see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. Stale ex rel. 14th Dist. Agriculture Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 [lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project falls within a categorical exemption and must support the detennination with substantial evidence]; accord Assn. for Protection etc. Values v. City ofUkiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 [lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact].) See also, Davidon Homes, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 115; Dehne, supra, 115 Cal.AppJd at p. 842. "Substantial evidence is evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." Banker's Hill, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 261, fn. 10. However, the record is devoid of any evidence "that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value" regarding the lack of any possible cumulative environmental impacts; particularly, cumulative traffic impacts.

The duty to support CEQA and exemption findings with substantial evidence is also

Page 17 ends

required by the California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), and case law on administrative or traditional writs. For example, under the CCP, an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is unsupported by the findmgs, or the fmdmgs are unsupported by the evidence. (CCP, § 1094.5, subd. (b).) In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (1997), our Supreme Court held that implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (11 Cal.3d 506, 515, internal citations and quotations omitted.) The lead agency's findings may be determined to be sufficient if a court has no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. (West Chandler Blvd. Neighborhood Assn. vs. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521-22, internal citations omitted.) However, "mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate." (Id. at p. 1521 [fmding city council findings conclusory, violating Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm.}.) Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA's environmental objectives. (Cal. Farm Bureau Federation v. Cal. Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187; accord Save Our Carmel, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at 697 ["These rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review."].)
Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (c) [EIR may be disposed of only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the entire record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment or revisions in the project]; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15061, subd. (b)(3) [common sense exemption only where it can be seen with certainty], 15063, subd. (b)(l) [EIR must be prepared if the agency determines that there is

Page 18 ends

substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial].)
C. The "In Fill" Categorical Exemption Does Not Apply
To qualify for a Class 32 in-fill exemption, the Project must be (a) consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially suiTounded by urban uses; (c) have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (e) be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. A and D cannot be met.

Before addressing them, however, what is the "exempt class" being used when staff says, "that there are no features that distinguish this project from others in the exempt class". Is it other office buildings? Surely as research and development facility is not a typical commercial office building. Nowhere does staff define the "exempt class" being used, which is the very prerequisite for the invocation of a categorical exemption and finding of no unusual circumstances.

This is especially important to know in this case because the nature of possible R&D uses on the site that require specialized equipment to be installed on the exterior of the building or served with higher volumes and discharge of water or other natural resources, it is impossible to rule out potential impacts such as equipment, filtration, and other devises have yet to be identified for potential tenants. Potential storage and handling of materials and substances also have not been identified nor studied. Given the multitude of sensitive surrounding land uses -

Page 19 ends

educational and residential - the exemption findings cannot be made.

Last, the Project requires further environmental review under Tier 3 and the exception to exemptions outlined in CEQA § 15300.2 (c) because it will significantly impact traffic, parking, and historical resources on adjacent properties. The proposed use must be mitigated to a point where no significant impacts would occur. Parishioners, therefore, want the City to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") to explore all alternatives to the Project and to create enforceable mitigation measures necessary to reduce proposed use's noise, traffic, parking, and lighting impacts. (See Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 714 (affirming lower coiu-t's finding that an environmental impact report (EIR) was required before a county could allow events to be hosted on a mountain property because there was substantial evidence that there might be impacts on surrounding residents from music and crowd noise, even if the project would not generate noise in excess of the county's noise ordinance and general plan.))
t. Traffic Impacts - Prism Engineering Study re Failure To Property Apply the City's TIA Guidelines & Mobility Policies
On January 21, 2026, Parishioners submitted the Prism Engineering Traffic Study and analysis of the Fehr & Peers Report prepared for the City. Pages 3 and 4 of it set-forth 11 bullet points highlighting the errors in the Fehr & Peers Report. They are attached hereto as Exhibit and incorporated herein by this reference. Combined with Erika Foy's 16 page summar}f and analysis. Parishioners have submitted more than substantial evidence of potentially significant environment impacts warrantmg further environmental review and making it impossible to make the required findings for the recommended categorical exemption.

As stated therein, the Local Mobility Analysis states that it was prepared under the City

Page 20 ends

of Pasadena Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2022), yet key required and discretionary elements are missing or only partially addressed for a project of this sensitivity.

Specifically, the Guidelines explicitly call for data collection and analysis tailored to critical periods, including "mid-day, afternoon school peak, weekend, etc." where appropriate, to be detennined in consultation with DOT staff.

Here, however, bus traffic on Green Street is not fully analyzed and all intersection counts and LOS analyses were limited to the standard weekday commuter peaks (7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.), with no separate analysis of the school's TK to 8th grade heavily congested carline windows (roughly 7:30-8:00 a.m. and 2:55-3:15 p.m.) when most of the 550 children make their way to the classrooms or Sunday/ceremonial peaks at the adjacent church, despite both uses being explicitly mapped as bicycle/pedestrian trip generators in the Active Transportation Assessment. This omission is difficult to reconcile with the Guidelines' intent to assess local mobility conditions for all road users in the actual peak periods they experience, especially next to a TK through 8th grade school and active parish.

Similarly, the Guidelines provide for a Residential Neighborhood Cut-Througk/Intmsion analysis where project traffic may divert onto local or "Access" streets, with explicit quantitative criteria and required measures if thresholds are exceeded. In this case, Holliston Avenue is identified as an Access Street in the City's Street Design Guidelines and in the project conditions of approval, yet the Local Mobility Analysis does not include any neighborhood street segment or cut-through analysis for Holliston or nearby school/church-adjacent streets, even though the project would shift substantial new traffic to Holliston Avenue for garage entry and for Green Street for the exit, including large conunercial tractors hauling trailers ofinaterials. !

Page 21 ends

This approach is inconsistent with both the TIA Guidelines and the General Plan Mobility Element policy to "discourage traffic from using Access streets to bypass congested intersections" and to prevent new development from intruding into residential and school- adjacent streets.

2. Questionable Land-Use Assumptions & No Empirical R&D/Lab Trip Data The City's TIA Guidelines direct consultants to use ITE Trip Generation and, where land uses are not well-represented, to supplement with empirical data from similar local uses. The Local IVtobility Analysis uses ITE's "Research & Development Center" (Land Use Code 760) to generate 1,036 daily trips, acknowledging explicitly that the project is a "Research and Development building, with laboratory and office space." However, the CEQA VMTA^T analysis then re-codes the same 93,539 sq fit project as generic "office" in the City's travel demand model solely because the model does not contain a separate R&D category, asserting without evidence that R&D travel patterns are "anticipated to be similar" to General Office. No empirical local data is presented for comparable Pasadena lab/R&D facilities—despite the Guidelines specifically encouragmg empiiical trip-data when ITE categories or models do not match the actual land use. This mismatch between a lab/R&D building on the ground and an "office" surrogate in the CEQA model, without any empirical validation, undercuts the reliability of both the VMT/VT results and the claimed mitigation effectiveness for a high-intensity, parking-rich R&D facility.

Compounding this, neither the Local Mobility Analysis nor the conditions of approval clearly disclose the specific nature of the building's R&D operations (e.g., wet labs vs. dry labs, hours of operation, shift work, hazardous materials handling, commercial truck tractor traffic,

Page 22 ends

frequency and type of deliveries, or off-schedule service trips), even though the project is titled "Caltech Innovation Center" and described only in generic tenns as "lab/office spaces." For design-review purposes, that lack of operational detail means the Commission is being asked to rely on a highly generalized traffic model rather than a mobility analysis grounded in the actual R&D/lab behaviors that will drive trip generation, freight, and service demands at this particular site.

3. Detrimental Impacts on Transit Routes
The Active Transportation Assessment correctly maps the nearby TK through 8th grade school and St. Philip the Apostle Church as major pedestrian and bicycle trip generators.

However, it then concludes in one sentence that the project "is not anticipated to remove or degrade existing active transportation iii&astructure, or increase demand on damaged or sub- standard facilities within a 0.25-inile radius," without any quantitative analysis of sight distance, driveway conflicts, or crossing safety at the new Holliston Avenue garage entry—used by children walking to and from school each day—and without reference to the school's tightly constrained carline operations on Holliston Avenue. This is an especially egregious error because the garage entry will compete directly with the morning and afternoon carlines for up to 550 students also entering and exiting on Holliston Avenue, precisely during the same 7:30-8:00 a.m. and mid-aftemoon windows that were not separately analyzed. In practice, this is a direct, design-level conflict between high-volume vehicle ingress/egress and a known child pedestrian route that the Local Mobility Analysis treats only at a very high level.

Finally, while the City's conditions of approval recognize significant right-of-way occupation, construction staging, and even asbestos-containing pavement work on Green Street,

Page 23 ends

none of these multi-year constmction-phase mobility impacts are analyzed in the Local Mobility Analysis itself. For a three-level subterranean garage immediately adjacent to a TK through 8th grade school and active parish, the absence of any construction-phase pedestrian and bicycle detour plan, temporary sidewalk/crosswalk analysis, or driveway closure phasing in the mobility study is a material omission under the CEQA Guidelines stated piupose of identifying "any negative effects on local mobility" and assessing the effectiveness of corrective measures.

4. Other Detrimental Noise, Erosion, Air Quality Impacts As noted above, the Church is over 100 years old. As such, noise and vibration impacts resulting from the Project's construction must be analyzed. For example, the Project proposes a three-level subterranean parking facility. Such significant excavation adjacent to the historic structure of the Church will create soil stability impacts and could result in structural instability to a valued cultural and historical community resource. Any CEQA analysis must analyze the impacts associated with such extensive excavation because it has the potential to impact adjacent development which is built out to the property luie.

Similarly, while the Project Site is developed with a surface parking lot, preparation of the Site for construction will require removal and grinding of the existing asphalt, which has the potential to release carcinogens and other volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") depending on the actual chemical composition of the asphalt. 12 (Note; Fix reference number size -12) Such impacts may be exacerbated by the recent Baton Fire, in which various hazardous compounds are

12. Center for Disease Control. Recent Review: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt, (2000) Available at: https://www^dc^oy/mosh^ (Accessed May 21,2025).

Page 24 ends

likely to have found their way into these porous surfaces/131 which will be re-released into the air as particulate matter and expose the surrounding coinmunity when Site preparatiQn begins.

Impacts may include respiratory issues and potential cancer risks. Such impacts can have detrimental impacts on the Church clergy that live onsite, the TK educational facility that is on the same parcel as the Parish, and the Child Development Center directly across from the Project Site, not to mention the numerous Pasadena residents living in various Holliston Avenue apartment buildings.

In addition, the Air Quality Study identifies the excavation of the site as involving the removal of 60,000 cubic yards of soil, The average dump truck has a capacity of 10-16 cubic yards that would result in 6,000-3,750 truck trips - none of which are identified in any of the studies related to traffic or air quality impacts. Loading ftie dump trucks will generally require a large excavator and loader to execute the work and that effort will raise dust, cause significant noise and unfortunately, generate vibrations to the sun-ounding properties. As construction and excavation activates tending to begin promptly at 7:00 a.m., and tapering off around 3:00 p.m., this mirrors exactly, school drop off and pickup times thus creatin an obvious conflict. It will also be a disruption to the two masses each day that take place just steps away at the Church and the solemn funeral masses that come up frequently throughout the work week.

Given the volume of traffic already on Green Street and Holliston Avenue, this additional volume is not captured anywhere in any study, thus rendering it impossible to make the required

13. Los Angeles Tunes, Nearly Half of Pasadena Unified schools have contaminated soil, district finds (May 15, 2025), Available at: htt|is^ywvAyJ^im£sxor^ O5.-16/nearlj-half-of-{]asaden^^ (Accessed
May 21,2025).

Page 25 ends

findings for an exemption.

VI. Conclusion
The Project must respect the existing built environment and be contextual with its surrounding uses. It fails to do so for the reasons explained above. It is, therefore, not consistent with the General Plan, the ECSP, and not eligible for any exemption under CEQA. Parishioners thus respectfully request that concept design review be denied and a full EIR be prepared so that all the significant environmental impacts are identified and all the alternatives for properly mitigating them analyzed.

Last, regardless of the undeniable sanctity of the Church and its constitutionally protected use, any structure similar to the newly built Keck/USC building at the southeast comer of Fair Oaks Avenue and California Blvd. should never be deemed appropriate for a comer lot at Green Street and Holliston Avenue. This neighborhood should not and must not become a Central Business District, even with Caltech's proximity, particularly given the ECSP policies to achieve the opposite type of development. We thus do not oppose the location of this Project in the Central Business District, such as on Colorado Boulevard as an alternate more fitting location, but strongly oppose it here.

Sincerely,
.^-^^
Richard A. McDonald, Esq.

Of Counsel, Stoner Carlson LLP

EXHIBIT A
i?M^as^i^;^;i;|—
i.1 v-SXMS£-kW
!EH!EIOIlHIi1BI8{ffl!EiII'^
wSf-uS-.
rf
I
Kw ;^ -,
^^
m.g?siiujaw,I
(.u E4 nwa I liI El B
s% B*I i«r •
~
I
^i:::'". ..::~1'"":':W^^^^S^^^^B^
-s^s
«ag 3=V —ig»"
"=
am^
^•i--
m
y
A
A_
^fe.
•BE—IIs
wsaw'-yss
tM
II a
^t
BBB
"i
«1It
i^
•e g
ii
—
a
SB
as
^
»
Iff
^1
»®»S
us
•SB
B r.&
'•ffilifflnlfllih
[•t?.:*ft
[PlEBBI
a
ah*
II
!SM»tf'
\

EXHIBIT B
•
uilding
a•
aa
a
i
lii
m^,
wu m
f^S'^ a;'
ai! f^.
it »rw< €??»r !• ^^^•T » A j-^ / ."%<g.sm .: w.w K^9 ».* fe» &fi a,#?m^ N
B
•V
'a&B •fr •^"i. -/ y8 % s" n•J 's0
i^fe3-,s .y.
31»
^ r
E* £.'!-!
EKKa| ^ ^s^
rms f-
g^ ea
^•fs -IS:

K- s»3I {
SM^..-^*eKN» •»«•:»yd
I *
t.b..HIB«ii«sli sSi s
•s
•*& m»
^^^^J^ff|^^tf^;|fet:::3EIll \~:wl:t^
s"SN y^:"
iSW^
feSsl3%;.:r:;-'a$9sl£i
^
s>
I? ^!
».
fl »
ft*
t f
w\
t-]sssm es BSfli^1 3Ri» A.!.-'!?g
a ^
if I
MSa
''I..i
5 •t Bi<• ?" f
fte i3NSI a• •
^
R&'",'SULf'. '.^
1^1«.^ fi^
w^ '^
< I'^AS^it'W
d^W.0® * ,.*m»*fc
sai m
fi^y »« y's
I:^ &a i
»
©
>^" ?^ •ii
m»
E:T y;<
^ mf* »,»-""«
.,,»^
«.?*.. ^.? ^^
(X^iPrj?3?@R •WKA
ma
©.f y^.0 -yv^&.- f y n. 1'f<r»
/
.»»t( ^
ff
?' A^'^
'i-%
_..r^J>w
^ /» •fef;<*
I //.
m::- %..
%
'"l,^
^
B ^ f^^^ %^f> fi.
?«^ •JHe *&•;••* /•
^'•1^. -»•
-?t
s^'A.'r- •»1 t-
^^-^
^
». » ?s«
•^
/J
/
* ^<BSi
A
s. , ~'<--
^^fi.. <f •••
\w,
Q >*>'<<^. fi rt- »- I
^»
^
^A /m
r.
^
*~.fc ** »1 f"
,f
'Ai€"y<^
IS.I
^ ws s
<M ll
/ /-'/ Aa
"^
2 Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute for Neuroscience at Caltech. Spearheaded with a $115 million gift from Chen and Luo to Caltech, the Chen Institute for Neuroscience unites investigators across campus to create a unique environment for brain research. The goal is to deepen our understanding of the brain—the most powerful biological and chemical computing machine.

I
?»^B^^!^^^S
\
//
a*,
iMI ttK, € (
i
a
•a
ffiB f
n I t
In rp gg
|-^s%>
•.—,
^ F:te!s^
^^--1
!ni
IE
":1 .<
.1
I'
a Eia S-ffl-< i sla. m I ss
I^ a—
r*
m
•• ..-,. ,»..B *•*»*
m
^ifis
I
if
ifil•KB
As part of the Chen Institute for Neuroscience, Caltech broke ground on the new 150,000- square-foot, $193 million Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Neuroscience Research Building (CNRB) in December 2017. The facility centralizes Cattech's diverse brain research efforts in one camous location.

I
I
I
3 JAs a demonstration of Caltech's commitment to transparency, the facility features a [stunning glass window f3(;ade that illuminates the interior with bright, natural daylight.

IBiophilic design is showcased through a sunken garden adjacent to the building that Ipromotes a sense of serenity and inspires creativity. The build'ng borders Moore Walk, a jprimary pedestrian pathway, and features one of the largest campus-wide auditorium and seminar spaces, reservable conference spaces with plug-and-play technology, wet and dry laboratories, and a variety of suites for behavioral studies. Captivating artwork displayed ithroughout the building depicts the human brain, inspired by Santiago Ramon y Cajal, a jSpanish neuroscientist and pathologist.
^
»»
» m:i|n»K'i—
I
\I •<t'%a,:"
-r-IS J;*iJ'iB »ss
s^
JIIS1^
t^
B^ IEfw. ^••is
ililt ;tms xI »1<m I KaB. I
iH1
•»
»1^jg»p -^1
.fit
1 <
4 EXHIBIT C
Traffic Engineering Response to F&P Traffic Report on Caltech R&D Project

OVERVIEW
In the City of Pasadena a very large R&D project looms over the century old St. Philip the Apostle church and school, with the threat to overwhelm the historical church with traffic impacts that wilt exceed what has been reported in the F&P report. This study will look more closely at the VMT Impacts, the VT Impacts, and the traffic impacts that will be generated from the Caltech R&D facility. •
•
We investigated the time periods of the Trip Generation of the Project, because the study only looked at impacts from the am and pm peak hour of ad/'acenf street traffic, when the school traffic is taking place at a time other than the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Since the peak hour of the school traffic pick-up takes place around 3 pm, we investigated the traffic that is to be expected from the R&D center at that time, and ran those numbers together to see what the impact would be. The F&P study did not look at the times that would coincide with R&D traffic and School traffic, which is a very important time period. This included taking counts during the pickup time of school.

We took a closer look than the F&P study did, to the presence of pedestrians on E Green Street and S Holtiston Avenue, and discussed the impacts that this R&D project will have upon them in terms of pedestrian and bike safety. The Fehr and Peers study was missing pedestrian and bike data for the intersection of Green St. at Holliston Ave.

We examined whether the traffic study looked at including cumulative developments tike the S Hilt and Colorado PD-35 375 room hotel on the parcel north of E Green St. and between S hlotliston and S Hilt, and any other cumulative projects have been included. One of the fatal flaws of a traffic study is to not look at the background traffic of already approved projects to get their VMT impacts, and their magnitude of traffic that will impact the roads. In short, we took a look a pedestrian travel and everything that the traffic counts do not include.

We analyzed the outbound trip distribution to make sure that it makes sense to send 50% of the traffic north on S Hill Avenue. We examined a change in trip distribution for the Project traffic and found that this can have a significant effect on the traffic impacts.

We investigated the Thresholds for Determining a Transportation Review of Development Projects, to make sure that the study included all items that are required by the City.

We investigated, by traffic operations analysis and by inspection, the viability of S Holtiston Avenue to handle the addition of such a targe project as the Research and Development Center, especially in light of the existing traffic relating to the school drop off and pickup times, and how this is a key impact.

We determined that the intersections are being studied as single intersections without traffic operations analysis. This is where closely spaced intersections are linked in software to measure effectiveness as a group of intersections with specific mitigation measures to help move traffic more efficiently between them. For example at S Hill Ave. and Del Mar Blvd. the signal at this intersection can be wired together to interconnect to the signal at the CordovaSt. intersection, to Link the SB through movements and the NB left turn movements to keep traffic moving. In addition, the traffic movements can be linked so that one turns green when the traffic arrives from the other intersection.

Page 3 of 36 ends

Traffic Engineering Response to F&P Traffic Report on Caltech R&D Project We commented on the Design Elements relating to the R&D Center site plan and access issues. The narrowness of the street, the impacts to safety and how this is a key impact.

Thresholds fw Determining Transportation Review <rf Development Pngects IVp.ofPn^ect
Residential Land Uses
ff^frt New Units)
Non-Restdential Land
Uses (Net Neu/ Sq Ft of
Net Me-*- Daity TrysJ
Analysis ft^^Krements
BtEMPT
< 10 units
a 10,000 Sq Ft: or
<uo0aity Trips
None
Pn<KtC«t^<xy
CBtw°<y>.'
BEUW
COMMUNnYWDB
BBNIFKaUICE
il - 49 Units
10,001 - 49.999 Sq Ft;
or a uo DaiSy Trips
Local MobiDty Analysis
Cltognya
C<»^(W<ITVWI!%
aoNnatNCE
aSOurfts
a 50.000 Sq Ft
l-ocalM<*«ty
Analysis and
CEQAAnalyas
^
We found that the Research and Development Center Project was required to conduct a Category 2 analysis, and that this was indeed done. What was not done was everything else 'between the lines" that should have been scoped out in advance between the City and Consultant. Things such as scoping the school peak hours into the equation: the long lines of queued traffic on Holtiston Ave. that would block the R&D Center seeking access to Holliston Ave., the afternoon pick-up times and the R&D Center traffic impacts, etc.

We found that the St. Philip the Apostle school traffic, already approved nearly 20 years ago in the Year 2008 when a new school building was added, has a very large traffic engineering stake in this Local Mobility Analysis, in that it already has utilized the capacity on Holliston Ave., and fills capacity along other roadways shown in Figure 1. This used capacity is in the form of long lines that do not move as traffic queues up for drop-off or pick-up, as parents seekto drop their kids off at the school campus in an orderly format, one by one. This process takes time. This process is fragile, and can be impacted. There is capacity to do this on the roads so that traffic does not block any intersection, but it takes up most of the capacity on ' S. Holliston Ave. There is room for an occasional vehicle not related to the school to get through on Holliston Ave. during this half hour period in the morning and also the afternoon, but not enough capacity to service a four-story Research and Development Center.

It is a safety issue to mix elementary school traffic and pedestrians with large scale industrial traffic. Holliston Ave. is not of sufficient width (narrow and unstriped "lanes" totaling 22' (11' of space in each direction) after parking on the west side) to handle large box trucks. This is especially true when one considers the queue lines that block traffic. The parents of children going to the school are content to wait for these lines of traffic. A Research and Development Center's traffic would not have the patience, and it is feared that unsafe maneuvers would take place on the part of the R&D Center regular traffic, and its deliveries using large box trucks.

Page 4 of 36 ends

EXHIBIT D
W.S ^
^
2EU
& "?^s TEO

PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 23, 2021
TO: DESIGN COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID M. REYES, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY 80,000 SQUARE FOOT

LABORATORY BUILDING

RESNIK SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
1200 E. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD (CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY)
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Design Commission:

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, consider the Addendum to the previously certified FSEIR prepared for the subject project (Attachment A) and find that no subsequent EIR or other environmental document is required for this project.

FindinQS for Compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance

1. Acknowledge that a tree inventory (Attachment B) identifies removal of five protected trees,

2. Find that the removal of five protected trees meets finding 6 of the Tree Protection Ordinance (PMC Section 8.52.075.A): "the project, as defined in Section 17.12.020, includes a landscape design plan that emphasizes a tree canopy that is sustainable over the long term by adhering to the replacement matrix prepared by the city manager and included in the associated administrative guidelines;" and, therefore,

3. Approve the removal of five protected trees.
^fs^
»
.^1 ti
^

PLANNING & COMMUNITT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2020
TO: DESIGN COMMISSION
FROM: DAVID M. REYES, DIRECTOR, PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY CONSULTATION - NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE- STORY 80,000 SQUARE FOOT LABORATORY BUILDING

REZNIK SUSTAINABILITY RESOURCE CENTER
1200 E. CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD (CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY)
Project Description:

This proposal is for the construction of a new three-story-plus-basement, approximately 80,000- square-foot laboratory building (Reznik Sustainability Resource Center) at 1200 E. California Boulevard (California Institute of Technology). The specific site of the building is on the east side of S. Wilson Avenue, between Del Mar Boulevard and San Pasqual Street. Adjacent buildings along S. Wilson Avenue within the Caltech campus are the Beckman Institute building (1989, Albert C. Martin & Associates) and adjoining lawn, and the Braun Laboratory (1982, C.F.

Braun & Co.). The existing Mead Laboratory (1981, John Kewell Associates) is proposed to be demolished to accommodate the proposed new building. There are also 16 trees in the immediate vicinity of the site that are proposed to be removed. At this time, staff does not have sufficient information to determine if any of the trees proposed to be removed are protected.

There are two street trees adjacent to the proposed site and one on-site tree in the yard area in front of the proposed building that would be retained.

In addition to the flanking buildings mentioned above, other nearby Caltech buildings include the Broad Center for Biological Studies (2002, Pei Cobb Freed & Partners) and the Chen Neuroscience Research Building (2020, Smithgroup JJR) to the north, the Church Laboratory (1955, Stiles 0. Clements), Alles Laboratory (1960, Caftech Physical Plant), and Kerckhoff Laboratory (1928, Mayers, Murray & Phillip) to the south, hvo large parking structures and two smaller single-family residences to the west, and the Noyes Laboratory (1967, Risley, Gould & Van Heuklyn) and Schlinger Laboratory (2010, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson) to the east. Nearby designated historic resources include Villa San Pasqual (1953, Lionel V. Mayell) at 1000 San Pasqual Street, Whispering Waters (1961, Lionel V. Mayell) at 1000 Cordova Street, Mentor Court (1923, Delux Building Company) at 937 E. California Boulevard and Bullocks South Lake (1947, Wurdeman & Beckett) at 401 S. Lake Avenue. The property at 1031 San Pasqual Street (recently relocated Wilson Court) is currently pending landmark designation. The site is zoned PS (Public/Semi-Public).
<•
Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability Resource Center)
October 27, 2020

Page 2 of 5 ends

The new building is proposed to be set back 90 feet from South Wilson Avenue and 30 feet from the Braun Laboratory to the south. The proposed setbacks from the Beckman Lawn to the north and the Noyes Laboratory to the east are not indicated in the drawings, but are substantially narrower than these. The design appears to incorporate the existing undulating front yard condition of the site, which is somewhat unique along the existing streetscape, including creation of an angled driveway to a loading area at the south end of the west (Wilson Avenue) elevation that would largely be screened from public view by the elevated hill in front of it. An existing driveway along the north side of the building is proposed to remain.

The floor plans provided depict, at the first floor, open collaboration spaces along most of the outer perimeter with meeting rooms and laboratories in the center and support/back-of-house spaces along the south and east edges, including a freight/receiving area at the southwest comer. Building entries are shown at the north end of the west (street-facing) elevation and the eastern end of the north and south facades. Vertical circulation is proposed to occur at a large communicating stair at roughly center of the north side of the building, two elevators and an enclosed stair at the northeast corner, and one elevator and enclosed stair at the southwest corner. The second and third floor plans depict laboratories and meeting rooms at the center of the floors and storage rooms, mechanical shafts, restrooms and other similar spaces along the south and east edges. The roof plan depicts outdoor gathering spaces, a solar roof testing laboratory, skylights and a large mechanical penthouse.

The building is designed in a contemporary/organic style with a flat roof, an undulating curtain- wall system with an angular mass timber structure along the north and west sides of the building and at the southeast comer, which peels away at the ground floor entries. There is a roof canopy feature that extends beyond a mechanical penthouse enclosure, while remaining behind the outer building envelope. The south and east facades are in close proximity to other existing adjacent buildings and not significantly visible to the public; however, these comers are the location of the building's elevators. The southwest comer elevator presents as a rectilinear terminus to the undulating curtain-wall system; by contrast, the curtain-wall system wraps the exterior of the northeast elevators.

Applicable Design Guidelines:

Design-Related Goals and Policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan Cattech Master Plan
Previous/Existing Entitlements:

None.

Approvals Needed/Project Scheduling:
• Concept and Final Design Review (Design Commission)
Building Permits (Building Staff)
Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability Resource Center)
October 27, 2020

Page 3 of 5 ends

CEQA Clearance:

This is preliminary consultation only and is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Staff Observations;
Applicable Design Guidelines:

The following design guidelines are applicable to the project and should guide further development and study of the project as it moves forward in the design review process:

Design-Related Policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan:

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

7.1:

7.2:

7.3:

10.7:

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

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

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

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

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

25.4: Require that new development protect community character by providing architecture, landscaping, and urban design of equal or greater quality than existing and by respecting the architectural character and scale of adjacent buildings.

Caltech Master Plan:
«.Buildings north of the San Pasqual alignment should be designed in accordance with the principles that have made the campus so successful thus far. These principles do not imply architectural monotony but rather an active engagement with the present. That is, after all, Caltech's mission - to be building into the future using the wisdom of the past.

In the spirit of this mission, buildings should be designed as imaginative architectural visions, whether contemporary in design or reminiscent of the original buildings.

However, they should also be designed as part of a larger whole to be interconnected with hardscape or landscape bordered courtyards, paths and open spaces.

Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability Resource Center)
October 27, 2020

Page 4 of 5 ends

•
•
New buildings should be designed in accordance with the same principles for siting, massing, size, scale, and open space that guided the design of buildings at the original campus bounded by San Pasqual Street, California Boulevard, Wilson Avenue and Hill Avenue,
New buildings should be designed to be compatible with the massing, scale, architectural treatment, and materials of nearby buildings and places.

New buildings should not be designed in isolation, but address and seek to unify the architectural character of surrounding buildings.

At the edges of the campus, the design of buildings should seek compatibility with the surrounding urban context, while contributing to a unified campus-wide image and character.

Potential Design Issues:

Continue to study ways to further accentuate the building entries. •
•
•
Explore ways to unify the building with the character of surrounding buildings, while retaining the unique expression and sustainability features that relate to the activities that will take place within it. Incorporation of movement in the west facade curtain-wall, similar to the north facade treatment, and studying the proportions of these movements to respond to surrounding buildings, could be an effective means of achieving this goal.

Provide diagrams and studies to demonstrate how the design responds to the surrounding context.

Continue to study the terminus of the curtain-wall at the southwest corner, including possible further engagement with the elevator tower.

Continue to refine the loading/receiving area treatment to ensure it is visually screened from street view and as integrated as possible into the overall design character of the building.

For Concept Design Review, provide a tree inventory that accurately and clearly indicates the species and size of all trees in the vicinity of the construction site. Private Tree Removal permits may be required if any trees proposed to be removed are protected by the Tree Protection Ordinance. Any protected trees proposed to be retained in the vicinity of the construction site will also require a Tree Protection Plan to identify protection measures to be installed prior to and during construction and ensure compliance with the City's tree protection requirements.

Design Commission
Preliminary Consultation - 1200 E. California Boulevard (Reznik Sustainability Resource Center)
October 27, 2020

Page 5 of 5 ends

Project Scheduling/Sequencing:
• Concept and Final Design Review by the Design Commission Building Permits
Respectfully Submitted,
:^€^-^-ft^>
Prepared by:
/
^/-
Kevin Johnson
Senior Planner
David M. Reyes
Director of Planning & Community Development Department Reviewed by:

Leon E. White
Principal Planner
Attachments:

A. Master Plan compliance matrix
B. Applicant submittal package

EXHIBIT B
Executive Summary
The Design Commission's authority under Pasadena Municipal Code Section 2.80.110 is explicitly focused on ensuring "appropriate design" through review of "architecture, materials, scale, massing, color, lighting, landscaping, open space and any other design concept." [1] The Commission's stated purpose includes safeguarding "the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and quality of the city" and ensuring that "changes to the built environment will be orderly and will not diminish the architectural, aesthetic or design quality of the city." [2] [^ The Design Commission, however, failed to correct: (1) the inadequacy of massing and scale mitigation measures for school adjacency; (2) the prominence of the 15-foot rooftop mechanical screen; and (3) the project's relationship to established neighborhood character. As such, the Commission's required finding that the project "will comply with the purposes of design review" cannot be made based on the current design. [4]
These concerns are grounded in design principles and code provisions, not land use policy or density objections.

Part I: Required Findings for Approval
The Design Commission must find that the project, upon implementation of 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." [4]
As such, the Design 'Commission reviews the following design elements:

Design ElementCode Authority
ArchitecturePMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)[1J
]\4aterialsPMC§2.80.110(B)(1)[U
ScalePMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)[1J
MassingPMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)U:

ColorPMC§2.80.110(B)(1)UJ
LightingPMC§2.80.110(B)(1)[U
LandscapingPMC§2.80.110(B)(1)[U
Open SpacePMC§ 2.80.110(B)(1)[U
Streetscape and pedestrian environmentPMC§2.80.110(B)(2)ul Urban design qualityPMC§2.80.110(A)(5)[2J
Part II: Issue-by-Issue Design Critique
Issue 1: Inadequate Scale Transition and Massing Response to School Adjacency Specific Design Features at Issue:

The project site directly adjoins St. Philip the Apostle Church and School on its south and east propert;^ lines. [5] The closest building to the project site is the St. Philip the Apostle Church rectory building, located near the northeast comer of the project site along Green Street. [6] The proposed building rises to 79 feet in height (including a 15-foot mechanical screen) immediately adjacent to a school playground and parking area. [7] [8] Design Deficiencies:

The project proposes only the minimum required 15-foot interior setback along the south and east property lines adjacent to the school. [9] While the applicant states the south facade is set back 16 feet and the east facade nearly 23 feet from the primary facade plane, these setbacks represent minimal deviation from code minimums. [10] The 15-foot mechanical screen, though reduced from 18 feet at Preliminary Consultation, remains a prominent vertical element that adds significantly to the perceived height when viewed from the school property. [II1 The fourth-floor stepback along the south and east elevations provides "unoccupiable or inaccessible space" rather than meaningful mass reduction. [12] The Commission previously directed the applicant to "continue to explore and restudy the design and treatment of the south elevation in order to reduce its mass and scale...due to the project's proximity to the adjacent school and playground/parking." [71 The applicant's response—a one-foot reduction in mechanical screen height and "tapered roof edge"— is insufficient to address this issue. [131 Relevant Code/Guidelines:
•
•
PMC § 2.80.110(A)(5): The Commission's purpose includes safeguarding "the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and quality of the city." [2] PMC § 2.80.110(B)(1): Jurisdiction expressly includes "scale, massing." [U Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Districts (applicable per staff report): Require compatibility with adjacent uses. [14] Issue 2: Rooftop Mechanical Screen Prominence
Specific Design Features at Issue:

The project includes a 15-foot-tall rooftop mechanical screen (reduced from 18 feet at Preliminary Consultation). [11] The mechanical screen extends across the full building footprint and is composed of both opaque and perforated metal panels. [15] Design Deficiencies:

The staff report from December 9, 2025 noted that the mechanical screen height "is taller 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." [16] Despite the subsequent one-foot reduction, the screen remains as tall as each occupied floor of the building. jj_[J
The staffs own analysis acknowledged this concern and previously recommended a condition "to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to the degree possible so that the screen becomes a background feature of the building design." [17] This condition was marked as "satisfied" based on the one- foot reduction, but the underlying design problem—a mechanical enclosure that competes with rather than recedes from the building's architectural expression—persists. [18] Relevant Code/Guidelines:

The design guidelines require a differentiated base, middle, and top expression. [16] fl91 A 15-foot mechanical screen that equals the floor-to-floor height of occupied stories undermines the intended "top section" termination of the building.

Issue 3: Compatibility with Neighborhood Character and Design Precedent Specific Design Features at Issue:

The project is designed in a contemporary style featuring a "rectilinear form...flat roof and expansive glazing set within frames and accented with metal panels and spandrels." [20] The applicant claims inspiration from Pasadena City College campus buildings across Holliston Avenue. [21J [221
Design Deficiencies:

The surrounding context "lacks a predominant architectural precedent" according to staff, with buildings ranging from one to three stories and "varying construction dates and architectural styles." [23] The proposed building at 79 feet and four stories significantly exceeds the height of surrounding development, which staff describes as ranging from "one- to four-stories." [8] The Commission previously directed the applicant to "further refine [facade treatment] to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildings on the PCC campus." [24] The applicant's response acknowledges that the project "draws influence from the buildings at PCC not by copying their architecture" but by "identifying specific architectural qualities and translating them." [25] This abstract interpretation is insufficient to achieve the "stronger relationship" required for any approval.

Notably, the PCC campus buildings that the applicant references feature "restrained art deco architecture characterized by symmetry, rhythm, and a strong sense of mass" with a "material palette...composed primarily of stucco, glass, and blue-green metal." [26] The proposed building's extensive use of metal panels and spandrel glass, while incorporating some PCC- inspired colors, represents a significant departure in materiality and architectural expression from the referenced precedents.

Relevant Code/Guidelines:

PMC § 2.80.110(A)(2): Establishing "procedures and criteria for review of alterations to the urban and natural environments to assure appropriate design." [27] Design Guidelines in the ECSP and Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Districts require compatibility with surrounding development. [28] Issue 4: Relationship to Public Realm and Pedestrian Scale Specific Design Features at Issue:

The building provides 8-foot setbacks on both street frontages (Green Street and Holliston Avenue) and incorporates publicly accessible open spaces (PAOS) totaling 1 ,060 square feet at ground level. [29] The building frontage along each street is approximately 78 feet on either side ofa20-foot facade break, totaling 177 feet of building facade length. [30] Design Deficiencies:

While the project meets the minimum required PAOS (calculated as 40% of the required ground floor common open space), the integration of publicly accessible space with the 79-foot building mass creates a significant scale differential at the pedestrian level. [31] The ground floor plate height is 17 feet, which, while providing verticality at the entry, overwhelms the modestly sized public spaces. [32]
The building's two vehicular driveways—one ingress on Holliston Avenue and one egress on Green Street—interrupt the pedestrian experience along both street frontages. [33] [34] [35] [36] The driveway placement also creates pedestrian-vehicle conflict points in proximity to a school as noted by the traffic engineer. [37]
Relevant Code/GuideIines:
• PMC § 2.80.110(B)(2): The Commission is charged with developing "objectives and criteria of design for all streetscapes" including features that affect the pedestrian environment. [38] ECSP Design Guidelines require 12-foot sidewalks on Green Street with a 7-foot walk zone and 5-foot amenity zone. [39]
Issue 5: Privacy and Overlook Concerns as Design Issues Specific Design Features at Issue:

The project features "expansive glazing" on all facades, with the south and east elevations facing directly toward the school property. [20] The applicant has incorporated wider metal panels on the south and east facades to reduce glazing area and "enhance privacy to the neighbor at the east." [411
Design Deficiencies:

While the applicant states that "windows are non-operable and the shading elements reduce the amount of full-height glass," the fourth-floor terrace on the south and east is accessible "for maintenance only." [42] However, the fourth-floor occupied space retains substantial glazing with direct sightlines to the school playground and campus below. [12] The existing row of trees on the St. Philip property provides vegetative screening that the applicant identifies as helpful in buffering views of the south facade. [43] However, these trees are located on third-party property, and their long-term maintenance or preservation is outside the applicant's control. Reliance on off-site landscaping for visual mitigation is a design deficiency.

Relevant Code/GuideIines:
• Design review authority extends to any design element that affects "the visual and aesthetic character" of the city and compatibility with adjacent uses. [2] The Commission previously expressed concern regarding privacy impacts as a design consideration. [44]
Part IV: Possible Design Modifications
Although not an exhaustive list, the following modifications could address the identified concerns while maintaining the project's development program:

ConcernSuggested Modification
South elevation mass/scaleIncrease south setback beyond 16 feet to provide greater buffering from school;
consider additional fourth-floor stepback
depth on south facade [10] [45]
M^echanical screen prominenceFurther reduce mechanical screen height or relocate equipment to reduce screen extent;
employ darker or recessive coloring to
visually diminish screen presence [46]
Privacy/overlookIncrease solid-to-void ratio on south and east facades above third floor; consider fixed
external screening elements (louvers, fins)
that provide physical privacy barriers rather
than relying on panel arrangement alone [12]
144}
Architectural compatibilityIncorporate more substantial masonry or stucco elements at the base to better reference
PCC campus precedents; consider modifying
the metal panel color palette to more closely
align with the "blue-green metal"
characteristic ofPCC buildings [21] F261
Pedestrian scaleEnlarge ground-floor PAOS beyond
minimum requirements; provide more
substantial landscaping and shade trees within
the setback areas; consider reducing ground-
floor plate height ifprogrammatically feasible
mi
Driveway/school interfaceImplement enhanced pedestrian warning systems at both driveways; provide additional
landscaping buffers between driveway egress
on Green Street and pedestrian path of travel
B21
References

1. Jurisdiction shall include architecture, materials, scale, massing, color, lighting, landscaping, open space and any other design concept. After the first meeting of the design commission at which a public project is considered, and at the request of a public agency with concerns about the effect of design review on exceeding a budget, impacting a schedule, or in direct conflict with neighborhood requests about design, the city manager or his/her designee may directly forward an application for design review of a "public project" to the city council. The general manager of the Rose Bowl Operating Company and the chief (Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances.pdf)

2. and industry by encouraging excellency of design; 5. Safeguard and enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and quality of the city. B. The commission shall: 1. Conduct design review for "public projects" as defined and set forth in the zoning code (Title 17)... (Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances.pdf)

3. policies relating to architecture and urban design; 8. Work closely with the planning commission, historic preservation coirunission, community development committee and other advisory' bodies and city departments to assure changes to the built environment will be orderly and will not diminish the architectural, aesthetic or design quality of the city; 9.

Comment and make recommendations for proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance or map, subdivisions, general plan amendments, significant public improvements, and such other land use proposals or projects that may affect the architectural, aesthetic or design quality of Pasadena; 10. Participate in revisions of the urban design (Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances.pdf)

4. Page 2 of 13 Findings for Concept Design Approval Find that the project, upon implementation of the conditions of approval, will comply with the purposes of design review, the design-related goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design 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 (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 1)

5. romanzoffianum), none of which are protected trees. The project site adjoins the PS (Public/Semi-Public) zoning district on the south and east sides of the property'. • Surroundings: The surrounding properties include a mix of multi-family residential, religious and educational buildings ranging from one- to three-stories with var>'ing construction dates and architectural styles. Adjoining the east and south property lines is St. Philip the 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 comer of the project site, along Design Commission (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff- Report.pdf, Page 1)

6. varying construction dates and architectural styles. Adjoining the east and south property7 lines is St. Philip the Apostle Church and School (the closest building to the project site is the St. Philip the Apostle Church rectory- building, which is located near the northeast comer of the project site, along Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 3 of 11 Green Street.), across East Green Street and directly north of the project site is a surface parking lot, and to the west, across South Holliston Ave is the Pasadena City College (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff- Report.pdf, Page 1)

7. JANUARY 27, 2026 1364 GREEN STREET ATTACHMENT B 01 Continue to explore and restudy the design and treatment of the south elevation in order to reduce its mass and scale and height/size of the rooftop mechanical screen due to the project's proximity to the adjacent school and playground/parking. 02 The treatment of the facades shall be further refined to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildings on the PCC campus, from which the project draws influence. 03 Reconsider and modify the design treatment of the north elevation and south and west elevations that (2026-01-27-Design- Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 1)

8. design guidelines. Height, Massing and Modulation The proposed four-story building is 79'- 0" high and is compliant with the maximum allowable height for research and development land uses. The surrounding context includes residential and institutional buildings ranging between one- to four-stories in height.... (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-l 3 64-E.- Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 9)

9. • Site Design: The proposed building is designed to encompass the entire site with the exception of the required setbacks, which are provided as follows: 8'-0" on the west side (South Holliston Avenue frontage), 15'-0" along the east and south interior lot lines, and 8'-0" on the north side (East Green Street frontage). The setback areas will also accommodate publicly accessible open spaces (PAOS), landscaping, and two driveway portals. The building exhibits a strong northward and westward orientation towards the street frontages; however, the primary facade is oriented towards East Green Street and will accommodate the main pedestrian (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf,

Page 2 ends

10. Project construction will protect these trees in place. Furthemiore, the required minimum interior setbacks at the east and south are 15'-0" from the property line. The project's 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 Page 6 of 11 Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 4)

11. adjacent school and play- ground/parking. Response The rooftop mechanical screen has been reduced by an additional I'-O", from 1S"-0" tail at Prelimi- nar>' Consultation to 15'-0" currently, for a total reduction of3'-0". In addition, the roof edge has been tapered at every elevation to reduce the project's visual weight towards its neighbors. .. (2026-01-27-Design- Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 2)

12. appropriately oriented to capture views of the mountains. The step back on the south, east, and west elevatio';3 will result in unoccupiable or inaccessible space that will help minimize views onto the a'djoining site, p£rticularly alor-;. th& south and east facades that share the boundary with St. Philip i:h2 Apostle Churcn ..^d Scriool. Preliminary Consultation 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 (2026-0 l-27-Desiga-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)

13. adjacent school and play- ground/parking. Response The rooftop mechaniical screen has been reduced by £.:-; a:^Ltional l'-0'', from 18'-0" tail ^ Prelimi- nary Consultation to 15'-0" currently, for a ratal reduction of3'-0". In addition, the roof edge has been tapered at every elevation to reduce the project's visual weight towards its neighbors... . (2026-01-27-Design- Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 2)

14. Colorado Specific Plan, Mixed-Use Neighborhood) • Design Guidelines: The applicable design guidelines are the design-related goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the 2022 ECSP, and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-family Residential Districts. • Site: The project site is 41,573 square feet, is located at the southeast comer of Green Street and Holliston Avenue, and is currently improved with a surface parking lot with 115 spaces. The project site is square in shape with a relatively flat topography and is located one block south of East (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf,Pagel)

15. EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYTEMS W/ STUCCO FINISH MTL-03 MECH SCREEN OPAQUE MTL-04 MECH SCREEN PERFOR.'MED MTL-05

CANOPY/TRELLIS GREEN ST HOLLISTON AVE SHEET NOTES LEGEND VICINITY MAP © Gensler Date Description Project Name Project Number Description Scale Seal / Signature 2025 2221 Rosecrans Ave Suite 200 El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel 310.363.4700 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Tel 213.327.3600 Fax 213.327.3601 500 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071 United States SAIFUL BOUQUET 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 (2026-01- 27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 43)

16. termination point of the building's 4th floor. However, the rooftop mechanical screen and its proposed 17-foot height depicted on Sheet PAS-A2.101, is taller than the 15-foot high 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors and visually competes with the design to the building overall and especially the intended and differentiated top section (4th floor) of the building. For this reason, condition of approval no. 4 is recommended to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to the degree possible so that the screen becomes a background feature (2026-01-27-Design- Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)

17. differentiated top section (4th floor) of the building. For this reason, condition of approval no. 4 is recommended to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to the degree possible so that the screen becomes a background feature of the building design. Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street December 9, 2025 Page 7 of 13 Preliminary 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 (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)

18. submittal will require details of the building's venting. 4. Further study the height and extent of the rooftop mechanical screen to reduce it to the degree possible and consider whether it can be maintained at a height lower than the three floors below it. If the height and extent cannot be further reduced, study ways to visually reduce its prominence through materiality, color or other means. Condition satisfied: The further studies that have been conducted, as detailed in the response to comment no. 1 below, have resulted in an additional one-foot height reduction in the mechanical screening. 5. (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-13 64- E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 3)

19. helping minimize the appearance of unresolved mass. Materials should be employed to achieve a differentiated base that anchors the building to the site, such as materials that appear heavier and/or darker.... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green- St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 8)

20. design guidelines. Architectural Style and Detailing The proposed building is designed in a contemporaiy style within a rectilinear form that features a flat roof and expansive glazing set within frames and accented with metal panels and spandrels. The front elevation facing East Green Street depicts a repeated fenestration pattern, while the remaining elevations are subtly differentiated through the shifting/staggering of the metal panels and their size to address solar orientation... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green- St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 10)

21. lot to the south. Commission Continuation Comment: 2 The treatment of the facades shall be further refined to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildings on the PCC camous. from v.hich the project draws influence. Applicant Response Pasadena City College (PCC) is comprised of buildings with distinct architectural identities. 1364 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(2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff- Report.pdf, Page 5)

22. metal accent to the material palette found at PCC. 1364 E Green St draws influence from the buildings at PCC not by copying their architecture, but by identifying specific architectural qualities and translating them to the project's unique site at the end of Green Street.... (2026- 01 -27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 5)

23. proposed design treatments and features. Compatibility The surrounding context lacks a predominant architectural precedent, but the design draws inspiration from the nearby PCC and Caltech campuses to inform the project's design, building form, and finishes to achieve 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 comer of Colorado Boulevard and Hill and Holliston Avenues on PD-35 sites... (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 10)

24. Comment 2 The treatment of the facades shall be further refined to achieve a stronger relationship to the design precedent found in buildings on the PCC campus, from which the project draws influence. Center for the Arts Sarafian Hall College Bookstore Terraces & Tones Comment 2 1 Design Precedent: 1336 E Colorado Response (cont'd) At Preliminary Consultation, the team was direct- ed to reference the proposed mixed-use develop- ment at 1336 E Colorado Blvd. At a much larger scale, this project incorporates rhythm and rep- etition but introduces several balconies and ter- races to break down its mass. (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 7)

25. PCC campus, from which the project draws influence. Response (cont'd) 1364 E Green St draws influence from the buildings at PCC not by copying their architecture, but 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... (2026-01-27-Design-Comniission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf,

Page 9 ends

26. influence from several of these notable buildings. The buildings facing Colorado Blvd - PCC's primary axis - feature restrained art deco architecture characterized by symmetry', rhythm, and a strong sense of mass. Their material palette is minimal, composed primarily of stucco, glass, and bluegreen metal. The campus also features highly contemporary buildings that diverge from classic symmetry and repetition, instead featuring irregularly 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 (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 5)

27. § 45 (part), 2000; Ord. 6229 § 2 (part), 1987) 2.80.110 - Purpose and ftinctions. A. The city council declares that the achievement of quality in the architecture and urban design of the city is required in the interest of the prosperity, social and cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the people. The purpose of this commission is to: 1. Establish procedures for developing design policies for the city; 2. Establish procedures and criteria for review of alterations to the urban and natural environments to assure appropriate design; 3. Encourage public understanding of and involvement in the design (Pasadena, CA Code of Ordinances.pdf)

28. policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Design Guidelines in the East Colorado Specific Plan (ECSP), and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood 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 (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 1)

29. • Site Design: The proposed building is designed to encompass the entire site with the exception of the required setbacks, which are provided as follows: 8-0 on the west side (South Holliston Avenue frontage), 15'-0" along the east and south interior lot lines, and 8'-0" on the north side (East Green Street frontage). The setback areas will also 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 fayade is oriented towards East Green Street and will accommodate the main pedestrian (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf,

Page 2 ends

30. OF THE FACADE LENGTH OR 20', WHICHEVER IS GREATER GREEN ST OVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" MIN REQ. FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / 10'- 0" PROPOSED FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" /15'-0" HOLLISTON AVE OVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" M1N REQ. FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH:
20'-0" / lO'-O" PROPOSED FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" FACADE AREA EACH STREET-FACING FACADE EXCEEDING 50' IN LENGTH SHALL MODULATE A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE AREA ABOVE THE FIRST STORY GREEN ST PROPOSED PERCENTAGE OF MODULATION 29% HOLLISTON AVE PROPOSED PERCENTAGE OF MODULATION 29% VICINITY MAP BUILDING

NARRATIVE ZONING INFORMATION ADDITIONAL ZONING INFORMATION TOTAL AREA (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf,

Page 23 ends

31. 1,871 X 40% - 748) PADS PROPOSED: 1,060 SF MODULATION FACADE LENGTH EACH STREET-FACING FACADE EXCEEDING 150' SHALL INCLUDE A BREAK OF AT LEAST 10% OF THE FACADE LENGTH OR 20', WHICHEVER IS GREATER GREEN ST OVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" MIN REQ. FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" PROPOSED FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'- 0" / 15'-0" HOLLISTON AVE OVERALL FACADE LENGTH: 177'-0" MIN REQ.

FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" PROPOSED FACADE BREAK LENGTH/DEPTH: 20'-0" / lO'-O" FACADE AREA EACH STREET-FACING FACADE EXCEEDING 50' IN LENGTH SHALL MODULATE A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE AREA ABOVE THE FIRST STORY (2026-01-27-Design-Conunission-3A-1364-E.-Green- St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 23)

32. - 0"LEVEL 04 47' -0"LEVEL 03 32' -0"LEVEL 0217' - 0" LOWER LEVEL 01 -10' - 0" LOWER LEVEL 02 -19' - 6" T.0. MEP SCREEN 78' - 0" LOWER LEVEL 03 -29' - 0" 01 PAS-A3.101 16' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 17' - 0" 10' - 0" 9' - 6" 9' - 6" MECHANICAL YARD STAIR TENANT IDF VESTIBULE ELEV LOBBY CORmDOR TENANT STAIR TENANT IDF VESTIBULE ELEV LOBBY CORRIDOR

MECHANICAL TENANT STAIR TENANT IDF VESTIBULE ELEV LOBBY CORRIDOR TENANT STAIR TENANT (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 51)

33. other vehicles and pedestrians in the area. Also, the Project proposes one inbound driveway on Holliston Avenue and one outbound driveway on Green Street. In general, due to the R&D land use nature of the Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 8 of 11 Project, most of the morning trips would be 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).... (2026-01-27-Design-Cormnission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff- Report.pdf, Page 6)

34. other vehicles and pedestrians in the area. Also, the Project proposes one inbound driveway on Holliston Avenue and one outbound driveway on Green Street. In general, due to the R&D land use nature of the Design Commission Concept Design Review - 1364 E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 8 of 11 Project, most of the morning trips would be inbound trips using the Holliston Avenue driveway and most of the afternoon trips would be outbound trips using the Green Street driveway (all turning right onto Green Street since it is a one-way street eastbound)... (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff- Report.pdf, Page 6)

35. proposed design was deemed to be the best option. In this design scheme, two one-way driveways will be provided at the southwest and northeast comers of the site. Their locations ensure minimal interruption to the use of the public right-of-way as well as the disruption to the site and building frontages along the streets. Additionally, the openings (and width) of the driveways correspond to the rhytlim of the ground floor facades and respect the spans of the coluirms and window frames to achieve a consistent and appropriate alignment. The southwest driveway from Holliston Avenue traverses underneath the building (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 6)

36. as well as potential impacts to the public realm. \\1iile consolidation of the two driveways into one could not be achieved due to the programmatic requirements of the project, 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 comers of the site. Their locations ensure minimal interruption to the use of the public right-of-way as well as the dismption to the site and building frontages along the streets. Additionally, the openings (and width) of the driveways correspond to the rhythm of the (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 6)

37. transportation impacts related to traffic safety Comment: Cominenters expressed concerns about the project driveways potentially conflicting with school pick-up/drop offs or with pedestrians or cross-countn' runners. Response: The transportation safety metric 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 (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 6)

38. submitted by their respective operating companies; 2. Develop and recommend to the city council objectives and criteria of design for all streetscapes and all features thereof within the public right-of-way, including, but not limited to, street lights, poles, benches, signs, hydrants, trash receptacles and other street furniture and street trees, sidewalks, parkways and special paving treatments for traffic islands and pedestrian crossings. This paragraph shall not affect the installation, maintenance or removal of traffic control devices described in Title 10 of this code, provided, however, that the commission may advise on such matters as the mounting and positioning (Pasadena, CA Code ofOrdinances.pdf)

39. the project shall.comply with the following: • Green Street is required to have a 12-foot sidewalk, consisting of a seven- foot (7') walk zone and five-foot (5') amenity zone 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. 44. 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 eight- (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTACH-A.pdf, Page 8)

40. Street by providing longer driveways within the site. This design also dramatically cleans up the project's Green Street faqa.de, its primary elevation, minimized facade cutouts for vehicular traffic, and enhances the pedestrian experience at street-level.... (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 6)

41. A mirror of the west elevation, the east elevation carries the same wider panel to reduce the overall glazing area and enhance privacy to the neighbor at the east. The staggered pattern continues, differentiates this facade from that of the north. Since Preliminary Consultation, the project's fa9ade 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 tenrace, provides relief to the 2-story residential neighbor to the east. The wider metal panels on the east fayade further (2026-01-27-Design- Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)

42. the project's visual weight towards its neighbors. The project's design provides natural shading at the 4th floor to avoid umiecessarv' light glare into the neighboring school and playground parking. The outdoor spaces at the south and east elevations are accessible for maintenance only. The windows are non-operable and the shading elements reduce the amount of full- height 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 (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf,Page4)

43. the point of view of the parking lot to the south. The existing row of trees helps to screen the building's south elevation from its neighbors. Project construction will protect these trees in place... (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 4)

44. relief to the 2-story residential neighbor to the east. The wider metal panels on the east facade further enhances privacy. " Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed. The revised design reflects a stepped 4th floor along all sides which is an improvement over the previous design in providing relief to the adjoining developments. On the north, this area will be designed as a roof terrace that will be appropriately oriented to capture views of the mountains. The step back on the south, east, and west elevations will result in unoccupiable or inaccessible space that will help minimize views onto (2026-01-27-Design-Conimission- 3A-1364-E.-Green.St ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)

45. in Attachment C. Commission Continuation Comment: 1 Continue to explore and restudy the design and treatment of the south elevation in order to reduce its mass and scale and height/size of the rooftop mechanical screen due to the project's proximity to the adjacent school and playground/parking. Applicant Response The rooftop mechanical screen has been reduced by an additional I'-O", from 18'-0" tail at Preliminary Consultation to 15'-0" currently, for a total reduction of3'-0". In addition, the roof edge has been tapered at every elevation to reduce the project's visual weight towards its neighbors. The project's design (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-l 3 64-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 4)

46. the temiination point of the building's 4th floor. However, the rooftop mechanical screen and its proposed 17-foot height depicted on Sheet PAS-A2.101, is taller than the 15-foot high 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors and visually competes with the design to the building overall and especially the intended and differentiated top section (4th floor) of the building. For this reason, condition of approval no. 4 is recommended to require the height of the rooftop mechanical screen to be studied further and explore opportunities to lower its height to the degree possible so that the screen becomes a background (2026-01-27-Design-Commission- 3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-D-F.pdf, Page 5)

47. E. Green Street January 27, 2026 Page 6 of 11 Staff Analysis: Comment satisfactorily addressed,... (2026-0 l-27-Design-Commission-3A-l 3 64-E.-Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 5)

48. - MINIMUM REQ. PER CODE LOADING SPACES - PROPOSED FAR - EXISTING FAR - MAX ALLO\\TD PER ZONING CODE FAR - PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS &

STORIES - EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS & STORIES - PROPOSED PROPOSED

LANDSCAPING PROPOSED HARDSCAPE/PAVING EXISTING ZONING AND LAND

USE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL LAND USE OCCUPANCY GROUP,

CONSTRUCTION - EXISTING OCCUPANCY GROUP, CONSTRUCTION - PROPOSED 41,573 SF N/A 93,539 SF N/A 1 N/A 117 2 PER 1,000 SF = 187 SPACES ADDITIONAL SPACES ALLOWED BY RIGHT = 93 (187 + 50%); 280 SPACES 261 SPACES O 5% OF MIN. REQ. VEHICULAR PARKING = 9 SPACES CLASS (2026-01-27-Design- Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 23)

49. PER CODE LOADING SPACES - PROPOSED FAR - EXISTING FAR-MAX

ALLOWED PER ZONING CODE FAR - PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS & STORIES - EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHTS & STORIES - PROPOSED PROPOSED.

LANDSCAPING PROPOSED HARDSCAPE/PAVING EXISTING ZONING AND LAND

USE DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL LAND USE OCCUPANCY GROUP,

CONSTRUCTION - EXISTING OCCUPANCY GROUP, CONSTRUCTION - PROPOSED 41,573 SF N/A 93,539 SF N/A 1 N/A 117 2 PER 1,000 SF = 187 SPACES ADDITIONAL SPACES ALLOWED BY RIGHT = 93 (187 + 50%); 280 SPACES 261 SPACES O 5% OF MIN. REQ. VEHICULAR PARKING = 9 SPACES CLASS 1 (75% OF (2026-01-27- Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.-Green-St_ATTCH-B-C.pdf, Page 23)

50. orientation of the building. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that the Commission determine the projec: TO be exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Envirom^ental Qualiry Act (CEQA). §15332, Class 32. In-Fiil Development Projects. Based on the technical studies prepared by EcoTienra Consulting and Fehr & Peers (Attachments E and F, no changes to these studies have been made since the previous hearing), environmental consulting firms under contract to the City, the project would not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to air quality, noise or traffic. The project is consistent with the General Plan, (2026-01-27-Design-Commission-3A-1364-E.- Green-St-Staff-Report.pdf, Page 6)

EXHIBIT C
Richard McDonald
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Erika Foy <[email protected]>
Monday, February 16, 2026 2:44 PM
[email protected],· Lyon, Jason; Hampton, Tyron; Gene Masuda; Madison, Steve; Gordo, Victor; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]
"Marquez, Miguel"; Paige, Jennifer; Siques, Joaquin; Johnson, Kevin; David Reyes; Jomsky, Mark
Please Review Attached Traffic Rebuttal and Safety Concerns - 1364 E. Green Street Caltech Innovation Traffic Concerns.docx
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Attached please find my letter regarding the independent traffic engin£e^^^^^^^^ project at U Prism Engineering. Please make the report public record for the hearing on February 23rd.

In addition, I respectfully ask that you take a few minutes to view the following drone footage, which captures existing traffic conditions on Holliston Avenue during school activity:
'S.' Drone Footage:
http£:.//yim.e.Q,c.Qm/.l.l..1..4.3m.2.4.2
What you will see in the video:
•
•
In the opening portion of the footage: vehicle queues already extending well beyond intersection approaches during school drop-off.

Midway through the video: cars stacked bumper-to-bumper along Holliston, with pedestrians — includingyoung children — navigating between stopped vehicles.

As the camera widens: the narrow width of the residential street and the proximity of the school, church, and neighborhood homes to heavy vehicle movement.

Throughout the footage: spillback conditions where congestion extends through intersections and blocks driveways.

These are existing conditions — before the addition of a 93,000+ square foot R&D facility generating over 1,000 daily trips, supported by a 260-car garage and daily commercial deliveries.

The findings in the attached letter, combined with this visual evidence, raise serious safety concerns for the 550 students at St. Philip the Apostle School, as well as pedestrians and parishioners who rely on Holtiston Avenue every day.

At a minimum, the issues identified warrant a more thorough operational analysis during actual school peak hours and meaningful consideration of redirecting project access to Green Street. 1 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to urge you to carefully review and support the findings contained in the independent traffic engineering rebuttal regarding the proposed project at 1364 E.

Green Street, known as the Caltech Research & Development project. The report raises significant safety concerns related to increased traffic around the approximately 550 children who attend St. Philip the Apostle School each day, as well as the pedestrians and parishioners who call this neighborhood home.

Most importantly, the rebuttal identifies a fundamental flaw: the City's traffic study did not evaluate conditions during the actual peak conflict times — morning drop-off (7:30- 8:30 a.m.) and aft9.''n3o", pick-up (2:45-3:45 p.m.). These are precisely the periods when vehicle queues form, pedestrians are concentrated, and street capacity is fully utilized. It is clearly when the risk of accidents is highest.

Holliston Avenue is not a high-capacity corridor. It is a narrow residential street that already experiences standing vehicle queues twice daily due to school operations.

During these windows, traffic does not flow — it stops. Vehicles back up through intersections and block driveways. Adding approximately 1,036 daily project trips, including 90-100 vehicles per hour, into this constrained environment without a true operational analysis is deeply concerning. The inclusion of a 260-space underground parking structure and a muiti-truck loading dock reflects the scale and intensity of use being introduced.

The rebuttai report also highlights:

A documented 620-foot vehicle backup at the southbound left-turn lane at Hill and Del Mar — meaning cars routinely stack up for more than two football fields.

While the overall intersection was given a passing grade, this specific movement is already overwhelmed and regularly spills back into the roadway. • The absence of a proper traffic operations or microsimulation analysis for closely spaced intersections, where congestion and spillback are known to occur.

Using "General Office" modeling assumptions rather than a Research & Development land use category may underestimate trip characteristics and patterns.

A generalized growth-rate methodology that does not reflect real-world traffic impacts from recently approved developments.

It is highly unusual that private residents and parishioners would feel compelled to retain their own licensed traffic engineer simply to understand what they experience daily on their own street. This step was not taken lightly. It was taken because what parents and neighbors see every day — long queues, blocked driveways, unsafe passing, and intersection spillback — did not appear to be reflected in the City's conclusions.

I have also been informed that none of the substantive issues raised in the independent rebuttai were directly addressed in the City's response. That lack of engagement is concerning, particuiariy given that the City recently adopted updated traffic analysis standards intended to strengthen transparency and analytical rigor. Those policies should be applied consistently and meaningfully here.

Importantly, the rebuttal proposes a reasonable and feasible alternative: redirecting primary project access to Green Street, a higher-capacity roadway, rather than concentrating all access onto Holliston Avenue. This adjustment would materially reduce conflict with school traffic and pedestrian activity. Quite frankly, Holliston Avenue cannot safely absorb what is being proposed.

This is not opposition to innovation, land rights, or responsible development. It is about ensuring that development is analyzed honestly, mitigated appropriately, and designed to protect children, pedestrians, and neighborhood streets.

Before approving this project, I respectfully ask that the City:

1. Require a full traffic operations analysis, including microsimulation of the Hill/Del Mar/Cordova corridor.

2. Analyze traffic during actual school peak hours.

3. Reevaluate trip generation assumptions specific to R&D land use.

4. Redesign access to Green Street to avoid concentrating traffic on Holliston.

5. Fully acknowledge and address the existing two-football-field vehicle backup at Hi!! and Del Mar before adding more traffic to an already strained corridor.

Good planning requires looking beyond average numbers and examining what is truly happening on the ground. Pasadena's 140-year legacy of thoughtful planning is what makes this city exceptional. That legacy should not be compromised by overlooking legitimate safety concerns.

The safety of children, parishioners, and neighbors must remain paramount. Once safety is diminished, it is extraordinarily difficult to restore.

I respectfully ask you to slow down, require a more complete analysis, and ensure that this project fits the neighborhood it is entering.

Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to community safety.

Respectfully,
Erika Foy
I

EXHIBIT D

CITY OF PASADENA
City Council Minutes
December 4, 2023 - 5:30 P.M.

City Hall Council Chamber
OPENING:

ROLL CALL:

Councilmembers:

Staff:

CEREMONIAL MATTERS
Mayor Gordo called the regular meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. The pledge of allegiance was fed by Vice Mayor Williams. (Absent:

Councilmember Rivas)
Mayor Victor M. Gordo
Vice Mayor Felicia Williams
Councilmember Tyron Hampton
Councilmember Justin Jones
Councilmember Jason Lyon
Councilmember Steve Madison
Councilmember Gene Masuda
Councilmember Jessica Rivas (arrived at 7:15 p.m.)
City Manager Miguel Marquez
City Attorney/City Prosecutor Michele Beat Bagneris
City Clerk Mark Jomsky
Mayor Gordo presented commendations to the following long-time employees celebrating 40 and 35 years of service with the City:

Marcia L. Tagiioretti, Police Department 40 years
Robert G. Herrera, Library & Information Services 35 years Derek C. Massengale, Library & Information Services 35 years Elidia M. Gonzalez, Planning Department 35 years
Karen C. Peterson, Police Department 35 years
Joseph J. Armstrong, Water & Power Department 35 years
Martin G. Lopez, Water & Power Department 35 years
Emory M, Mack, Water & Power Department 35 years
Mayor Gordo requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of James Robenson, Pasadena Police Department's first Black police chief; he reflected on Chief Robenson's accomplishments during his administration.

Councilmember Madison expressed condolences for the recent passings of former Los Angeles County District Attorney Robert Philibosian, former Descanso Gardens Director David Brown, and finance mogul Charlie Munger; he reflected on their impacts and various contributions to the City.

Mayor Gordo also requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of the passing of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, former Grand Marshall of the Rose Parade; and expressed gratitude for her advocacy and devotion to public service.

Council Minutes112/04/2023
PUBLIC HEARINGSZONING CODE AMENDMENT: TO AMEND THE CITY'S EXISTING

REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT (R&D) LAND USES (INCLUDING LIFE SCIENCES)
(Planning Dept.)
City Clerk Jomsky opened the public hearing; reported that the public hearing notice was published in the Pasadena Press on November 20, November 27, and November 30, 2023; and that six letters in support of the staff recommendation and/or providing comments on the matter were received by the City Clerk's Office, distributed to the City Council, posted online, and made part of the public record.

The following individuals expressed comments in support of the staff recommendation:

Melanie Cohn, Senior Director of Regional Policy and
Government Affairs with Biocom California
Charles Lites, Director of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations at ZenCorp
Casey O'Neill, representative from Biocom California
Councilmember Hampton thanked staff for their work on this item; highlighting the positive impacts that the jobs and careers to be created through these initiatives will have on the community.

It was moved by Councilmember Hampton, seconded by Vice Mayor Williams, to close the public hearing. (Motion unanimously approved.) (Absent: None)
Following discussion, Councilmember Hampton advocated for allowing Pasadena School Unified District to determine the best use of their properties (in relation to R&D uses at vacant school sites).

Councilmember Madison expressed concerns that vacant school properties in residential neighborhoods may not be viable or suitable sites for research and development uses/businesses.

Mayor Gordo also expressed concerns with R&D uses of vacant school sites in neighborhoods; and suggested that the use of vacant schools for non-educational purposes be carved out of the proposed ordinance if the location is in residential areas to prevent traffic and employment impacts on neighborhoods.

It was moved by Coundlmember Hampton, seconded by Vice Mayor Williams, to reopen the public hearing. (Motion unanimously approved) (Absent: None)
Mic Hansen, Planning Commission Chair, provided details on the Planning Commission's discussion of this item, which it was her understanding that the R&D uses proposed referred to schools such as Pasadena Community College, Cal Tech, and other schools in the large Council Minutes1012/04/2023
MOTION:

PS zones; and stated that the Commission did not discuss the public schools in residential areas aspect.

Mayor Gordo expressed concerned for the uses that are currently allowed in PS zones and emphasized that the conditional use permits (CUP) for vacant school sites in residential neighborhoods be appropriate and compatible for the surrounding area.

Discussion ensued regarding the potential uses of the vacant schools in PS zones, drafting an ordinance to carve out public school properties in residential neighborhoods, and returning the item to the Planning Commission for further review and discussion.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Williams, seconded by Councilmember Hampton, to close the public hearing. (Motion unanimously approved) (Absent: None)
Following discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Hampton, seconded by Councilmember Masuda, to approve staff
recommendation, amended as follows: prohibiting Research and Development (R&D) uses at K-12 school sites that are in PS Zones, with direction to City staff to work with the Planning Commission on possible uses and to report back in 8 months. (Motion unanimously approved) (Absent: None)
ZONiNG CODE AMENDMENT: TO AMEND THE CIPlf'S
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (SECTION 17.50.275

OF THE ZONING CODE AND OTHER APPLICABLE SECTIONS) TO

ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH RECENTLY ADOPTING STATE

REGULATIONS AND TO FACILITATE THE PRODUCTION OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (Planning Dept.)
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council:
(1) Find that the proposed amendments in the agenda report are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under California Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 in that the proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment further implements the provisions of Section 65852.2 of the California Government Code; (2) Make the Findings for Approval for the Zoning Code Text Amendment (Attachment A of the agenda report); and
(3) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the Zoning Code Text Amendment within 90 days consistent with the provisions set forth in the agenda report.

Recommendation of the Planning Commission: On October 11, 2023 (Attachment B of the agenda report), the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments at a publicly noticed hearing and recommended, by a unanimous vote, that the City Council approve the Zoning Code Text Amendment as presented by staff, with the following changes:

Council Minutes1112/04/2023

EXHIBIT E
Biocom
California
How Local Governments Can Attract More Life Science Companies Case Study I City of Pasadena
Background
Many cities in California convey a desire to attract life science firms - especially since the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the industry's economic and health contributions - but not all of them are aware that small changes to local policy can go a long way to help life science thrive.

In early 2022, member companies in Pasadena approached Biocom California to share insight into how local hazardous materials and zoning rules could be changed to spur industry growth. What they needed was to get in front of the right policymakers with a unified voice. This is where we came in.

As life science advocacy experts, we leverage our dedicated and experienced team to tackle policy change directly with key stakeholders and local policymakers, relationships that have been built over" the course of nearly three decades. In collaboration with our members, we initiate comprehensive policy changes aimed at bolstering our industry, and our team provides technical assistance throughout the process.

Process
In March 2022, we began an 18-month endeavor to change the local hazardous materials ordinance and the land use zoning codes.

First the City of Pasadena changed its regulatory reporting rules through a Fire Department recommendation to City Council. Businesses were previously required to report "any quantity" of a hazardous material; this was updated in August 2022 to adopt the reporting thresholds in California state law.

The city's Planning Department then set about tackling the land use zoning code. Through a series of hearings, planning staff presented a package of zoning changes that included:
• Updating the definition of Research and Development (R&D) to remove the distinction between office and non-office.
• Removing the Conditional Use Permit requirement for R&D in non-residentia! and mixed-use zones, and allowing R&D with a Conditional Use Permit in public zones. • Changing parking requirements to allow 2-3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. • Allowing total building height to exceed base zone height by 12 feet by-right to accommodate mechanical equipment between floors.
. Increasing the amount of rooftop area that can be occupied by mechanica! equipment to 75%. . Exempting mechanical spaces from FAR requirements.
. Reducing open space requirements up to 60% by-right.
• Removing the ground floor prohibition for R&D uses in the East Colorado and South Fair Oaks Specific Plans.
ff SM--;
•*.
^.•f'fS::l'^s'sM'^MSS'vKff^^S^
^-^r^^.
€
?
9 a*s
11 v
K
^
y
M
At each hearing, Biocom California and our
members were on hand to speak in support
of the changes, which received final
approval in December 2023.

BBSs;
slr»
•!
B/'ocom California's Melanie Cohn and Casey O'Neill testifying in support of the changes at the December City Council meeting.

Timeline to Approval
March 2022 - First meeting with the City of Pasadena on hazardous materials I
August 2022 - Council approved hazmat changes & led to zoning change conversations February 2023 - City staff began drafting zoning changes I
July 2023 - Zoning changes introduced to City Council
August 2023 - Second hearing & study session
September 2023 - Stakeholder meeting between industry & city staff October 2023 - Planning Commission approval
December 2023 - City Council approval
^
Outcome
These hazardous materials and zoning changes send a message to the life science industry that Pasadena is a top destination for our companies to locate and grow. Making small changes to local policies can go a long way for research facilities that operate under stringent regulatory guidelines.

Biocom California is proud to have guided the City of Pasadena through these legislative changes, which are a shining example of how governments can create additional employment opportunities for people of all backgrounds.

Contact Melanie Cohn, Senior Director of Regional Policy and Government Affairs, at [email protected] to begin conversations on making your city more life science friendly.

KW
Ran••KNA.boutBiocom California!
B!BS:';:; Blocom .California is the'largest,amdst experienced;:
leader and advocate for California's life science
sector. We work with all levels of government to
collectively pursue outcomes that benefit regional
BKfcllfe sclence growth and contribute to a more
innovation-friendlv state.
aedsE-i.:
li
*'1«S i,3m iHte
^ t
a;s;
"w:

Biocom Californiabiocbm.brg/Ios-angeles

EXHIBIT F
December 4, 2023
City of Pasadena
100 North Garfield Ave.

Pasadena, CA 91101

RECEIVED
5823CEC-4 PU 3^9
C;T / .i..^K_
Cn-YOF PA3ADENA
talz<^r
Lilly USA, LLC
Lilly Corporate Center
Indianapolis, Indiana A6285
U.S A
www.lilly.com
Submitted electronically: correspondence(a).cityofpasadena,net:

Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendments to Support Research & Development Activities Dear Mayor Gordo and Councilmembers,
Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) respectfully requests your support for the proposed zoning code amendments to accelerate important discoveries in pharmaceutical research. Lilly considers a variety of factors when deciding to site and expand facilities, including a good general business climate. Beneficial zoning laws can be an important factor in attracting new investment.

Specifically, we request that you support the following important changes to the zoning code; Ease Conditional Use Permit (CUP), parting. Floor Area Ration (FAR), and open space requirements;
Allow for increased building heights and greater appurtenance roof coverage; Simplify the definition of "Research and Development" (R&D) by removing the distinction between office and non-ofifice; and
Modernize the R&D definition to include current R&D uses like the design, development, and testing of biological, chemical, electrical, magnetic, mechanical, and/or optical components.

We would also request that the city revisit restrictions on first floor utilization as ofiRce space when related to research and development activities. Additionally, it could be beneficial to reconsider the current restrictions on parking to only allow for 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet in areas identified as transit-oriented.

Lilly unites caring with discovery to create medicines that make life better for people around the world.

For more than 140 years, we have worked tirelessly to develop and deliver trusted medicines and diagnostics that meet real needs. Our growing portfolio of medicines includes treatments in the areas of bone muscle joint, cancer, cardiovascular, diabetes, endocrine, immunology, neurodegeneration, neuroscience, and pain.

At Protomer Technologies, we are engineering next-geaeration protein therapeutics that can sense molecular activators in the body to automatically activate as needed. Using our proprietary protein- engineering platform, we develop therapeutic proteins that can sense molecular activators, achieve variable dosing and targeted delivery.

Protomer's chemical biology-based MBPS platform enables the development ofnext-generation therapeutic proteins that can be controlled using molecular activators. Post-injection tuning of a therapeutic protein's activity is a powerful approach to increase safety and efficacy. MEPS brings a truly personalized medicine approach to injectable proteins, allowing a variable dosing regimen that best fits each person's unique physiology and response to therapy. MBPS also enables rapid tum-on, and turn-off 12/04/2023
Item 14
ec:
capability for automatic activity control and targeted therapies with dual homing to reduce off-target effects.

Pasadena has become a hub for the life science industry in the Greater Los Angeles region. The city recognizes the value of supporting Pasadena's cluster of life science facilities and has adopted policies to attract and retain emerging industries in Pasadena. The life science industry comprises companies working in the scientific research and development of products that improve the lives of Californians and people around the world. Over the last several months, staff has worked closely with the City Council's Economic Development and Technology Committee (ED Tech), Planning Commission, Economic Development Department staff and industry stakeholders to develop recommendations to further facilitate life science uses, classified as Research and Development (R&D) in the Zoning Code.

The City of Pasadena has come a long way since early community discussions about zoning code changes to support the life sciences industry and we want to thank all parties involved and the public at large for their investment of time and energy into this important project.

We appreciate the opportunity to express our support for these changes that will help us make medicines that will make life better for people around the world. We request your support for the zoning changes proposed in the Planning Commission staff report.

Sincerely,
^AL^^.^I^
William S. Reid
Vice President, State Government Affairs ,
Members of the Pasadena City Council
Alborz Mahdavi, Vice President LRL and CEO ofProtomer Technologies Jack Steele, Chief Operating Officer ofProtomer Technologies

EXHIBIT G
A non-refundable flat fee, based on the current General Fee Schedule, is required for plan review and on-going monitoring during construction. This plan shall show 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 Contra! Devices (MUTCD) and California Supplement.

If the public right-of-way occupation requires a diagram that is not a part of the MUTCD or California Supplement, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted as part of 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 Genera! 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, orACMs, in accordance with the US EPA definition ofACM. 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 ofACMs and ACCMs to be abated. Asbestos abatement methods must comply with Title 8, Section 1529 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403.

Excavation Conditions:

32. Contractor shall show certification that it is a state approved environmentai remediation firm.

33. All work must comply with the City of Pasadena "Utility Excavation Permits - Policies and Procedures.

34. Air monitoring data shall be recorded and copies provided daily to the City of Pasadena.

35. If exposure levels exceed 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter, then it is mandatory that respiratory protection be worn and exposure levels reduced to the extent feasible.

36. The work shall be registered with CAL OSHA by the permittee and comply with CAL OSHA regulations.

37. All liquids will be vacuumed and disposed of at a designated, licensed disposal facility.

Vacuum equipment shall be equipped with a HEPA filter.

38. The composite structural section of asphalt on concrete shall be removed in one unit to the extent practical to minimize asbestos exposure.

39. The excavation area shall be constantly sprayed with water to control dust and other airborne particles.

40. Technicians will wear Personal Pump Air Monitoring devices as well as utilize air sniffers as required by taw.

41. All personnel will wear the appropriate level of personal protection equipment and full face respirators with HEPA filter cartridges while in the work zone.

42. All personnel must have appropriate training in the removal of hazardous materials.

43. The foliowing prohibitions apply:
(a) Using compressed air to remove asbestos or asbestos containing material. (b) Dry sweeping, shoveling or other dry clean-up of dust and debris containing asbestos.
(c) Employee rotation as a means of reducing employee exposure to asbestos.

De pa rtm ent of T ra ns portati o n

44. In accordance with City Ordinance No. 7157 and PMC Chapter 10.64, the project is subject to the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) requirements. • Per the requirements, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to receipt of the 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 seven- foot (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.

McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Erika Foy
Friday, February 27, 2026 3:44 PM
Jomsky, Mark; Marquez, Miguel; Paige, Jennifer; Gordo, Victor; Sell, Timothy Rivas, Jessica; Lyon, Jason; Hampton, Tyron; Masuda, Gene; Madison, Steve; Cole, Rick; Jones, Justin; PublicComment-AutoResponse; Thyret, Pam; Mikaelian, Jason; Johnson, Kevin
Request for CEQA Clarification - 1364 E. Green Street
R & D Scope 1364 East Green Street.pdf
[A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you frnowthe content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Asa longtime Pasadena resident and parishioner of St. Philip the Apostle for nearly three decades, I am submitting the attached letter regarding the proposed R&D project at 1364 E. Green Street.

My primary concern is that the full range of Laboratory containment levels permitted under the City's broad R&D designation was not expressly analyzed as part of the CEQA review. The ordinance does not distinguish between laboratory intensities, and the environmental documentation does not define the containment envelope reasonably contemplated under this approval — particularly given the project's immediate adjacency to a grade school.

I appreciate that Caltech has indicated it does not intend to operate above BSL-2 levels in this facility.

However, CEQA review is intended to evaluate reasonablyforeseeable impacts associated with the land use being approved, not solely current operational intent. Land use entitlements run with the property, and operational intensity can evolve overtime.

For that reason, I believe the containment spectrum encompassed within the R&D zoning category should have been clearly addressed within the scope of the CEQA analysis.

I respectfully request that my attached Letter be included in the official record.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Erika Foy
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
Subject: Clarification Requested Regarding Scope of R&D Use and CEQA Review - 1364 E. Green Street
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to raise a concern that is not the central issue in this appeal but warrants serious and deliberate consideration.

Section 17.50.240 of the Pasadena Municipal Code provides height and floor area incentives for Research & Development facilities. As written, the code treats R&D as a permitted land use and does not distinguish between varying intensities of research activity. The designation encompasses a broad range of potential uses — from office-based innovation to laboratory-based research involving chemical or biological materials — without defining an operational ceiling.

Laboratory research in the United States is regulated under federally defined biosafety levels (BSL-1 through BSL-4), which reflect progressively greater containment, ventilation, and operational requirements. These classifications directly determine core building systems, including air pressure controls, filtration, access restrictions, and waste handling infrastructure. While higher-containment laboratories, such as BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities, are rare and subject to significant state and federal regulation, the City's R&D zoning designation does not distinguish among laboratory intensities. For context, BSL-4 represents the highest level of laboratory containment in the United States and involves highly specialized, purpose-built facilities with extensive federal oversight; although uncommon, it illustrates the upper end of the nationally recognized containment spectrum. The environmental documentation does not specify the containment envelope contemplated for this project or define the reasonably foreseeable upper range of laboratory activity authorized under this approval.

I respectfully ask whether, when Section 17.50.240 was adopted, the Council evaluated the full range of laboratory containment levels encompassed within the R&D designation — including those not expressly distinguished in the ordinance — and whether any operational limitations were intended when such facilities are located adjacent to sensitive receptors such as schools. The ordinance does not specify containment levels, and it is unclear from the record what operational envelope was contemplated when these incentives were adopted.

I understand that Caltech has shared that it does not currently intend to operate laboratory functions at BSL-2 levels or higher within this facility, and I appreciate that clarification, hlowever, those representations are not reflected in the zoning entitlement or environmental documentation. Land use approvals run with the property, and institutional missions, research needs, and tenancy can evolve overtime. Future changes in laboratory intensity would be governed primarily by building and fire codes rather than by renewed discretionary land-use review. That distinction is significant.

The environmental review evaluates traffic, air quality, noise, and vibration. However, it does not analyze the reasonably foreseeable range of research intensities permitted under the R&D land use category. The project is modeled largely as an office-equivalent use for transportation purposes, and the operational analysis evaluates general emissions, but it does not address laboratory exhaust systems, hazardous material inventories, or the containment spectrum permitted by the zoning designation.

This is not an allegation of unsafe activity. It is a question of scope, clarity, and governance.

When Section 17.50.240 was adopted, it was appropriately framed as an economic development tool to support innovation and scientific advancement. However, the application of that broad incentive structure to a site directly adjacent to a grade school raises a legitimate question about whether additional operational clarity should accompany such approvals.

As Pasadena continues to encourage scientific and technological innovation —which I support — it may be appropriate for the City to consider whether R&D incentives should include additional disclosure, conditional limitations, or review mechanisms when projects are located adjacent to schools or other sensitive receptors. At a minimum, the CEQA documentation should clearly acknowledge the range of laboratory intensities permitted and explain the containment envelope reasonably contemplated under this entitlement.

Approving a broad R&D entitlement adjacent to a school without clearly defining its operational envelope, including the permitted range of laboratory intensities, sets a precedent. That precedent deserves to be examined openly and deliberately, not assumed.

Respectfully,
Erika Foy District 7

Pasadena City CouncilMarch 2, 2026

Pasadena City Council
March 2, 2026