AR 10 SUPP CORR PART 4 CORRESPONDENCE PART 4 — Pasadena City Council, March 2, 2026

McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 10:23 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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,
All of the arguments made by the project proponent are not specific to this location. This parcel is just the wrong place for it. There are many places in Pasadena where it would fit welt and the project component could meet all their goals and improve the City and local community without reducing the quality of this community and the education and socializing and athleticsof children. The City needs to do the right thing and help redirect this project to an appropriate location and keep the character and children in this community flourishing. This is more important to the City then forcing this project into this location. I am also writing as a St. Philip the Apostle parishioner who believes we must protect the places that anchor our community. Our churches, schools, and long-estabtished 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 community together. Pasadena has long been admired for thoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential.

Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you to ensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough review and are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not opposition to progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.

Sincerely,
Marc Blain
Pasadena, CA 91104 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPotitics 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] 103/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 10:26 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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,
As a Pasadena resident I would urge our city to insist on an environmental study before any kind of approval. Let's make sure this does harm the nearby residents and children of St. Phillips Parish school.

Sincerely,
Myrna McLane
Pasadena, CA 91103 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 10:29 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods - 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 hundreds of schoolchildren — 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. Thankyou.

Sincerely,
Robert and Angelina McKeon
b _.._.._„
South Pasadena. CA 91030 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneCUckPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 103/02/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 10:54 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Pasadena - 1364 East Green
[ I,] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 -1364 East Green
Mr. MarkJomsky,
As a resident of Pasadena I write with concern regarding the currently proposed development at 1364 East Green. Overall, the proposed R & D laboratory complex seems out of place in the immediately surrounding neighborhood, both in terms of proposed use and proposed scale. The proposed development is located in a largely residential neighborhood next to a grade school, childcare center, an active church, and established apartments-uses significantly different from a commercial lab.The proposed building's height of 79 feet would make it significantly taller than the surrounding neighborhood buildings. In short, the building as designed seems out of place in the neighborhood. To be clear, an appropriately chosen and scaled project, such as an apartment building or condo complex, could be an excellent addition to the neighborhood. Finally, It is my understanding that no full Environmental Impact Report was required with respect to this proposal. Due to the array of activities in the surrounding area, I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full environmental review before this project proceeds. Thank you for your careful consideration.

Sincerely,
Ann Clary
Pasadena, CA 91106 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]
Monday, March 2, 2026 10:55 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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: Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship /1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing asa Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish isa sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena's architectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a safe and respectful surrounding environment. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Construction activity of this intensity raises serious concerns about noise, vibration, traffic, and access, including the potential for Masses, funerals, weddings, and otherworship services to be disrupted. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a height exceedingwhatwas envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Not only does this building not fit this space but it severely goes against the historic Pasadena aesthetic that we, as residents, have worked hard to uphold. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:05 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Please Require Full Review for 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 Require Full Review for 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I believe Pasadena can embrace innovation while still protecting its neighborhoods. Growth and community safety should advance together, not in conflict. Unfortunately, the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street falls short of that balance. This is not about opposing science, it's about requiring more science. It is about ensuring transparency and rigorous review. Although described as part of a startup ecosystem, most of the building is reportedly intended for a large outside biotechnology company. The site sits directly beside schools, homes, and a historic church. Yet the project is moving forward under a CEQA exemption, bypassing a full Environmental Impact Report. That means important questions about safety, traffic, and environmental effects have not been fully examined or shared with the public.

Pasadena deserves development that conducts a full Environmental Impact Report for projects of this size and intensity and carefully studies public health, traffic flow, and operational impacts before approval. Recent code changes have made it easier for projects to exceed traditional neighborhood standards. We must ensure those changes do not undermine thoughtful planning. Please require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that this project reflects Pasadena's commitment to safety, transparency, and community character. Thankyou.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:10 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Personal Concern About 1364 E. Green Street [ fe ] 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 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 week to pray, find peace, and feel close to God. Our church, designed by Roland Coate, is a beautiful and historic place, and the quiet and reverence of the space mean so much to those of us 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 forthe common good (Gaudium et Spes). I do not feel that approving this project without a full environmental review reflects that care. I respectfully ask the City Council to require that this project follow the 51 -foot height limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan and undergo a thorough environmental review that truly considers noise, vibration, and construction hours. Please allow this project to return in a form that respects our church, our worship, and the people who depend on it. Thank you for listening to my concerns and for protecting the communities that make Pasadena special.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:15 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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: Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing to express my support for responsible development and innovation in our city, while emphasizing the importance of projects that are contextual and protect sensitive uses.The proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street raises significant concerns regarding its compatibility with our neighborhoods, schools, and churches. While I support Caltech and its contributions to our community, this project has not been shown to meet safety standards or to align with the Pasadena community's priorities as outlined in our adopted plans. I respectfully request that the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that 1364 E. Green Street proceeds only if it truly protects nearby schools, churches, homes, and children. Any approval should be contingent upon a thorough environmental analysis demonstrating that operations will not pose risks to residents or sensitive uses.

Recent amendments to the municipal code have allowed projects that may introduce health, traffic, and safety hazards to nearby neighborhoods. I encourage the Council to revisit its November 2023 modification to the R&D Land Use regulations, which should limit developments to commercial and industrial corridors (e.g., Fair Oaks, Raymond, Arroyo Parkway, Lake Avenue, and Colorado Blvd) rather than to minor streets such as Holliston, Catalina, and Green. Pasadena's growth should be safe, contextually appropriate, and enhance the community. I urge the City Council to ensure that the 1364 E.

Green Street project proceeds only if it meets these standards and reflects our city's vision and values.

Thank you for your attention to these concerns and your continued service to our community.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:15 AM
PubticComment-AutoResponse
Accountability and Safety for 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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: Accountability and Safety for 1364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
Pasadena has long supported innovation, and I do as well. However, responsible governance requires that development be matched with accountability and public safety. The 1364 E. Green Street proposal does not currently meet that expectation. This is not anti-science. It is pro-transparency. While framed as supporting entrepreneurship, the majority of the proposed 79-foot facility is expected to house a large external biotechnology company. Given its location next to a TK-8 school, childcare facilities, homes, and a church, it is concerning that the project is advancing under a CEQA exclusion without a full Environmental Impact Report. Significant safety, traffic, and environmental questions remain unanswered. At minimum, the City should ensure a full Environmental Impact Report and clear disclosure and evaluation of health, traffic, and operational risks. Broad amendments to the R&D code should not override careful planning principles. Growth must enhance public trust, not erode it. I respectfully ask the City Council to pause and require a full review before allowing this project to proceed.Thankyou.

Sincerely,

RUBENJAQUEZ
ALHAMBRA,CA 91803 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 1 1:20 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Ensure Responsible Growth at 1364 Green Street
[ 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: Ensure Responsible Growth at 1364 Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a resident who supports thoughtful development, world-class innovation, and the important role institutions like Caltech play in our beautiful city. I believe Pasadena can continue to grow and thrive. At the same time, growth must be safe, transparent, and compatible with the neighborhoods in which it is proposed.I am concerned that the proposed R&D project at 1364 E. Green Street has not been adequately demonstrated to be safe, given its location next to a grade school, an active church, childcare center, and established residential neighborhoods. The environmental review does not appear to sufficiently address potential health, traffic, and quality-of-life impacts on these sensitive uses.

Growth should never come at the expense of students, parishioners, families, and neighbors who rely on these spaces every day. I respectfully ask the City Council to require a full environmental analysis before the project moves forward. Decisions of this magnitude should be grounded in clear, thorough information so the community can have confidence that impacts are fully understood and responsibly addressed. I also encourage the Councilto revisit the November 2023 General Plan modification that allowed R&D facilities citywide. R&D facilities with increased height allowances should be concentrated along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake areas designed to accommodate larger-scale development—rather than on streets directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Pasadena's long history of careful planning is one of its strengths. I urge you to ensure that growth enhances our community, protects neighborhood livability, and maintains public trust in the planning process. Thankyou foryour sen/ice and your consideration.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 1 1:25 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Support Innovation While Safeguarding Pasadena Communities: 1364 E. Green St. [ Dla] 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: Support Innovation While Safeguarding Pasadena Communities: 1364 E. Green St.

Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a Local resident who supports responsible development, innovation, and the important contributions of institutions such as Caltech. At the same time, I believe that tand-use decisions must be grounded in sound planning principles, adequate environmental review, and compatibility with surrounding sensitive uses. Despite its proximity to sensitive uses—including hundreds of schoolchildren—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 require a full Environmental Impact Report and prioritize public safety. Projects of this scale and R&D lab operations next to schools and homes demand thorough, transparent review. Health, traffic, and operational impacts must be clearly evaluated before approval. More broadly, I encourage the Council to revisit its November 2023 General Plan modification that permitted R&D facilities citywide. We believe this policy change, particularlywhen coupled with increased height allowances, warrants further refinement. Concentrating higher-intensity R&D uses along established commercial corridors such as Fair Oaks, Colorado, and Lake would better align with long-standing planning practices and reduce conflicts with residential neighborhoods, including streets such as Green. Finally, I am concerned that recent broad amendments to the R&D code were adopted without sufficient analysis of their cumulative and site-specific effects near sensitive land uses. These amendments have enabled projects that may introduce traffic, health, and safety impacts in locations previously buffered by zoning and planning controls. We believe this represents a breakdown in the process that should be corrected through careful policy review and clearer development standards. I urge the City Council to require a full Environmental Impact Report and ensure that 1 364 E. Green Street proceeds only if it truly protects nearby schools, churches, homes, and children. Our city's safety, accountability, and quality of life are at stake. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

PASADENA BIG

COLLABORATIVE INCUBATOR
Date: March 2, 2026

RECEIVED
2826MAR-2 4M{(:35
_ CITY CLERK
,, CITT OF PASADENA
Board of Directors
Interim President
Chairman of the Board
Mr. Eric Duyshart
EPMD Consulting LLC
Secretary/Treasurer
Janice Ohta
Biotechnology Lecturer/Consultant
Dr. Alison Baskl
Dean, College of Science
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Dr. Jacob Berlin
CEO, Terray Therapeutics
Dr. Robert Bishop
Former CEO Autoimmune, Inc
Mr. Craig Chrisney
Former CFO, IdeaLab
Mr. MarkDixon
COO. HMRI
Dr. Jose Gomez
Superintendent/President
Pasadena City College
Mr. David Klug
Economic Development Director
City of Pasadena
Dr. Sheldon M. Schuster
President and Professor
Keck Graduate Institute, Claremont
Legal Counsel
Richard Jones Esq
Nixon Peabody LLP
Advisory Council
Dr. Elizabeth Ambos
Council on Undergraduate Research, ret.

Dr. John Baldeschwieler
California Institute of Technology
Dr. Susan Baxter
Former CSUPERB Lead, BIO 1-Corps
Mr. Fred Farina
California Institute of Technology
Dr. Mike Giardello
Mt. Wilson Ventures
Dr. Wendie Johnston
Los Angeles/Orange County Biotech Center
Dr. Susan Kane
City of Hope, ret., HMRI
Dr. Sandra Sharp
California State University, Los Angeles, ret
Attention: Pasadena City Council
Subject: 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena - Council Agenda item #10 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
The proposed project at 1 364 E. Green Street aligns well with the City's recently updated specific plan and zoning codes which encourage research activity. The Design Commission's support and City staff's recommendation of the project represents an important part of implementing the City's vision, which includes taller buildings at this section of East Colorado Blvd./Green Street. The proposed structure is attractive, functional, and in alignment with the City's rules.

The proposal represents an important element in Pasadena's research infrastructure that will directly benefit scientists, students, and the Pasadena community. The project will provide space for discovery and strengthen the city as a scientific hub.

The Pasadena Bio Collaborative Incubator has housed nearly 100 life science and environmental start-up companies over the past 23 years while also supporting student training activities. We are a proud part of the local ecosystem that supports the bright people in our community that strive to improve human and environmental health.

Thankyouforyour time and attention.

Sincerely,
Eric Duyshart, President
Pasadena Bio Collaborative Incubator
Pasadena Bio Collaborative • 2265 E. Foothill Blvd. • Pasadena, CA • 91107 • (626) 507-8487 • Fax (626) 765-3919 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

James Rawitsch <
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:39 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Public Comment - March 2, 2025 - Caltech Science/Business Incubator Some people who received this message don't often get email from. Learn why this is important [ ! ] 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.

I write in support of the Caltech science/business incubator project on East Green Street. I've been a part of the Pasadena community for more than four decades and have lived within blocks of the project for 16 years.

My wife and I support and attend services at St. Philip the Apostle Church. I also treasure Caltech as a community amenity. I believe this development can contribute enormously to the future of our city.

Project opponents say that the project will bring unwanted traffic and pedestrian risks to the neighborhood. They say the building is too big and would overshadow neighboring properties.

Though the project has been proposed and reviewed consistent with applicable laws and zoning, opponents seek further environmental review. Please let's be realistic.

The development site stands adjacent to a large church and school. The operations at this site already generate hundreds of car trips daily in the neighborhood. Nearby, Pasadena City College logs thousands more daily visits, and bus traffic, too. Within a few blocks, Caltech, as a major employer and globally important institution of higher learning, servingthousands more students, staff, visitors and others on a daily basis.

I consider myself luckyto live in such a wonderful, teeming, energetic environment. The streets in the neighborhood are not silent, and the proposed new use will not significantly affect the character or volume of existing traffic flows or noise. A few hundred more cars in the area won't significantly impact our safety or quality of life—which are thankfully quite high.

The height of the proposed building also would do Little to negatively impact the shadows or sunlight on neighboring properties. Moving from east to west across the sky, the sun produces shadowing that will fall mostly on the asphalt of surrounding streets, and this would only help reduce local heat island effects.

I believe the plans for the site are also well within the reasonable constraints of city zoning, and have been conscientiously reviewed. The proposed development is not a massage 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
parlor, a drive-through restaurant or a saloon. There is no moral incompatibility in scholars and scientists working adjacent to clerics, worshippers and children. The nearby properties are not part of a cemetery or National Park and not within a protected natural habitat. In so many ways, the proposed use seems fully complementary to existing uses, and well within the spirt and characterof the surrounding community.

I also want to be a welcoming neighbor. I want the best for my community, and that surely must embrace a balance of enterprise, exploration, spiritual observance and economic development. We all benefit from an ecosystem of mutual respect, in which there is room for families, religion, science, jobs and commerce.

I believe this is an ideal project for its location. I support it enthusiastically and encourage others to do the same. Please approve this project, with my support.

James Rawitsch
Pasadena, CA 91106
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:45 AM
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 hleart 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,
Juliet Tamayo
Pasadena, CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OnedickPolitics (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]
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:45 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
A Parishioner's Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green Street [ i ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 Concern About Our Church and 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
Dear City Council, I'm very concerned for the proposed plans for the new cal tech building. It will benefit few people at the cost of the community as a whole. Saint Philip's church is a historical building that will be in the shadows of this proposed project and will not be very slightly for our beautiful city of Pasadena.

Please consider the long term effects before allowing this project to continue. Sincerely, Luke Tamayo Sincerely,
LukeTamayo
r
Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpolitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications toots for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Bernardi, Arman < .-^.-^-.- >
Monday, March 2, 2026 1 1:48 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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: Reference to the innovation center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 Dear Pasadena City Council,
I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project is ideally positioned to nurture start-ups and attract companies focused on discovery. This development will help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub for innovation, education, and opportunity. In this space, creative ideas will become products and services that benefit society and improve life.

The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:

Keep transformational ideas and new companies in Pasadena: The start-up companies that arise from cutting-edge research happening at Caltech will have the mix of office and laboratory space that allows them to put down roots and grow in Pasadena, rather than Leave for other cities.

Strengthen Pasadena as a center for discovery and invention: Private research firms are drawn to the steady flow of creative ideas and talented graduates coming from Caltech and nearby institutions. The center will attract these companies and strengthen partnerships.

Turn vision into reality: The site has been zoned for this type of building through the City's East Colorado Specific Plan. The innovation center is a by-right development that helps realize the intentions outlined in the plan and is fully compliant with Pasadena's vision for growth.

Create local careers: The innovation center will create permanent high-quality STEM jobs.

Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schools will have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.

Boost the local economy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, the project will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants and shops.

Engage education: The innovation centerwill connect students and faculty from Caltechwith industry partners while providing pathways for local schools and colleges to engage with cutting- edge science.

Protect Pasadena's environment: The project incorporates sustainability features such as advanced shading, energy efficiency, water conservation, low VOC emitting materials and 14 new street trees to strengthen Pasadena's green canopy.
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
•Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.

I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to our community.

Best Regards,
Arman
Arman Bernard), Ph.D.

Caltech | Technology Transfer and Corporate Partnerships 2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Alma Gharib . .>
Monday, March 2, 2026 11:47 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 Some people who received this message don't often get email from <. Learn why this is important [ ! ] 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.

Dear Pasadena City Council,
I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center ati 364 E.

Green Street. Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project is ideally positioned to nurture start-ups and attract companies focused on discovery. This development will help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub for innovation, education, and opportunity. In this space, creative ideas will become products and services that benefit society and improve life.

The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:

Keep transformational ideas and new companies in
Pasadena: The start-up companies that arise from cutting-edge research happening at Caltech will have the mix of office and laboratory space that allows them to put down roots and grow in Pasadena, rather than Leave for other cities.

Strengthen Pasadena as a center for discovery and
invention: Private research firms are drawn to the steady flow of creative ideas and talented graduates coming from Caltech and nearby institutions. The centerwill attract these companies and strengthen partnerships.

Create local careers: The innovation centerwill create permanent high-quality STEM jobs. Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schools will have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.

Boost the local economy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, the project will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants and shops. 1 3/2/2026
Item 10
Engage education: The innovation center will connect students and faculty from Caltech with industry partners while providing pathways for local schools and colleges to engage with cutting-edge science.

Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, Landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.

I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to our community.

Sincerely,
Alma Gharib-Brady, PhD
Alma Gharib-Brady
PhD, Caltech2015
2 McMiIlan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mary Beth Campbell <
Monday, March 2, 2026 1 1:48 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Lyon, Jason; Gordo, Victor
Re: Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 Some people who received this message don't often get email from rLearn why this is important [ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you fcnowthe 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 Pasadena City Council, Councilmember Lyon, and Mayor Gordo, I am writing to express my strong support for the Caltech Innovation Center at 1 364 E. Green Street and to respectfully encourage the Council to approve this important project.

I write not only as someone professionally involved in scientific innovation, but as a parent of a child living with a rare genetic disease. For families like mine, innovation is not a distant or abstract civic goal:
it is deeply personal. The difference between uncertainty and hope often comes down to whether scientific discoveries are able to move out of laboratories and into real-world development. That transition requires physical spaces specifically designed for collaboration, experimentation, and early- stage company formation. Without them, promising breakthroughs stall or leave the communities where they were born.

Every therapy that exists today began as an idea in a research institution like Caltech. Yet discoveries alone are not enough. Translating science into treatments requires entrepreneurs, clinicians, engineers, and others working together in close proximity. Innovation Centers provide the infrastructure that allows this ecosystem to function. When these environments are missing, early companies relocate to other cities, taking opportunity - and future impact - with them.

For rare disease families, time matters profoundly. Progress depends on scientists and startups having the ability to rapidly test ideas, attract talent, and build partnerships. Facilities Like the proposed Innovation Center accelerate this process by creating a home for translational work-the stage where scientific insight becomes tangible solutions. Supporting this kind of infrastructure is, in a very real sense, supporting the future development of medicines and technologies that improve and save Lives.

Equally important, projects Like this connect innovation to community. They create pathways for students from Pasadena City College and local schools to participate in scientific careers, allow young companies to grow Locally rather than leaving Southern California, and foster collaboration between academia and industry in ways that benefit society broadly. Innovation districts anchored around universities are thriving across the country because they translate intellectual capital into local opportunity and global impact.

As a parent, I often think about how progress in science depends not only on brilliant researchers but on communities willing to invest in the conditions that allow discovery to flourish and be translated to society. From my vantage point, I also see how cities across the country (and around the world) are 1 03/02/2026
Item 10
investing deliberately in innovation districts anchored around universities. Supporting this Innovation Center is a statement that Pasadena believes in the power of science to serve humanity, and that it chooses to be a place where solutions to some of society's hardest challenges are developed.

I respectfully urge the Council to support the Caltech Innovation Center and allow this project to move forward for the benefit of Pasadena's residents, its students, and families like mine who depend on continued scientific progress.

Sincerely,
MaryBeth Campbell
Entrepreneur-in-Residence, Caltech
Mom to an 11 -year-old with Bloom syndrome
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 1 1:51 AM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 Regarding 1 364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a parishioner deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation, economic growth, and research and development. At the same time, churches play a vital role in our city as places of worship, reflection, education, and service. These missions depend on safe, accessible, and appropriately scaled surroundings that respect sensitive uses and neighborhood character. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the currently proposed scale. Proceeding without a full environmental review—and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street—raises serious concerns for parishioners, including traffic safety, noise, air quality, and overall compatibility with church activities. Requiring the project to return in a redesigned form that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's maximum height of approximately 51 feet and that undergoes a thorough environmental analysis would better align the development with the surrounding neighborhood and sensitive institutions. This approach would help preserve community trust while still supporting Pasadena's broader innovation goals. Approving the project as proposed would set a troubling precedent for placing intensified R&D uses adjacent to churches and other sensitive community institutions in areas not clearly intended for such development under Pasadena's planning framework. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forward only in a form that reflects both economic ambition and respect for our church community and shared values.

Sincerely,
Laura Wilcox
Pasadena , CA 91106 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPotitics (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
R A NDl PASTER I NELSON

RECEIVED
2G26HAR-2 PH!2:45
C!TY CLERK

CITY OF PASADENA
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Todd Nelson
213.557.7225
[email protected]
March 2, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Mayor Victor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and
Honorable City Councilmembers
c/o City Clerk
City of Pasadena
175 N. Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
[email protected]
Re: 1364 East Green Street Project (Case No. DHP2025-00258) March 2, 2026 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item No. 10
Dear Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers:

We represent TC LA Development, Inc. ("Applicant"), the applicant for a new four-story, 93,539- square-foot research and development building with subterranean parking ("Project") located at 1364 East Green Street ("Site") in the City of Pasadena ("City"). The Project represents a joint development effort by the Applicant and Caltech and is intended to provide new opportunities for science-based start-up companies to locate and grow within the City. By doing so, the Project will generate significant economic and community benefits while enhancing the City's reputation as a hub of scientific and technological innovation.

The Project complies with all applicable City zoning and development standards - its research and development land use is expressly permitted by the Site's zoning designation, and it meets each and every development standard under the Pasadena Municipal Code ("PMC") and East Colorado Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). The only land use entitlement required for the Project is Design Review, and under the City's adopted Design Review regulations (PMC Section 17.61.030), the City's review authority is limited to a determination of whether the Project is consistent with adopted design guidelines as well as the purposes of the Design Review process.

On January 27,2026, the City's Design Commission, at the conclusion of its second public hearing conducted regarding the Project, and after consideration of hundreds of pages of City staff reports and technical studies as well as extensive written and oral public comment, voted unanimously to approve the Project's Concept Design Review. The Design Commission also found that the Project was eligible to be deemed exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as a qualifying infill development project under the Class 32 exemption established by the CEQA Guidelines ("Class 32 Exemption"). This determination was also supported by hundreds of pages of 3/2/2026
Item 10
Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 2 ends

technical studies and findings in the record, which constitute substantial evidence supporting the Design Commission's decision.

On February 9, 2026, Building a Better Pasadena ("Appellant") filed an appeal ("Appeal") of the Design Commission's approval of the Project. The Appeal claims that: 1) the Project is inconsistent with the applicable design policies contained in the City's General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the PMC, and 2) the Design Commission's determination regarding the Class 32 Exemption was improper (the "Appeal").

The City Council will consider the Appeal at its meeting of March 2, 2026.

The City's Planning & Community Development Department has provided the City Council with a staff report responding to the Appeal ("Council Staff Report"). Extensive public correspondence has also been submitted to the City Council regarding the Project and the Appeal, including a letter dated February 27, 2026 from Richard McDonaldoftheStonerCarlson law firm on behalf of the Appellant ("February 27th McDonald Letter").

We are writing now to: 1) reiterate the City's scope of review of the Project under the PMC and applicable law, and 2) provide responses to new comments made in the February 27th McDonald Letter.

Based upon the information provided below and contained in the whole of the administrative record, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the Appeal and grant approval of the Project.

A. The Project Fully Complies with the City's General Plan and Zoning Use and Development Standards.

The Site's Medium Mixed Use designation under the City's General Plan permits the development of commercial (retail and office) uses as well as residential uses. The General Plan also requires that new buildings within the Medium Mixed Use designation incorporate transparent facades along public streets and locate parking below-grade or to the rear of the street.1 The Site is located within the Specific Plan's "commercially focused" Mid-City Subarea,2 and is zoned EC-MU-N (East Colorado Specific Plan, Mixed-Use Neighborhood), which allows a broad range of retail, office, services, and residential uses.3 "Research and development" uses such as those proposed by the Project are explicitly permitted under the Site's EC-MU-N zoning designation.4'5 City staff have confirmed that the Project complies with all applicable development standards required by the General Plan, Specific Plan, and PMC.6 Accordingly, as a code-compliant project and in 1 General Plan Land Use Element, p. 5.
2Specific Plan, p. 21.
3 Specific Plan, p. 61.
4 See Specific Plan Section 4.3, Table 4.3-1 and PMC Section 17.31.040, Table ECSP-2. 5 PMC Section 17.80.020 R defines the "Research and Development" land use as follows: "Facilities that are used for research and development. This use can include the design, development, assembling, prototyping and testing of, but not limited to, biological, chemical, electrical, magnetic, mechanical, and/or optical components or processes in advance of product manufacturing. This use may include fabrication and manufacturing for research and development purposes. This use does not involve the fabrication, manufacturing, or processing of products for mass distribution." 6 Council Staff Report, p. 2.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 3 ends

accordance with PMC Section 17.61.030, the only discretionary City entitlement approval required for the Project is Design Review.

B. Scope of City's Design Review Authority and Relevant Law

1. Scope of Design Review Authority
Design Review is generally required of all projects in the City.7 The City's Design Review approval process consists of three stages: an initial Preliminary Consultation phase, followed by Concept Design Review, and concluding with Final Design Review.8
As set forth by PMC Section 17.61.030 A., the purposes of Design Review are as follows:

Apply Citywide urban design principles to ensure that new construction supports the best of the City's architectural traditions;
Encourage new structures that show creativity and imagination, add distinction, interest, and variety to the community, and are environmentally sustainable; Promote architectural and design excellence in new construction and discourage poor-quality development;
Ensure that future development should:
o Reflect the values of the community;
o Enhance the surrounding environment;
o Visually harmonize with its surroundings and not unnecessarily block scenic views; and
o Avoid nostalgic misrepresentations that may confuse the relationships among structures overtime.

Ensure that new landscaping provides a visually pleasing setting for structures on the site;
Promote the protection and retention of landmark, native, and specimen trees and if feasible mature canopy trees and other significant landscaping of aesthetic and environmental value;
Ensure that the design, quality, and location of signs are consistent with the character and scale of the structures to which they are attached and are visually harmonious with surrounding development; and
Promote the conservation, enhancement, preservation, and protection of historic resources.

The City's discretionary authority over the Project's Concept Design Review approval is limited to a determination of whether the following two findings can be made, pursuant to PMC Section

17.61.030 K.l:

The Project's design is consistent with the purposes of Design Review (listed above), and
7 PMC Section 17.61.030 B.
8 PMC Section 17.61.030 C.l.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 4 ends

The Project's design is consistent with any applicable design guidelines adopted by the Council.9
Accordingly, the City's discretion does not permit consideration of the Project's proposed land use, which as set forth above and in the Council Staff Report, is explicitly permitted under the Site's General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning regulations. Furthermore, while the City may require "appropriate site plan revisions (e.g., different arrangements of open space), as well as revisions to the proposed building massing and transitions in scale of the structure(s)," the City cannot impose conditions that would reduce the Project's development envelope below what is permitted by the Site's zoning regulations.10 Accordingly, the City's review of the Project is strictly limited to those Concept Design Review findings identified by the PMC: consistency with the purposes of Design Review, and consistency with applicable design guidelines. As set forth in the Council Staff Report and its accompanying attachments, these findings have properly been made by the City.

2.Project's Eligibilitv_to_Be Exempt from CEQA Review
a)CEQA Does Not Apply Where Insufficient Discretion Exists As a code-compliant project requiring only Design Review approval under PMC Section

17.61.030, no CEQA review is required for the Project under the State of California appellate court's holding in McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena (2019) 31 Cal.App.Sth 80 ["McCorkle"}.

In the McCorkle case, the court reviewed the proper application of CEQA to a zoning-compliant project undergoing design review - no other discretionary land use or zoning approvals were required for the project, and under its adopted design review ordinance, the City of Saint Helena's discretionary design review authority was "limited to design issues such as scale, orientation, bulk, mass, materials, and colors."11 Therefore, the city's ability to disapprove the project for non-design related matters was not authorized under its own ordinances.12
As the McCorkle court found, CEQA is not separately triggered when a lead agency lacks authority under its own ordinances to consider or address the potential environmental consequences of 9 For the Site and Project, the City has determined that the applicable design guidelines are those established by the General Plan's Land Use Element, the Specific Plan, and the Citywide Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-Family Districts. (Council Staff Report, p. 3 and Attachments I and L.) 10 See PMC Section 17.61.030 1.5.a ("Changes in a project required as a condition of Design Review approval may include density, height, open space, parking or loading, and sign requirements, as long as the conditions are not more restrictive than those prescribed by applicable zoning district regulations or a valid Adjustment Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Development Agreement, Master Plan, Planned Development, Variance, or other legislative or zoning entitlements"). See also the Council Staff Report's following statement: "Modifications to the buildings can be required related to articulation, modulation, or other design-related standards. However, the square footage, maximum height and other development standards in the Zoning Code cannot be reduced beyond what the code allows." (Council Staff Report, p. 2.) n McCorkle, 31 Cal.App.Sth at 92.
12 McCorkle, 31 Cal.App.Sth at 93.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026
PageS
a project.13 Accordingly, it was unnecessary for the City of Saint Helena to invoke or require CEQA compliance for a zoning-compliant project that was solely undergoing design review approval.

Notwithstanding the inapplicability of CEQA, the City of Saint Helena also determined that the project in question was eligible for a Class 32 Exemption, which the McCorkle court acknowledged the validity of but confirmed was unnecessary to rely on.14
The Council Staff Report for the Project briefly discusses the McCorkle holding, noting that "Pasadena's design review approval process is different from the City of Saint Helena's design review process," and recommending that, to the extent the Project's Design Review application is considered to be a discretionary project for the purposes of CEQA (i.e., to the extent the City's Design Review ordinance provides discretion beyond that authorized by Saint Helena's ordinance in the McCorkle case), that the City Council adopt a Class 32 Exemption for the Project.

While it is true that the City's Design Review ordinance is different than the design review ordinance under consideration in McCorkle, neither ordinance grants the discretion to condition or deny a project based on non-design related issues. In fact, a comparison of the two ordinances demonstrates that the City of Saint Helena arguably possessed greater discretion to address such non-design related issues than the PMC provides - specifically, the Saint Helena ordinance allowed the City to consider traffic safety and utility demand issues as part of the design review process, which the PMC does not mention or allow consideration of.15 Even so, the McCorkle court conclusively found that insufficient discretion existed for the City of Saint Helena to require the application of CEQA. Here, the City of Pasadena has even less discretion.
b)M/ere CEQ.A to Apply, Project Is Eligible For Class 32 Exemption Notwithstanding, as noted in the Council Staff Report, the City has prepared documents in support of a Class 32 Exemption for the Project, should CEQA be deemed applicable to the Project.16 These analyses have been prepared by technical CEQA experts retained and overseen by the City, and reflect utilization of methodologies adopted by the City that are consistent with all other CEQA environmental reviews prepared by the City. These analyses have also been disseminated for public review and consideration.

As confirmed by the Council Staff Report as well as the studies themselves, the Project is fully eligible for a Class 32 Exemption, and does not have the potential to result in significant air quality, 13 McCorkle, 31 Cal.App.Sth at 90. ("When a project involves both discretionary and nondiscretionary actions, it will be deemed discretionary. [] However, the discretionary component of the action must give the agency the authority to consider a project's environmental consequences to trigger CEQA.")
14 McCorkle, 31 Cal.App.5th at 94.
15 See McCorkle, 31 Cal.App.Sth at 93: "8. Whether access to the property and circulation systems are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles" and "14. Whether sustainability and climate protection are promoted through the use of green building practices such as appropriate site/architectural design, use of green building materials, energy efficient systems and water efficient landscape materials." PMC Section 17.61.030 does not address these topics or require any such similar findings.
16 As with the facts of McCorkle, the preparation of a Class 32 Exemption by the City is not in and of itself determinative that CEQA is applicable to the Project.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 6 ends

noise, traffic, or water quality effects.17 As explained in the Council Staff Report and prior staff reports prepared for the Design Commission, public comments that have objected to aspects of the Project's technical studies fail to identify any deficiency with the scope, methodology, or conclusions of the studies under the requirements of CEQA.18
Furthermore, a lead agency's determination that a project is categorically exempt from CEQA is subject to the substantial evidence standard of review, meaning that the agency's determination must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. "Substantial evidence" includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts; this category of evidence includes the expert technical reports commissioned by the City for the Project and included in the record. Substantial evidence does not include "argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment."19 The technical studies prepared in support of a Class 32 Exemption for the Project as well as the analysis and findings prepared by City staff constitute substantial evidence of the Project's eligibility for the exemption. Accordingly, although not required, the City has been presented with more than sufficient substantial evidence in the record to determine that the Project is eligible for a Class 32 Exemption from CEQA.
c.Responses to February 27th McDonald Letter
The February 27th McDonaId Letter, in addition to providing certain new objections to the Project, attaches Mr. McDonald's previous letter to the Design Commission regarding the Project, dated January 22, 2026. The objections in that prior letter were responded to by staff at the January 27,2026 Design Commission meeting, and this firm also provided written responses in a letter to the Design Commission dated January 26, 2026, all of which are already in the record. The responses below primarily address the new comments in the February 27th McDonald Letter, and demonstrate that these comments again fail to demonstrate any deficiencies in the City's processing of the Project's Concept Design Review request.

1. Claim: Design Commission Has Improperly Found that Project Complies with Purposes of Design Review (February 27th McDonald Letter, p. 2 and Exhibit B) Exhibit B of the February 27th McDonald Letter consists of a 14-page memorandum objecting to the Design Commission's finding that the Project complies with the purposes of Design Review. To make this argument, the memorandum claims that the Design Commission "failed to correct" certain issues pertaining to scale transition, massing, compatibility with neighborhood character, pedestrian scale, and privacy concerns.20 However, as discussed in detail in the Council Staff Report and its Attachments A, C, D, 1, and L, the Project's consistency with both the purposes of Design Review and the design guidelines 17 Council Staff Report, pp. 7-10.
18 Council Staff Report, p. 4.
19 CEQA Guidelines Section 15384.
20 Note that the City's Design Review ordinance does not mention or permit the consideration of privacy-related issues.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 7 ends

specifically applicable to the Site and Project has been extensively analyzed by City staff as well as the Design Commission, and found to be sufficiently demonstrated.

Again, the relevant standard of review for the City's determination is one of substantial evidence, which would require the Appellant or any other party objecting to the Design Commission's findings to show that the evidence on which the City relied is absent or insufficient. Here,the record clearly contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of consistency with the purposes of Design Review, including but not limited to the extensive information generated during multiple rounds of comments and responses between the City and Applicant regarding the Project's design aspects and iterative changes made to the Project through this process. The claims made in the Exhibit B memorandum express disagreement with the City's Design Review findings, but do not demonstrate any absence of evidence that should have been considered by the City when making these findings. Under the substantial evidence standard, when sufficient evidence exists in the record supporting the City's determination, any disputes or doubts regarding the City's determination must be resolved in favor of the City.

2. Claim: The City Failed to Study Significant Traffic Impacts (February 27th McDonald Letter, p. 2 and Exhibit C)
Exhibit C of the February 27th McDonald Letter consists of a resubmittal of a traffic analysis prepared by Prism Engineering ("Prism Memorandum") as well as the comments of a member of the public regarding alleged deficiencies in the City's analysis of the Project's potential traffic impacts. These objections have been thoroughly addressed in the record, including by City Transportation staff and the City's CEQA traffic consultant during the January 27, 2026 Design Commission meeting and by this firm in our letter to the Design Commission for that same meeting. A summary of these responses is also provided in the Council Staff Report (pp. 7, 10) and the studies that were commissioned by the City for the Project and prepared in accordance with the City's Transportation Impact Assessment Guidelines ("TIA Guidelines") have been provided to the Council as Attachments F and J of the Council Staff Report.

In summary, the objections contained in the Prism Memorandum predominantly pertain to the local mobility analysis ("LMA") that was prepared for the Project. An LMA was prepared to determine whether the Project should be required to contribute to roadway improvements to address any vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic deficiencies in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The LMA does not pertain to potential CEQA-related traffic and transportation issues, as traffic congestion is not a relevant metric for determining potential significant traffic effects under CEQA.21 Accordingly, the objections made in the Prism Memorandum and by others regarding potential congestion effects have no bearing on the Project's eligibility for a Class 32 Exemption.

Furthermore, one of the primary recurring objections made in the Prism Memorandum as well as by other public commenters is that the LMA should have analyzed potential existing and future congestion effects during the drop-off and pick-up times for St. Philip the Apostle school. However, as 21 As stated by the TIA Guidelines when describing the scope and purpose of an LMA: "The metrics and criteria for determining deficiencies discussed in the following section are not intended to be considered as part of a development project's CEQA review." (TIA Guidelines, p. 8.) See also CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3fa). The Prism Memorandum's limited number of objections to the vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") analysis prepared for the Project, which reflected the correct transportation metric to analyze under CEQA, have been fully responded to and shown to have no merit by staff's presentation to the Design Commission at its January 27, 2026 meeting.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026
PageS
established by the TIA Guidelines and as confirmed by City Transportation staff, peak commute hour traffic conditions were studied for the LMA, as those are the periods of time when the Project would contribute the greatest number of vehicular trips to the surrounding roadways. Moreover, as noted by the Prism Memorandum itself as well as by City staff, the currently alleged congestion conditions during school drop-offand pick-up times appear to be direct results of the school's own vehicular traffic, and such existing traffic congestion conditions would appear to have a greater potential to affect future Project users than to impact existing school users.

3. Claim: The Project Conflicts With Prior City Policy Direction Regarding Research and Development Uses (February 27th McDonald Letter, p. 2 and Exhibit D) This claim alleges the Project's proposed research and development uses on the EC-MU-N- zoned Site would conflict with prior City Council direction to Planning staff during the City's approval of Ordinance No. 7419 and its associated zoning code amendments to support the establishment of research and development uses in the City. This alleged conflict arises from the Site's adjacency to the St. Philip the Apostle school, which the February 27th McDonald Letter claims would represent the same type of land use-adjacency concern expressed during the administrative proceedings for Ordinance No. 7419. To support this claim. Exhibit D of the February 27th McDonald Letter consists of the minutes of the December 4, 2023 City Council meeting considering the approval of Ordinance No. 7419.

As explained by City staff at the two previous Design Commission meetings, and as confirmed by the December 4, 2023 City Council minutes regarding Ordinance No. 7419 as well as associated correspondence submitted to the City Council for that meeting, the City Council's past discussion of research and development uses in relation to school uses specifically pertained to the potential redevelopment of vacant former public school sites subject to PS zoning designations and located in residential neighborhoods.22 By definition, this prior policy discussion does not implicate any of the Site's characteristics, as the Site is not a vacant public school site, nor is it subject to a PS zoning designation, nor is it located in a residential neighborhood. As noted above and throughout the record, the Project fully complies with all adopted zoning and land use regulations, including those pertaining to research and development uses, and is consistent with applicable General Plan and Specific Plan goals, objectives, and policies. Furthermore, Ordinance No. 7419 was adopted by the City years ago, and is far beyond any period to challenge its adoption.

4. Claim: Project Will Result in Hazards to AdLacenUlses (February 27th McDonald Letter, pp. 2-4 and Exhibit E)
This claim alleges the type and kind of research and development activities that may be performed at the Site in the future could have a significant impact on adjacent properties due to, among 22 See Attachment 1 for an example of prior correspondence to the City Council regarding Ordinance No. 7419. In this correspondence, the StonerCarlson law firm, on behalf of the St. Luke's hospital property (which is bounded by single-family homes to the south and west and the Pasadena Preschool Academy to the south), expresses support for the City's efforts to "allow more life science development," stating that "the promotion of the various industries under the 'life science' definition will be of great benefit to the City." This same correspondence also acknowledges that while "concerns have been raised about the development of school sites in residential neighborhoods," the St. Luke's site "is not one" (i.e., is not a school site) and that to address the concerns raised, language could be added to the proposed ordinance stating that research and development uses could be restricted "on school sites surrounded by residential neighborhoods," which would be an "easy fix" in response to the identified concerns.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 9 ends

other things, the potential release of hazardous materials or the emission of toxic air contaminants. This claim is not accompanied by any evidence, substantial or otherwise, showing the reasonable foreseeability of any such events occurring; the only information provided by the February 27th McDonatd Letter is unsubstantiated opinion, which as noted, does not constitute substantial evidence.

Moreover, this claim ignores the rigorous regulatory controls that exist under federal, state, and local law to address and prevent such potential occurrences. These controls and protocols apply to ajl land uses that involve the handling of potentially hazardous materials, the undertaking of scientific research, and the operation of laboratories. These regulations allow for both existing and future land use compatibility, whether in the case of the Project's adjacency to the Site's nearby uses, or existing examples of other life science and research and development facilities in the City operating in proximity to other residential and/or educational uses (e.g., the Pasadena Bio Collaborative Incubator on Foothill and the Alexandria Innovation Center on Hill).

Specifically, these relevant and applicable regulations that must be complied with include, but are not limited to, the following: the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories guidance document and the National Institutes of Health Design Requirements Manual; California's Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") (including Department of Toxic Substances Control and Regional Water Quality Control Board) standards, Department of Public Health requirements, the Medical Waste Management Act, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("Cal OSHA") laboratory standards; the region's South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") regulations addressing air quality and emissions standards; and the City's Building, Fire, and Environmental Health Department regulations, including plan review and inspection by the Fire Department. These regulations and the Project's mandatory compliance with their requirements will ensure the safe operation of all uses within the building, including the safe handling of all controlled or hazardous materials.

5. Claim: Conditions of Approval Regarding Green Street Asphalt and Asbestos Controls Are Impermissible Mitigation (February 27th McDonald Letter, p. 4) This claim alleges that the City's conditions of approval regarding future excavation activities on Green Street and the associated protocols and standards regarding the handling of potential asbestos- containing materials (ACM) during such excavation constitute impermissible mitigation under the Project's Class 32 Exemption. However, a simple review of these conditions of approval (Conditions 32 through 43) and the preceding narrative explanation of the City's rationale in imposing these conditions clearly demonstrates that these conditions solely relate to compliance with existing regulatory requirements, which automatically apply to any contemplated handling of ACM by any entity anywhere in the State of California. Specifically, the City's conditions reference and incorporate ACM assessment and handling standards and protocols imposed by the United States EPA, Title 8 Section 1529 of the California Code of Regulations, SCAQMD Rule 1403, Cat OSHA, and the City's excavation permit regulations. Accordingly, the applicability of these standard regulations, compliance with which is mandatory for the Project even absent these City conditions of approval, do not constitute mitigation under CEQA.23
23 See Tracy First v City ofTracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912,933.

Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 10 ends

6. Claim: St. Philip the Apostle Church May Be Historic Resource (February 27th McD_onald Letter, pp. 4-5)
This claim references newspaper clippings provided by another public commenterto the City regarding Roland Coate, the architect of St. Philip the Apostle church, and claims that this submitted information constitutes substantial evidence of the architectural and historical significance of the adjacent church campus. However, as described above, unsubstantiated non-expert opinion cannot meet the substantial evidence standard, and that is what has apparently been offered here. Moreover, the Council Staff Report (pp. 9-10) specifically addresses the church's potential to be considered an historical resource for CEQA purposes, and determines that 1) the church has not been identified as a potential historic resource either under any City-conducted historic assessment or by the church itself in connection with its 2005 master plan entitlement effort, and 2) even if the church property was deemed eligible to be designated as an historical resource, the Project would not have any potential to cause any direct or indirect impact to such an historical resource.

The City's expert findings are reinforced by a separate expert historic analysis, included as Attachment 2 to this letter. In this analysis, prepared by Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation, the findings of the Council Staff Report are confirmed to be true: the church property has not been identified as being eligible for historic designation, and even if the property could be considered to meet applicable eligibility requirements, the Project would not have any potential to cause direct or indirect impacts to any adjacent or nearby historic resources. Accordingly, this claim has no merit.

7. Claim: St. Philip the Apostle Church Could Be Damaged During Construction LFebruarv 27th McDonald Letter, p. 5)
This claim alleges the Project's proposed excavation activities could impact the adjacent church and school buildings due to vibration effects. However, the potential vibratory effects on adjacent and nearby properties during Project construction were specifically analyzed by the City-commissioned expert reports (see Council Staff Report, Attachment F), and were found to not have the potential to result in any building-damage related effects based on relevant thresholds of significance regarding building damage. Furthermore, all Project grading, excavation, and shoring plans will undergo review and approval by the City to ensure that all construction work is performed in compliance with applicable City and state technical building codes and safety requirements, including protection of adjacent properties. Accordingly, this claim is not supported by the existing evidence in the record.

8. Claim: Fair ArgumenlStandard Should Apply to Review of Project (February 27th McDonald Letter, p, 5-8}
This claim alleges the City's determination of the Project's eligibility for a Class 32 Exemption is to be reviewed under the "fair argument" standard, and repeatedly cites the court's holding in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 in support of this claim. However, the fair argument standard - and the cited Pocket Protectors case - applies to the preparation of a mitigated negative declaration under CEQA, not to a CEQA exemption determination, which is subject to the much more stringent substantial evidence standard. In addition, and contrary to another claim made here, when a decisionmaker weighs competing evidence and makes a CEQA determination under the Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas and Honorable Councilmembers March 2, 2026

Page 11 ends

substantial evidence standard, that determination is afforded significant deference by the courts.24 Such deference would be even greater here, because despite the claims being made, no qualifying substantial evidence has been provided regarding any error or abuse of discretion in the City's processing of the Project or its determination that the Project would be eligible for a Class 32 Exemption. As demonstrated by the Council Staff Report, each required criterion to be eligible for the Class 32 Exemption has been met by the Project, and no substantial evidence has been submitted demonstrating that any of the potential exceptions to the Class 32 Exemption would be applicable. ***
In conclusion, the entirety of the administrative record before the City Council demonstrates the Project's consistency with the purposes of the City's Design Review process as well as all applicable City design guidelines. This consistency is all that is required to grant the requested Concept Design Review.

However, beyond these required findings, the record contains extensive substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project would be eligible for a Class 32 categorical exemption from CEQA, and further demonstrating that no exceptions to this categorical exemption exist. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the Appeal and grant approval of the Project's Concept Design Review.

Sincerely,
Todd Nelson
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
ec: Jennifer Paige, Director of Planning & Community Development Department, City of Pasadena Kevin Johnson, Principal Planner, City of Pasadena
Rathar Duong, Senior Planner, City of Pasadena
24 See Protect Tustin Ranch v. CityofTustin (2021), 70 Cal.App.Sth 951, 960 (""[W]here[, as here,] a public agency makes a factual determination that a project falls within a .. . categorical exemption, we apply the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the agency's finding.' [Citation.] We do not weigh conflicting evidence, as that is the role of the public agency. [Citation.] Rather, we review the administrative record to see if it contains evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value, to support the agency's decision.).") Attachment 1: Stoner Carlson Correspondence Regarding Ordinance No. 7419 Iraheta, Alba
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Richard McDonald
Monday, December 4, 2023 6:22 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Iraheta, Alba; Jomsky, Mark
December 4 Agenda Item #14
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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. Learn more....

Dear Mayor Gordo and Honorable Members of the City Council - On behalf of the owners of the St. Luke's site, we wish to express our full and wholehearted support of the staff recommendation to amend the zoning code to allow life science campuses in the City more easily. We are excited about developing the St. Luke's property with such a campus, which is far less impactful than any of the prior proposals. We also believe the requirement for a CUP makes sense and that the promotion of the various industries under the "life science" definition will be of great benefit to the City much like Pasadena Heritage and Eli Lilly Company (Lilly) have stated. With retail and commercial properties struggling as Pasadena Heritage noted, promoting the City's strength in science by amending the code to allow more life science development makes perfect sense. As Lilly points out, the industry is looking to Pasadena and now is the time for your leadership on it. Last, we understand that concerns have been raised about the development of school sites in residential neighborhoods. Although St. Luke's site is not one, we think language to the effect of "other than on school sites surrounded by residential neighborhoods" is an easy fix to address those concerns. Thank you again for your leadership on this matter.

Richard A. McDonald, Esq.

Stoner/Carlson LLP
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone:

E-mail: Website: www.carlsonnicholas.com
1 12/04/2023
Item 14
Attachment 2: Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation Memorandum

MEMORANDUM
Date: February 18, 2026
For: Trammell Crow Company
Subject: 1364 E. Green Street, Los Angeles
Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation
[email protected]
323-868-2391

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze whether or not a proposed project (Project) in the City of Pasadena has the potential to impact historical resources as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Project Site is comprised of a single parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 5736-002-013) located at 1364 E. Green Street. The 41,548 square foot parcel does not contain any improvements such as buildings or structures; it is currently used as a surface parking lot.
/^
^
=3—
t 1,
L
"k.
1 !00ft1
w
i::

I
aj
i lnr9<y-^
^

E GREEN ST
i
I
8 {
yyx
/-:%.
/./
%.%
y//^'/'/
^
~t^^ssr
.X
y^-^ MI
VBraKh
co
3:1
^1
m
I
[
Figure 1: Location Map, Project Site hatched in white (Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor).

Memorandum - 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena1
Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation was retained to identify historical resources on and in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site, to assess any potential impacts the Project may have on the identified historical resources, and to recommend mitigation measures, as warranted, for compliance with CEQA. She fulfills the qualifications for a historic preservation professional outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61. Her resume is included in Appendix A.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project would be developed by the Trammell Crow Company on a site owned by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). The Project will involve the construction of a research and development building with office and laboratory space to support Caltech's growing startup ecosystem. The building will be four stories tail and 93,539 square feet in area with three levels of subterranean parking for employees and visitors. .»
IBB:;^fe«fe
3S
M
I!•Ha:i
Bia^J Jin^cy »A-
BF-<
s-a
fl
i
Figure 2: North facade of proposed building (Gensler, 2026).

Rectangular in form, the building will cover the majority of the site with the exception of landscaped setbacks of approximately eight feet along E. Green Street and 10 feet along S.

Holliston Avenue. Along the interior property lines, the building will be set back approximately 21 feet along the eastern and 15 feet along the southern property line.

The contemporary-style building will feature clean lines and repeated floor patterns on the first three levels. The fourth level will be set back from E. Green Street to create an outdoor terrace extending across the facade. There is also publicly accessible open space located on the ground level within the landscaped areas fronting the two streets.

The Project is being designed to a minimum LEED Silver standard and will include water conservation and carbon reduction measures throughout design, construction, and operation.

Memorandum - 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena2

APPROVAL AND APPEAL
Pasadena City staff determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, the East Colorado Boulevard Specific Plan, and the site's Zoning designation as well as the applicable development standards. The only discretionary action required was approval from the Design Commission. Staff recommended that the Design Commission determine the Project to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15332; the Class 32 Categorical Exemption for In-Fill Development Projects.1 Based on the technical studies prepared by EcoTierra Consulting and Fehr & Peers, firms under contract to the City, the Project will not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to air quality, noise, or traffic.

Staff determined that the Project had no potential for significant impacts on historical resources because the Project Site is a surface parking lot and there are no listed or previously surveyed historical resources in the immediate vicinity.2 Thusly, a Historical Resource Technical Report was deemed unnecessary. This methodology is consistent with best practices for the environmental review process.

On January 27,2026, the Design Commission reviewed and unanimously approved the Concept Design Review for the Project, following extensive public comments submitted to the Commission, including claims made by several individuals that the Project could potentially result in historic-related impacts to the St. Philip the Apostle Church and School campus, which is on the same block as the Project Site. The Design Commission's approval of the Project has been appealed to the City Council; this memorandum is intended to address the public comments made regarding potential historic impacts during the Project's administrative review process.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CEQA defines a historical resource as a property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register by the State Historical Resource Commission. The California Register automatically includes properties listed and formally determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of 1 Note that California courts have ruled that when a project's land uses are permitted by-right, design review alone - particularly when, as is the case in Pasadena, the local design review ordinance does not allow the disapproval of a project for non-design-related matters - does not trigger CEQA. 2 The Staff Reports for the Project noted several historical resources located across the street from the Project Site, if not further. The Hill Avenue Branch Library at 55 S. Hill Avenue and the Burns R. Eastman Building at 1275 E.

Green Street are the closest historical resources to the Project Site. Both properties are presumptive historical resources as they are designated Pasadena Landmarks. The Hill Avenue Branch Library is located across Green Street and is approximately 275 feet away from the northeast corner of the Project Site. The Eastman Building is also located across Green Street and is approximately 400 feet away from the northwest of the Project Site. Other mandatory and presumptive historical resources are even further away and include the Gas Station and Commercial Building at 1271 E. Green Street and Holliston Avenue Methodist Church, which are both designated Pasadena Landmarks as well as the Howard Motor Company Building at 1283 E. Colorado Boulevard and the Foothill Boulevard Milestone Marker at 1304 E. Colorado Boulevard, which are listed in the National Register.

Memorandum - 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena3
Historic Places (National Register) as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. A property designated under a local preservation ordinance or identified as eligible in a historic resource survey is presumed to be a historical resource unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the property is not architecturally, historically, or culturally significant.3 The lead agency has the discretion to treat a property as a historical resource if it meets statutory requirements and substantial evidence supports the conclusion.

Thus, there are three categories of historical resources:

Mandatory historical resources are properties listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register by the State Historical Resource Commission.4 Presumptive historical resources are properties included in a local register of historical resources as defined by subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources.5 Presumptive historical Resources may also include properties deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 of the Public Resources Code, unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not significant. Subdivision (g) pertains to the requirements of nomination historic resource surveys for listing in the California Register.6
Discretionary historical resources are properties determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register by the lead agency. The determination must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.7
The National Register, California Register, and Pasadena designation programs are discussed below.
3 Public Resources Code § 5024.1 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations § 4850 & § 15064.5 (a) (2). 4 Title 14 California Code of Regulations § 15064.5 (a) (1). 5 A local register of historical resources is defined as a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution. 6 A resource identified as significant in a historical resource survey may be listed in the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:

1. The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory.

2. The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with office procedures and requirements.

3. The properties were evaluated and determined by the office (SHOP) to have a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on DPR Form 523.

4. If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the integrity of the resource. 7 Title 14 California Code of Regulations § 15064.5 (a) (3) (4).

Memorandum - 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena4
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register is "an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment."8 Criteria
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (unless the property is of "exceptional importance") and possess significance in American history and culture, architecture, or archaeology. A property of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria:9 A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity
In addition to possessing significance within a historic context, to be eligible for listing in the National Register a property must have "integrity." Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin ffl5 as "the ability of a property to convey its significance."10 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes the following seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials. Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Thus, the significance of the property must be fully established before the integrity is analyzed.

Context
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be significant within a historic context. National Register Bulletin U15 states that the significance of a historic property can be judged only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are "those patterns or trends in history by which a specific...property or site is understood and its 8Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.2.
9 Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4.
10National Register Bulletin tfl5, 44.

Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena5
meaning...is made clear."11 A property must represent an important aspect of the area's history or prehistory and possess the requisite integrity to qualify for the National Register.

Criteria Considerations
Certain types of properties are not usually eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties include a building or structure that has been moved from its original location, achieved significance within the past 50 years, or owned or constructed by a religious institution. These properties can be eligible for listing, however, if they meet special requirements called Criteria Considerations, in addition to meeting the regular requirements.

Criteria Consideration A: Criteria Consideration A states "historic significance for a religious property cannot be established based on the merits of a religious doctrine, but rather, for architectural or artistic values or for important historic or cultural forces."12 California Register of Historical Resources
In 1992, Governor Wilson signed Assembly Bill 2881 into law establishing the California Register. The California Register is an authoritative guide used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse impacts.13 The California Register consists of properties that are listed automatically as well as those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:

California properties listed in the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register;
State Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and
Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP)and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register.14 Criteria and Integrity
For those properties not automatically listed, the criteria for eligibility of listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria, but these criteria are identified as numbers 1-4 instead of A-D. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property generally must 11 Patrick Andrus and Rebecca Shrimpton, National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 7. 12 National Register Bulletin ffl5, 26.
13 Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (a).
14 Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (d).

Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena6
be at least 50 years of age and must possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. 2.

3. 4.

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.

Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.15 Properties eligible for listing in the California Register may include buildings, sites, structures, objects, and historic districts. It is possible that properties may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. An altered property may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.16
Pasadena Historic Preservation Ordinance
The City of Pasadena's Historic Preservation Ordinance is codified in Chapter 17.62 of the Pasadena Zoning Code. It includes criteria for Historic Monuments, Landmarks, Historic Signs, Landmark Trees, and Landmark Districts.

The criteria for the designation of Historic Monuments are outlined in Section 17.62.040 (B) as follows:

1. A Historic Monument shall include all historic resources previously designated as historic treasures before adoption of this Chapter, historic resources that are listed in the National Register at the State-wide or Federal level of significance (including National Historic Landmarks) and any historic resource that is significant at a regional, State, or Federal level, and is an exemplary representation of a particular type of historic resource and meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the region, State, or nation. b. It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the region. State, or nation.
c. It is exceptional in the embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction; or that is an exceptional representation of the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose 15 Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c).
16 Title 14 California Code of Regulations § 4852 (c).

Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena7
d.
work is significant to the region. State, or nation; or possesses high artistic values of regional, State-wide, or national significance.

It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the region. State, or nation.

2. A Historic Monument designation may include significant public or semi-public interior spaces and features.

The criteria for the designation of Landmarks are outlined in Section 17.62.040 (C) as follows:

1. A Landmark shall include all properties previously designated as a landmark before adoption of this Chapter and any historic resource that is of a local level of significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed in Subparagraph 2., below.

2. A Landmark may be the best representation in the City of a type of historic resource or it may be one of several historic resources in the City that have common architectural attributes that represent a particular type of historic resource. A Landmark shall meet one or more of the following criteria:
a. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the City, region, or State.
b. It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in the history of the City, region, or State.
c. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, architectural style, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose work is of significance to the City or region, or possesses artistic values of significance to the City or region
d. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important locally in prehistory or history.

In addition to these criteria, the City's ordinance states that the seven aspects of integrity shall be applied when determining Landmark eligibility.

AREA OF POTENTIAL IMPACT
The first step in the environmental review process for historical resources is determining the scope of the study or Area of Potential Impact (API). The API is the geographic area within which a project may directly or indirectly impact the character of historical resources, if any such properties exist. The API is defined before the identification of historical resources to maintain objectivity in the analysis. In determining the API, three factors are considered: the existing setting of the project site; the scale and nature of the project relative to the existing landscape be it rural or urban; and the impacts the project could have on historical resources identified within the API. The API may be limited to the project site or include a larger area such as adjacent properties.

Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena8
The area around the subject Project Site includes a variety of multi-family residential, religious, and educational buildings extending from one- to three-stories in height with a broad range of construction dates and architectural styles. Therefore, the area is not visually cohesive and lacks a sense of time and place, especially compared with other parts of Pasadena. As the Project Site is a vacant lot and the proposed building will be four stories in height, a strong argument could be made for limiting the API to the Project Site. There is no potential for direct impacts on historical resources as no buildings would be demolished, destroyed, relocated, or altered by the Project. Additionally, there is no reason to believe a new four-story building would cause indirect impacts on historical resources in the immediate surroundings. The scale of the new building is not profoundly different from the scale of the existing setting. Therefore, it would not materially impair historical resources in the area by its mere presence in the urban landscape. In summary, based upon the established methodology, a larger API is not warranted.

However, for the sake of addressing the concerns expressed in the public comments regarding the Project, this memorandum includes an analysis of the adjacent properties. As the Project Site is located at the southeast corner of E. Green Street and S. Holliston Avenue, the only adjacent properties are on the south and east, which include the St. Philip the Apostle Church and School campus.

ST. PHILIP THE APOSTLE CHURCH AND SCHOOL CAMPUS
The St. Philip the Apostle Church and School campus is situated on several parcels along S. Hill Avenue from Green Street on the north to Cordova Street on the south. Directly east of the Project Site (83 S. Hill Avenue, APN 5736-002-020) are three two-story buildings and a surface parking lot at the rear (west). These buildings include the Parish Center constructed in 1969 and the Rectory constructed in 2020. On the southeast are two more buildings including the Church and Parish Hall (151 S. Hill Avenue, APN 5736-002-027), which were constructed in 1950 and 2007, respectively. On the south is another surface parking lot (130 S. Holliston Avenue, APN 5736-002-023). The remainder of the block is comprised of St. Philip the Apostle School (1363 Cordova Street, APN 5736-002-026) with two connected buildings on the east constructed in 1927 and 2008 and a surface parking lot on the west.

The St. Philip the Apostle Church and School campus is not currently listed under federal, state, or local landmark or historic district programs. Furthermore, it has not been identified, evaluated, or documented in any of the City's previous historical resource surveys. Therefore, it is not a mandatory or presumptive historical resource as defined by CEQA. The same is true for all of the individual buildings on the campus. The City is currently conducting a comprehensive historical resource survey. The first phase of the survey involved the preparation of a Draft Citywide Historic Context Statement (HCS). The HCS is organized into seven sub-contexts with associated themes. The context on Social, Cultural & Political Development includes a theme on Religion & Spirituality and the context on Civic & Institutional Development includes a theme on Public & Private Education. A reference to a property in the HCS does not automatically infer its eligibility for landmark designation. Properties not already listed under federal, state, and local landmark and historic district programs will be evaluated for eligibility during the survey, which Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena9
is in progress. It is worth noting, however, that the Church is not referenced in the Religion & Spirituality theme, while the School is mentioned in the Public & Private Education theme as an early parochial school.17
This memorandum does not constitute a full assessment of the St. Philip the Apostle Church and School campus or any of the individual buildings thereon. Based upon the preliminary research conducted for this memorandum, however, it is highly unlikely that the campus would qualify as a potential historic district. National Register Bulletin ffl5 defines a district as "a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development."18 The campus was not developed according to a plan, but rather expanded and evolved over time with early buildings such as the Convent19 demolished, and newer buildings such as the Rectory constructed as recently as 2020. Although the newer buildings were designed to blend with the older buildings, the campus lacks the sense of an historic environment. The buildings do not collective convey a particular period of time before the 50-year mark, which is generally required for designation.

The 1950 Church building and 1927 School building are the only two buildings on the campus that appear to warrant evaluation as potential historical resources. The Church building does not appear to be historically significant under Criterion A/l/D2a. The parish was established in 1921 and services were originally conducted in a building located at the corner of Hill Avenue and Cordova Street. It became the Parish Hall when the new Church building was completed and was demolished for the construction of the 2008 addition to the 1927 School building. The 1950 Church building cannot represent the early history of the parish, which does not appear to have any inherent significance. Older parishes referenced in the HCS include St. Andrews Catholic Church formed in 1886 and Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Mission established in 1911.

With further research and comparative analysis, the Church building could potentially be considered architecturally significant under Criterion C/3/D2c. Constructed in 1950, it is a very late example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, which was commonly applied to the design of Catholic churches. The registration requirements in the HCS state, "There is a high threshold for a property in Pasadena to be eligible for its architectural or design merit. A property may be eligible as a rare remaining example of an important or early architectural style in the city; however, it still must represent an excellent example of the style. For styles that are relatively common, comparative analysis should be conducted to determine whether the property rises to the level of individual distinction for its architectural merit."20 Research on the alterations and additions to the Church building would also be required to determine if it retains sufficient integrity, which is required for a finding of eligibility. If the Church building was evaluated as 17 Draft Citywide Historic Context Statement, City of Pasadena, 2025, 412. 18 National Register Bulletin #15, 5.
19 The Convent was constructed in 1955 and located on Holliston Avenue. The site is now a surface parking lot. 20 Draft Citywide Historic Context Statement, City of Pasadena, 2025, 924.

Memorandum - 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena10
architectural significant, it would meet National Criteria Consideration G for religious properties.

Based upon the limited information in the HCS, the 1927 School building could potentially be considered historically significant under Criterion A/l/D2a as an early example of a parochial school in Pasadena. If so, an assessment of its integrity would be required based upon the alterations and additions since its original construction. It could meet National Criteria Consideration G for religious properties with additional research. The building does not appear to have architectural merit as it is not an excellent example of a particular style of architecture.

Criterion B/2/D2b and 0/4/D2d were not considered in this analysis but are unlikely be applicable to the Church or School buildings. Religious and educational buildings developed and used by groups are not typically associated with individuals. Properties significant under Criterion D/4/D2d are usually archaeological sites.

ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS
Thresholds for Impacts on Historical Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines set the standard for determining the significance of impacts to historical resources in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b), which states:

A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b)(l) further clarifies "substantial adverse change" as follows:

Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.

Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(b)(2)(C) in turn explains that a historical resource is "materially impaired" when a project:

Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

As a property conveys its significance as a historical resource through its physical characteristics, the test for determining whether or not a proposed project will have a Memorandum - 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena11
significant impact on an identified historical resource is whether or not the project will alter in an adverse manner the integrity of the historical resource such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or other landmark programs such as the list of Pasadena Landmarks, Monuments, and Districts. Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin ffl5 as "the ability of a property to convey its significance."21 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes the following seven aspects or qualities that in various combinations define integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials. Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Thus, the significance of the property must be fully established before the integrity is analyzed.

Analysis of Potential Project Impacts
Although the St. Philip the Apostle 1950 Church and 1927 School buildings are not mandatory or presumptive historical resources defined by CEQA and their eligibility as potential historical resources is unclear, for purposes of conservatively analyzing the potential for the Project to result in historic impacts, this portion of the memorandum assumes the buildings are significant, retain integrity, and are individually eligible for listing under federal, state, and local landmark programs. With this assumption, the following discussion analyzes the potential impacts from the Project on the two buildings using the definition of "substantial adverse change" as provided in the State CEQ.A Guidelines.

1. Would the Project involve the demolition or destruction of an historical resource? The Project would not demolish or destroy an historical resource. There are no buildings, historical or otherwise, on the Project Site. Furthermore, the noise analysis conducted for the Project included an assessment of potential vibration-related building damage at adjacent properties and concluded that no such damage would occur.

2. Would the Project involve the relocation that does not maintain the integrity of an historical resource?
The Project does not involve the relocation of an historical resource. There are no buildings, historical or otherwise, on the Project Site.

3. Would the Project involve alteration that does not maintain the integrity of an historical resource?
The Project does not involve the alteration of an historical resource. There are no buildings, historical or otherwise, on the Project Site.
21National Register Bulletin #15, 44.

Memorandum - 1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena12

4. Would the Project involve construction that reduces the integrity of an historical resource on the site or in the immediate vicinity?
Since the Project does not involve any physical changes to the Church or School buildings, the Project could not possibly reduce their integrity of location, design, material, workmanship, feeling, or association. Thusly, the only relevant aspect of integrity with respect to the impact of the Project on these two buildings is setting. Setting refers to the character of the place in which the historical resource is situated within the boundaries of the property as well as the relationship between the historical resource and its surroundings.22
The Project will introduce a new visual element in the form of a four-story building to the setting of the two buildings; however, it will not result in a substantial adverse change to their assumed integrity. The Project will be approximately 50 feet away from the Church building and 200 feet away from the School building, which does not include the south and east setbacks of the new building from the property line. Furthermore, the new building will be separated from School building by the Church building and Parish Hall. It is also worth noting that the two buildings are oriented to the east facing Hill Avenue. So, the relationship between the front facades of the two buildings and the area to the east is important, while the area to the west is not.

The immediate setting of the two buildings will not be altered by the Project and has already been changed by the construction of the Parish Hall in 2007, School building addition in 2008, and Rectory in 2020. The broad setting of individual buildings in urban landscapes is rarely an essential aspect of integrity. In this case,the broad setting is not a physical characteristic that conveys the assumed historical or architectural significance of the two buildings. Additionally, the broad setting has already been altered. With regard to the block on which the Project Site is located, the expansion of the Church and School campus required the demolition of residential buildings on Holliston Avenue for surface parking. The setting on the east has evolved with the expansion of the Pasadena City College campus west to Hill Avenue. Therefore, the immediate and broad setting of the Church and School buildings has already been diminished by late 20th and early 21st century development.

Assuming for the purposes of this memorandum that the two buildings may currently be eligible for listing as historical resources defined by CEQA (which as described above, has not been demonstrated), the two buildings would not be materially impaired by the Project because they would remain eligible for such listing.

CONCLUSIONS
The Project will not result in a direct or indirect impact on historical resources. Since the Project does not involve the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of any buildings, historical or otherwise, it will not result in any direct impacts on historical 22National Register Bulletin ffl5, 45.

Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena13
resources. The Church and School buildings were assumed to be eligible historical resources for the purposes of this memorandum; under this assumption, the introduction of a new visual feature in the vicinity of the two buildings would not diminish their significance. The buildings would not be materially impaired by the Project because they would retain all of their current physical features, continue to convey their historical and architectural significance, and remain eligible for listing under federal, state, and local landmark programs.

Therefore, the Project would have no indirect impact on a historical resource, even under the conservative assumptions of this analysis.

Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, Pasadena14
TERESA GRIMES | Historic Preservation
[email protected]
323-868-2391
Teresa Grimes has 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation. She is widely recognized as an expert in the identification and evaluation of historical resources having successfully prepared dozens of landmark and historic district applications for a wide variety of property types. Teresa graduated from the University of California with a Master of Art degree in Architecture and has worked in the private, public, and non-profit sectors. Teresa has extensive experience in the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act including the identification of historical resources, analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and development of mitigation measures. Her many projects throughout Southern California include the Art Center College of Design Master Plan, Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza, Cinerama Dome Entertainment Center, City of Hope Master Plan, Claremont Graduate University Master Plan, Claremont McKenna College Master Plan, John Anson Ford Theatres, Oakwood School Master Plan, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Times Mirror Square, Sunset Las Palms Studios, and Sunset Bronson Studios.

Educational Background
M.A., Architecture, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1992
B.A., Political Science, University of California,
Los Angeles, 1986
Qualifications
Meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards for
history and architectural history pursuant to
the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part
61, Appendix A.

Professional Activities
California Preservation Foundation Board
Member, 2025
Friends of Residential Treasures of Los
Angeles Board Member, 2024-2025
Pasadena Heritage Board Member,
2008-2012
Highland Park Heritage Trust Board Member,
1996-1998
West Hollywood Cultural Heritage Advisory
Board, 1990-1994
•
•
Professional Experience
• Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation,
Principal, 2020 - Present
GPA Consulting, Principal Architectural
Historian, 2009-2020
Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Senior
Architectural Historian, 2006-2009
Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation,
Principal, 1999-2005,1993-1994,1991-1992
Historic Resources Group, Architectural
Historian, 1994-1998
Getty Conservation Institute, Research
Associate, 1992-1993
Los Angeles Conservancy, Preservation
Officer, 1988-1991
Memorandum -1364 E. Green Street, PasadenaAppendix A
Jomsky, Mark
Subject:RE: Message from Contact Form on District 7
From: City Web <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 11:35 AM
To: Lyon, Jason; Thyret, Pam
Subject: Message from Contact Form on District 7
Message
Select One
Do you want us to
contact you
regarding your
comment?
Name
Last
Email
Phone
I would like to recommend support fortheCaltech's Green Street Innovation Center coming up for a vote on Monday March 3rd. I'm a Pasadena resident and have been on the board of the Caltech Entrepreneurs Forum as a volunteer for over 10 years. This new innovation center has the potential to be a strong bridge between Caltech, PCC and the larger Pasadena entrepreneurial community, especially in biotechnology. What better way to turn a vacant lot into a long term incubator. Thank you for your support.

Contact District 7
Yes -1 would like to provide my contact information
Andrew
Tomat
1 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 12:35 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect What Anchors Our Community- St. Philip the Apostle [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 parishioner who believes we must protect the places that anchor our community. Our churches, schools, and long-established neighborhoods are not just structures on a map—theyarethefoundationsof daily life in Pasadena. They provide stability, belonging, and continuity across generations. When large-scale development such as that at 1 364 E. Green Street is 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 community together. Pasadena has long been admired for thoughtful planning that balances growth with preservation. That balance is essential. Growth should strengthen the institutions that define us, not overshadow or strain them. I respectfully urge you to ensure that projects near churches, schools, and established neighborhoods undergo thorough review and are appropriately scaled to their settings. Protecting what anchors our community is not opposition to progress — it is a commitment to responsible stewardship. Please safeguard the places that give Pasadena its identity and heart.

Sincerely,
NoelleTamayo
Ventura, CA 93004 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]
Monday, March 2, 2026 1:17 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Accountability and Safety for 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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: Accountability and Safetyfor 1364 E. Green Street
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am a former employee and a parishioner of St. Philip's for almost 50 years...This building at the proposed height will change the peaceful look of the campus forever. I am opposed to its immense size and proximity to the Church.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 1:30 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 is a sacred place where we gather for worship, receive the sacraments, and serve others. These ministries depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, calm, and respectful of sensitive uses. As Catholics, we are called to uphold human dignity, care for our neighbors, and act as good stewards of our community. While I 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,
WaiKo
San Gabriel, CA 91775 Constituent
Prepared by OneCUckPolitics (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:

Cortese, Case K.

Monday, March 2, 2026 1:35 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 [ 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.

Dear Pasadena City Council,
I am writingto support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. This project will serve as a vital home for startups translating cutting-edge research into real-world solutions. By creating an environment where discovery- driven companies can grow, it advances Pasadena's vision of becoming a leading center for innovation, education, and opportunity. Within this space, breakthrough ideas will evolve into products and services that meaningfully improve lives and benefit society.

The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:

Keep transformational ideas and new companies in Pasadena: The start-up companies that arise from cutting- edge research happening at Caltech will have the mix of office and laboratory space that allows them to put down roots and grow in Pasadena, rather than leave for other cities.

Create local careers: The innovation center will create permanent high-quality STEM jobs. Graduates of Pasadena City College, Cattech, and Pasadena schools will have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.

Boost the local economy: the CIC will create a wide variety of permanent jobs: in technical areas at all kinds of educational levels (high school, bachelors, and graduate level degrees), in an ecosystem of related service providers used by these companies-tax preparers, legal, banking, insurance, custodial, shipping, restaurants, coffee shops; and services used by the families of ALL these employed people - schools, childcare, automotive, doctors, dentists, hair salons, food, clothing, retailers of all kinds. And the project itself will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants and shops.

Engage education: The innovation center will connect students and faculty from Caltechwith industry partners while providing pathways for local schools and colleges to engage with cutting-edge science.

Enhance Pasadena's reputation: Innovation districts tied to universities are thriving in cities across the U.S.

Pasadena has the talent and institutions to compete and lead, and this building is an important step.

Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.

Thriving cities across the country have innovation centers adjacent to their world-class educational campuses -PaloAlto, Berkeley, Boston, New York, San Diego, Chicago, Research Triangle Park, for example. Pasadena would similarly benefit from being hub of innovation, talent, and capital that helps keep a city thriving.

I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to our community.

Regards,
Case
Case Cortese PhD | Director for Innovation, New Ventures & Entrepreneurship Caltech | Technology Transfer and Corporate Partnerships 626-395-4942 | [email protected]! innovation.caltech.edu 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 1:43 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns About 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 is a sacred place of worship, sacrament, and service. Catholic SocialTeaching reminds us that decisions affecting our city must serve the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes). These values depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, accessible, and respectful of sensitive uses like churches. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the scale proposed. Approving it without a full environmental review, and at a height beyond what was envisioned for this street, raises serious concerns for parishioners—especially families, children, and elderly members of our community. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51-foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review. Doing so would reflect true stewardship, respect for faith communities, and a commitment to the common good. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that honors safety, community, and the vital role our parish plays in Pasadena.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:30 PM
Marquez, Miguel
General Plan Land Use Elements; Traffic Congestion; Child Impact [ 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: General Plan Land Use Elements; Traffic Congestion; Child Impact Mr. MiguelMarquez,
As you consider the proposed development at 1364 East Green Street, I respectfully ask that you evaluate this project according to the foundational Pasadena General Plan Land Use Elements, specifically Land Use Elements #5, #4, and #2. *Pasadena committed to development of commercial, non-residential areas, close to transportation lines. To this voter, the proposed complex does not fit that commitment. Please consider Elements # 4 and # 2. *1 often use the intersection of Green & Hill, and Green & Cordova. This is a heavily trafficked area. The last thing this area needs is additional traffic as would be thrust on the neighborhood by the proposed project. Peopte have a tendency to not signal, drive aggressively, and rush here. A Pasadena City College entrance further complicates this area. See Land Use Element # 5, below. *1 wonder what the impact of the proposed development will be on the many children who attend school, obtain services, and participate in church services on that block.

What are the safety, educational, and environmental impacts of the construction and traffic changes on children? Many elderly adults already drive and walk in this area as well. Please see Land Use Elements #4 and #5. *And...what sort of work will go on in the building, specifically? With what? Using what? "Biotechnology" is too broad a term for local citizens to be able to guess what activities will occur, and what substances, utility uses, and resources will be impactingtheir neighborhood. Many thanks foryour thoughtful consideration.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 1:56 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns Regarding 1364 E. Green Street
[,( ] 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 Regarding 1364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a parishioner deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation, economic growth, and research and development. At the same time, churches play a vital role in our city as places of worship, reflection, education, and service. These missions depend on safe, accessible, and appropriately scaled surroundings that respect sensitive uses and neighborhood character. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the currently proposed scale. Proceeding without a full environmental review—and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street—raises serious concerns for parishioners, including traffic safety, noise, air quality, and overall compatibility with church activities. Requiring the project to return in a redesigned form that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's maximum height of approximately 51 feet and that undergoes a thorough environmental analysis would better align the development with the surrounding neighborhood and sensitive institutions. This approach would help preserve community trust while still supporting Pasadena's broader innovation goals. Approving the project as proposed would set a troubling precedent for placing intensified R&D uses adjacent to churches and other sensitive community institutions in areas not clearly intended for such development under Pasadena's planning framework. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forward only in a form that reflects both economic ambition and respect for our church community and shared values.

Sincerely,
Ron and Vivianna Welflin
San Gabriel, CA 91775 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]
Monday, March 2, 2026 2:07 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Protect Pasadena Neighborhoods- 1364 E. Green Street
[ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you taowthe 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,
While I am a scientist living in Pasadena with a deep commitment to research, I am very concerned that Caltech's new project at 1 364 E. Green Street has not been properly vetted for its impact to the local community, particularly the church school that will be most impacted by its construction. I urge the city to make sure that the project is thoroughly vetted by all standard practices before construction is approved. Sincerely, Michael Dickinson
Sincerely,
Michael Dickinson
. Pasadena , CA 91104 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]
Monday, March 2, 2026 2:08 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 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: Respect Our Sacred Space- St. Philip the Apostle
Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as both a Pasadena resident and a Longtime parishioner of the historic church on Green Street. For many of us, this parish is a second home — a place of prayer, peace, and community. It is also a treasured Roland Coate landmark that has been part of Pasadena's character for generations. I am deeply concerned about the proposed project at 1364 E. Green Street. Early-morning construction, heavy trucks, and vibration would disrupt Mass, funerals, and weddings, and could impact our historic church building. A project of this scale does not belong immediately beside a sacred space and an established neighborhood. What also upsets me is this construction couldn't be done near a public school, but it can be done at parochial schools. To me, the city is sayingthat parochial school children are not as important as public school children. All children need to be protected equally. This is not opposition to growth. It is a call for balance and respect. I urge the Council to require a full environmental review and ensure the project complies with the 51 -foot height Limit in the East Colorado Specific Plan.

Please protect our church, our neighborhood, and the character that makes Pasadena special.

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

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
.^. CE-VIC ASSOCIATION
March 2, 2026
Mayor Victor Gordo and City Council Members,

VIA EMAIL
100N. Garfield Avenue
Pasadena.CA 91100

RECEIVED
2026HAR-2 PM 3^47
CiTY CLERK
CiTY OF PASADENA
RE: Public Hearing Item 10-Caltech Innovation Center
Dear Mayor Gordo and Council Members,
The Board of Directors of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce and Civic Association enthusiastically support the development of the Innovation Center at 1364 East Green Street. The project will add much needed research and development space in Pasadena. It is also an attractive project Located appropriately in space owned by California Institute of Technology close their campus and Pasadena City College.

This project will be another economic development engine for the City of Pasadena. It will help CaLTech spin-off companies grow and develop here in Pasadena.

The project is proposed on land already designated forthis use. It requires no changes to zoning or land use of the site.

Caltech is a strong and positive member of our community and builds projects to the highest design standards using first-rate architects, in this case Gensler.

Pasadena standards require mitigation of construction impacts to neighboring properties, residents and users.

The Board of Directors of the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce urges you to approve this important project.

Thankypu,
fffllittle
President and Chief Executive Officer
Cc: K. Johnson, J. Paige; M. Marquez; M. Jomsky
44 North Mentor Avenue • Pasadena, California 91106-1745 626-795-3355 ph • 626-795-5603 fax • www.pasadena-chamberorg 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 2:55 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Questioning City Priorities Regarding Development Next to St. Philip the Apostle School [ 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: Questioning City Priorities Regarding Development Next to St. Philip the Apostle School Mr. MarkJomsky,
Why is the City advancing a major construction and R&D project directly next to an active elementary school and church, and whose interests are being prioritized in allowing it to proceed this far? I am a parent of a child at St. Philip the Apostle School, writing out of deep concern regarding the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street. Placing prolonged construction, increased traffic, and an R&D facility with unclear research uses immediately adjacent to children raises serious questions about judgment, oversight, and public responsibility. Parents expect the City to exercise heightened caution when decisions affect schools and residential neighborhoods. Instead, this project appears to have moved forward with limited transparency and without clear, publicly demonstrated assurances that children's safety and daily well-being come first. It is reasonable to ask why this location was considered acceptable at all, and why safeguards were not firmly established before progress was made. I respect the role of the City Council and acknowledge Caltech's contributions to Pasadena. However, economic or institutional interests should never outweigh the obligation to protect children. I urge the Council to pause this project, require a comprehensive safety and environmental review, and seriously reconsider whether this site is appropriate for high-intensity development. The community is watching closely and expects decisions rooted in accountability, sound judgment, and a clear commitment to families—not expediency.

Sincerely,
Kate Candelora
: La Canada, CA 91 011 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:

Nick Hooper
Monday, March 2, 2026 3:25 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Re: Reference to the innovation center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258
ISome people who received this message don't often get email from.earn why this is important [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 Pasadena City Council,
I am writing to support the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. Close to Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project is ideally positioned to nurture start-ups and attract companies focused on discovery. This development will help fulfill Pasadena's goal to be a hub for innovation, education, and opportunity. In this space, creative ideas will become products and services that benefit society and improve life.

The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:

Create local careers: The innovation center will create permanent high-quality STEM jobs.

Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schools will have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.

Boost the local economy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, the project will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants and shops.

Enhance Pasadena's reputation: Innovation districts tied to universities are thriving in cities across the U.S. Pasadena has the talent and institutions to compete and Lead, and this building is an important step.

Protect Pasadena's environment: The project incorporates sustainability features such as advanced shading, energy efficiency, water conservation, low VOC emitting materials and 14 new street trees to strengthen Pasadena's green canopy.
•
1 03/02/2026
Item 10
Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, Landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.

I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring these benefits to our community.

Regards,
Nick Hooper
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 3:34 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
1364 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 E. Green Street Opposition - Protecting Our Historic Parish and Worship Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a Catholic parishioner concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its impact on our church community. Our parish is a sacred and historic place of worship, designed by renowned architect Roland Coate, whose work is an important part of Pasadena's architectural heritage. This church is not only a place of prayer and sacrament, but a cultural and spiritual Landmark that serves generations of families. Catholic Social Teaching calls us to uphold the common good and protect human dignity (Gaudium et Spes), values that depend on a surrounding environment that is safe, respectful, and peaceful. While I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation and institutions such as Caltech, this project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this Location or at the scale proposed. Construction associated with a project of this intensity—often beginning as early as 7:00 a.m. and continuingfor many hours each day—raises serious concerns for our parish. Noise, heavy equipment, truck traffic, and ground vibration threaten to disrupt Masses, funerals, weddings, religious education, and times of prayer and reflection. Vibration is of particular concern given the church's historic design and materials. Prolonged construction activity could place stress on a structure never intended to be adjacent to large-scale R&D development, risking both physical damage and the Loss of the quiet reverence essential to worship. Approving the project without a full environmental review, and at a height exceeding what was envisioned for this street, places an unfair burden on a historic church and its parishioners. I respectfully urge the City Council to require that this project comply with the East Colorado Specific Plan's 51 -foot height limit and undergo a thorough environmental review that fully addresses construction noise, vibration, and hours of operation. Please grant the appeal and allow this project to return in a form that reflects stewardship, protects our historic parish, and respects the sacred nature of worship.

Sincerely,
Eugenie Bowler
Pasadena, CA 91107-1 845 Constituent
Prepared by OneClickPolitics (tm) at www.oneclickpotitics.com. OneClickPolitics provides online communications tools for supporters of a cause, issue, organization or association to contact their elected officials. For more information regarding our policies and services, please contact [email protected] 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

White, Jonathan A.

Monday, March 2, 2026 3:35 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Lyon, Jason; Davidson, Samuel R. (Sam)
Public comment in support of 1364 E Green St innovation center, [ 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.

Dear Pasadena City Council,
I am writing in support of the 1364 E Green St innovation center (Appeal # DHP2025-00258).

My name is Jonathan White. I am currentlyfinishingmyPhD in Bioengjneering at Caltech and hope to start a company with my friend, Sam Davidson, who recently finished his Bioengineering PhD at Caltech. We want to combine our knowledge of different areas of bioengineeringto develop rapid diagnostics for infections. Infections are still one of the leading causes of death in the United States.

Current diagnostic technologies are slow, not very effective, or expensive, which leads to 1 20,000 deaths from misdiagnosed infection annually in the US alone. Sam and I thinkthat our technology can provide a comprehensive diagnostic for infection in less than 4 hours for under a hundred dollars.

We hope our company will be ready to expand into its own space around the time the 1 364 Green Street facility opens and that it can become our company's home. We would love to keep our company in Pasadena to bring jobs to this city and continue our collaboration with Caltech's main campus.

Sincerely,
Jonathan White
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Clare Yarka
Monday, March 2, 2026 3:44 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 I Some people who received this message don't often get email fron"I Learn why this is important
[ I ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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: Reference to the innovation center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 Dear Pasadena City Council,
I am writing in support of the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street.

I moved to Pasadena from the Midwest in 2014 in search of a job in biological research. As you can imagine, the Pasadena and Caltech communities have impacted my personal and professional development immensely in the last 12 years. Now, as a scientist and parent, I see Pasadena as a bastion of innovation and education potential, and the construction of the Innovation Center will only strengthen the city's place in the biotech and tech communities in Southern California and beyond.

The Innovation Center will make vital contributions to Pasadena and the neighborhood:

Create local careers: The innovation center will create permanent high-quality STEM jobs.

Graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and Pasadena schools will have more opportunities to build their careers here at home.

Boost the local economy: Beyond creating permanent jobs, the project will generate construction work, attract investment, and increase business activity in nearby restaurants and shops.

Engage education: The innovation center will connect students and faculty from Caltech with industry partners while providing pathways for local schools and colleges to engage with cutting-edge science.

Enhance Pasadena's reputation: Innovation districts tied to universities are thriving in cities across the U.S. Pasadena has the talent and institutions to compete and lead, and this building is an important step.
•
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
Protect Pasadena's environment: The project incorporates sustainability features such as advanced shading, energy efficiency, water conservation, lowVOC emitting materials and 14 new street trees to strengthen Pasadena's green canopy.

Community-oriented design: Broad public sidewalks, landscaping, open space, benches, and art opportunities will make this project a valued asset for neighbors, visitors, and tenants.

I respectfully urge you to support the Caltech Innovation Center and help bring (and retain!) these benefits to our community.

Sincerely,
Clare Yarka
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kimmy McAtee
Monday, March 2, 2026 3:50 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 ISome people who received this message don't often get email from'1. Learn why this is important N
[ 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.

Dear Members of the Pasadena City Council,
I am writing in strong support of the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. I am also a local homeowner Living just over five miles from the proposed site, with a personal investment in ensuring that Pasadena continues to grow in ways that are thoughtful, sustainable, and community- centered. I serve as a Board Member of Young &h-lealthy Pasadena and Chair of our Strategic Advancement Committee. In that role, I work closely on long-term planning, partnerships, and community sustainability. From that vantage point, I see clearly how essential strong institutions are to the health and future of Pasadena.

Young & h-lealthy exists to ensure that uninsured and underserved children in Pasadena have access to medical, dental, and mental health care. Our work depends on a thriving local ecosystem, one where education, innovation, economic opportunity, and community wellbeing reinforce one another. The proposed Innovation Center reflects exactly that kind of interconnected growth.

Located near Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project is ideally positioned to nurture start-ups and attract companies focused on research and discovery. It will help keep transformational ideas and emerging companies rooted in Pasadena rather than Losing them to other cities. By providing the right mix of laboratory and office space, the center allows research-driven ventures to grow locally, strengthening Pasadena as a hub for invention and applied science.

The Innovation Center also aligns with the City's East Colorado Specific Plan and is a by-right development that fulfills Pasadena's long-standing vision for thoughtful, innovation-oriented growth. It will create permanent, high-quality STEM jobs and expand career pathways for graduates of Pasadena City College, Caltech, and our Local schools. Beyond direct employment, it will generate construction work, attract investment, and support surrounding small businesses, contributing to a more resilient local economy.

Equally important, the project reflects a commitment to sustainability and community-minded design.

Features such as energy efficiency measures, water conservation, low-emitting materials, new street trees, open space, and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks demonstrate that economic development and environmental stewardship can move forward together.
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
Pasadena has the talent, educational institutions, and civic spirit to lead in the next era of innovation.

The Caltech Innovation Center is a meaningful step in that direction. As someone committed to strengthening the Long-term wellbeing of Pasadena families, I respectfully urge you to support this project and the opportunities it will create for our community.

Sincerely,
Kimmy McAtee Bell
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Creative Drinking
Monday, March 2, 2026 3:57 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 Some people who received this message don't often get email from. Learn why this is important [ l ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content 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 Members of the Pasadena City Council,
I am writing in strong support of the proposed Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street. I am a local homeowner and business owner operating in the greater Pasadena and Los Angeles area. As both a resident and business Leader, I care deeply about the kind of growth and investment that strengthens our city over the long term.

Pasadena has always stood at the intersection of creativity, science, and entrepreneurship. The Innovation Center represents a continuation of that legacy. By providing Laboratory and office space near Caltech and Pasadena City College, the project creates the conditions for research-driven companies to establish roots here rather than relocating elsewhere. That retention of talent and enterprise is critical to maintaining Pasadena's competitive edge.

From a business perspective, innovation districts create ripple effects that extend well beyond their walls. They generate high-quality jobs, attract investment, and support surrounding businesses, from local retailers to restaurants and service providers. They also help cultivate an environment where creative and technical industries can collaborate, fueling economic resilience and Long-term opportunity.

The project's alignment with the City's East Colorado Specific Plan and its thoughtful approach to sustainability and pedestrian-friendly design demonstrate that this is not speculative development. It is consistent with Pasadena's stated vision for responsible growth. Features such as energy efficiency measures, water conservation strategies, expanded sidewalks, landscaping, and new street trees reflect an understanding that innovation and Livability must move forward together.

Pasadena has the institutions, talent, and civic leadership to remain a national leader in discovery and entrepreneurship. The Caltech Innovation Center is an important step in ensuring that our city continues to attract, retain, and support the next generation of companies and careers.

As a homeowner and business owner invested in Pasadena's future, I respectfully urge you to support this project.

Sincerely,
Nathan Bell
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Russell Frandsen <[email protected]>
Monday, March 2, 2026 4:09 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Lyon, Jason
Caltech Innovation Center at 1364 E. Green Street and Appeal # DHP2025-00258 Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important [ -II ] 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.

Dear Council Members and Colleagues:

I write in support ofCaltech's Innovation Center at 1364 Green Street and Appeal No. DHP2025-00258.

I practiced law in Pasadena for many years before I recently moved my office to La Canada Flintridge.

I have served on the Executive Committee of the Caltech Entrepreneurs Forum for 30 years.

I have clients in Pasadena who have got their start from the Caltech Entrepreneurs Forum and the innovation efforts of the Caltech Technology Transfer office. I know first hand how valuable Caltech's entrepreneurial vision is to Pasadena and the tech sector in this part of Los Angeles County.

I fully support the Caltech Innovation Center. I urge you to grant the appeal and approve all permits necessary for Caltech to proceed with this important project. I am certain that Pasadena and its residents will benefit substantially from Caltech's initiative.

Please support Caltech and assure that the necessary permits and approvals are granted expeditiously.

Very truly yours,
Russell M. Frandsen
Russell M. Frandsen
Direct Phone: +1-818-915-0426
Fax: +1 213-403-5962
Email: [email protected]
www.businessleaajciroup.com
The Business Legal Group
Business and Tax Law - Results Matter
1313 Foothill Boulevard
Suite 6
La Canada Flintridge, CA 9101 1
THIS EMAIL, ALONG WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY WELL BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED IT IN ERROR, YOU ARE ON NOTICE OF ITS STATUS. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL AND THEN DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. PLEASE DO NOT COPY IT OR USE 103/02/2026
Item 10
IT FOR ANY PURPOSES, OR DISCLOSE ITS CONTENTS TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, WE INFORM YOU THAT, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN WRITING, ANY U.S. FEDERAL TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF (1) AVOIDING PENALTIES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL PROVISIONS OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY TAX-RELATED MATTERS ADDRESSED HEREIN.
2 McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Monday, March 2, 2026 4:18 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
Parishioner Concerns Regarding 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 Regarding 1 364 E. Green Street Mr. MarkJomsky,
I am writing as a parishioner deeply concerned about the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street and its potential impact on our church community. I support Pasadena's commitment to innovation, economic growth, and research and development. At the same time, churches play a vital role in our city as places of worship, reflection, education, and service. These missions depend on safe, accessible, and appropriately scaled surroundings that respect sensitive uses and neighborhood character. The proposed project has not demonstrated that it can operate safely at this location or at the currently proposed scale. Proceeding without a full environmental review—and at a height exceedingwhat was envisioned for this street—raises serious concerns for parishioners, including traffic safety, noise, air quality, and overall compatibility with church activities. Requiring the project to return in a redesigned form that complies with the East Colorado Specific Plan's maximum height of approximately 51 feet and that undergoes a thorough environmental analysis would better align the development with the surrounding neighborhood and sensitive institutions. This approach would help preserve community trust while still supporting Pasadena's broader innovation goals. Approving the project as proposed would set a troubling precedent for placing intensified R&D uses adjacent to churches and other sensitive community institutions in areas not clearly intended for such development under Pasadena's planning framework. I respectfully urge you to grant the appeal and allow this project to move forward only in a form that reflects both economic ambition and respect for our church community and shared values.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Community Manager <
Monday, March 2, 2026 4:28 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Gordo, Victor; Hampton, Tyron; Cole, Rick; Jones, Justin; Masuda, Gene; Rivas, Jessica; Madison, Steve; Lyon, Jason 1364 E. Green St. - 1,600+ Signatures Urging Responsible Review 8 Some people who received this message don't often get email from;. Learn why this is important [ ,1s ] CAUTION: This emarl 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.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of Building a Better Pasadena, I submit this public comment regarding the proposed development at 1364 E. Green Street.

More than 1,600 individuals have signed a public petition urging responsible development at this site.

The petition can be viewed here:
https://www.change.ora/p/pasadena-deserves-responsible-development-for-1364-e-cireen-st The majority of petition signers are Pasadena residents and local stakeholders, along with additional supporters who care deeply about the future of our city.

The 1,600+ petition signers reflect a substantial and measurable level of community concern. This level of documented public engagement requires a transparent process, a comprehensive impact analysis, and clear accountability to the residents the Council represents before any final decision is made.

Our organization supports innovation and economic growth. However, we also believe that new development, especially with commercial R&D laboratory uses adjacent to sensitive receptors, must:
• Require full safety, traffic, environmental, and community impact studies before any approval is granted
Address unresolved concerns about traffic, congestion, and parking in the surrounding neighborhood
• Evaluate neighborhood compatibility, including building scale, mass, and proximity to family- oriented institutions
Ensure meaningful resident engagement and thoughtful planning for a project of this scale and purpose
Reflect responsible and right-sized development consistent with the character of long- established residential areas
We respectfully urge the Council to ensure that any approval of this project is supported by thorough analysis, full transparency, and demonstrated compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to Pasadena.

Sincerely,
Susan Kun
On behalf of Building a Better Pasadena
1 3/2/2026
Item 10
RECE
^T^
^
E¥i
';m/
Office of the Provost
1200 East California Boulevard
Mail Code 206-31
Pasadena, California 91125
2026 MAR-2 PM>..ffi^ (626)395-6336
March 2, 2026
To the Pasadena City Councild-fY Qp PASADENA
I write in response to questions and concerns that have been raised regarding safety at 1364 E. Green Street. Caltech takes safety seriously and expects Trammell Crow (TC) to design, construct, and operate the facility safely and in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, and standards, as outlined below.

Caltech has safely operated and maintained research and laboratory buildings in Pasadena for more than a century, consistently meeting the highest standards of environmental health and safety.

Laboratory facilities have coexisted harmoniously with the surrounding residential and commercial neighborhoods for generations. Caltech maintains one of the strongest institutional safety and compliance programs in the region. Caltech expects that the same level of care, code compliance, and professional oversight will be applied in the design of 1364 E. Green Street. Regular monitoring and inspections will ensure this building is a safe, well-regulated, and compatible neighbor. 1364 E. Green Street will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, and standards governing research and life sciences facilities in Southern California. Federal standards and related guidance include, for example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories guidance document and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Design Requirements Manual. It is important to note that CDC's guidance document defines four graduated risk-based containment standards for laboratories, identified as Biosafety Level (BSL) l through 4, with BSL-i representing the lowest containment standard and BSL-4 representing the highest. Based on the type and kind of research activities that would occur at 1364 E. Green Street, the highest relevant containment standard would be BSL-2. Research and associated activities associated with the more sensitive BSL-3 and BSL-4 containment standards would not occur at 1364 E. Green Street.

At the state level, the facility will also adhere to all California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) requirements, the Medical Waste Management Act, and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) laboratory standards. Furthermore, the facility will be constructed and operated in conformance with all applicable California Building and Fire Code requirements regarding handling of non-hazardous and potentially hazardous materials as well as all fire and life safety measures.

Regionally, the project will comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, which set some of the most stringent air quality and emissions standards in the nation. These rules provide additional restrictions governing the use, storage, and disposal of laboratory chemicals and any emissions from laboratory operations to ensure air quality protection for both building occupants and the surrounding community.

Locally, all design and operational activities will meet the City of Pasadena's Building, Fire, and Environmental Health Department regulations, including plan review and inspection by the Pasadena Fire Department. The building will also be reviewed by the city's Environmental Health and Safety officials.

Respectfully,
A^^
DavidA.Tirrell
Provost
Ross McCollum-William H. Corcoran Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Carl and Shirley Larson Provostial Chair
3/2/2026
Item 10

RECEIVED
2026 KAR-2 p^ 4:54

CITY CLERK
^ CJTY OF PASADENA
March 2, 2026
Mayor Gordo, Vice-Mayor Rivas, and
Honorable Council Members,
c/o City Clerk
City of Pasadena
100 NGarfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Sent Via Email: CitvclerkCc&CitvofPasadena.net
RE: 1364 East Green Street Project
This is written insisting as to the need for additional environmental study for the proposed project as it presents possible impacts affecting many. One of the background facts underscoring this problem is that in the City's consideration of the R&D Land Use changes was context, nor appropriateness of this land use adjacent to school and residential uses discussed or explored.

The notion of incentives and importanceofthe usewas presented, but beyond those changes, the record of implications was minimal to none. This is a mistake. In one meeting, a councilmember identified "neighborhoods" likely referring to single family neighborhoods and PUSD campuses as being inappropriate locations for the proposed R&D Land Use. We agree. Butif restrictions apply to single family residential neighborhoods, how are multi-family neighborhood less important, whereby virtue of its very nature, more human lives are potentially affected given the density of population?
As for schools, while we understand the intent was directed at the utilization of shuttered PUSD campuses, we believe there ought to be more study of this building given the nature of the potential tenant to protect Sensitive Air Quality Receptors.

Sensitive Air Quality Receptors in CEQA include, but are not limited to, children, the elderly, persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular itlness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Please note: The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site is a contiguous elementary school and church, as well as multi-family residential land uses, located approximately 95 feet to the west of the Project site. The question as to the existence of Sensitive Air Quality receptors and potential impacts would have been studied through a CEQA Initial Study, but was avoided as the R&D Land Use was deemed to be a by-right use, justifying a Class 32 Categorical Exemption.

We would argue that deeming a land use to be permitted "by-right" does not eliminate potential impacts. The suggestion that this use is permitted "by-right" is further confounded in that the R&D Land Use includes physical buildingtraits, ratherthan a simple defined operation such as restaurant or commercial office. In this context a "by-right" use would make sense were it to occur within an existing building. As a newly built faculty however, study under CEQA would be required to vet all potential impacts to stakeholders such as school-aged children who would experience daily exposure to any exhaust or human mistakes for a period of 8 - 9 years of their lives. Deeming a land use "by-right" does not alleviate potential impacts, and without some level of analysis, the impacts cannot even be fully understood nor mitigated.
3/2/2026
Item 10
The study of potential impacts to Sensitive Air Quality Receptors would involve at least two considerations- Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts AND Long-Term Operational Impacts.

Furthermore, and specifically, the analysis would ask two very important questions that have not been addressed:

Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Without greater study these questions remain open.

A second question is related to Land Use. Specifically, an Initial Study would ask:

Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
We believe that in fact this project DOES constitute a conflict with a land use plan as the changes to the R&D Land Use, which includes new development standards that are in conflict with the underlying Specific Plan. The underlying East Colorado Specific Plan calls for far lower heights, contextualitywith the existing neighborhood, and respected existing historic assets.

As it relates to historic assets, in staff's assessment, the historic inventory included a number of buildings surrounding the property-the library on Green and Hill, and other buildings further to the north on Colorado, but failed to recognize the important legacy of the architect Raymond Coates who design the St Philip Apostle Church. Exclusion of a potentially historic asset, (which should not be excused given mistaken ignorance to the facts) does not eliminate an impact on that asset.

What is most important here is that a Class 32 Categorical Exemption could not be relied upon if there existed the potential for impacts to an historic asset. In this instance, the existence would have prompted a more robust environmental analysis, and that study could have required an Initial Study and the questions of impacts Sensitive Air Quality Receptors. In this regard, the conflict of land use, failure to identify historic assets in fact avoids mitigating a potential environmental effect.

Of grave concern is the City's R&D code which was drafted to envision BSL-1,2, and 3 level of study. According to the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which according to their website: leads the nations' medical and public health prepare for, response to, and recover from disasters and other public health emergencies; BSL-3 laboratories are used to study infectious agents or toxins that may be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infections. Given the above, under no terms should a lab of this nature given the surrounding uses be approved by Categorical Exemption. Again, the classification of a land use as "by-right" should not release the need to study potential impacts especially given context and setting- Sensitive Air Quality Respecters who will have daily explore for 8-9 years.

In no scenario is this an argument against innovation northe opportunity to advance technology for life saving solutions. In no scenario is this an argument against development rights, nor in opposition to an important Pasadena institution. It is not in opposition to the city's economic health. All of those considerations are fully supported. In contrast, this is an argument against an insufficient and incomplete environmental analysis for a proposed use that has the prospect to impact children and families, and other Pasadena institutions such as the St Philip parish, PCC's childcare facility, and the scores of residents who live proximate to the proposed project.

Decisions are best made with the aid information and so far, we argue that Council does not have sufficient information to proceed with this project. For Council to approve and proceed would suggest that the lives of an entire population of citizens - children, residents, and other stakeholders - are potentially disposable and less important than that of a commercial development - simply because the City does not wish to further study and resolve important questions for a building that may handle dangerous compounds, chemicals, isotopes, etc.

We understand what is at stake and the importance of the proposed use. We insist that you understand that the lives of those affected are of equal if not more importance and simply ask that more study be performed before approval. It is true, difficult decisions are hardest, but in this case there is no difficult decision.

Robert Montana

Pasadena City CouncilMarch 2, 2026

Pasadena City Council
March 2, 2026