250 E. Union Street Mixed Use Project - City of Pasadena › commissions › wp... · 250 E. Union Street Mixed Use Project Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

FINAL ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

250 E. Union Street Mixed Use Project

Lead Agency:

CITY OF PASADENA 175 North Garfield Avenue

Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Ms. Beilin Yu, Planner

626.744.6726

Prepared by:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500

Santa Ana, CA 92707 Contact: Ms. Frances Yau, AICP

949.330.4105

July 2019

JN 165836

This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.

City of Pasadena 250 E. Union Street Mixed Use Project

Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

July 2019 i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................ 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE IS/MND ............................................. 1 1.3 ADDENDUM FINDING......................................................................................... 3

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 5 3.0 REVISED PROJECT ANALYSIS AND IMPACT COMPARISON .................................. 31

3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................... 33 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ........................................... 46 3.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 48 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 55 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 59 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................... 73 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................... 80 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..................................................... 83 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............................................................. 89 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................................. 95 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 108 3.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................. 109 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................ 116 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ......................................................................................... 118 3.15 RECREATION ................................................................................................. 121 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ........................................................................ 123 3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................. 131 3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................. 134 3.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................ 139

4.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 143 APPENDICES (Provided on Enclosed CD)

A. Air Quality Data B. Historical Resources Report C. Noise Data D. Traffic Study E. AB 52 Consultation Documents

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/EkContent.aspx?theme=Navy&id=8589935134&bid=2970&style=news&ei=yZXSVJacFY7IsATE3oD4DQ&bvm=bv.85142067,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNHG7IJ5ZK54CKBeCNltpX2Slc5spg&ust=1423173436192911



July 2019 ii Table of Contents

LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Regional Vicinity ................................................................................................11 Exhibit 2 Site Vicinity ........................................................................................................12 Exhibit 3a Conceptual Site Plan (Subterranean Parking Plan P4) ......................................13 Exhibit 3b Conceptual Site Plan (Subterranean Parking Plan P3) ......................................14 Exhibit 3c Conceptual Site Plan (Subterranean Parking Plan P2) ......................................15 Exhibit 3d Conceptual Site Plan (1st Level Plan) ................................................................16 Exhibit 3e Conceptual Site Plan (2nd Level Plan) ...............................................................17 Exhibit 3f Conceptual Site Plan (3rd Level Plan) ................................................................18 Exhibit 3g Conceptual Site Plan (4th Level Plan) ................................................................19 Exhibit 3h Conceptual Site Plan (5th Level Plan) ................................................................20 Exhibit 3i Conceptual Site Plan (6th Level Plan) ................................................................21 Exhibit 3j Conceptual Site Plan (Roof Plan) .......................................................................22 Exhibit 4a Proposed North and East Elevations..................................................................23 Exhibit 4b Proposed South and West Elevations ................................................................24 Exhibit 5 Proposed Rendering ..........................................................................................25 Exhibit 6a Site Photographs ...............................................................................................26 Exhibit 6b Site Photographs ...............................................................................................27 Exhibit 6c Site Photographs ...............................................................................................28 Exhibit 6d Site Photographs ...............................................................................................29 Exhibit 7 Historic Districts .................................................................................................30 Exhibit 8 Key View Locations Map ....................................................................................36 Exhibit 9 Key View 1 .........................................................................................................37 Exhibit 10 Key View 2 .........................................................................................................38 Exhibit 11 Key View 3 .........................................................................................................39 Exhibit 12 Key View 4 .........................................................................................................43 Exhibit 13 Historical Resources in the Study Area ..............................................................61




July 2019 iii Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Approved and Revised Project Summary Comparison ........................................ 8 Table 2 Short-Term Construction Related Emissions ......................................................51 Table 3 Long-Term Operational Air Emissions ................................................................52 Table 4 Localized Significance of Emissions...................................................................54 Table 5 Historical Resources in the Study Area .............................................................60 Table 6 Proposed Mandatory and Selective Sustainable Development Actions ..............81 Table 7 Pasadena General Plan Land Use Element Policy Consistency Analysis ..........97 Table 8 Pasadena Zoning Consistency Analysis .......................................................... 104 Table 9 Noise Measurements ....................................................................................... 110 Table 10 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............... 112 Table 11 Vibration Damage Threshold Criteria .............................................................. 113 Table 12 City of Pasadena CEQA Caps ......................................................................... 124 Table 13 Revised Project Trip Generation ...................................................................... 127




July 2019 iv Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.




July 2019 v Table of Contents

ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND TECHNICAL APPENDICES ON CD




July 2019 vi Table of Contents





July 2019 1 Final

1.0 INTRODUCTION This environmental document is an Addendum to the Union Street Condominiums Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), adopted September 2, 2015 by the City of Pasadena. Since adoption of the IS/MND, changes to the project have been proposed. The proposed changes are addressed in this Addendum, which has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1.1 SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The original Union Street Condominiums Project (herein referenced as the “approved project”) is located on a 0.50-acre site at 254 East Union Street in the City of Pasadena (City).1 The approved project proposed a mixed-use development with 36 market-rate condominium units and 2,625 square feet of commercial space. The approved project included a single structure of five stories reaching a maximum height of 60 feet situated over two levels of subterranean parking with 134 spaces, including dedicated spaces to serve the proposed commercial uses and the existing office uses located at 225 East Colorado Boulevard, as well as one dedicated loading space and bicycle racks for six bicycles. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from one access driveway along Skillen Alley at the northeast portion of the project site. The ground parking level would reuse the existing historic parking entry signage.

Several common space areas were proposed within the structure for use by the residents, including a podium level outdoor open space area and a roof deck area (a barbeque and bar area, a dog run, seating areas, a water feature, a shade structure, and a fire pit).

Project entitlements included the following:

• Variance to allow the commercial uses on the ground floor to have a reduced depth along East Union Street, as the approved project proposed a maximum depth of approximately 28 feet and 6 inches, which is less than the minimum required depth of 50 feet.

• Private Tree Removal Permit for removal of the European Olive Trees located in the northwest and northeast corners of the project site.

The Union Street Condominiums Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2015 IS/MND) was prepared to address the environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the approved project. The 2015 IS/MND was released August 13, 2015 and made available for public review and comment through September 2, 2015. The Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on September 2, 2015 and approved the project.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE IS/MND

In accordance with CEQA, when a Lead Agency considers an amendment to a previously approved project, the Lead Agency is required to consider if the previously certified/adopted CEQA document provides adequate basis for rendering a decision on the proposed action. In summary, when making such a decision, the Lead Agency must consider any changes to the

1 The Applicant has requested a change of address from the existing 254 East Union Street to 250 East

Union Street.




July 2019 2 Final

project or its circumstances that have occurred and any new information that has become available since the project’s CEQA document was adopted/certified.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b), prior to approving further discretionary action and depending on the situation, the Lead Agency must either: (1) prepare a Subsequent EIR; (2) prepare a Supplemental EIR; (3) prepare a Subsequent Negative Declaration; (4) prepare an Addendum to the EIR or Negative Declaration; or (5) prepare no further documentation. More specifically, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states:

(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines explains when an Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration is appropriate. Per this section, where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously adopted Negative Declaration, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR (as described above) have occurred, then the lead agency is directed to prepare an Addendum to the adopted Negative Declaration (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164). Further, the Addendum should include a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162,” and that “explanation




July 2019 3 Final

must be supported by substantial evidence” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164 [e]). The addendum need not be circulated for public review but may simply be attached to the adopted Negative Declaration (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164 [c]).

1.3 ADDENDUM FINDING

On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the proposed revisions to the approved project do not meet the criteria in Section 15162 requiring a Subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration. There are no substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance that was not known to the Lead Agency at the time the MND was adopted that trigger any of the conditions identified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which would require subsequent or supplemental CEQA documentation. The proposed changes do not involve new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects discussed in the previous IS/MND. The proposed project does not require any additional mitigation measures. The previously identified mitigation measures remain valid and adequate to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is warranted.




July 2019 4 Final





July 2019 5 Final

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: 250 E. Union Street Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pasadena Planning Division

175 N. Garfield Avenue Pasadena CA 91101-1704

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Beilin Yu, Planner, (626) 744-6726

4. Project Location: 254 East Union Street (between Marengo Avenue and Garfield Avenue), Pasadena, Los Angeles County, CA 91101; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity and Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: DC Union Holdings, LLC

1005 East Las Tunas Drive #125 San Gabriel, CA 91776

6. General Plan Designation: Medium Mixed Use

7. Zoning: CD-2 (Central District Specific Plan, Civic

Center Sub-District) 8. Summary of Project Revisions:

Since adoption of the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND, the project applicant has proposed project refinements (herein referenced as the “revised project”) that would increase the number of condominium units, reduce the non-residential square footage, add an additional level of subterranean parking, and add an additional above-ground level of residential units, increasing the overall height of the project, as described below.

The revised project proposes a mixed-use development with 59 condominium units, including 54 market-rate condominiums and five very low-income units, and 1,953 square feet of office commercial space on the 0.50-acre site. The units would include a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units. The revised project would include a single structure of six stories reaching a maximum height of 75 feet situated over three levels of subterranean parking. The revised project proposes a total of 156 parking spaces, including 91 spaces for residents and guests and 65 dedicated spaces to serve the proposed office commercial uses and the existing office uses at 225 East Colorado Boulevard. Storage for 15 bicycles would be provided on-site for use by residents and employees.

Primary components associated with the various levels of the revised project are described below and depicted on Exhibits 3a through 3j: Conceptual Site Plan (Subterranean Parking Plan P4); Conceptual Site Plan (Subterranean Parking Plan P3); Conceptual Site Plan (Subterranean Parking Plan P2); Conceptual Site Plan (1st Level Plan); Conceptual Site Plan (2nd Level Plan); Conceptual Site Plan (3rd Level Plan); Conceptual Site Plan (4th Level Plan); Conceptual Site Plan (5th Level Plan); Conceptual Site Plan (6th Level Plan); and Conceptual Site Plan (Roof Plan).




July 2019 6 Final

• Subterranean Parking Levels P4, P3, and P2. Subterranean parking levels P4 and P3 would provide 22 and 47 residential parking spaces, respectively. Three of the resident spaces on level P3 would be designated as accessible spaces under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Subterranean parking level P2 would provide 16 residential parking spaces and 30 office parking spaces (including one guest space designated as ADA accessible), and an electrical room.

• First Level. The first level would provide a combination of parking, office space and resident-serving uses including the lobby, mailroom, and bicycle storage. The office space would front Union Street. Thirty-six office parking spaces and five guest parking spaces, including three spaces (one guest and two office) designated as ADA-accessible spaces would be provided. Utility and trash rooms would also be located on this level. A driveway would be located at the western portion of the project site off Stratton Alley, providing access to parking; refer to the “Vehicular Access” discussion below.

• Second Level. The second level would include 13 condominium units, an outdoor courtyard (4,866 square feet) at the northeastern corner of the building, and an atrium (259 square feet). The courtyard would provide common outdoor areas with multiple seating areas, barbecue area, a water feature, and fire feature. Citrus and olive tree planters, planter screens, enhanced paving, decomposed granite, and seeded aggregate would be incorporated within the courtyard.

• Third, Fourth, and Fifth Levels. The third and fourth levels would both include 13 condominium units. The fifth level would include 11 condominium units.

• Sixth Level. The sixth level would include nine condominium units and a terrace (1,185 square feet).

Vehicular Access

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from one access driveway along Stratton Alley at the northwest portion of the project site. Stratton Alley extends from Union Street on the north to Brainard Alley on the south.

Architecture

As shown in Exhibit 4a, Proposed North and East Elevations, and 4b, Proposed South and West Elevations, and Exhibit 5, Proposed Rendering, the exterior of the building would be stucco with storefront windows incorporated along the office commercial frontage. The upper residential levels would incorporate recessed casement windows, wood shutters, exterior paneling and wrought iron railings. The materials would be featured on all facades. The proposed building would be a single structure of six stories reaching a maximum height of 75 feet (compared to five stories reaching a maximum height of 60 feet under the approved project).

Due to the small scale of the office commercial use, signage would be minimal along East Union Street. The office commercial uses would have signs designed to be compatible with the building design. The revised project proposes to preserve and reuse the historic sign that currently exists on-site. The historical sign is proposed to be relocated from its current position above the existing driveway along Union Street to the new building’s west elevation, above the parking entrance.




July 2019 7 Final

Open Space and Landscaping

Similar to the approved project, the revised project proposes to remove three existing trees: an Indian Laurel fig tree (Ficus microcarpa nitida) in the southwest corner of the project site, and two European olive trees (Olea Europaea) in the northwest and northeast corners of the project site.

As noted above, common open space areas would be provided within the structure for use by the residents, including a podium level courtyard with landscaping and amenities (multiple seating areas, barbecue area, a water feature, and fire feature) and a roof terrace.

Variance

Like the approved project, the revised project would require approval of a Variance to allow for ground-floor office commercial uses to have a reduced depth of 27 feet and 4 inches along East Union Street (compared to 28 feet 6 inches under the approved project and the minimum depth of 50 feet required by the Zoning Code).

Affordable Housing Concessions Permits

The revised project would also require approval of two Affordable Housing Concessions Permits (not included as part of the approved project). The first is required to increase the revised project’s floor area ratio (FAR) to 2.96, which is greater than the maximum permitted FAR of 2.25 allowed under the City of Pasadena Zoning Code (Zoning Code). The second is required to increase the revised project’s building height to 75 feet, which is greater than the maximum permitted building height of 60 feet allowed under the Zoning Code.

Private Tree Removal Permit

The proposed removal of the European Olive Trees would require approval of Private Tree Removal permits, which would be processed in conjunction with the Variance and Affordable Housing Concession requests.

Design Review

The revised project requires Design Review Approval by the City’s Design Commission through the City’s Design Review process.

Project Comparison

Table 1, Approved and Revised Project Summary Comparison, provides a summary of development characteristics between the approved and revised projects.




July 2019 8 Final

Table 1 Approved and Revised Project Summary Comparison

Building Level

Residential (dwelling units)

Retail (square feet) Parking Spaces1

Approved Project

Revised Project

Approved Project

Revised Project

Approved Project

Revised Project

Subterranean Parking P4 N/A2 0 N/A2 0 N/A2 22 Subterranean Parking P3 0 0 0 0 51 47 Subterranean Parking P2 0 0 0 0 49 46

1 0 0 2,625 1,953 34 41 2 9 13 0 0 0 0 3 9 13 0 0 0 0 4 9 13 0 0 0 0 5 9 11 0 0 0 0 6 N/A3 9 N/A3 0 N/A3 0

Total 36 59 2,625 1,953 134 156 Notes: 1. Represents standard residential, guest, office, commercial, and visitor parking spaces, including ADA compliant spaces. 2. The approved project did not include a third level of underground parking (Subterranean Parking P4). 3. The approved project did not include a sixth story.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Setting

The project site is comprised of one 0.50-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 5723-026-024) located within the City’s Central District Specific Plan; refer to Exhibit 6a through Exhibit 6d, Site Photographs. The site is currently developed with an asphalt paved parking lot containing 61 parking spaces, which serves the office uses located at 225 East Colorado Boulevard, as well a garage/carport and small kiosk structure (1,472 square feet) along the northern site boundary. The site is accessed by a driveway located along East Union Street.

Surrounding Land Uses

The project site is surrounded by the following uses that are also zoned Central District Specific Plan by the City of Pasadena Zoning Map (Zoning Map):

• North. The project site is bounded by East Union Street to the north. A public surface parking lot (designated Medium Mixed Use) is located directly across Union Street. North and west of this surface parking lot is the unutilized Pasadena YWCA building (also designated Medium Mixed Use). East of this surface parking lot is a landscaped open space area adjacent to Garfield Avenue. Pasadena City Hall (designated Institutional) is located further north and east at the terminus of Holly Street, east of Garfield Avenue.

• South. The project site is bounded by an alley (Brainard Alley) to the south. Several restaurants, retail, commercial and office uses, as well as a multi-story mixed-use building (225 East Colorado Boulevard; designated High Mixed Use) are located across the alley. Beyond these uses is Colorado Boulevard.




July 2019 9 Final

• West. The project site is bounded by an alley (Stratton Place) to the west. One to two-story office and commercial buildings and a small surface parking lot (designated Medium Mixed Use) are located across the alley. Marengo Alley is located to the west of these commercial buildings.

• East. The project site is bounded by an alley (Skillen Alley) to the east. The U.S. Post Office (designated Institutional) is located across the alley. Garfield Avenue is located to the east of the U.S. Post Office.

Although the project site is not located within a historic district, it is bounded by the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District on the east and north and by the Civic Center Financial Historic District on the west; refer to Exhibit 7, Historic Districts.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

This IS/MND covers all approvals by governmental agencies that may be needed to construct, implement, or operate the revised project. At this time, no discretionary public agency approvals are known to be required for the revised project, other than the following approvals required by the City of Pasadena:

• Approval of a Variance;

• Approval of two Affordable Housing Concessions Permits; and

• Approval of Private Tree Removal Permit.

The proposed project would also require ministerial permits from the City of Pasadena, including applicable Grading and Building Permits.




July 2019 10 Final



P A CI F

I C O

CE

AN

PyramidLake

LakePiru

CastaicLake

O R A N G EC O U N T Y

V E N T U R AC O U N T Y

L O S A N G E L E SC O U N T Y

K E R NC O U N T Y

101101

1

1

2

1

5

5

5

126

118 118

241

142

134

105

261

133

138

138

138

405

405

605

710

110

110

10

10

210

210

21010

405

23

2

14

14

18

23

23

27

55

91

9090

57

60

60

30

71

22

Upland

Pomona

Chino

Palmdale

Lancaster

Pasadena

Alhambra

MontereyPark

PicoRivera

DowneySouthGate

Compton

Carson

Hawthorne

Inglewood

CulverCity

SantaMonica

BeverlyHills

ShermanOaks

VanNuys

Hollywood

Bellflower

Lakewood

Arcadia

MonroviaAzuza

Claremont

SanDimas

WestCovina

La HabraHeights

Brea

Walnut

CovinaBaldwin

Park

Whittier

LaMirada

Burbank

Pacoima

Glendale

LosAngeles

Torrance

SanPedro

LongBeach

HuntingtonBeach

NewportBeach

SantaAna

CostaMesa

GardenGrove

Anaheim

Tustin

Orange

Fullerton

YorbaLinda

IrvineLake

Forest

Fillmore Piru

Moorpark

ThousandOaks

SimiValley

Castaic

Gorman

Lebec

SantaClarita

Newhall

Sylmar

Agoura Hills WoodlandHills

CanogaPark

Chatsworth

WestlakeVillage

Calabasas

Malibu

PalosVerdesEstates

Redondo Beach

Manhattan Beach

El Segundo

Playa Del Rey

Marina Del Rey

Project Site

CITY OF PASADENAADDENDUM TO THE UNION STREET CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Exhibit 1

Regional Vicinity

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836


Exhibit 2

Site Vicinity

Source: Google Earth, 2015. - Approximate Project Boundary

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836






Exhibit 3a

Conceptual Site Plan(Subterranean Parking Plan P4)

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836

Source: LCRA, July 11, 2017.




Exhibit 3b


NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3c


NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3d

Conceptual Site Plan (1st Level Plan)

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3e

Conceptual Site Plan (2nd Level Plan)

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3f

Conceptual Site Plan (3rd Level Plan)

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3g

Conceptual Site Plan (4th Level Plan)

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3h


NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3i


NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 3j

Conceptual Site Plan (Roof Plan)

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 4a

Proposed North and East Elevations

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836





Exhibit 4b

Proposed South and West Elevations

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836



Exhibit 5

Proposed RenderingNOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836




Orientation

Photograph Number

1 – View looking south towards the project site.

Exhibit 6a

4 – View looking southwest at the eastern boundary of the project site.

5 – View looking northwest at the project site.

2 – View looking at Skillen Alley, along the eastern boundary of the project site.

3 – View looking at the northeast edge of project site from Skillen Alley.

Site Photographs



07/19 | JN 165836


Orientation

Photograph Number

6 – View looking southwest at the office and commercial buildings west of the project site.

Exhibit 6b

9 – View looking west along East Union Street toward the project site.

10 – View looking at City Hall northeast of the project site east of North Garfield Avenue.

7 – View looking at a public surface parking lot and an unutilized YMCA building, north of the project site and across East Union Street.

8 – View looking southeast at the U.S. Post Office east of the project site.

Site Photographs



07/19 | JN 165836


Orientation

Photograph Number

11 – View looking southeast at the project site.

Exhibit 6c

14 – View looking west along the alley with restaurant, commercial, office uses south of the project site.

15 – View looking southeast at the U.S. Post Office along Skillen Alley east of the project site.

12 – View looking northeast at the project site.

13 – View looking southwest at the restaurant, commercial and office uses southwest of the project site.

Site Photographs



07/19 | JN 165836


Orientation

Photograph Number

16 – View looking south at the alley west of the project site.

Exhibit 6d

19 – View looking north at the alley west of the project site. 20 – View looking west at the restaurant and commercial uses along the alley south of the project site.

17 – View looking southeast at the project site.

18 – View looking west at the surface parking lot and office andcommercial buildings west of the project site.

Site Photographs



07/19 | JN 165836




Exhibit 7

Historic Districts

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836

Source: GPA Consulting, 254 E Union Street Pasadena, California, Historical Resource Report, June 2015.




July 2019 31 Final

3.0 REVISED PROJECT ANALYSIS AND IMPACT COMPARISON

This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the revised project would result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts in comparison to the approved project as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. This Addendum has been organized by environmental topical areas as they occur in the 2015 IS/MND:

• Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality; • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials; • Hydrology and Water Quality; • Land Use and Relevant Planning; • Mineral Resources • Noise; • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic; • Tribal Cultural Resources; • Utilities and Service Systems; and • Mandatory Findings of Significance.

A comparative analysis between the approved project and revised project according to each of these environmental topical areas is provided below.

In conducting this analysis, the potential environmental impacts of the revised project are classified into one of the following categories:

• New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances: This category consists of significant environmental impacts that would result from the revised project that were not identified in the adopted MND. Impacts in this category would require subsequent CEQA documentation. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162(a)(1) and 15162(a)(2).)

• Substantial Increase in the Severity of a Previously Identified Significant Effect Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances: This category consists of significant environmental impacts identified in the adopted MND that would be substantially worsened as a result of the proposed action. Impacts in this category would require subsequent CEQA documentation. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162(a)(1) and 15162(a)(2).)




July 2019 32 Final

• New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information: This category consists of new environmental impacts (i.e., impacts not identified in the adopted MND) or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts caused by new information that has arisen since the MND was adopted. Impacts in this category would require subsequent CEQA documentation. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)(3).)

• No Additional Significant Impact/Less than Significant with Application of Mitigation from Adopted MND: This category consists of potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action that are similar to those identified in the adopted MND and can either be reduced to a less than significant level by applying a mitigation measure(s) included in the adopted MND or would cause no additional significant impacts beyond those considered in the MND after a mitigation measure(s) included in the adopted MND is applied. Impacts in this category do not meet the conditions described in Public Resources Code § 21166 and/or CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and, as such, would not require subsequent CEQA documentation.

• Less than Significant Impact: This category consists of environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action that the Lead Agency determines are not significant. Impacts in this category do not meet the conditions described in Public Resources Code § 21166 and/or CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and, as such, would not require subsequent CEQA documentation.

• No Impact/No Additional Impact: This category consists of environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action that are the same as those identified in the existing MND and environmental topics that would not be affected by the revised project. Impacts in this category do not meet the conditions described in Public Resources Code § 21166 and/or CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and, as such, would not require subsequent CEQA documentation.




Does the Project Require Subsequent CEQA Documentation?

Yes No

New Significant Environmental Effect Caused by a Change

in the Project or Circumstances?

Substantial Increase in the Severity of a

Previously Identified Significant Effect

Caused by a Change in the Project or Circumstances

New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts Shown by New Information

No Additional Significant

Impact/Less than Significant with Application of Mitigation from

Adopted IS/MND

Less than Significant Impact

No Impact/ No Additional

Impact

July 2019 33 Final

3.1 AESTHETICS

Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND included an analysis of aesthetic impacts, even though the approved project would be located on an infill site in a transit priority area and, consequently, the aesthetic and parking impacts of the approved project could not be considered significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1) and Section 21099(a)(4) and (5). CEQA Section 21099(d)(1) states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Section 21099(a) provides the following definitions of the terms “infill site” and “transit priority area”:

(4) “Infill site” means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.

(7) “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

According to the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is located within the City’s Central District Specific Plan. Surrounding public views toward designated historic resources, including Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena YWCA, and Civic Auditorium,2 are also located within the approved project’s viewshed. Particularly, north/south views along Garfield Avenue encompass the project site, Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena YWCA, and Civic Auditorium. Other historical resources in the area (discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources) include historical structures within the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District (including the U.S. Post Office and First Baptist Church) as well as the Civic Center Financial Historic District (the Loweman Building, Crown Building and Loan Association building, Wolfangle

2 RTKL Associates, Central District Specific Plan, District-wide Map 2: Historic Resources, adopted

November 8, 2004.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 34 Final

Building, Equitable Savings and Loan Association, Citizen’s Bank Building, and 231-243 East Colorado Boulevard).

Photosimulations were taken from four specific Key View locations to assess impacts from these scenic views. The four Key Views were selected to represent public views from both public right-of-way and publicly accessible areas located within the viewshed of the revised project. For the purposes of visual impacts to scenic views and vistas along Colorado Boulevard and Garfield Avenue, Key Views 1, 2, and 3 were analyzed. For potential impacts associated with the degradation of character/quality, Key Views 1 through 4 were analyzed; refer to Aesthetics Response (c).

According to the 2015 IS/MND, implementation of the approved project would result in partial blockage of middleground views to Pasadena City Hall along Colorado Boulevard (Key View 1). However, the proposed structure would not substantially increase view blockage compared to the existing structures surrounding the project site. It was also concluded that construction of the approved project would not result in view blockage of Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena YWCA, Civic Auditorium, or the U.S. Post Office building, as seen from Garfield Avenue (to the northeast and southeast of the project site). Thus, the 2015 IS/MND determined that the revised project would involve less than significant impacts to a scenic view or vista, as seen from the public.

Revised Project: In order to assess the revised project’s potential impacts from these scenic views, updated photosimulations for Key Views 1 through 4 were prepared. A site visit was conducted to take photographs and make observations from these four key views. The camera locations were recorded utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. A Fuji G-617 Panoramic camera with a 1:8/105 millimeter lens was selected as the primary photographic source, as it yields an accurate representation of human visual perception. Backup photos were also taken using a Nikon D1X digital camera with a fixed 50-millimeter lens.

Exhibit 8, Key View Locations Map, illustrates the locations of the selected Key Views. These Key Views are situated along Colorado Boulevard, Garfield Avenue, and Union Street and were taken from the same locations as the Key Views provided in the 2015 IS/MND. The intent of analyzing these Key Views is to depict potential impacts to scenic views and vistas and changes to the character/quality of the area as a result of the revised project. Refer to Aesthetics Response (c) below for a discussion of the revised project’s visual impacts pertaining to the degradation of character/quality. For the purposes of visual impacts to scenic views and vistas along Colorado Boulevard and Garfield Avenue, Key Views 1, 2, and 3 are analyzed. For potential impacts associated with the degradation of character/quality Key Views 1 through 4 are analyzed.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 35 Final

Key View 1. Key View 1 (approximately 860 feet above mean sea level [msl]) is located to the southwest of the project site (looking northeast from Colorado Boulevard); refer to Exhibit 9, Key View 1. These views are afforded from pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists traveling eastbound along Colorado Boulevard. These views encompass historic resources along Colorado Boulevard, as well as middleground views to Pasadena City Hall. However, the current views of City Hall are mostly obstructed by existing buildings along Colorado Boulevard (only the top of the City Hall dome and cupola are visible beyond existing rooflines). As depicted in Exhibit 9, the revised project (located in middleground views) would appear higher than existing development to the south along Colorado Boulevard. The revised project would have a similar height as adjoining structures to the southwest and further east but would fully block middleground views to Pasadena City Hall.

Key View 2. Key View 2 (approximately 856 feet above msl) is located to the southeast of the project site (looking northwest from the Colorado Boulevard/Garfield Avenue intersection); refer to Exhibit 10, Key View 2. These views are afforded from the southeast corner of the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Garfield Avenue. These views encompass the historic resources along Colorado Boulevard, including the U.S. Post Office building, as seen from pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists near the Civic Auditorium. Consistent with the approved project, the revised project would not be visible from this view and no impacts to the visible skyline would occur.

Key View 3. Key View 3 (approximately 866 feet above msl) is located along Garfield Avenue, to the north of the Pasadena City Hall and northeast of the project site; refer to Exhibit 11, Key View 3. These views encompass the Garfield Avenue view corridor, with views to the Civic Auditorium, U.S. Post Office building, and YWCA. The roofline of the revised project would be higher than portions of the visible tree line along Holly Street but would have a similar height as the rooflines of neighboring development to the south. As depicted on Exhibit 11, the revised project would not block views to the Civic Auditorium, U.S. Post Office building, and YWCA. Thus, the revised project would not block public views to historic structures.


Exhibit 8

Key View Locations Map

Source: Google Earth, 2015. - Approximate Project Boundary

NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836




Exhibit 9

Key View 1

Note: For comparative purposes, site photographs are utilized to demonstrate the general character at different points of the project area. These simulations are subject to change and are intended to provide the reader with information on the form, size, and scale of the proposed improvements within the project area.

07/19 | JN 165836




Exhibit 10

Key View 2


07/19 | JN 165836




Exhibit 11

Key View 3


07/19 | JN 165836







Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 40 Final

As discussed, implementation of the revised project would fully block partial middleground views to Pasadena City Hall as seen from Colorado Boulevard; refer to Exhibit 9. Public views of Pasadena City Hall are presently encroached upon by existing development along Colorado Boulevard. Overall, the proposed building would be compatible with the massing and scale of surrounding development. Although the revised project would block public views to the Pasadena City Hall as seen from Colorado Boulevard, the aesthetic impacts of the revised project would not be considered significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1). CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1) states that the aesthetic impacts of mixed-use residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Most importantly, the building would not interfere with the key views of City Hall along the axis of Holly Street and Garfield Street that define the Civic Center. The revised project would not result in view blockage of Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena YWCA, Civic Auditorium, or the U.S. Post Office building, as seen from Garfield Avenue (to the northeast and southeast of the project site). Although the view blockage of Pasadena City Hall as seen from Colorado Boulevard would be greater than identified in the 2015 IS/MND; impacts would remain less than significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1).

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for aesthetic resources.

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the only designated State scenic highway in the City of Pasadena is the Angeles Crest Highway (State Highway 2), located north of Arroyo Seco Canyon in the most northwestern portion of the City. According to the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is not within the viewshed of the Angeles Crest Highway and is not located along any scenic roadway corridors identified in the General Plan documents. Therefore, the 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would have no impacts to State scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. As such, no impacts to State scenic highways or scenic roadway corridors would occur.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for aesthetic resources and no new mitigation measures would be required.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 41 Final

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that construction of the approved project would not substantially degrade the visual character/quality of the project area since views towards construction activities would be limited to the immediate area, be temporary in nature, and cease upon construction completion.

The 2015 IS/MND analyzed long-term potential changes in character/quality as seen from selected Key Views. According to the 2015 IS/MND, development of the approved project would not result in substantial changes to character/quality in Key Views 1, 2, and 3; however, views from Key View 4 would be visible by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians travelling along the northern boundary of the project site.

Overall, the Key View character/quality analysis determined that the proposed building would be compatible in massing and scale yet differentiated from the adjacent historical resources by its contemporary design. As required by Section 17.61.030 of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC), the approved project’s design would be reviewed for approval by the Design Commission. This regulatory procedure was established to ensure that the design, colors, and finish materials of development projects comply with adopted design guidelines and achieve compatibility with the surrounding area. Thus, the 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project proposes a mixed-use development with 59 residential units and 1,953 square feet of commercial space on the 0.50-acre site. The revised project would include a single structure of six stories reaching a maximum height of 75 feet situated over three levels of subterranean parking. The structure would include an exterior stucco finish with architectural detailing including barrel concrete roof tiles, wrought iron railing, a wood shutters; refer to Exhibit 5. The materials would be featured on all façades.

In order to assess the revised project’s potential impacts to visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings, updated photosimulations for Key Views 1 through 4 were prepared. Implementation of the revised project would replace the existing surface parking lot on-site with a new six-story mixed-use building. The following discussion describes the potential change in character/quality, as seen from selected Key Views.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 42 Final

Key View 1. The revised project would be partially visible from public views along Colorado Boulevard as it traverses the Civic Center Financial Historic District to the south of the project site; refer to Exhibit 9. Although the revised project would impact the visible skyline, this change would not be substantial and would appear similar in character to the existing skyline, as the rooflines of adjacent structures would be both above and below the revised project’s roofline.

Key View 2. The revised project would not be visible from uses at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Colorado Boulevard (near the Paseo Colorado), to the southeast of the project; refer to Exhibit 10. Thus, the revised project would not result in any changes to the character/quality in this area.

Key View 3. The revised project would be situated in middleground views, as seen along Garfield Avenue, in the vicinity of Pasadena City Hall (along the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District); refer to Exhibit 11. Although the revised project would involve a taller structure than the approved project, the new structure would not be readily visible due to the intervening vegetation situated to the north of the project site. Further, the proposed roofline would not extend higher than the existing tree line in the area and would appear similar in character to the existing surrounding structures.

Key View 4. Views from Key View 4 (approximately 864 feet above msl) are from Union Street, to the northwest of the project site; refer to Exhibit 12, Key View 4. These views are afforded by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling along the northern boundary of the project site. The existing surface parking entry would be replaced with the revised project’s new six-story building. Visible project features would include the proposed office commercial façade along the northern boundary, as well as the proposed condominium units above.


Exhibit 12

Key View 4


07/19 | JN 165836







Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 44 Final

As discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, implementation of the revised project would require a Variance to reduce the commercial depth to 27 feet and four inches and an Affordable Housing Concession Permit to increase the building height to 75 feet. Upon approval of the Variance (for ground floor depth of commercial uses) and the Affordable Housing Concessions Permit (for maximum building height and maximum FAR), the revised project would be consistent with the Zoning Code and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. The project site is also surrounded by designated historic districts and would be required to provide architectural treatments that complement the surrounding districts. As discussed in Sections 3.5 and 3.10, the revised project would construct a building which is compatible with the materials, massing, size, scale, proportion, and architectural features of these nearby historical resources. Although the revised project would be six stories with a maximum height of 75 feet, which is taller than the two- and three-story commercial buildings in the immediate project vicinity, the proposed building would not visually overwhelm these structures. The project would appear similar to the multi-story mixed-use building located across Brainard Alley to the south and would be notably smaller than multiple buildings in the surrounding blocks (e.g., the office building at the southeast corner of Union Street and Garfield Avenue [301 East Colorado Boulevard] and the AT&T/WeWork building at 177 East Colorado Boulevard). The separation created by alleys and streets that bound the proposed building on all sides helps to further ensure this condition. The proposed building would also be lower in height than other buildings in the surrounding area, including the Citizens Bank Building (86.9 feet) at 225 East Colorado Boulevard. Most importantly, the revised project would not interfere with the key views of Pasadena City Hall along the axis of Holly and Garfield Streets that define the Civic Center. Although the revised project would interfere with public views to the Pasadena City Hall as seen from Colorado Boulevard, the visual character/quality impacts of the revised project would not be considered significant pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1). CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1) states that the aesthetic impacts of mixed-use residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Also, the proposed building would be generally shielded from views along Colorado Street, as only a small portion of the building’s roof would be visible, and only when directly south of the project site.

Overall, the revised project would be comparable in massing and scale yet differentiated from the adjacent historical resources by its contemporary design. As required by PMC Section 17.61.030, Design Review, the revised project’s design would be reviewed for approval by the Design Commission. This regulatory procedure was established to ensure that the design, colors, and finish materials of development projects comply with adopted design guidelines and achieve compatibility with the surrounding area. Thus, the revised project would result in less than significant impacts to visual character/quality.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 45 Final


d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, implementation of the approved project would remove existing lighting sources (i.e., surface parking lot lighting and security lighting along the entrance) and construct a new five-story mixed-use building. Existing lighting is also emitted from surrounding land uses, street lights, and vehicle headlights. Lighting sources associated with the approved project included interior and exterior security lighting, as required by the Public Works Department. Vehicle ingress/egress would be relocated from the current location along Union Street to Skillen Alley. The approved project did not propose unique lighting components or building materials that would generate daytime glare.

The 2015 IS/MND concluded that compliance with the standards of the Zoning Code would reduce potential impacts concerning glare and outdoor lighting to a less than significant level. Further, the relocation of the ingress/egress driveway at the project site would not introduce substantial light and glare associated with vehicle headlights, as uses along Skillen Alley already experience vehicle headlights for parking and loading dock areas. The design of the approved project, including its finish, colors, and materials, would be reviewed for approval through the Design Review process. This regulatory procedure provides the City with an additional layer of review for aesthetics including light and glare, and an opportunity to incorporate additional conditions to improve the approved project’s building materials and lighting plans. The 2015 IS/MND determined that impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: As discussed, the revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND, which includes existing lighting sources associated with the surface parking lot lighting and security lighting along the entrance. Like the approved project, implementation of the revised project would introduce new interior and exterior lighting sources to the project site; however, these improvements would not involve unique lighting components or building materials which would generate daytime glare. Vehicle ingress/egress would be taken from Stratton Alley, which already experiences vehicle headlights for parking and loading dock areas.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 46 Final

The revised project would also be subject to conformance with all applicable Zoning Code standards related to glare and outdoor lighting. The revised project would be reviewed through the City’s Design Review process to ensure the building’s materials and lighting plans would not result in significant light and glare impacts. As a result, the revised project would not result in new significant light and glare impacts and impacts would be less than significant.


3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the City of Pasadena contains no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. No impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would occur.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for agricultural and forestry resources and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded the City has no land zoned for agricultural use other than commercial growing areas. The project site is in a developed





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 47 Final

urban area, zoned CD-2 (Central District Specific Plan, Civic Center Sub-District), which does not permit commercial growing. Additionally, the City has no Williamson Act contract land and there are no agricultural uses within the project site or surrounding area. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, implementation of the revised project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.


c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded the City has no timberland or timberland production land and has no land zoned for forestland. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, implementation of the revised project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g)).


d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded the City has no forest land; thus, approved project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 48 Final

of forest land to a non-forest use. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, like the approved project, the revised project would not result in the conversion or loss of forest land and no impact would occur.


e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded the City has no Farmland; thus, project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, the revised project would not result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.


3.3 AIR QUALITY

Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Consistency with the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (2012 AQMP) was addressed to ensure the approved project was consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions set forth in the 2012 AQMP.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 49 Final

According to the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP. Thus, the approved project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards and a less than significant impact was determined.

Revised Project: Since certification of the 2015 IS/MND, the SCAQMD has adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in a nonattainment status. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State and Federal air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The revised project is subject to the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP.

The criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP is defined by the following indicators:

• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project buildout phase.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 1, the revised project would not involve a change of land use which would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the attainment of air quality or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP. The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The revised project would increase the number of condominium units, reduce the non-residential square footage, add an additional level of subterranean parking, and add an additional above-ground level of residential units. The revised project would not exceed short-term construction or long-term operational air quality thresholds set by the SCAQMD; refer to Table 2, Short-Term Construction Related Emissions and Table 3, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 50 Final

Thus, the revised project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1 and no impact would occur.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the 2016 AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts; SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The project site is designated Medium Mixed Use. The proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The revised project is requesting approval of an Affordable Housing Concessions Permit which would increase the revised project’s FAR to 2.96, which is greater than the maximum FAR of 2.25 identified by the General Plan land use designation for the project site. Although approval of the permit would allow for development at a greater density, the General Plan acknowledges and allows for maximum densities to be exceeded when associated with affordable housing density bonuses defined by State law and the Housing Element. Further the General Plan Land Use Element identifies cumulative residential and non-residential development capacities for specific plan areas, including the Central District Specific Plan. Development of projects within the Central District Specific Plan area would be reviewed to ensure cumulative development within the area does not exceed the housing units and commercial square footage identified in the General Plan.

Therefore, the revised project would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the 2016 AQMP. Thus, the revised project would be consistent with the second criterion and no impact would occur.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for air quality and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As discussed in the 2015 IS/MND, the SCAQMD published regional significance thresholds to determine if projects have significant air quality impacts. These significance thresholds were used to evaluate whether the approved project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As stated in the 2015 IS/MND, construction and operational related emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds and a less than significant impact was identified.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 51 Final

Revised Project: The revised project proposes an additional level of subterranean parking and an additional level of residential units. This project refinement would result in minor changes in construction phasing and soil export quantity (23,000 cubic yards). Table 2, presents the anticipated daily short-term construction emissions.

As shown in Table 2, construction emissions associated with the revised project would be below SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the revised project construction emissions would not cause or substantially contribute to an existing or project air quality violation.

Table 2 Short-Term Construction Related Emissions

Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Year 1 (2019)2 6.64 63.59 41.96 0.12 3.21 2.81

SCAQMD Construction Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55

Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No Year 2 (2020)2 5.12 42.20 35.79 0.08 2.76 2.16


Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No Year 3 (2021)2 21.82 39.94 37.25 0.09 2.71 2.04


Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD, and represent worst-case daily emissions. 2. The emissions presented in this table represent the construction emissions modeled in CalEEmod, and shown in Appendix A, Air Quality Data. Several

reduction/credits are accounted for as “mitigation” in CalEEMod and correlate to standard SCAQMD rules and regulations. These include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

3. Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Table 3 presents the revised project’s anticipated operational source emissions. As indicated, the operational emissions from the revised project would not exceed regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Further, it is anticipated that the revised project would pursue a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating, which would further reduce emissions.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 52 Final

Table 3 Long-Term Operational Air Emissions

Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1 ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

Area 16.95 1.28 34.90 0.08 4.53 4.53 Energy 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 Mobile 0.68 3.37 9.04 0.03 2.62 0.72

Total Project Emissions2,3 17.65 4.81 44.01 0.11 7.16 5.26 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55

Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 1. Based on CalEEMod results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions have been modeled. 2. The numbers may not add exactly due to rounding. 3. The total project emissions do not include reductions that would occur with LEED certification. 4. Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

As discussed, construction and operational emissions from the revised project would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Therefore, a less than significant impact would result in regard to short-term and long-term regional air quality impacts.


c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the approved project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards. Further, short- and long-term construction and operational air pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Thus, a less than significant impact was identified.

Revised Project: The refinements associated with the revised project are not expected to substantially increase short-term and long-term air pollutants. However, cumulatively





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 53 Final

considerable projects could contribute to an existing air quality exceedance since the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone (O3) and particulate matters (PM2.5 and PM10). All cumulative development occurring within the Basin would be subject to compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations. The revised project would not involve substantial changes which would contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase in the region for any non-attainment pollutant. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.


d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include a church and residential uses. The 2015 IS/MND determined that project emissions would not exceed the applicable localized significance threshold (LST) screening criteria for construction or operation and impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site include a church (First Baptist Church of Pasadena) located approximately 250 feet (76 meters) to the northwest and residential uses located approximately 250 feet (76 meters) to the south. The revised project would include an additional level of subterranean parking and an additional level of residential units. Table 4, Localized Significance of Emissions, presents the revised project’s localized emissions and associated LST screening criteria.

As shown in Table 4, project-related construction and operational source emissions would remain below the applicable LST screening criteria. As such, construction and operational LST impacts would be less than significant. As previously noted, the revised project is anticipated to pursue LEED certification, which would further reduce emissions.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 54 Final

Table 4 Localized Significance of Emissions

Source Pollutant (pounds/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Construction1 Year 1 (2019) On-Site Emissions2 63.45 40.50 2.92 2.73

LST Screening Criteria3 69 783 11 4 Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No

Year 2 (2020) On-Site Emissions2 40.15 32.50 2.05 1.96 LST Screening Criteria3 69 783 11 4

Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No Year 3 (2021) On-Site Emissions2 36.50 31.90 1.80 1.71


Operational Total Area Source Emissions4 0.94 5.27 0.10 0.10


Notes: NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter 1. Construction emissions include the worst-case on-site emissions: For construction Year 1, the grading phase emissions are presented as the worst-case

scenario for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. For construction Year 2 and Year 3, the building construction phase emissions are presented as the worst-case scenario for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions.

2. The emissions presented in this table represent the construction emissions modeled in CalEEMod, and shown in Appendix A. Several reduction/credits are accounted for as “mitigation” in CalEEMod and correlate to standard SCAQMD rules and regulations. These include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stock piles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

3. The Localized Significance Threshold Screening Criteria were determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold Screening Criteria are based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (1 acre), the total acreage for operational (1 acre), the distance to sensitive receptors (50 meters), and the source receptor area (SRA 8).

4. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits the installation of hearths. Therefore, the revised project would include natural gas fireplaces only.


e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: It was determined in the 2015 IS/MND that construction activities associated with the approved project could generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. Construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 55 Final

upon project completion. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and would not affect a substantial number of people. Thus, the 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would not create objectionable odors and would result in a less than significant impact.

Revised Project: As discussed, the revised project proposes to increase the number of condominium units, reduce the non-residential square footage, add an additional level of subterranean parking, and add an additional above-ground level of residential units. This project refinement would not establish any new odor-generating activities. Therefore, the revised project would result in a less than significant impact regarding objectionable odors.


3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that no candidate, sensitive, or special status species exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site due to the site’s developed and disturbed nature. The IS/MND concluded that the project site and surrounding area do not provide suitable habitat for sensitive species, and the approved project would not directly affect or modify the habitat of any identified sensitive species.

Revised Project: Consistent with the 2015 IS/MND, the revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. The project site continues to be disturbed and is located within a highly urbanized area of the City. Therefore, implementation of the revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 56 Final

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for biological resources and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The project site is in a developed urbanized area, with on-site vegetation limited to scattered ornamental trees. The 2015 IS/MND determined that the project site and surrounding area do not include any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; thus, implementation of the approved project would not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities and no mitigation was required.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, implementation of the revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.


c. Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project site is in an urbanized area and does not include any discernable drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils, and thus does not include USACE jurisdictional drainages or wetlands. No federally protected waters or wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are present on the site. No water features or other topographic depressions are present on the site that could support wetlands. As a result, the 2015 IS/MND determined that implementation of the approved project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and no mitigation was required.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 57 Final

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. The project site does not include any federally protected wetlands. Thus, implementation of the revised project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.


d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the project site is in a developed urban area and does not involve the dispersal of wildlife nor would the approved project result in a barrier to migration or movement. Therefore, no impacts to migratory species, wildlife movement corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites would occur as a result of the approved project.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, implementation of the revised project would not interfere substantially with migratory species, wildlife movement corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites.


e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The City of Pasadena’s Ordinance 6896, City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance No. 7184, codified in PMC Chapter 8.52, aims to protect landmark, native, and specimen trees to preserve and grow the tree canopy cover in the City. The six categories of trees protected by the ordinance include public, landmark, landmark-eligible, specimen, mature, and native trees. A tree inventory prepared for the 2015 IS/MND identified two private protected trees within the project site:





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 58 Final

two European olive trees (Olea europaea) in the northwest and northeast corners of the project site, which are identified as specimen trees.3 According to the 2015 IS/MND, approval and issuance of Private Tree Removal permits would ensure the approved project does not conflict with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance or with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project would also involve removal of the two European olive trees. As with the approved project, issuance and approval of Private Tree Removal permits would ensure the revised project does not conflict with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance or with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.


f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, there are no adopted HCPs or NCCPs within the City of Pasadena. There are also no approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: There are no adopted HCPs or NCCPs within the City of Pasadena. There are also no approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. As with the approved project, there would be no impacts as a result of the revised project in this regard.


3 City of Pasadena, Specimen Tree List, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/

2017/06/TPO_6-Specimen-Tree-List.pdf.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 59 Final

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Approved Project: GPA Consulting (GPA) prepared the 254 E Union Street Pasadena, California Historical Resources Report (Historical Resources Report), dated June 2015, to provide an overview of the historical resources on the project site and surrounding area and identify whether or not the approved project would result in significant impacts to the historical resources.

Based on the Historical Resources Report, the 2015 IS/MND determined that there are two National Register historic districts in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District and the Civic Center Financial Historic District; refer to Exhibit 7. The Old Pasadena Historic District is farther removed, located one and one-half blocks east of the project site. The north and east property lines of the project site abut the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District, which was listed in the National Register in 1979. The project site abuts the eastern boundary of the Civic Center Financial Historic District, which was listed in the National Register in 1982.

According to the Historical Resources Report, the project site is primarily characterized by a surface parking lot with a parking attendant’s booth and attached garages located at the Union Street frontage. The surface parking lot is accessed from driveways on Union Street. The driveways are covered by a flat canopy attached to a parking attendant’s booth and two garages. This structure was designed by architect Breo Freeman and built in 1951 for then property owner Citizens Bank. A canopy-mounted sign, which originally read “Parking for Citizens Bank & Building,” is mounted on the northern edge of the structure’s roof and was likely installed at the same time as the structure.

On-Site Historical Resources

The 2015 IS/MND determined although the building at 254 East Union Street retains integrity, it is ineligible for listing in the National Register due to a lack of significance under any of the four established criteria. As the California Register eligibility criteria mirror those of the National Register, the building at 254 East Union Street is ineligible for listing in the California Register for the same reasoning. Similarly, as the Pasadena Landmarks criteria were modeled on those of the National and California Registers, the building is ineligible





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 60 Final

for designation as a Pasadena Landmark for the same reasons. The canopy-mounted sign is included in the City’s Historic Sign Inventory and is a locally designated historic resource in the Historic Sign category. The sign has a Status Code of 5S1 (i.e., an individual property that is listed or designated locally) and is considered a historical resource. Therefore, the locally-designated historic sign is the only historical resource present on the project site.

Historical Resources in the Study Area

The 2015 IS/MND determined that a total of 14 historical resources are located within the study area including one historical resource (a locally-designated sign) present at the project site, 11 other historical resources within the study area, and the two historic districts; refer to Exhibit 13, Historical Resources in the Study Area and Table 5, Historical Resources in the Study Area.

Table 5 Historical Resources in the Study Area

No. Historical Resources1

1 254 East Union Street, Parking for Citizens Bank & Building Sign (c. 1951) 2 231-243 East Colorado Boulevard, Garrett Van Pelt, Jr. (1928) 3 225 East Colorado Boulevard/18 N Marengo Avenue, Citizens Bank Building, John Parkinson and Edwin Bergstrom (1914) 4 24-26 North Marengo Avenue, Equitable Savings and Loan Association, Benjamin G. Horton (1926) 5 28-30 North Marengo Avenue, Wolfangle Building, W. B. Edwards (1905) 6 32-38 North Marengo Avenue, Crown Building and Loan Association, C. F. Driscoll (1907) and Leon C. Brockway (1928) 7 42-44 North Marengo Avenue, Loweman Building, A. Thorns (1920) and Wilfrid Vervey (1933) 8 75 North Marengo Avenue, First Baptist Church, Carleton Winslow and Frederick Kennedy (1925) 9 78 North Marengo Avenue, Pasadena YWCA, Julia Morgan (1922) 10 100 North Garfield, Pasadena City Hall, John Bakewell and Arthur Brown (1927) 11 281 East Colorado Boulevard, United States Post Office, Oscar Wenderoth (1914) and Sylvanus Marston (1939 addition along

Union Street) 12 301 East Colorado Boulevard, Mutual Savings & Loan Association Plaza and Gardens, Ruth Shellhorn (1963)

Note: 1. An expanded description of these historical resources is included in Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, of the 2015 IS/MND. Source: GPA Consulting, 254 E Union Street Pasadena, California Historical Resource Report, June 2015.




Exhibit 13


NOT TO SCALE

07/19 | JN 165836

Source: GPA Consulting, 254 E Union Street Pasadena, California, Historical Resource Report, June 2015.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 62 Final

Conclusion

The 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would have the potential to directly impact one historical resource – the historical sign located on the project site. The 2015 IS/MND noted that implementation of the approved project would relocate the historic sign from its current position above the existing driveway along Union Street to a new driveway at the northeast corner of the project site, on Skillen Alley, near Union Street. In addition to the historic sign, the approved project would also have the potential to indirectly impact 13 other historical resources in the study area that are on parcels across an alley, street, or intersection from the project site. The 13 additional historical resources include portions of two historic districts, the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District and the Civic Center Financial Historic District, and the 11 other historical resources discussed in Table 5 above.

According to the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would be consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, described under “Revised Project” below, as relocation of the historic sign would not materially impair the historic sign. In addition, the design of the proposed building is compatible, yet differentiated from the historic sign. Although the approved project would introduce a new visual element to the area, the proposed building would be physically separated from the nearby historical resources and would be compatible yet differentiated from them.

The 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would not negatively impact the physical integrity of the historic sign on the project site, nor any of the historical resources in the project vicinity, as Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure surface cleaning of the sign would not significantly impact the historic qualities of the sign. All the identified historical resources in the study area would remain listed or eligible for listing under the relevant designation programs. The ability of these historical resources to convey their significance would not be materially impaired by the approved project. Furthermore, the approved project would not negatively impact the two National Register historic districts in the immediate vicinity of the project site. As the approved project would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the 2015 IS/MND concluded that implementation of the approved project would involve less than significant impacts on historical resources with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.

Revised Project: GPA prepared the 250 E Union Street Project Historical Resource Technical Report (Updated Historical Resources Report), dated July 2018, to identify any new historical resources listed or identified in surveys after completion of the Historical Resources Report prepared for the approved project in July 2015 and to identify potential impacts to historic resources associated with the revised project; refer to Appendix B, Historical Resources Report. As part of this effort, GPA conducted field inspections of the revised project site and vicinity to determine what areas might be impacted by the revised





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 63 Final

project and to update the previous identification of known or potential historical resources within the study area. In addition, GPA submitted an additional records search request to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on May 8, 2018, requesting any records added to the study area since the approved project’s initial records request in 2015. The Updated Historical Resources Report also includes an analysis of the revised project’s impacts on the historical resources identified above based on proposed revisions to the building height, massing, architectural style, and treatment of the locally-designated historic canopy-mounted sign on-site.

On-Site Historical Resources

As discussed, the canopy-mounted sign is included in the City’s Historic Sign Inventory and is a locally designated historic resource in the Historic Sign Category. No new on-site historical resources were identified as part of the Updated Historical Resources Report.


As indicated above, a total of 14 historical resources are located within the study area including one historical resource (a locally-designated sign) present at the project site, 11 other historical resources within the study area, and the two historic districts. No new historical resources in the study area were identified as part of the Updated Historical Resources Report.

Significance of Impacts on Historical Resources

Based on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1), the test for determining whether or not the revised project would have a significant impact on an identified historical resource is whether or not it would materially impair the physical integrity of the historical resource such that it would no longer be eligible for listing in the National or California Registers or other landmark programs such as the list of Pasadena Landmarks.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

Projects that may affect historical resources are considered to be mitigated to a level of less than significant if they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). It is important to note that projects that do not conform to the Standards do not necessarily result in significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. However, projects that conform to the Standards are presumed to clearly not have a significant impact on historic resources pursuant to CEQA. The Standards were issued by the National Park Service. The Standards are accompanied by guidelines for four types of treatments for historical resources: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration,





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 64 Final

and Reconstruction. Although the revised project is not technically a rehabilitation project, the definition of rehabilitation most closely resembles the revised project scope as it assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historical resource would be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the resource’s historic character. Thus, the Standards for Rehabilitation were selected as the appropriate first-tier analysis to determine if the revised project has the potential to cause a significant impact on a historical resource. In this case, the alteration of a historical resource is the relocation of the historic sign. The Standards for Rehabilitation also include language for new construction adjacent to historical resources. For the revised project, the new construction standards were applied both to the historic sign and to the other historical resources in the project vicinity.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation apply to all historical resource types, and are as follows:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other buildings, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 65 Final

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Analysis of Revised Project Impacts

The revised project would have the potential to directly impact one historical resources, the historic sign located on-site. This historical resource is proposed to be relocated from its current position above the existing driveway along Union Street to the new building’s west elevation, above the parking entrance. The revised project would also have the potential to indirectly impact 13 other historical resources in the study area that are on parcels across an alley, street, or intersection from the project site. The 13 historical resources include portions of the Pasadena Civic Center District and the Civic Center Financial District, including 10 contributing buildings, plus one individually eligible landscape (301 East Colorado Boulevard, Mutual Savings & Loan Association Plaza and Gardens); refer to “Approved Project” discussion above.

Work directly involving the historic materials that comprise a historic property are primarily addressed in Standards No. 1 through 8, while work related to the indirect effects of related new construction is primarily addressed in Standards No. 9 and 10. Based on the revised project’s plans, including schematic designs and renderings, the following discussion analyzes the revised project’s compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

Standard No. 1. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 1. The “property” in this case is a historic sign, and not a building. The sign would continue to serve its historic purpose of indicating the location of parking for the building at 225 East Colorado Boulevard. The location would change to a position above the proposed parking garage entry on Stratton Way, near the northwest corner of the site. Although the sign’s





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 66 Final

immediate setting would change as the sign would be affixed to the ground floor of a six-story building instead of a low, one-story structure, the sign would be similarly situated above a vehicular entry. The visibility of the sign from Union Street would also change, based on its proposed orientation to face Stratton Way. The sign would still be visible from Union Street, but to a lesser degree. All other characteristics of the sign would remain unchanged; thus, the proposed sign relocation would preserve its historical use and require minimal changes.

Standard No. 2. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 2. The character of the historic sign would be retained and preserved, as there would be no changes to the sign’s existing materials or the features that comprise its design. The location would be minimally changed, but the sign would remain partially visible from Union Street and similarly situated above a new vehicular entrance, as described for Standard No 1.

Standard No. 3. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 3. No new features or elements would be added to the historic sign as part of the revised project. The sign’s materials and the configuration of text would be preserved as they exist presently. The new building to which the sign will be affixed would be discernable as new contemporary construction, so it will not be conjectural or create a false historical sense.

Standard No. 4. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 4. The historic sign does not have any changes which have acquired significance in their own right, so there are no such changes to preserve. It was removed in 2009 and later rehabilitated in 2011, resulting in a change in text from “Parking for Citizens Bank & Building” to “Parking for 225 Colorado Building.” The words “Parking” and “Building” are original, while the word “for” has been replicated to match, and the number “225” and word “Colorado” are new and subtly differentiated. These changes are not yet old enough to have acquired historic significance in their own right.

Standard No. 5. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 5. The revised project would maintain the historic sign’s materials and design as they exist presently. Therefore, the finishes and craftsmanship that characterize the sign would be preserved.

Standard No. 6. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 6. As discussed, the historic sign was rehabilitated in 2011. Since 2011, there has not been any significant deterioration. Thus, no repairs or replacement are currently proposed under the revised project.

Standard No. 7. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 7. Given that the sign is in good condition, it is not likely that chemical or physical treatments would be required. As with the approved project, implementation of the revised project would be subject to conformance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 67 Final

requires that surface cleaning, if required when the sign is removed from the existing building for storage during construction and/or prior to re-installation on the proposed new building, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible as not to cause damage to the historic materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure the revised project would not significantly impact the historic sign.

Standard No. 8. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 8; refer to Cultural Resources Response (b). The relocation of the historic sign would not affect any archaeological resources. Construction of the revised project would involve excavation to allow for three levels of subterranean parking. As with the approved project, if any archeological resources are discovered during construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require all project grading and construction efforts to stop until a qualified archeologist investigates the situation and determines the best means for protection and preservation. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (discussed further in Cultural Resources Response (b)) would ensure the revised project would not significantly impact archaeological resources.

Standard No. 9. The revised project is consistent with Standard No. 9. The proposed building is compatible with the materials, massing, size, scale, proportion, and architectural features of the historic sign. The scale and proportion of the new construction is reasonable in relation to the sign, such that the sign would appear appropriately sized when juxtaposed over the alley or garage entrance. The materials palette and architectural features of the new building are similar to those used in nearby historic buildings, but the design is clearly contemporary, creating a compatible but differentiated new building.

As described above, in addition to the historic sign, there are 13 other historical resources in the study area surrounding the project site (two districts, ten buildings, and one landscape). The proposed new building would be located directly northeast and east of the existing building at 231-243 East Colorado Boulevard, Citizens Bank Building, Equitable Savings and Loan Association, Wolfangle Building, Crown Building and Loan Association, and Loweman Building, which are (or have been surveyed as eligible) contributors to the Civic Center Financial Historic District, and would be physically separated from these resources by Brainard Alley and Stratton Way. The proposed new building would also be located directly south of the Pasadena YWCA, a locally-designated Pasadena Historic Monument, and directly east of the U.S. Post Office. Both of these historic resources are contributors to the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District and would be physically separated from the proposed new building by Union Street and Skillen Alley, respectively. The proposed building would be physically separated from the remaining three historical resources in the study area by the intersection of Union Street and Marengo Avenue (First Baptist Church) and the intersection of Union Street and Garfield Avenue (Pasadena City Hall and the Mutual Savings & Loan Association Plaza





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 68 Final

and Gardens). The First Baptist Church and Pasadena City Hall are contributors to the Pasadena Civic Center Historic District. Pasadena City Hall is also a locally-designated Pasadena Landmark. The Mutual Savings & Loan Association Plaza and Gardens was surveyed as eligible for listing in the National Register.

The proposed building is compatible with the materials, massing, size, scale, proportion, and architectural features of these nearby historical resources. The proposed building would be six stories tall and 75 feet in height, which is taller than the one- to three-story commercial buildings west and south of the subject property, but not so much as to visually overwhelm these nearby structures. This is due to the fact that the new building would be located behind these commercial buildings and further separated from them by alleys. As a result, the new building would be less visible beyond the roofline of the commercial buildings than if the new building were immediately abutting the rear or side elevations of the existing buildings. The proposed building height falls in between the taller historic buildings in the study area, including the Citizens Bank Building (86.9 feet), Pasadena City Hall (64.5 feet for the building wings and 206 feet at its highest point;), and First Baptist Church (60.4 feet). Most importantly, the building would not interfere with the key views of City Hall along the axis of Holly and Garfield Streets that define the Civic Center. As indicated in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the new building would obscure an existing view of City Hall that exists from the south side of Colorado Boulevard, looking north over the one- to two-story buildings on the north side of Colorado Boulevard; refer to Exhibit 9. However, this is not one of the two primary visual corridors that exemplify the Civic Center plan. The majority of the proposed building would be shielded from view along Colorado Street by existing buildings. Only the upper two floors in southeastern portion of the new building would be visible from Colorado Boulevard, when directly south of the project site.

The proposed building design is contemporary, but incorporates some aspects of Mediterranean Revival style architecture, including hipped roofs with red clay tiles, stucco exterior, columns, wood shutters, and metal balcony grilles. These elements would be similar to those on nearby historic buildings, particularly the U.S. Post Office, City Hall, YWCA, and First Baptist Church. The massing of the proposed building would be physically broken into forms of varying heights and depths. As a result, the eastern portion of the proposed building’s Union Street elevation would be shorter and more similar to the heights of buildings across the alley or street, stepping up toward the western portion of the Union Street elevation. The taller portion of the building would be located at the rear of the property, towards the core of the City block and away from the facades of nearby historic buildings. There are large rectangular openings proposed at the ground level on Union Street, consistent with the historic commercial storefronts of nearby buildings. The primary exterior materials of the proposed building would be stucco, with wrought iron and wood details. The historic buildings nearest to the subject property also have smooth stucco exteriors and employ wrought iron and wood details, such as the grillework of the YWCA and U.S. Post Office buildings, the latter which also has wood corbels.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 69 Final

In summary, the revised project is consistent with Standard No. 9 because the proposed building would not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property’s historic sign or any of the adjacent historical resources. It is compatible with the property’s historic sign in terms of materials, massing, scale, proportion, and architectural features, yet adequately differentiated as contemporary. In addition, it is differentiated from the adjacent historical resources by its contemporary design; however, it is still compatible in massing and scale. The architectural features of the proposed building also make reference to the traditional building styles and materials in the study area and vicinity.

Standard No. 10. The revised project would be consistent with Standard No. 10. The individual channel letters and affixed baseplates of the historic sign could be easily removed from the proposed new building in the future without altering or destroying its essential character-defining features. In addition, the proposed building would be sufficiently set back from the historical resources on abutting parcels, pursuant to building code requirements relating to building separation as well as existing alleys, streets, and intersections. If the proposed building were removed in the future, the adjacent historical resources would not be materially affected. The essential form and integrity of the historical resources and their environment would be unimpaired.

Conclusion

As indicated above, the revised project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Relocation of the historic sign would not materially impair the historic sign. Additionally, the design of the proposed building would remain compatible, yet differentiated from the historic sign. Although the revised project would introduce a new visual element to the area, the proposed building would be physically separated from nearby historical resources and would be compatible yet differentiated from them.

The revised project would not negatively impact the physical integrity of the historic sign on the project site, nor any of the historical resources in the project area, as mitigation from the 2015 IS/MND (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) would ensure surface cleaning of the sign would not result in significant impacts. All the identified historical resources in the study area would remain listed or eligible for listing under the relevant designation programs. The ability of these historical resources to convey their significance would not be materially impaired by the revised project. Furthermore, the revised project would not negatively impact the two National Register historic districts in the immediate vicinity of the project site. As the revised project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, it would have a less than significant impact on historical resources with the implementation of mitigation.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 70 Final

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND:

CUL-1 Surface cleaning, if required when the sign is removed from the existing building for storage during construction and/or prior to re-installation on the proposed new building, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible as not to cause damage to the historic materials. Prohibited methods include sandblasting, bead-blasting, or any other abrasive method, high-pressure water washes, or harsh chemical cleaners with the potential to strip or alter the existing finish and colors. Acceptable methods would include dry brushing lose dirt and debris, low-pressure water wash, mild chemical cleansers (basic household soaps), and pressurized air to dry the materials completely after any kind of water-based cleaning. Prior to any cleaning, the project applicant shall consult with the City of Pasadena to identify techniques that are considered appropriate.

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the project site has been previously disturbed by prior development and contains artificial fill materials. In this regard, there are no known prehistoric or historic archaeological sites on the project site. In the unlikely event that excavation of the approved project’s subterranean parking uncovered previously undiscovered buried archaeological resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require all project grading and construction efforts to halt until an archaeologist examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Following implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, it was determined the approved project would not significantly impact archaeological resources.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND; however, construction of the revised project would involve the excavation of an additional level of subterranean parking. Although the revised project would involve additional excavation activities, the presence of subsurface archaeological resources is not expected as the project site has been previously disturbed by prior development and contains artificial fill materials. Similar to the approved project, in the unlikely event that project excavation uncovers previously undiscovered buried archaeological resources, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require all project grading and construction efforts to halt until an archaeologist examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Thus, following implementation of Mitigation





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 71 Final

Measure CUL-2, implementation of the revised project would not significantly impact archaeological resources.


CUL-2 If archaeological resources are encountered during project construction, all construction activities in the vicinity of the find shall halt until an archeologist certified by the Society of Professional Archeologists examines the site, identifies the archaeological significance of the find, and recommends a course of action. Construction shall not resume until the site archaeologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage archaeological resources.

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is located within a highly developed area and has been previously disturbed and graded as a result of the existing on-site structures. The approved project is located within an area of the City that does not contain any unique geologic features and is not known or expected to contain paleontological resources. The 2105 IS/MND concluded that in the unlikely event that paleontological resources are encountered during excavation of the approved project’s subterranean parking, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would require all approved project construction activities to halt until a paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Following implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, the approved project would not significantly impact paleontological resources.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND; however, construction of the revised project would involve the excavation of an additional level of subterranean parking. Although the revised project would involve additional excavation activities, the presence of paleontological resources is not expected, as the project is located within an area of the City that does not contain any unique geologic features and is not known or expected to contain paleontological resources. In addition, the project site has been previously disturbed by prior development and contains artificial fill materials. Similar to the approved project, in the unlikely event that paleontological resources are encountered during revised project construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would require all revised project construction activities to halt until a





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 72 Final

paleontologist identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Thus, following implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, implementation of the revised project would not significantly impact paleontological resources.


CUL-3 If paleontological resources are encountered during project construction, all construction activities in the vicinity of the find shall halt until a paleontologist meeting the satisfaction of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County identifies the paleontological significance of the find and recommends a course of action. Construction shall not resume until the site paleontologist states in writing that the proposed construction activities would not significantly damage paleontological resources.

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ceremonies?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, there are no known human remains on the project site. The project site is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historic or prehistoric human remains. Thus, it was determined that human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the approved project. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during construction, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the “most likely descendant.” If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, implementation of the approved project was determined to have less than significant impacts.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 73 Final

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction of the revised project. As with the approved project, the revised project would be required to comply with existing State regulations in the event human remains are discovered during construction activities. Following compliance with existing State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, implementation of the revised project would have a less than significant impact.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for impacts to human remains and now new mitigation measures would be required.

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the project site is not underlain by an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and no faults exist on the project site as mapped by the Alquist-Priolo fault zone maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and California Geological Survey (CGS). As a result, the 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault, and that impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, implementation of the revised project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault and impacts in this regard would be less than significant.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 74 Final

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for geology and soils and now new mitigation measures would be required.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that there are no active faults projecting toward or extending across the project site. According to the Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Four-Story Office Building, 254 E. Union Street (Geotechnical Investigation) prepared by Converse Consultants, September 10, 2007 and the Update to Geotechnical Investigation Report, 250 East Union Street Project (Geotechnical Investigation Update), the project site is not within a currently designated Earthquake Hazard Zone, but is located approximately two miles north of the Raymond Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone. The Verdugo fault, which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest from the site, is closer to the site, but is not currently included in a designated Earthquake Hazard Zone. Due to the proximity of the site to the Raymond fault and the Verdugo fault zones, the 2015 IS/MND concluded that the project site could be subject to very strong shaking from a major seismic event on this fault. To reduce the risk of earthquake damage, construction of the approved project would be subject to compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), California Building Code (CBC) requirements, and other applicable codes. According to the 2015 IS/MND, upon conformance with these required standards, impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and would therefore be subject to very strong ground shaking from a major seismic event as described above. Although the revised project would allow for additional residential dwelling units, implementation of the revised project would be subject to compliance with the UBC, CBC requirements, and all other applicable codes in place to reduce the risk associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Similar to the approved project, compliance with these required standards would ensure implementation of the revised project would result in less than significant impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for geology and soils.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 75 Final

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction as delineated on the most recent Seismic Hazards Zones Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known areas of liquefaction?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: Based on Plate P-1 of the General Plan Safety Element and the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone maps for Pasadena, the project site is not located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone.4 Further, groundwater was not encountered within a depth of 61 feet based on borings drilled conducted as part of the Geotechnical Investigation compared to historical high groundwater level for the Pasadena Quadrangle at approximately 100 feet below the ground surface. During the site exploration, standard penetration tests results indicated that soil deposits beneath the site are generally dense and stiff. As a result, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered very low to nil. Therefore, the 2015 IS/MND determined that implementation of the approved project would not result in seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND; however, the revised project would involve an additional level of subterranean parking. Excavation activities for the revised project would occur within the depth of the borings drilled as part of the Geotechnical Investigation and within the historical high groundwater level (100 feet below ground surface) for the Pasadena Quadrangle. Similar to the approved project, the revised project is also expected to encounter soil deposits which are dense and stiff. As a result, implementation of the revised project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects caused by seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and impacts would be less than significant.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for geology and soils and now new mitigation measures would be required.

4 U.S. Geological Survey, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Pasadena Quadrangle, March 25,

1999.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 76 Final

iv. Landslides as delineated on the most recent Seismic Hazards Zones Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known areas of landslides?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the project site and surrounding area is relatively flat and in an urbanized area of the City, making the possibility of landslides extremely remote. The project site is not within a Landslide Hazard Zone as shown on Plate P-1 of the General Plan Safety Element. This plate was developed considering the Earthquake-Induced Landslide areas, as shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone maps for Pasadena.5 Additionally, due to the absence of slopes on or adjacent to the site, the potential for seismically induced landslides and/or other types of slope failures, such as lateral spreading on or adjacent to slope surfaces, adversely affecting the approved project site is considered to be very low. As a result, the 2015 IS/MND determined that implementation of the approved project would have no impacts from seismic induced landslides.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. As a result, implementation of the revised project would not expose people or structures to seismic induced landslides.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for geology and soils and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that grading and earthwork activities associated with construction of the approved project would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. To reduce impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil, all demolition and construction activities would be subject to compliance with the CBC. An erosion control plan would be implemented during inclement weather periods to reduce on-site erosion. In accordance with Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, water erosion during construction would be minimized by limiting construction to dry weather, covering exposed excavated

5 U.S. Geological Survey, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Pasadena Quadrangle, March 25,

1999.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 77 Final

dirt during periods of rain, and protecting excavated areas from flooding with temporary berms. In addition, site preparation would be conducted in compliance with the City’s requirement for Best Management Practices (BMPs) and State and local codes and requirements for erosion control, grading, and soil remediation.

Erosion control measures associated with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 1166 would be implemented to reduce impacts related to wind and/or water erosion. Further, the project applicant would be required to submit an erosion and sediment transport control plan as part of the grading plan. The grading plan would be subject to approval by the Building Official and the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any building permits.

The 2015 IS/MMD determined that long-term operation of the approved project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, following implementation of an approved landscape and irrigation plan. As a result, the 2015 IS/MND determined that potential significant impacts associated with erosion during construction and operation of the approved project would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND; however, the revised project would involve greater excavation activities to incorporate one additional level of subterranean parking. The excavation activities would not result in significant erosion impacts or loss of topsoil, as the revised project would be required to comply with the established regulatory framework discussed above (i.e., NPDES, City-required construction BMPs, and State and local codes and requirements for erosion control, grading, and soil remediation). As with the approved project, the applicant for the revised project would be required to submit an erosion and sediment transport control plan as part of the grading plan. The grading plan would be subject to approval by the Building Official and the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any building permits.

Long-term operation of the revised project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, following implementation of an approved landscape and irrigation plan. Potential impacts associated with erosion during construction and operation of the revised project would be less than significant.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 78 Final

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As discussed above, the project site is located within a seismically active region. Impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant and the project site would not be subject to earthquake-induced landslides.

The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the soils underlying the project site are not sensitive to seismically induced settlement and that the project site is not located on known unstable soils or geologic units, and therefore, would not likely cause on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Soil excavation and grading activities associated with the approved project would be required to comply with the CBC related to grading and excavation, other applicable building regulations, and standard construction techniques. The displacement of soil through export would be controlled by the CBC related to grading and excavation. The 2015 IS/MND concluded that adherence to existing regulations would ensure impacts concerning unstable geologic units or soils would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and would therefore be exposed to similar geologic conditions. Although the revised project would involve an additional level of subterranean parking and additional level aboveground, impacts would be similar to the approved project and adherence to existing regulations would ensure impacts concerning unstable geologic units or soils would be less than significant.


d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that on-site soils were non-expansive as defined by the CBC and that special design and/or construction for expansive soil conditions for the approved project would not be necessary. The 2015





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 79 Final

IS/MND determined that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant following conformance with the CBC.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and would therefore be subject to the same on-site soil conditions. Excavation activities associated with the additional level of subterranean parking are not anticipated to result in significant impacts concerning expansive soil, as the same underlying alluvial deposits (generally silty sands, sands, sandy clays, sandy silts, silts, sands with silt, and gravelly sands) are expected to be encountered during construction of the revised project. Conformance with applicable CBC requirements would ensure impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.


e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The approved project did not propose the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As such, no impacts would occur.

Revised Project: The revised project does not propose the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As with the approved project, no impacts would occur in this regard.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 80 Final

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the approved project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources. However, the 2015 IS/MND found that the amount of GHG emissions (955.10 Metric Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year [MTCO2eq/yr]) generated by the approved project from direct and indirect sources combined would result in a less than significant impact.

Revised Project: Since certification of the 2015 IS/MND, the Pasadena Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted (March 5, 2018). The CAP aims to establish a long-term strategy to reduce GHG emissions and address climate change at the local level. The purpose of the CAP is to analyze GHG emissions at a programmatic-level, outline a strategy to reduce and mitigate municipal and community-wide GHG emissions, and demonstrate Pasadena’s commitment to achieving the State-wide emissions reduction targets. Projects that meet the requirements of the CAP Consistency Checklist, including completion of one of the three options listed below, will be deemed consistent with the CAP and will be found to have a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.6 The following three options prove consistency with the CAP:

• Option A: Apply Sustainable Development Actions - incorporate mandatory and selective sustainable development actions that will become conditions of the entitlement.

• Option B: Assess Project’s GHG Efficiency - Quantify the project’s GHG emission levels and demonstrate that the project is below Pasadena’s service person efficiency threshold.

• Option C: Achieve Net Zero GHG Emissions - Quantify the project’s GHG emission levels and demonstrate that the project would not result in a new increase in GHG emissions.

6 City of Pasadena, Pasadena Climate Action Plan, March 5, 2018, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/

planning/planning-division/community-planning/pasadena-climate-action-plan/, accessed May 31, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 81 Final

The revised project has demonstrated consistency with Option A as the revised project would incorporate mandatory and selective sustainable development actions that would become conditions of the project’s requested entitlements as detailed in Table 6, Proposed Mandatory and Selective Sustainable Development Actions.

Table 6 Proposed Mandatory and Selective Sustainable Development Actions

GHG Reduction Strategy Sustainable Development Action Revised Project Implementation Mandatory Actions T-1.2: Continue to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety

Bicycle Storage: Does the project provide bicycle storage lockers, racks, or other bicycle storage facilities for residents/ employees?

Consistent. The project would provide bicycle storage at a convenient street level location, accessible to both residents and commercial tenants.

T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles

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

Consistent. The project would submit a TDM plan for City review.

T-4.1: Expand the availability and use of alternative fuel vehicles and fueling infrastructure

Alternative Vehicle Fueling Wiring: For projects with more than three parking spaces, does the project provide wiring for at least one 240V Type II electric car charger? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Consistent. The project would provide electrical utility wiring for at least one electric car charger on-site.

E-1.2: Encourage the use of energy conservation devices and passive design concepts that make use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency

Passive Design Features: Does the project utilize passive design techniques such as awnings or overhangs on the east, west, and south facing windows which block the high summer sun but allow in lower winter sun? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Consistent. Passive design techniques would be utilized by the project, including the design of deeply recessed windows along the building’s south side and deeply recessed windows plus sun shade on the building’s west side. Units on the west side of the uppermost level would also have operable sliding shutters. Additionally, the majority of the building’s east elevation facing the courtyard would be in shadows created by the north facing side of the building.

WC-1.1: Reduce potable water usage throughout Pasadena

Irrigation Efficiency: Will the project utilize drought tolerant landscaping and/or drip irrigation and/or weather controllers to reduce outdoor water use? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Consistent. Drought tolerant landscaping and drip irrigation would be installed to reduce outdoor water use.

WR-1.1: Continue to reduce solid waste and landfill GHG emissions

Facilitate Recycling: Does the project include a space for separate trash and recycling bins as well as provide informational signage/handouts for residents/employees outlining materials to be recycled? Please include specifications on the project plans.

Consistent. The project would include a space for separate trash and recycle bines as well as informational signage outlining allowed recyclable materials.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

Table 6 [continued]

Proposed Mandatory and Selective Sustainable Development Actions

July 2019 82 Final

GHG Reduction Strategy Sustainable Development Action Revised Project Implementation Selective Actions Energy Efficiency and Conservation Category (one required) E-1.1: Increase energy efficiency requirements of new buildings to perform better than 2016 Title 24 Standards

Energy Efficiency (Exceed 2016 Title 24): Does the project exceed the 2016 Title 24 Efficiency Standards by at least five percent? Please include Title 24 energy model.

Consistent. The project would exceed the 2016 Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by at least five percent.

Sustainable Mobility and Land Use Category (one required) T-3.1: Decrease annual commuter miles traveled by single occupancy vehicles

Car Sharing: Does the project provide/facilitate car sharing by providing a designated car share space on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site? Examples of car share options include ZipCar, PitCarz, and Getaround. Please include these specifications on the project plans.

Consistent. The proposed site plan includes a dedicated car share space on-site.

Additional Actions (three required) T-5.1: Facilitate high density, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill development

Transit Oriented Development: Is the project located within 0.25-mile of a major transit stop as defined in the Zoning Code. Please include a map outlining the nearest transit stop.

Consistent. The project site is located within 0.25-mile of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Memorial Park Gold Line Station.

WC-3.1: Improve storm water to slow, sink, and treat water run-off, recharge groundwater, and improve water quality

Stormwater Capture: Is the project designed to retain stormwater resulting from the 95th percentile, 24-hour rain event as defined by the Los Angeles County 95th percentile precipitation isohyetal map? Please provide the engineered stormwater retention plan with the project plans.

Consistent. The project would be designed to retain stormwater resulting from the 95th percentile, 24-hour rain event as defined by the County’s precipitation isohyetal map.

UG-2.1: Continue to protect existing trees and plant new ones to improve and ensure viability of Pasadena’s urban forest

Trees: Does the project result in a net gain of trees? Please include these specifications on the project plans.

Consistent. Although the revised project would remove two European olive trees on-site, it would provide additional trees in the courtyard and along the site perimeter, resulting in a net gain of trees.

Source: City of Pasadena, Climate Action Plan Appendix D, Consistency Checklist, December 28, 2017.

As shown in Table 6, the revised project would implement all mandatory and chosen selective sustainable development actions detailed in the CAP Consistency Checklist. As such, development of the revised project would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions and no new mitigation measures would be required.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 83 Final

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the approved project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs, as the approved project would be consistent with Statewide and regional GHG reduction goals. A less than significant impact was identified.

Revised Project: Since certification of the 2015 IS/MND, CARB has approved the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (Scoping Plan).7 This update focuses on implementation of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. In line with the Scoping Plan, Pasadena’s CAP aims to achieve the Statewide emissions reduction targets. As previously discussed, the revised project is considered consistent with the CAP as it would implement all mandatory and chosen selective sustainable development actions detailed in the CAP Consistency Checklist; refer to Table 6. Thus, the revised project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions and no new mitigation measures would be required.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that construction activities could involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. To reduce hazards to the public or environment, standard construction practices would be observed which minimize

7 California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017,

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed April 30, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 84 Final

the potential for hazards and ensure that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. Approved project operations would not involve the storage of hazardous substances other than the small amounts of cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping. The 2015 IS/MND determined that approved project implementation would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials following conformance with standard construction BMPs and the existing regulatory framework in place for hazardous materials.

Revised Project: Like the approved project, construction of the revised project would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Standard construction practices would be observed to minimize the potential for hazards and ensure that any materials released are contained and remediated in accordance with local, State, and Federal law. The revised project would involve similar operations (i.e., residential and commercial) as those analyzed under the approved project. Thus, following conformance with standard construction practices and the existing regulatory framework in place for hazardous materials, less than significant impacts would occur.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials and now new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Union Street Condominiums Project (Phase I ESA), dated January 4, 2014, was prepared by Advantage Environmental Consultants, LLC. The Phase I ESA consisted of a records review, site reconnaissance, interviews, and an assessment and recommendations for any known or potentially hazardous materials located on-site, and/or on adjoining or surrounding uses. Based on a records review, site reconnaissance, and interviews, the Phase I ESA identified no evidence of Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) on the project site.

According to the 2015 IS/MND, construction of the approved project could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, standard construction practices would be observed which





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 85 Final

minimize the potential for hazards and ensure that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and Federal law. The Phase I ESA determined that existing on-site structures were constructed between the 1950s to the present. As a result, the potential for asbestos containing materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paints (LBPs) within these structures exists. To reduce the approved project’s construction-related impacts concerning accidental release, demolition that could result in the release of ACMs or LBPs would be conducted according to Federal and State standards, as well as SCAQMD Rule 1403. The 2015 IS/MND determined that construction-related hazards involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant following conformance with Federal and State regulations, as well as SCAQMD Rule 1403. Further, project operations would not involve the significant transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND; however, the revised project would involve additional excavation activities to incorporate an additional level of subterranean parking. These excavation activities are not anticipated to yield additional RECs on the project site. Like the approved project, the revised project would involve less than significant impacts concerning accidental release of hazardous materials during revised project construction following adherence to standard construction practices as well as local, State, and Federal law. Impacts concerning LBPs and ACMs would be reduced to less than significant following conformance with Federal and State regulations, as well as SCAQMD Rule 1403. The revised project would involve similar residential and commercial operations as those analyzed under the approved project. Thus, following conformance with standard construction practices and the existing regulatory framework in place for LBPs and ACMs, less than significant impacts would occur.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials and no new mitigation measure would be required.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is not located within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, no impacts would occur.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 86 Final

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as that analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, implementation of the revised project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. As with the approved project, no impact would occur in this regard.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for hazards and hazardous materials and no new mitigation measures would be required.

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is not included on any database records. Additionally, the project site is not located on the DTSC’s hazardous waste facilities list. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Based on a recent search of DTSC’s hazardous waste facilities list, the revised project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.8 No impacts would occur in this regard.


8 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (CORTESE),

https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed on May 21, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 87 Final

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. The revised project would not be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. As with the approved project, no impacts would occur in this regard.


f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, the revised project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. As with the approved project, no impacts would occur in this regard.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 88 Final

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, construction and operation of the approved project would not place any permanent or temporary physical barriers on any existing public streets. All construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the project site and would not interfere with circulation along Union Street, Marengo Avenue, Garfield Avenue, or Colorado Boulevard, or any other nearby roadways. It was concluded that the approved revised project would not interfere with the City’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)/National Incident Management System (NIMS) Emergency Response Plan, or any other emergency response or evacuation plan, during approved project construction activities and impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: Construction staging for the revised project would also occur within the boundaries of the project site and would not interfere with nearby roadways. Similar to the approved project, the revised project would not have a significant impact on emergency response and evacuation plans.


h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the project site is not located within an area of moderate or very high fire hazard based on General Plan Safety Element Plate P-2. The project site is located within an urbanized area and the surrounding area is not adjacent to any wildlands. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as that analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, the revised project would not be located within an area of moderate or very high fire hazard or adjacent to any wildlands. The revised project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. As with the approved project, no impact would occur in this regard.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 89 Final


3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, implementation of the approved project would result in typical, urban, nonpoint-source pollutants to storm water runoff. These pollutants are permitted by the Los Angeles County MS4 permit (Order No 01-182; NPDES No. CAS0041 as amended by Orders R4-2006-0074 and R4-2007-0042) and would not exceed any receiving water limitations. The 2015 IS/MND determined that since the approved project meets the City’s Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) requirement thresholds, the project applicant would be required to submit and implement a SUSMP compliance plan. The 2015 IS/MND determined that compliance with the MS4 permit and SUSMP would ensure that the revised project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would have no related significant impacts.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site and similar development as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. The revised project would also result in typical, urban, nonpoint-source pollutants to stormwater runoff, and would be required to demonstrate compliance with the MS4 permit and submit and implement a SUSMP compliance plan. In December 2012, the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted a new MS4 Permit (Order No. R4-2012-0175). The updated MS4 permit established low impact development (LID) requirements for new development and redevelopment projects to control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume released from a project site by minimizing the impervious surface area and controlling runoff from impervious surfaces.9 The project would require the design and implementation of post-construction controls to mitigate storm water pollution prior to completion of the project through the development of a LID plan. Following compliance with the MS4 permit and implementation of a SUSMP compliance plan and LID plan, the revised project would not

9 City of Pasadena, Low Impact Development, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/building-and-

safety/low-impact-development/, accessed December 5, 2018.


https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/building-and-safety/low-impact-development/

https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/building-and-safety/low-impact-development/




Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 90 Final

result in significant impacts concerning water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for hydrology and water quality and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would not install any groundwater wells, and would not otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater. In addition, there are no known aquifer conditions at the project site or in the surrounding area, which could be intercepted by excavation or development of the approved project. Therefore, it was determined the approved project would not physically interfere with any groundwater supplies.

However, the approved project would use existing water supply provided by Pasadena Water and Power (PWP). The source of some of this water supply is groundwater, stored in the Raymond Basin. Thus, the approved project could indirectly withdraw groundwater. This amount of water use would not result in significant impacts from depletion of groundwater supplies. Under normal operation, it is conservatively assumed that the approved project would use approximately 7,283 gallons of water per day, which amounts to 8.16 acre-feet per year (AFY). According to PWP’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2010 UWMP), dated June 2011, the City had an anticipated water demand of 37,440 AFY for 2015. The approved project would result in a 0.02 percent water demand increase. The 2015 IS/MND determined that PWP could adequately serve the approved project and this incremental increase in water use would not result in significant impacts associated with depletion of groundwater supplies.

Revised Project: Since certification of the 2015 IS/MND, PWP prepared and adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP). According to the 2015 UWMP, dated June 2016, the City has a water demand of 32,586 AFY for 2020. The revised project would generate approximately 4,418 additional gpd of water demand than the approved project, which amounts to an increase of 4.95 AFY. This incremental increase in water use would not result in significant impacts associated with depletion of





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 91 Final

groundwater supplies. Like the approved project, the revised project would demonstrate compliance with all existing City requirements in place for water conservation. Additionally, development of the revised project has also been contemplated in the General Plan and 2015 UWMP as it is consistent with the site’s current land use designation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.


c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that compliance with existing NPDES requirements, including the Countywide MS4 permit and the City’s SUSMP requirements would ensure the approved project does not result in significant erosion or siltation impacts due to changes to drainage patterns.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same physical footprint as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and would also result in similar drainage patterns as existing conditions, since the majority of the project site would remain impervious. Following conformance with existing NPDES requirements, including the Countywide MS4 permit and the City’s SUSMP and LID requirements, the revised project would not result in significant erosion or siltation impacts due to changes in drainage patterns.


d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would not have the potential to alter drainage patterns or increase runoff that would result in flooding since the approved project does not involve alteration of a discernable watercourse and





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 92 Final

post-development runoff discharge rates would not exceed pre-development rates. Following compliance with the City’s SUSMP requirements, impacts concerning flooding would be less than significant.

Revised Project: Like the approved project, the revised project would be designed such that post-development runoff discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates and would demonstrate compliance with the City’s SUSMP and LID requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.


e. Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that stormwater runoff from the project site would not increase and the development would not exceed the capacity of existing/planned storm water drainage systems following compliance with the City’s SUSMP requirements. The 2015 IS/MND concluded that compliance with the Countywide MS4 permit and City’s SUSMP requirements would ensure that the approved project would not provide a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same physical footprint as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND and would also be designed such that post-development runoff discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates. As a result, it is expected that the City’s existing storm drain system can adequately serve the revised project. Further, the revised project would demonstrate compliance with the Countywide MS4 permit and the City’s SUSMP and LID requirements to ensure implementation of the revised project does not result in a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 93 Final

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that construction of the approved project could generate short-term water pollutants, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids. To reduce short-term water quality impacts, construction of the approved project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the County’s MS4 construction site requirements as well as the City’s SUSMP requirements. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project would involve similar construction activities as those analyzed under the 2015 IS/MND, and construction activities associated with the revised project would also have the potential to generate short-term water pollutants. As with the approved project, compliance with the County’s MS4 construction site requirements as well as the City’s SUSMP and LID requirements would ensure impacts are less than significant.


g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or dam inundation area as shown in the City of Pasadena adopted Safety Element of the General Plan or other flood or inundation delineation map?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), no portions of the City of Pasadena are within a 100-year floodplain. As shown on FEMA FIRM panel 06037C1375F, the project site is in Zone X.10 Zone X is located outside of the special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance of flood (100-year floodplain), and no floodplain management regulations are required.

10 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06037C1375F Panel 1375 of

2350, September 26, 2008.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 94 Final

In addition, according to Plate 3-1 of the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in a dam inundation area. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. As a result, the revised project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or be located within a dam inundation area. As with the approved project, no impacts would occur in this regard.


h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: Refer to Hydrology and Water Quality Response (g).

Revised Project: Refer to Hydrology and Water Quality Response (g).


i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: As discussed, no portion of the City is located within a 100-year floodplain identified by FEMA. In addition, according to Plate P-2 of the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located in a dam inundation area. The 2015 IS/MND determined that no impact would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: As with the approved project, the revised project would not expose people or structures to a significant flooding risk. No impact would occur in this regard.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 95 Final


j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: According to the 2015 IS/MND, the City is not located near any inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean to be inundated by either a seiche or tsunami. Additionally, the project site would not be susceptible to mudflow due to its relatively flat geography and distance from hillside soils. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: As with the approved project, the revised project would not be at risk to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts would occur in this regard.


3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the approved project would not physically divide an established community, as the approved project consists of an infill development within a highly urbanized area characterized by a mix of land uses. No impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: Consistent with the approved project, the revised project would be developed on the same project site with the same proposed uses (i.e., residential and commercial). As such, the revised project would be an infill development in a highly urbanized area and would be compatible with neighboring residential, restaurant, retail, commercial, and office uses. The revised project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur in this regard.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 96 Final

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for land use and planning and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Pasadena General Plan (2004) and Pasadena General Plan Update (at the time), which was later adopted in August 2015; refer to Table 7, Pasadena General Plan (2004) Policy Consistency Analysis, and Table 8, Pasadena General Plan Update Policy Consistency Analysis, of the 2015 IS/MND. Further, the approved project was found to be consistent with the objectives and zoning requirements of the Central District Specific Plan objectives and the Civic Center Sub-District (CD-2) zoning district. The approved project also required a Variance per PMC 17.61.080(D)(4) to allow the commercial uses on the ground floor to have a reduced depth along East Union Street (28 feet and 6 inches rather than the required 50-foot depth for commercial uses along street frontages). Upon approval of the Variance, the approved project would be consistent with the Zoning Code. Overall, impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project would be located on the same project site as the approved project. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site as Medium Mixed Use. The Medium Mixed Use designation is intended to support the development of multi-story buildings with a variety of compatible commercial (retail and office) and residential uses. Similar to the approved project, the revised project is a mixed-use residential development with commercial and residential components. Thus, the revised project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. Table 7, Pasadena General Plan Land Use Element Policy Consistency Analysis, provides a consistency analysis of the revised project with relevant General Plan Land Use Element policies. Much of the analysis is similar to Table 8, Pasadena General Plan Update Policy Consistency Analysis, of the 2015 IS/MND because of the similarities between the approved and revised project. As detailed in Table 7, the revised project would be consistent with applicable General Plan Land Use Element policies.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 97 Final

Table 7 Pasadena General Plan Land Use Element Policy Consistency Analysis

Relevant Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 1.1 – Basic Growth Policy. Accommodate growth that is consistent with community values and that complements the scale and character of Pasadena’s unique residential neighborhoods, business districts, and open spaces.

Consistent. The project site is located within the Central District Transit Oriented Development Area,11 and within proximity to and served by multiple public transit services (Metro Gold Line; Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System). The revised project would introduce residential and office commercial uses, consistent with the scale and character of existing and anticipated development within the area. The revised project’s design, configuration, and mix of uses emphasizes a pedestrian oriented environment and reinforces the use of alternative transportation. Further, the Medium Mixed Use land use designation is intended to support the development of multi-story buildings with a variety of compatible commercial (retail and office) and residential uses of up to 87 dwelling units per acre. As the revised project proposes a mixed-use development with 59 residential dwelling units and 1,953 square feet of commercial uses, the revised project supports a balanced mix of residential development and pedestrian-serving commercial uses, consistent with the types, densities, and location of housing within the Medium Mixed Use land use designation. As such, the revised project complements Pasadena’s community values in building a more diverse housing stock with available pedestrian, bicycle, and transit opportunities.

Policy 1.2 – Targeted Growth. Target growth and new construction in infill areas and away from Pasadena’s residential neighborhoods and open spaces by redeveloping underutilized commercial and industrial properties, especially within the Central District, Transit Villages, Neighborhood Villages, and along selected corridors.

Consistent. The revised project would replace the existing asphalt paved parking lot with a mixed-use development, bringing market rate and affordable residences and commercial uses to an underutilized infill site within the Central District.

Policy 1.9 – Development Costs. Require new development to provide public services and facilities through equitable fees and exactions.

Consistent. The revised project is located within an urbanized area of the City, currently served by public services and utilities. As stated in Section 3.14, Public Services and Section 3.15, Recreation, the revised project would pay park impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 6252, which uses the funds for park maintenance and improvement programs.

Policy 2.1 – Housing Choices. Provide opportunities for a full range of housing types, densities, locations, and affordability levels to address the community’s fair share of regional, senior, and workforce housing needs and provide a strong customer base sustaining the economic vitality of Pasadena’s commercial land uses. The types, densities, and location of housing shall be determined by the Land Use Diagram and reflect the projected needs specified in the Housing Element.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Policy 1.1.

11 City of Pasadena, Pasadena Municipal Code Figure 3-5 Central District Transit Oriented Development

Area.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

Table 7 [continued] Pasadena General Plan Land Use Element Policy Consistency Analysis

July 2019 98 Final

Relevant Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 2.5 – Mixed Use. Create opportunities for development projects that mix housing with commercial uses to enable Pasadena’s residents to live close to businesses and employment, increasing non-auto travel, and interact socially.


Policy 2.6 – Transit-Related Land Uses. Promote the development of uses that support and capture the economic value induced by the presence of transit corridors and stations.

Consistent. The project site is located within the Central District Transit Oriented Development Area,12 and is considered a transit-oriented development. The revised project is within proximity to and served by multiple public transit services (Metro Gold Line; Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System; Foothill Transit; City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation Commuter Express). In addition, the revised project provides a safe and pleasant pedestrian-oriented environment, supporting pedestrian traffic within immediate proximity to commercial centers, civic uses, and neighborhood-serving retail.

Policy 4.1 – Sustainable Urban Form. Provide an overall pattern of land uses and densities that encourages sustainable development; offers convenient alternatives to auto travel; ensures compatibility among uses; enhances livability and public health; sustains economic vitality; and reduces air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy consumption.

Consistent. Refer to responses to Land Use Policy 1.1 and Policy 2.6. The revised project would sustain economic vitality by bringing market rate and affordable residences to the site and enhancing the site’s commercial uses. The revised project would provide new employment opportunities and help maximize social and cultural life of residents. This mix of uses would create opportunities for greater spending within the City through ease of access and improving the economic opportunities of all businesses, both on-site and nearby off-site locations. Furthermore, the location of the project site would provide increased opportunity for residents and retail patrons to walk, bike, or use transit, reducing air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy consumption.

Policy 4.2 – A Diversity of Places. Maintain and enhance the City’s urban form with distinct, compact, and walkable areas with a diversity of uses, densities, and characters. Offer choices for living, working, shopping, and recreation consistent with community values, needs, and demographics.

Consistent. Refer to responses to Land Use Policy 1.1.

Policy 4.3 – An Active Central District. Continue and reinforce the Central District as a vital, pedestrian-oriented place, linked to local and regional transit designed for all ages and serving as the focal point of community identity, business activity, employment, living, governance, and culture.

Consistent. As the project site is located within the Central District Transit Oriented Development Area,13 and is within proximity to and served by multiple public transit services (Metro Gold Line; Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System), the revised project reinforces the Central District as an active, vital, pedestrian-oriented place linked to local and regional transit. The revised project’s design, configuration, and mix of uses emphasizes a pedestrian oriented environment within walking distance to commercial centers, civic uses, and neighborhood-serving retail.

12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact


July 2019 99 Final

Relevant Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 4.4 – Transit Villages. Accommodate and intensify a mix of local and regional commercial, residential, and public uses close to the Metro Gold Line stations. Design these areas to accommodate safe and convenient walking, bicycling, and transit use. Include gathering places and amenities to enhance their quality and livability.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Policy 2.6. In addition, the project site is served by the Metro Gold Line, with the nearest stations, Memorial Park Station located approximately 0.20-mile northwest and Del Mar Station located approximately 0.35-mile southwest from the project site.14 The revised project also proposes storage and parking for 15 bicycles.

Policy 4.7 – Strengthen Major Corridors. Encourage the economic improvement of underused parcels along Pasadena’s corridors by clustering more intense uses at major intersections and lower intensity mixed-use or commercial development between major intersections.


Policy 4.8 – Complete and Livable Neighborhoods. Maintain the pattern of distinct residential neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community meeting facilities that are connected to and walkable from neighborhood-serving businesses and public transit.


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

Consistent. Refer to responses to Land Use Policies 23.2 and 25.6 addressing automobile access. As discussed in Section 3.1, the revised project is consistent with the allowed building scale and setbacks within the Central District Specific Plan. Although the revised project would fully block partial middleground views to Pasadena City Hall as seen from Colorado Boulevard, the proposed building would be compatible with the massing and scaling of surrounding development and would not substantially increase view blockage compared to the existing structures surrounding the project site; refer to Exhibit 10. Additionally, the revised project would not result in view blockage of the Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena YWCA, Civic Auditorium, or the U.S. Post Office building as seen from Garfield Avenue (to the northeast and southeast of the project site). Further, the revised project would be required to comply with PMC standards that regulate glare and outdoor lighting. The design of the revised project, including its finish, colors, and materials, would be reviewed for approval through the Design Review process. The revised project would not result in significant impacts associated with visibility, lighting, and aesthetics. Noise and any potential impacts associated with revised project construction and operations are analyzed in Section 3.12, Noise. Based on the noise analysis, project related on- and off-site noise levels were determined to be within the City’s ordinance requirements.

14 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Gold Line Map and Station Locations,

http://www.metro.net/riding/maps/gold-line/, accessed April 11, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact


July 2019 100 Final

Relevant Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 4.12 – Transitions in Scale. Require that the scale and massing of new development in higher-density centers and corridors provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk and are sensitive to the physical and visual character of adjoining lower-density neighborhoods.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Policy 4.11. As discussed in Section 3.1, the proposed building is compatible with the materials, massing, size, scale, proportion, and architectural features of these nearby historical resources. Although the proposed building would be six stories tall and a maximum of 75 feet in height, which is taller than the two- to three-story commercial buildings in the immediate project vicinity, the proposed building would not visually overwhelm these nearby structures. The proposed building would also be lower in height than other buildings in the surrounding area, such as the Citizens Bank Building (86.9 feet). The proposed building would not interfere with the key views of Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena YWCA, Civic Auditorium, or the U.S. Post Office building as seen from Garfield Avenue, which generally define the Civic Center area. The proposed building design is vertically organized into three masses that are defined by changes in material and articulation, similar to the traditional building organization that exists in most of the surrounding historical resources. The massing of the proposed building would also be visually broken into smaller vertical bays. Overall, the proposed building would be compatible in massing and scale with surrounding and nearby buildings.

Policy 6.1 – Sense of Place and History. Require new development and changes to existing development to be located and designed to respect the defining elements of Pasadena’s character and history such as its grid street pattern, block scale, public realm, courtyards, paseos, alleys, neighborhoods and districts, building massing and heights, significant architecture, and relationship to the mountains and Arroyo Seco.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Policy 1.1 and Land Use Policy 4.12.

Policy 6.4 – View sheds. Recognize and protect significant views of the San Gabriel Mountains, the Arroyo Seco, open spaces along with views of significant structures such as the City Hall cupola, Central Library, and the Civic Auditorium.


Policy 8.1 – Identify and Protect Historic Resources. Identify and protect historic resources that represent significant examples of the City’s history.

Consistent. Historic resources and any potential impacts associated with revised project construction and operations are analyzed in Section 3.5. Revised project implementation would not significantly impact any historic resources on the project site or within the surrounding area with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.

Policy 8.4 – Adaptive Reuse. Encourage sensitive adaptive re-use including continuing the historic use of historic resources to achieve their preservation, sensitive rehabilitation, and continued economic and environmental value.

Consistent. As described in Section 3.5, the project site includes one historical resource, a locally-designated historic sign known as the Parking for Citizens Bank & Building sign. Currently, the sign reads “Parking for 225 Colorado Building”. The revised project proposes to preserve and reuse the historic sign. This historical resource is proposed to be relocated from its current position above the existing driveway along Union Street to the new building’s west elevation, above the parking entrance. The historic significance of the sign would be maintained with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact


July 2019 101 Final

Relevant Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 8.5 – Scale and Character of New Construction in a Designated Landmark and Historic Districts. Promote an architecturally sensitive approach to new construction in Landmark and Historic districts. Demonstrate the proposed project’s contextual relationship with land uses and patterns, spatial organization, visual relationships, cultural and historic values, and relationships in height, massing, modulation, and materials.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Policy 4.12. As discussed in Section 3.5, the revised project involves relocation of the historic sign, which would not materially impair the historic sign. The revised project would not negatively impact the physical integrity of the historic sign on the project site, nor any of the historical resources in the project vicinity. All the identified historical resources in the study area would remain listed or eligible for listing under the relevant designation programs. In addition, the design of the proposed building is compatible, yet differentiated from the historic sign and the historic resources in the project vicinity.

Policy 8.8 – Evolving Preservation Practices. Continue to implement practices for historic preservation consistent with community values and conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, California Historical Building Code, State laws, and best practices.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Policy 8.5. In addition, the design of the proposed building is compatible, yet differentiated from the historic sign. The revised project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, California Historical Building Code, State laws, and best practices.

Policy 10.3 – Best Practices for Sustainability. Monitor evolving sustainable development practices and technologies and implement those deemed appropriate and feasible in Pasadena.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the revised project would be subject to applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions and would implement mandatory and chosen selective sustainable development practices to comply with the CAP Consistency Checklist; refer to Table 6.

Policy 10.4 –Sustainable Building Practices. Foster sustainable building practices and processes specified by the City’s Green Building Code by incorporating energy and water savings, toxic and solid waste reduction strategies into the building of new structures and remodeling of existing structures.

Consistent. Although the revised project’s GHG emissions are below the SCAQMD’s GHG threshold, the revised project includes sustainable design features that would further reduce project-related GHG emissions. The revised project would be subject to compliance with PMC Chapter 13.10, Pasadena’s Water Waste Prohibitions and Water Supply Shortage Plans Ordinance and the Level 2 Water Supply Shortage Plan, which require mandatory water restrictions including installation of water efficient irrigation systems and landscapes.

Policy 11.1 – Business Expansion and Growth. Support the growth and success of businesses that create new job opportunities and productive and satisfying employment for Pasadena residents.


Policy 18.1 – Development Mix and Densities. Accommodate the mix and density of land uses and urban form that induce walking, bicycling, and transit use as an alternative to the automobile, as specified by the Land Use Diagram.

Consistent. Refer to response to Land Use Policies 2.6 and 4.4.

Policy 19.5 – Bicycle Parking. Accommodate the development of bicycle parking centers in the Central District, Transit Villages, and Neighborhood Villages and require larger development projects to incorporate secured and convenient bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent. The revised project proposes storage and parking for 15 bicycles.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact


July 2019 102 Final

Relevant Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 21.1 – Adequate and Affordable Housing. Provide a variety of housing types (i.e., small subdivisions, row housing, and condominiums), styles, densities, and affordability levels that are accessible to and meet preferences for different neighborhood types (e.g., mixed use pedestrian environments and traditional suburban neighborhoods), physical abilities and income levels, pursuant to the Housing Element.

Consistent. The revised project would provide 59 condominium units, including 54 market-rate condominiums and five very low-income units. The units would include a mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom units.

Policy 21.2 – Equitable Distribution of Affordable Housing. Providing for the equitable distribution of affordable housing throughout the City, as defined by Housing Element goals and policies, capitalizing on opportunities for new development allowed by the densities permitted in the Central District and Transit Villages.


Policy 23.2 – Parking Areas and Garages. Minimize the visibility of parking areas and garages.

Consistent. The revised project provides minimal visibility of parking areas as three levels of subterranean parking are proposed. The first level would provide a combination of parking, commercial spaces, and resident-serving facilities for ease of access and convenience to resident and commercial services. Further, the revised project provides vehicular access along Stratton Alley from one access driveway, a location with lesser prominence than Union Street.

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


Policy 25.6 – Multi-Use of Public Alleys. Consider alleys as multi-use public spaces that buffer commercial uses from residential areas and serve circulation, parking, utilities, loading areas and trash receptacles. They may also provide access to paseos, rear commercial entries, multiple storefronts and public use areas.

Consistent. The revised project provides vehicular access along Stratton Alley from one access driveway, a location appropriate for vehicles travelling in and out of the building.

Policy 25.12 – Retail Parking. Develop alternative parking management strategies for businesses in areas with limited parking (such as East Washington Boulevard) while protecting nearby residential neighborhoods implementing such techniques as park once and shared lots and structures.

Consistent. The revised project provides shared parking with dedicated parking spaces to serve the proposed residential and commercial uses as well as dedicated parking spaces for the office uses located at 225 East Colorado Boulevard.

Policy 28.1 – Land Use Mix. Allow for the development of properties and buildings in areas designated as “Mixed Use” for a mix of compatible commercial and residential uses.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact


July 2019 103 Final

Relevant Policies Consistency Analysis Policy 28.2 – Development Scale. Establish standards to assure that an adequate scale and footprint of any single use is achieved in mixed-use areas to establish a cohesive environment that minimizes impacts attributable to the adjacency of different uses. This may define minimum parcel and building size, number of housing units, and/or nonresidential square footage, as well as relationships and setbacks.

Partially Consistent. As discussed in Table 8, Pasadena Zoning Consistency Analysis, the revised project would be consistent with the development standards for land uses permitted in the Central District Specific Plan, with the exception of the ground floor depth for commercial uses, maximum building height, and maximum FAR. As detailed below, the revised project would require approval of a Variance and an Affordable Housing Concession Permit. Upon approval, the revised project would be consistent with the Zoning Code.

Policy 28.3 – On-site Amenities. Require that residential/nonresidential mixed-use projects provide on-site amenities that contribute to the living environment of residents such as courtyards, outdoor barbecues, and recreation facilities.

Consistent. Several common space areas would be provided within the structure for use by the residents, including a podium level courtyard with landscaping and amenities (multiple seating areas, BBQ, a water feature, and fire feature) and a rooftop terrace.

Policy 28.4 – Design Integration. Require residential and nonresidential portions of mixed-use buildings and sites to be integrated through architectural design, development of pedestrian walkways and landscaping.

Consistent. Refer to responses to Land Use Policies 1.1.

Policy 29.4 – Bicycle Facilities. Provide adequate bicycle facilities within one mile of Metro Gold Line station areas and throughout Transit Villages.

Consistent. Refer to responses to Land Use Policies 4.4 and 19.5.

Policy 31.4 – Contextual Development in Historic Districts. Require new development within and adjacent to the historic districts to be compatible with the scale, density, and urban design features of existing historic buildings and districts.

Consistent. Refer to responses to Land Use Policies 4.12, 8.5 and 8.8.

Policy 31.9 – Housing Choice. Provide a wide variety of housing options in the Central District in terms of the type, location, size and price.

Consistent. Refer to responses to Land Use Policies 1.1.

Policy 31.10 – Building Orientation. Require businesses to be oriented primarily to pedestrian streets and urban spaces and secondarily to parking lots and to provide visibility and accessibility to customers arriving on foot, by bicycle, and by automobile.

Consistent. The revised project proposes commercial uses that would front Union Street with ease of visibility to surrounding uses within the project vicinity.

Source: City of Pasadena, City of Pasadena General Plan Land Use Element, adopted August 18, 2015, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2017/07/Land-Use-Element-2016-01-25.pdf, accessed April 11, 2018.

Similar to the approved project, the revised project is a mixed-use development located in the Central District Specific Plan, Civic Center Sub-District (CD-2) zoning district. Table 8 provides a consistency analysis between the Zoning Code regulations and the revised project.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 104 Final

Table 8 Pasadena Zoning Consistency Analysis

Development Standard Existing Zoning: CD-2 Project Consistency

Permitted Uses As identified in PMC Section 17.30.030(A), Allowable land uses and permit requirements.

Consistent. A mixed-use project is permitted in the Central District Specific Plan, Civic Center Sub-District (CD-2) zone, as identified in PMC Section 17.30.030(A).

Residential Density

Per PMC Section 17.30.030, Figure 3-6, Central District Maximum Residential Density, the maximum residential density is 87 dwelling units per acre.

Consistent. Based on a maximum density of 87 dwelling units per acre, the 0.50-acre site is allowed 44 units. However, the revised project would develop 59 dwelling units at a density of 118 dwelling units per acre. Of the 59 proposed units, five units would be very low-income affordable housing units, which qualifies the revised project for a density bonus allowance of 32.5 percent per PMC Section 17.43.040, Density Bonus Allowance. As such, the revised project would be allowed 15 additional units beyond the 44 allowed units for a total of 59 units. Thus, utilizing the density bonus allowance per PMC Section 17.43.040, the revised project would be consistent with the maximum residential density standard.

Building Height

In accordance with PMC Section 17.30.060 Figure 3-8, Central District Maximum Height, the maximum building height for the project area is 60 feet.

Consistent. California State Law permits a project that is utilizing a density bonus increase to request concessions, or deviations, from an applicable development standard, provided the concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the targeted units. Per Section 17.43.050 of the Zoning Code, this request is processed through the Affordable Housing Concession Permit. The proposed application includes a concession request to increase the building height from the permitted 60 feet to 75 feet.

Floor Area Ratio

As identified in PMC Section 17.30.030, Figure 3-9, Central District Maximum Floor Area Ratio, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 2.25.

Consistent. California State Law permits a project that is utilizing a density bonus increase to request concessions, or deviations, from an applicable development standard, provided the concessions result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the targeted units. Per Section 17.43.050 of the Zoning Code, this request is processed through the Affordable Housing Concession Permit. The proposed application includes a concession request to increase the FAR from the permitted 2.25 to 2.96.D

Height – Ground Floor

Per PMC Section 17.30.040, the minimum height of the ground floor of all non-residential buildings (including mixed use projects) shall be 15 feet. This height shall be measured from the floor of the first story to the floor of the second story. If there is no second story, the height shall be measured to the top of the roof.

Consistent. The proposed height of the ground floor of the first story to the second story is 15 feet.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

Table 8 [continued] Pasadena Zoning Consistency Analysis

July 2019 105 Final


Setbacks As identified in PMC Section 17.30.040, for non-residential buildings, the front setback is allowed to be built up to the property line and there are no setback requirements for side and rear setbacks.

Consistent. The proposed front setback is built up to the property line and the proposed side and rear setbacks are 5 feet.

Ground Floor Depth

The minimum required ground floor depth is 50 feet per PMC Section 17.50.160(E), Commercial uses along street frontages the following requirements are applicable to the proposed project: 1. Commercial uses shall be located along street

frontages and have a minimum depth of 50 feet.

Inconsistent. The revised project proposes a maximum depth of approximately 27 feet and 4 inches, which is less than the minimum required depth of 50 feet. As such, the revised project would require approval of a Variance.

Parking

Per PMC Section 17.46.040, Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required, the mixed use developments off-street parking space requirements are a combination of individual and commercial parking requirements. The minimum parking space requirements for commercial retail sales is 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet.15 As identified in PMC Section 17.50.340(D), Parking requirements: 3. Residential development projects: The following

requirements apply to multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects proposing at least 48 dwelling units per acre. a. Residential parking shall be a minimum of:

(1) 1 space for each unit for units less than 650 square feet to a maximum of 1.25 spaces per unit; and

(2) 1.5 spaces for each unit for units 650 square feet or more to a maximum of 1.75 spaces per unit.

e. Guest parking shall be provided as required by Table 4-6 (Off-Street Parking Space Requirements). The number of guest parking shall not exceed the minimum required.

In accordance with PMC Section 17.46.260 Table 4-15, Loading Space Requirements, all nonresidential uses with total gross floor area between 8,000 and 20,000 square feet is required to provide one loading parking space.

Consistent. The revised project is required to provide four parking spaces for the commercial component of the revised project as well as the 61 parking spaces that currently serves the office uses located at 225 East Colorado Boulevard. For the residential component of the revised project, 84 parking spaces are required to meet the off-street residential parking. In total, the revised project is required to provide 149 spaces to meet the minimum non-residential and residential parking requirements. The revised project would provide 156 spaces and thus, would exceed the minimum parking requirements. In addition, the revised project would provide one loading parking space.

15 The parking requirement for a retail use is 3 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area;

however, in the Transit Oriented Development area, this minimum amount shall be reduced by 10 percent.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

Table 8 [continued] Pasadena Zoning Consistency Analysis

July 2019 106 Final


Bicycle Parking

As identified in PMC Section 17.46.320 Table 4-16, Minimum Number of Bicycle Spaces Required, multi-family residential structures (three or more dwelling units) including units in a mixed use project is required to provide 1 space for every six dwelling units.

Consistent. Development of 59 units would require at least 10 bicycle spaces. The revised project would provide storage and parking for 15 bicycles.

Open Space

Per PMC Section 17.50.350(E), Open space required, the following requirements are applicable to the proposed project. 1. A minimum of 30 percent of the net floor area of the

structure shall be provided as open space. 2. The minimum dimension of any open space shall be

six feet in any direction. Private balconies, at-grade patios, rooftop gardens (including upper level terraces), and the portion of a front or corner side yard setback that is greater than the minimum requirement may be counted as open space.

3. Not more than 35 percent of the total open space may be met by counting balconies.

Consistent. The revised project is required to provide a minimum of 30 percent of the net floor area as open space, resulting in a total of 8,850 square feet. A maximum of 2,655 square feet of the revised project’s total open space can be met with balconies. The revised project provides a total of 8,928 square feet of total open space comprised of a 5,125-square foot atrium, 1,185-square foot rooftop terrace, and 2,655 square feet of private balcony space. Therefore, the revised project is consistent with the open space requirements.

As indicated in Table 8, the revised project would be consistent with the zoning requirements, with the exception of the following:

• Ground floor depth for the commercial uses. The revised project proposes a maximum depth of approximately 27 feet and 4 inches, which is less than the minimum required depth of 50 feet. As such, the revised project requests approval of a Variance to allow the commercial uses on the ground floor have a reduced depth along East Union Street. Upon approval of the Variance, the revised project would be consistent with the Zoning Code.

• Maximum building height. The proposed building height would be 75 feet, which exceeds the maximum building height of 60 feet. Approval of an Affordable Housing Concessions Permit under PMC Section 17.43.050(A)(2) is requested as part of the revised project to allow for two concessions, one of which is to allow the 75-foot building height. Upon approval of the Affordable Housing Concessions Permit, the revised project would be consistent with the Zoning Code.

• Maximum FAR. The revised project would have a 2.96 FAR, which exceeds the maximum allowed FAR of 2.25. As stated above, approval of an Affordable Housing Concessions Permit under PMC Section 17.43.050(A)(2) would allow the revised project two concessions. One concession would be for the 75-foot building


http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/zoning/P-8.html#OPENSPACE

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/zoning/P-8.html#GRADE

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/zoning/P-8.html#GARDEN

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/zoning/P-8.html#CORNERSIDEYARD

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/zoning/P-8.html#CORNERSIDEYARD

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/zoning/P-8.html#SETBACK






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 107 Final

height and the second concession would be to increase the maximum FAR to 2.96. Upon approval of the Affordable Housing Concessions Permit, the revised project would be consistent with the Zoning Code.

Upon approval of the Variance (for ground floor depth of commercial uses) and the Affordable Housing Concessions Permit (for maximum building height and maximum FAR), the revised project would be consistent with the Zoning Code and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Like the approved project, the revised project would also require a Private Tree Removal Permit to remove the European olive trees on-site and Design Review by the City’s Design Commission through the City’s Design Review process. Overall, the revised project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.


c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP)?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: There are no adopted HCPs or NCCPs within the City of Pasadena. There are also no approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans in the City. The 2015 IS/MND concluded no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: Consistent with the approved project, the revised project would not conflict with any applicable HCPs or NCCPs and no impacts would occur.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 108 Final

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that no active mining operations exist in within the City. The project site is not near any areas that may contain mineral resources or mineral deposits, and neither the project site nor surrounding areas are utilized for mineral production. As such, no impact to mineral resources would occur.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for mineral resources and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that there are no mineral recovery sites, active mining operations, or mining permitted within the City. Therefore, the approved project would not have significant impacts from the loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. As such, the revised project would similarly have no impact on the loss of availability of locally-important mineral resource recovery sites.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for mineral resources and no new mitigation measures would be required.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 109 Final

3.12 NOISE

Would the project:

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that implementation of the approved project would not expose persons to, or generate, noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan. Thus, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: The project area is highly urbanized, consisting of primarily commercial, office, retail, civic, and residential uses. The primary sources of noise in the project vicinity are urban-related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment, parking areas, slow-moving trucks, and pedestrians), as well as vehicles traveling from adjacent roadways and alleys.

Existing Noise Conditions

In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, three short-term (10-minute) noise measurements were taken between 10:45 a.m. and 11:23 a.m. on September 19, 2017. The noise measurements were taken in the same locations as those presented in the 2015 IS/MND and are representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site; refer to Table 9, Noise Measurements. Noise measurement data sheets are also included in Appendix C, Noise Data.

Short-Term Construction Impacts

The revised project proposes an additional level of subterranean parking and an additional level of residential units, which would result in minor changes in construction phasing and soil export quantity (23,000 cubic yards). Construction activities generally are temporary and have a short duration, resulting in periodic increases in the ambient noise environment. As identified in the 2015 IS/MND, the nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 250 feet from the project site. Because the sensitive receptor distance remains the same and types of construction equipment would not change, it can be reasonably inferred that the level of impact would not increase from that identified in the 2015 IS/MND for noise associated with short-term construction. Further, the revised project would be subject to the same construction-related conditions of approval identified in the 2015 IS/MND.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 110 Final

Table 9 Noise Measurements

Site No. Location Leq1 (dBA) Lmin1 (dBA) Lmax1 (dBA) Time

1 On the northwest corner of Union Street and Marengo Avenue, approximately 250 feet northwest of the project site. 67.2 55.3 84.8 10:45 a.m.

2 Along Union Street, on the northwest corner of the project site. 65.8 49.9 79.8 11:09 a.m.

3 Along Skillen Alley, approximately five feet from the southeast corner of the project site. 58.4 52.3 72.2 11:23 a.m.

Note: 1. Noise Descriptors are defined below:

• Leq Equivalent Sound Level: The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level. • Lmin Minimum Sound Level: The lowest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period. • Lmax Maximum Sound Level: The highest individual sound level (dBA) occurring over a given time period.

Source: Michael Baker International, September 19, 2017. Long-Term Operational Impacts

Operational noise sources generated on-site would be consistent with uses proposed in the 2015 IS/MND (i.e., noise associated with parking areas, delivery trucks, heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems, and outdoor activity areas). Further, the revised project would not be directly adjacent to any sensitive receptors as the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 250 feet to the northwest (First Baptist Church of Pasadena) and 250 feet to the south (residential uses). Thus, impacts associated with noise generated on-site would be less than significant and would not increase from that identified in the 2015 IS/MND.

In addition to noise generated on-site, the revised project would increase traffic volumes, which could increase roadway noise. As identified below in Table 13, Revised Project Trip Generation, the revised project would result in approximately 328 net new daily trips to/from the project site. For analysis purposes, assuming all 328 daily trips from the project occurred along Garfield Avenue (between Union Street and Colorado Boulevard), the average daily trips (ADTs) on Garfield Avenue would increase by approximately 18 percent.16 For comparison, a doubling of traffic (i.e., a 100 percent increase in traffic volumes) is typically necessary to cause a 3 decibel (dB) increase in noise levels, which is considered a barely perceptible increase in noise levels.17 Due to the minimal increase in street traffic volumes caused by the revised project, the traffic noise levels generated

16 Assuming 1,799 existing ADT volumes along Garfield Avenue (between Union Street and Colorado

Boulevard) provided in the Transportation Analysis Outside of CEQA Analysis, dated July 14, 2017, prepared by Pasadena Department of Transportation.

17 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 111 Final

by the project would be imperceptible. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for noise and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that construction of the approved project would not result in excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. A less than significant impact was identified in this regard.

Revised Project: As discussed below, the revised project would not generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration from construction. Construction of the revised project would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The results from groundborne vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight structure damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are summarized in Table 10, Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 112 Final

Table 10 Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment1 Peak Particle Velocity at 20 Feet (in/sec)2

Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec)2

Peak Particle Velocity at 250 Feet (in/sec)2

Loaded Trucks 0.106 0.076 0.002 Rock Breaker 0.082 0.059 0.002 Jackhammer 0.049 0.035 0.001

Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.004 0.003 0.000 Notes: 1. Although the project may require the use of drilling equipment within 20 feet of the nearest off-site structure, vibration levels from drilling activities would be

nominal due to the soil composition of the project site. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is compiled of soft silty sands, sandy clays, sandy silts, and silts sands with silt and gravelly sands. These soils are not associated with high groundborne vibration levels (unlike rock or other hard soils). Therefore, drilling vibration levels are not included in this table.

2. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table 12-2 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

Sensitive Receptors

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential uses located approximately 250 feet to the south and a church (First Baptist Church of Pasadena) located approximately 250 feet to the northwest of the project site. This analysis of the revised project conservatively uses the Caltrans recommended standard of 0.12 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) with respect to the prevention of architectural damage for buildings that are sensitive to vibrations or of historical interest. This is also generally the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings.18 The majority of construction activities would not involve equipment that would generate excessive vibration impacts to the nearby sensitive receptors. However, the revised project does propose the use of heavy-duty construction equipment (e.g., loaded trucks). It should be acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the sensitive receptors. As shown in Table 10, ground vibration generated by construction activities is not anticipated to exceed approximately 0.002 in/sec PPV at the nearest sensitive receptor 250 feet away. Therefore, groundborne vibration would not exceed Caltrans’ standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV and impacts would be less than significant.

18 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual,

September 2013.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 113 Final

Historic Buildings

The nearest historical buildings (Equitable Savings and Loan Association and the Loweman Building) are located adjacent (approximately 20 feet) to the west of the project site. Caltrans’ vibration damage potential guideline thresholds are shown in Table 11, Vibration Damage Threshold Criteria.

The structural damage threshold for “Historic and some old buildings” of 0.12 in/sec PPV is used for this analysis. This threshold represents the vibration limits for structural damage to adjacent uses to the project site from continuous sources of vibration. As shown in Table 10, the nearest historical building could experience groundborne vibration up to approximately 0.106 in/sec PPV at 20 feet from construction activities. Thus, groundborne vibration from construction activities is not anticipated to exceed the 0.12 in/sec PPV threshold. Similar to the approved project, impacts would be less than significant impact in this regard.

Table 11 Vibration Damage Threshold Criteria

Building Class PPV (in/sec)

Continuous Sources1 Single-Event Source1

Class I: buildings in steel or reinforced concrete, such as factories, retaining walls, bridges, steel towers, open channels, underground chambers and tunnels with and without concrete alignment

0.5 1.2

Class II: buildings with foundation walls and floors in concrete, walls in concrete or masonry, stone masonry retaining walls, underground chambers and tunnels with masonry alignments, conduits in loose material

0.3 0.7

Class III: buildings as mentioned above but with wooden ceilings and walls in masonry 0.2 0.5

Class IV: construction very sensitive to vibration; objects of historic interest 0.12 0.3 Note: 1. Single-event sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick

compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 114 Final

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the approved project would not lead to a significant permanent increase in ambient noise. Long-term noise generated by the approved project would be typical urban environment noise, which was determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: Refer to Noise Response (a). The revised project would not lead to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise and like the approved project, impacts would be less than significant.


d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: Based on the 2015 IS/MND, adhering to established City regulations detailed in PMC Chapter 9.36, Noise Restrictions, would ensure that the approved project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in noise levels and a less than significant impact was determined.

Revised Project: Refer to Noise Response (a). Implementation of the revised project would generate short-term noise during construction which would be required to comply with PMC Chapter 9.36, Noise Restrictions. Therefore, as with the approved project, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 115 Final

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: As detailed in the 2015 IS/MND, there are no airports or airport land use plans in the City of Pasadena. The closest airport is the Bob Hope Airport, which is located approximately 12.5 miles from the project site. Therefore, it was determined the approved project would not expose people to excessive airport related noise and would have no associated impacts.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, the revised project would similarly have no impact related to excessive airport related noises.


f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that there are no private-use airports or airstrips in the vicinity of the approved project’s site. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. As with the approved project, no impacts would occur in this regard.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 116 Final

3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: Based on the 2015 IS/MND, development of the approved project would result in a population and employment increase of up to 89 persons and six jobs. The potential population and employment growth associated with the approved project would be consistent with the growth anticipated and accommodated by the General Plan and SCAG’s 2012-2035 RTP/SCS. Thus, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: When compared to the approved project, the revised project would involve an increase in residential units and a decrease in commercial uses. Utilizing the same household size and employment factor as the approved project, the revised project would result in a population growth of 146 persons and generate five new jobs.19 In comparison to the approved project, the revised project would introduce 57 additional persons and one fewer job. The reduction in one job would be a nominal change and have a similarly less than significant impact to the City’s existing workforce. The 146 persons added to the City’s population under the revised project represents an approximately 64 percent increase from the approved project (89 person) but would only represent approximately 0.1 percent of the City’s anticipated total population for 2040 (150,700 persons) under SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, which was adopted in April 2016.20 As such, similar to the approved project, the revised project would not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant.

19 Based on 2.6 persons per household and the employment factor of 424 square feet per employee for Other

Retail/Service per Southern California Association of Governments, Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001, Page 4.

20 Southern California Association of Governments, Final 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Appendix Demographics & Growth Forecast, page 25, http://scagrtpscs.net/ Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf, accessed April 10, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 117 Final

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for population and housing and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: As identified in the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is currently occupied by an asphalt paved parking lot, a garage/carport, and a kiosk structure and does not contain any existing dwelling units. Therefore, the approved project would not displace any residents or housing and would have no related impacts.

Revised Project: Similarly, the revised project would also not displace any residents or housing from the site. The site is still in the same condition as when the 2015 IS/MND was adopted. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.


c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: As identified in the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is currently occupied by an asphalt paved parking lot, a garage/carport, and a kiosk structure and does not contain any existing dwelling units. Therefore, the approved project would not displace any people, and would have no related impacts.

Revised Project: Similarly, the revised project would also not displace any people from the site. The site is still in the same condition as when the 2015 IS/MND was adopted. As such, no impact would occur in this regard.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 118 Final

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

Will the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a. Fire protection?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that development of the approved project would increase demand for fire services but would not result in the need for additional new or altered fire protection services and would not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. Additionally, development of the project site would comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal codes and ordinances related to fire safety, and architectural plans would be reviewed and approved by the Pasadena Fire Department prior to approved project implementation. Safety and security features, including fire sprinklers, alarm systems, and adequate access for emergency vehicles would be incorporated into the approved project plans. Therefore, it was determined the approved project would not require the development of additional fire protection services and would not significantly impact fire protection services.

Revised Project: The revised project would introduce 23 additional condominium units but 672 fewer square feet of commercial space in comparison to the approved project. The net change in development intensity would not substantially increase or decrease demand for fire protection services. As such, impacts would be similarly less than significant. Like the approved project, development of the revised project would also be required to comply with all applicable City, State and Federal codes and ordinances related to fire safety, and architectural and building plans would be reviewed and approved by the Pasadena Fire Department and City of Pasadena Planning and Community Development Department to ensure fire safety and security features are implemented as required. Overall, impacts of the revised project on fire protection services would be less than significant.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for public services and no new mitigation measures would be required.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 119 Final

b. Libraries?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that by introducing new residents to the site, the approved project could increase demand for City library services; however, the approved project is consistent with the growth anticipated and accommodated by the General Plan and would not induce substantial population growth that was not previously anticipated. As such, the approved project would not induce substantial population growth that could place a significant burden on Pasadena’s library system and impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project would introduce 57 additional persons to the project site in comparison to the approved project, which would slightly increase demand for City library services. However, the City is well served by the Pasadena Public Library system, and the site is located only 0.2-mile south of the City’s largest library (Central Library). Further, the additional 57 persons generated by the revised project would be consistent with the growth anticipated under the General Plan. As such, impacts to library services would be less than significant under the revised project.


c. Parks?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The approved project would develop 36 residential units and generate a population increase of approximately 89 persons at the project site. An increase in parkland demand from the approved project could occur. However, as determined in the 2015 IS/MND, with the payment of City park impact fees, the approved project would not lead to substantial population growth warranting the construction of additional park space or physical deterioration of any recreational facilities. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: In comparison to the approved project, the revised project would generate a population increase of 57 additional persons. Thus, the revised project may also increase demand for City park services. However, as with the approved project, the payment of park impact fees would offset the increase in demand and would fund future park maintenance. As such, the slight increase in population growth under the revised





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 120 Final

project would not result in a significant impact to library services. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.


d. Police protection?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: Although the approved project would introduce new land uses to the site (i.e., residential and commercial), the 2015 IS/MND determined implementation of the approved project would not result in a substantial population increase or the introduction of uses or activities typically associated with high demand for police services. The approved project would not result in the need for additional new or altered police protection services and would not alter acceptable service ratios or response times. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project would introduce 57 additional persons and 672 fewer square feet of commercial space in comparison to the approved project. The net change in development intensity would not substantially increase or decrease demand for police protection services. Therefore, the revised project would not result in the need for additional or expanded police facilities or resources and would not adversely impact service ratios or response times. Similar to the approved project, impacts from the revised project would similarly be less than significant in this regard.


e. Schools?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As evaluated in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project’s 36 residential units would result in approximately 13 school-aged children who would attend schools in the Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) (based on a conservative student generation rate of 0.35 school-aged children per unit). The City collects a school district construction tax on all new residential and nonresidential development. With payment of school impact fees, impacts on PUSD school services would be less than significant.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 121 Final

Revised Project: Compared to the approved project, the revised project would develop 23 additional units, which would result in eight additional students that may attend schools in PUSD. School impact fees would be collected for the revised project to offset impacts to PUSD services. As such, impacts would be similarly less than significant in this regard.


f. Other public facilities?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As discussed in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project’s development may result in additional maintenance of public facilities. However, with the projected revenue to the City in terms of impact fees, increased property taxes, additional sales tax, and development fees associated with the approved project, impacts to other public facilities were determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: Like the approved project, increased revenue to the City in the form of impact fees, increased property taxes, additional sales tax, and development fees associated with the revised project would reduce impacts to other public facilities to less than significant levels.


3.15 RECREATION

Would the project:

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As stated in Public Services Response (c), the approved project would generate approximately 89 residents; however, payment of park impact fees in accordance with City Ordinance No. 6252 would provide funding for future parkland





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 122 Final

acquisition and capital improvements. Therefore, the 2015 IS/MND determined the approved project would not lead to substantial physical deterioration of any recreational facilities and would have no related significant impacts. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: While the revised project would introduce 57 additional persons to the project site compared to the approved project, park impact fees would still be collected and would fund future park acquisitions and improvements. As such, impacts of the revised project on City park services would be less than significant.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for recreation and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As described in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would include outdoor spaces with amenities for residents on the second level and the roof level. These facilities would not require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Further, the approved project would pay park impact fees for park maintenance and improvement programs due to potential increased use of park and recreational facilities from residents of the approved project. In accordance with payment of park impact fees, the approved project does not involve the development of recreational facilities that would have an adverse effect on the environment and impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: The revised project would include an outdoor courtyard and atrium on the second level and a terrace on the sixth level. The courtyard would provide common outdoor areas with multiple seating areas, barbecue area, a water feature, and fire feature. Similar to the approved project, development of these common open space areas would not result in an adverse physical effect on the environment and the revised project would be required to pay park impact fees. As such, impacts from the revised project would be less than significant.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for recreation and no new mitigation measures would be required.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 123 Final

3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project is classified as a Category 1 project under the City of Pasadena Department of Transportation (PasDOT) criteria and is therefore considered “Below Communitywide Significance”. In accordance with the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Current Practice & Guidelines, as a Category 1 project, impacts are determined to be less than significant and no project-level analysis of CEQA impacts is required. Furthermore, traffic generated by the approved project (282 average daily trips) was determined to be below the adopted caps for requiring additional analysis. The approved project was also determined to be consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element and would not propose any modifications to roadway systems that could result in an impact to transit service, bicycle facilities, or pedestrian facilities. Thus, it was determined impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: PasDOT prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis CEQA Evaluation Category 2, 250 East Union Street (Traffic Study), dated March 21, 2018 to evaluate the revised project’s potential traffic impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, vehicle trips per capita (VT), and transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessibility; refer to Appendix D. PasDOT adopted a set of performance measures and CEQA caps that are closely aligned with the General Plan Mobility Element objectives and policies. PasDOT’s mobility performance measures assess the quality of walking, biking, transit, and vehicular travel in the City. A combination of vehicular and multimodal performance measures is employed to evaluate system performance in reviewing new development projects, which are:

• Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita

• Vehicle Trips Per Capita

• Proximity and Quality of the Bicycle and Transit Network





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 124 Final

• Pedestrian Accessibility

These performance measures are further defined in the Traffic Study and are aligned with the sustainability goals of the General Plan by evaluating the “efficiency” of projects by analyzing the per capita length and number of trips associated with changes in land use. With the expanded emphasis on sustainability and a continued focus on livability, the proposed performance measures assist in determining how to balance travel modes as well as understand the mobility needs of the community. Table 12, City of Pasadena CEQA Caps, summarizes the City’s impact threshold metrics.

The traffic analysis is based on the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The City’s calibrated travel demand forecasting model (TDF) built on SCAG’s regional model was used to analyze project’s impacts. The City’s TDF model uses TransCAD software to simulate traffic levels and travel patterns into, out of, and within the City, and has been calibrated to 2013 base year conditions using actual traffic counts, Census data, and land use data related to population and job increase estimates.

Table 12 City of Pasadena CEQA Caps

Metric Description Impact Threshold VMT Per Capita

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs).

CEQA Threshold: An increase over existing Citywide VMT per Capita of 22.6.

VT Per Capita Vehicle Trips (VT) in the City of Pasadena per service population (population + jobs).

CEQA Threshold: An increase over existing Citywide VT per Capita of 2.8.

Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network

Percent of service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of bicycle facility types.

CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in existing citywide 31.7 percent of service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of Level 1 & 2 bike facilities.

Proximity and Quality of

Transit Network

Percent of service population (population + jobs) located within a quarter mile of transit facility types.

CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in existing citywide 66.6 percent of service population (population + jobs) within a quarter mile of Level 1 & 2 transit facilities.

Pedestrian Accessibility

The Pedestrian Accessibility Score uses the mix of destinations, and a network-based walk shed to evaluate Walkability.

CEQA Threshold: Any decrease in the Citywide Pedestrian Accessibility Score of 3.88.

Source: City of Pasadena Department of Transportation, Transportation Impact Analysis CEQA Evaluation Category 2, 250 East Union Street, March 21, 2018; refer to Appendix D.

The following analyses identifies the findings of the revised project’s impacts on the transportation system using the City’s calibrated TDF model. The results are based on the revised project’s vehicular and non-vehicular trip making characteristics, trip length, and its interaction with other surrounding/citywide land uses, and the City’s overall transportation network.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 125 Final

VMT Per Capita Analysis

The TDF model calculation determined that the incremental VMT per capita change is 6.3, which does not exceed the adopted threshold of significance of 22.6 for VMT per capita. Therefore, the revised project would not cause a significant impact based on VMT per capita.

VT Per Capita Analysis

The TDF model calculation results determined that the incremental VT per capita change would be 1.9, which would not exceed the adopted threshold of significance of 2.8 for VT per capita. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in regard to VT per capita.

Proximity and Quality of Bicycle Network Analysis

Traffic Study Figure 3, City of Pasadena Bicycle Facilities Map, displays the bicycle facility levels near the project site. Any decrease in the existing City-wide service population percentage of 31.7 percent within 0.25-mile of bicycle facilities would indicate a significant impact. The TDF model results revealed that the revised project’s service population access to Levels I and II bike facilities would remain at 31.7 percent. Therefore, the revised project would not cause a significant impact on the existing bicycle network.

Proximity and Quality of Transit Network Analysis

Traffic Study Figure 4, City of Pasadena Transit Facilities Map, displays the transit facility levels near the project site. Any decrease in the existing Citywide service population percentage of 66.6 percent within 0.25-mile of transit facilities would indicate a significant impact. The TDF model results determined that the revised project would increase service population access to transit facilities to 66.7 percent. Therefore, the revised project would result in a beneficial impact to the transit accessibility and would not result in a significant impact.

Pedestrian Accessibility Analysis

The Pedestrian Accessibility Score is a count of the number of land use types accessible to a Pasadena resident or worker in each Transportation Analysis Zone within a five-minute walk. Any decrease in the calculated Pedestrian Accessibility score of 3.88 would indicate a significant impact with the addition of the revised project. The TDF model results determined that the pedestrian accessibility score would remain 3.88 with the addition of the revised project. As such, impacts related to pedestrian accessibility would be less than significant.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 126 Final

Overall, the revised project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT per capita, VT per capita, proximity and quality of bicycle networks, proximity and quality of transit networks, and pedestrian accessibility. In addition, the revised project would beneficially increase service population access to transit facilities by 0.1 percent. As with the approved project, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for transportation and traffic and no new mitigation measures would be required.

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that the approved project would generate approximately 282 average daily trips, including 18 a.m. peak hour trips and 25 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the approved project’s trip generation and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) criteria, no regional CMP facilities need further analysis. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Revised Project: Based on the Traffic Study and as shown on Table 13, Revised Project Trip Generation, the revised project would generate 328 average daily trips, with 26 a.m. peak hour trips and 31 p.m. peak hour trips with a 10 percent transit trip credit reduction.

As such, the revised project would not add 50 or more trips to any arterial monitoring station locations during peak hours and would not add 150 or more trips on any mainline freeway monitoring locations during peak hours. No further CMP traffic analysis is required.

The Traffic Study also evaluated the revised project’s CMP transit impacts. The revised project would increase transit trip ridership by 76 daily transit trips, including six a.m. peak hour transit trips and seven p.m. peak hour transit trips. With 16 transit lines plus the Metro Gold Line, it was determined that there would be adequate transit capacity to serve the revised project.

Similar to the approved project, the revised project would have less than significant impacts related to CMP traffic and transit.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 127 Final


Table 13 Revised Project Trip Generation

Proposed Use Land Use Code Amount Measure Daily Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total Trip Generation Rates

Residential Condominium/ Townhouse 230 59 SF 1 5.81 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52

General Office Building 710 1,953 SF 1,000 11.01 1.36 0.19 1.55 0.25 1.24 1.49 Trip Volumes

Proposed Use Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total

Apartment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 343 4 22 26 21 10 31 General Office Building 22 3 0 3 0 2 3 Total Project Trips 364 7 22 29 21 13 34 Internal Trip Capture 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk-In 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transit Trips 10% 36 1 2 3 2 1 3 Pass-By Trips 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Project Vehicle Trips 328 6 20 26 19 12 31 Net Total (Proposed minus existing trips) 328 6 20 26 19 12 31 Source: City of Pasadena Department of Transportation, Transportation Impact Analysis CEQA Evaluation Category 2, 250 East Union Street, March 21, 2018; refer to Appendix D.

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

Approved Project: The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport, Bob Hope Airport is located approximately 12.5 miles from the project site. Due to the distance and nature of the approved project, the 2015 IS/MND determined implementation of the approved project would not affect any airport facilities and would not cause a change in the directional patterns of aircraft.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 128 Final

Revised Project: The revised project involves the same project site as analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND. Thus, the revised project would similarly have no impact in this regard.


d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As evaluated in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would not create any safety hazards from project design features and would not introduce incompatible uses into the existing traffic pattern. Vehicular access for residential and commercial uses would be provided from one access driveway along Skillen Alley at the northeast portion of the project site. Access to the project site would include two-way ingress and egress for vehicles. All ingress and egress to the project site would comply with the City’s Public Works and Transportation Departments’ specifications to ensure adequate visibility and safety distances are provided at these access points. In addition, the approved project’s circulation design would be required to meet the City’s engineering standards. No alterations to existing roadways or intersections within the project site would occur. Thus, it was determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: Similar to the approved project, the revised project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Vehicular access would be provided from one access driveway along Stratton Alley along the western boundary of the site (rather than from Skillen Alley under the approved project). All ingress and egress to the site would comply with the City’s Public Works and Transportation (PasDOT) Departments’ specifications and internal roadway circulation would meet the City’s engineering standards. As such, similar to the approved project, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.






Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 129 Final

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the project site’s ingress and egress would comply with all building, fire, and safety codes, with final plans subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works, Transportation (PasDOT), Building Division, and Fire Departments. No permanent lane closures or obstructions that could impede emergency response to or from the project site from surrounding streets would occur because of the approved project. Additionally, all construction staging would occur within the boundaries of the project site and would not interfere with circulation along Union Street, Skillen Alley, or any other nearby roadways. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant related to inadequate emergency access.

Revised Project: The revised project would similarly result in less than significant impacts related to inadequate emergency access. Ingress and egress and internal roadway circulation plans would be reviewed and approved by applicable City departments. Additionally, no permanent lane closures or obstructions would occur that may impede emergency response to the project area. Overall, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.


f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: In accordance with CEQA Section 21099(d)(1), the approved project is an infill site in a transit priority area and analysis of aesthetic and parking impacts cannot be considered significant pursuant to CEQA. However, parking impacts were presented in the 2015 IS/MND for informational purposes. According to the Zoning Code, development of the approved project would require 134 parking spaces and six bicycle parking spaces. The approved project proposed a total of 135 parking spaces comprised of 66 dedicated spaces for residents and guests, 68 dedicated spaces to serve the proposed commercial uses and the office uses located at 225 East Colorado Boulevard, and one dedicated loading space. The approved project also proposed bicycle racks for six bicycles. Therefore, it was determined the approved project would comply with the Zoning Code parking requirements.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 130 Final

Revised Project: Like the approved project, the revised project is a residential mixed-use project on an infill site in a transit priority area and analysis of aesthetic and parking impacts cannot be considered pursuant to CEQA, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(d)(1). However, an analysis of the revised project’s consistency with the Zoning Code’s parking standards is provided for informational purposes. Based on the Zoning Code, the revised project is required to provide four parking spaces for the commercial component as well as the 61 parking spaces that currently serves the office uses located at 225 East Colorado Boulevard. For the residential component, 84 parking spaces and 10 bicycle spaces are required to meet the off-street residential parking and bicycle space requirements. In total, the revised project is required to provide 149 parking spaces and 10 bicycle spaces. The revised project would provide 156 spaces and 15 bicycle spaces. In addition, the revised project would provide one loading parking space. Thus, the revised project would meet the Zoning Code requirements and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.


g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As detailed in the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is located within a Central District Transit Oriented Development Area, due to the site’s proximity to a variety of transit options encouraging transit usage in conjunction with a safe and pleasant pedestrian-oriented environment. The project site is served by several regional and local bus transit services as well as regional light rail service. Additionally, a designated bike lane is located along Marengo Avenue near the project site, and the approved project proposed six bicycle parking spaces. As such, it was determined that the approved project would have beneficial effects in creating a mix of residential and pedestrian-serving commercial uses within walking and biking distance of major transit stops and corridors. The approved project would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs promoting non-auto transportation.

Revised Project: The revised project would have a similar less than significant impact in this regard. In addition to providing 15 bicycle parking spaces, the revised project would contribute towards creating a mix of residential and pedestrian-serving commercial uses within walking and biking distance of major transit stops and corridors. As such, the





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 131 Final

revised project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding multimodal transportation. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.


3.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called tribal cultural resources.” Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource.

On February 19, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency proposed to adopt and amend regulations as part of AB 52 implementing Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations, CEQA Guidelines, to include consideration of impacts to tribal cultural resources pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.6. On September 27, 2016, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the amendments to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and these amendments are addressed within this CEQA document.

Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 132 Final

sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND was prepared prior to the enactment of AB 52. As such, the 2015 IS/MND did not include a discussion of tribal cultural resources.

Revised Project: The revised project would demolish the existing surface parking lot and construct a six-story mixed use building with three levels of subterranean parking. Although the project area is built out and urbanized, previously undiscovered or unknown tribal cultural resource could potentially be affected during ground-disturbing activities, particularly during grading and excavation for the subterranean parking levels.

In compliance with AB 52, the City of Pasadena sent a notification letter to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on June 19, 2018; refer to Appendix E, AB 52 Consultation Documents. Consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation was conducted on August 9, 2018. Based on this consultation and analysis conducted by the City, no tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources are known or expected to exist on-site. As detailed in Section 3.5, a historic sign is located on-site and would be relocated from its current position above the existing driveway along Union Street to the new building’s west elevation, above the parking entrance. However, this historic resource is not determined to be a tribal cultural resource. No tribal cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources are known or expected to exist onsite. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources and no new mitigation measures would be required.

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 133 Final

subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As stated, the 2015 IS/MND was prepared prior to the enactment of AB 52. As such, the 2015 IS/MND did not include a discussion of tribal cultural resources.

Revised Project: As stated above, the City sent a notification letter to Native American tribes requesting consultation pursuant to AB-52. While tribal cultural resources were not specifically analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND, the circumstances in which the project is proposed have not changed. The project site remains a developed and previously disturbed lot in an urbanized portion of the City of Pasadena. Through the tribal notification and consultation process, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation expressed a concern that previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources could exist in the project area. However, substantial evidence that significant tribal cultural resources exist onsite has not been presented. While impacts are therefore less than significant, the project applicant has consented to the following condition of approval to alleviate the Tribe's concern:

During grading and excavation, a monitor meeting the satisfaction of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation shall be present. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4-1 in the Pasadena General Plan EIR, if Native American artifacts are found, all ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until the find is evaluated by a Registered Professional Archaeologist. If testing determines that significance criteria are met, then the Project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates as applicable, and other special studies; and provide a comprehensive final report, including site record, to the City and the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Department approves the report. Subsequently, the find shall be turned over to the tribe of the resource’s origin. In addition, any cultural resources found shall be treated in accordance with regulatory requirements. Grading and excavation may continue around the isolated area of the find so long as the activities do not impede or jeopardize the protection and preservation of any cultural resources as determined by the Registered Professional Archaeologist.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources and no new mitigation measures would be required.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 134 Final

3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The City of Pasadena is within Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (LACSD) District 16. As evaluated in the 2015 IS/MND, based on LACSD’s wastewater generation rate of 195 gallons per day (gpd) per condominium unit and 100 gpd per 1,000 square feet of commercial use21, the approved project would generate approximately 7,283 gpd of wastewater. All sewage from the project site would be conveyed to existing City sewer lines and facilities and then to LACSD trunk sewers for conveyance and treatment. Payment of LACSD sewer connection fees would be required. Wastewater discharge from the project site would be regulated by applicable standards and requirements that are imposed and enforced by the City’s Department of Public Works, Engineering Division. All wastewater generated by the approved project would be treated in compliance with the requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, the approved project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: Utilizing the same wastewater generation rates, the revised project would generate approximately 4,418 additional gpd of wastewater compared to the approved project. The additional wastewater would be conveyed to existing City sewer lines and facilities then to LACSD trunk sewers for treatment in accordance with Los Angeles RWQCB requirements. LACSD sewer connection fees would also be required for the revised project. As such, the revised project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of Los Angeles RWQCB and similar to the approved project, impacts would be less than significant.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for utilities and service systems and no new mitigation measures would be required.

21 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, County Sanitation District No. 3 Service Charge Report for

Fiscal Year 2015-16, Table 1, http://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8968, accessed April 10, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 135 Final

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As detailed in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project’s water demand and wastewater generation are conservatively assumed to be the same (7,283 gpd) and would be adequately accommodated by the City’s wastewater and water collection and treatment facilities. The approved project would also be subject to PMC Chapter 13.10, Water Waste Prohibitions and Water Supply Shortage Plans, which imposes mandatory water conservation measures during Level 1 (least restrictive) through Level 4 (most restrictive) water supply shortages, the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (PMC Section 17.44.050), and PMC Chapter 17.44, Landscaping, to further reduce water demands and any corresponding requirements for new water facilities. Overall, as it was determined existing wastewater and water facilities are available to serve the approved project and no new wastewater or water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required, impacts would be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project’s water demand and wastewater generation are conservatively assumed to be the same and would result in approximately 4,418 additional gpd compared to the approved project. The City’s various ordinances related to water efficiency and water waste prohibitions would also be applicable to the revised project. No deficiencies in the City’s wastewater and water collection and treatment facilities have been identified. Thus, the slight increase in water demand and wastewater generation under the revised project would be adequately treated by existing facilities and no new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.


c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As detailed in the 2015 IS/MND, the project site is completely disturbed and primarily consists of impervious surfaces. The site is also located in a developed urban area where storm drainage is provided by existing streets, storm drains,





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 136 Final

flood control channels, and catch basins. Thus, implementation of the approved project would result in similar drainage patterns as existing conditions, as the majority of the site would remain impervious, and no new construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities would be required. The approved project would involve only minor changes in the site’s drainage patterns and would not alter any drainage courses or flood control channels. Therefore, the approved project would not require or result in any off-site stormwater drainage improvements, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: Development of the revised project would result in similar drainage patterns as the approved project and the site would remain mostly impervious. The revised project also would not alter any drainage courses or flood control channels as changes to drainage patterns would be limited to minor on-site changes. Additionally, the revised project would be required to comply with the City’s stormwater ordinance, which would ensure that post-development peak stormwater runoff rates do not exceed pre-development peak stormwater runoff rates. Further, the project applicant would be required to submit and implement an on-site drainage plan that meets the approval of the City’s Building Official and Public Works Department. Overall, compared to the approved project, the revised project would have similar less than significant impacts to stormwater drainage facilities.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for utilities and service systems and no new mitigation measures are required.

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND determined that although the approved project would result in an increase in water demand due to the introduction of new dwelling units and commercial uses, the PWP’s 2010 UWMP, demonstrated that adequate supply is available to serve the City through the long-range year of 2035. In addition, water conservation measures required by the PMC would further reduce water demand associated with the approved project. Therefore, the approved project would be adequately served by available water supplies from existing entitlements and resources and would not require new or expanded entitlements. Thus, with compliance with existing City requirements, impacts on water supplies were determined to be less than significant.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 137 Final

Revised Project: As stated above, the revised project would generate approximately 4,418 additional gpd of water demand than the approved project. Since adoption of the 2015 IS/MND, the PWP has adopted the 2015 UWMP, which demonstrates that adequate water supply is available to serve the City through the long-range year of 2040.22 As such, the increase in water demand under the revised project would be adequately met by the PWP’s water supply and would not require new or expanded entitlements. The revised project would also be required to comply with PMC regulations related to water conservation. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.


e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As analyzed in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project is expected to generate approximately 7,283 gpd of wastewater. This estimated increase to wastewater service demand is negligible in comparison to the existing service area of LACSD. LACSD operates ten water reclamation plants and one discharge facility, which treat approximately 510 million gpd of wastewater. No deficiencies have been identified in the wastewater treatment facilities that serve the City. The design capacities of LACSD facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by SCAG. Therefore, LACSD facilities are sized and their service are phased in a manner that is consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast. Development of the approved project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. Thus, as SCAG growth projections are based in part on growth identified in local General Plans, growth associated with development of the project site based on its General Plan land use designation has been anticipated by the growth forecasts. As such, impacts related to LACSD’s wastewater treatment plant capacities were determined to be less than significant.

Revised Project: The revised project is anticipated to generate approximately 4,418 additional gpd of wastewater than the approved project. Although the revised project would generate more wastewater than the approved project, development of the revised project has also been contemplated in the General Plan as it is consistent with the site’s

22 Pasadena Water and Power, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016, https://ww5.cityof

pasadena.net/water-and-power/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2017/08/2015_Final_UWMP.pdf, accessed April 10, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 138 Final

current land use designation. As such, SCAG growth projections also contemplated development of the site under its current land use designation. Therefore, the LACSD facilities are sized accordingly to adequately treat wastewater generated by the revised project. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.


f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: Based on solid waste generation rates of four pounds per day (ppd) per multifamily unit and five ppd per 1,000 square feet of commercial use23, the approved project would generate approximately 157 ppd of solid waste. Solid waste would be collected by a private hauler and transported primarily to the Scholl Canyon Landfill in Glendale, which is permitted until 2030. The Scholl Canyon Landfill has a maximum daily capacity of 3,400 tons and a total remaining capacity of 9,900,000 cubic yards.24 Because there is adequate remaining capacity to accommodate the amount of solid waste generated by the approved project, the 2015 IS/MND determined the approved project’s impacts to landfill capacity would be less than significant.

Revised Project: Utilizing the same solid waste generation rates, the revised project would generate approximately 89 additional ppd of solid waste compared to the approved project. Based on the Scholl Canyon Landfills’ remaining capacity through 2030, solid waste generated by the revised project would be adequately accommodated. As such, impacts of the revised project on landfill capacities would be less than significant.


23 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates,

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed April 10, 2018. 24 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Facility/Site Summary Details: Scholl

Canyon Landfill (19-AA-0012), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/19-AA-0012/Detail/, accessed April 10, 2018.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 139 Final

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As detailed in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would be required to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (PMC Section 8.62, Waste Management Plan for Certain Construction and Demolition Projects within the City of Pasadena), which includes preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan for new structures over 1,000 square feet. In addition, the approved project would be required to comply with design requirements for refuge storage areas per PMC Section 17.40.120, Refuse Storage Facilities. Therefore, it was determined the approved project would not cause any significant impacts from conflicting with statutes or regulations related to solid waste.

Revised Project: Similar to the approved project, the revised project would be required to comply with the same City requirements under PMC Sections 8.62 and 17.40.120. As such, the revised project would not conflict with any statutes or regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.


3.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Would the project:

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Approved Project: The 2015 IS/MND concluded that the approved project could have a significant impact on historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources; refer to Section 3.5. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 were identified to mitigate these impacts to less than significant levels. It was also determined the approved project would have less than significant impacts to biological resource; refer to Section 3.4, Biological Resources.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 140 Final

Therefore, the approved project would not potentially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Revised Project: The revised project has the same potentially significant impact on historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources as the approved project due to the project site conditions. Thus, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 required of the approved project would also be applicable to the revised project. Similarly, the revised project would also have a less than significant impact on biological resources. Thus, the revised project would have a less than significant impact with application of mitigation from the 2015 IS/MND.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3.

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future project?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

Approved Project: Based on the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would not result in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental category. The impacts associated with the approved project are limited to the project site or are of such a negligible degree that they would not result in a significant contribution to any cumulative impacts. Thus, implementation of mitigation measures identified in the 2015 IS/MND would reduce the potential for the incremental effects of the approved project to be considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, or probable future projects.

Revised Project: Similar to the approved project, the revised project would not result in any significant and unmitigable impacts in any environmental category after implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Thus, the revised project would not result in a significant contribution to any cumulative impacts when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and probable future projects.





Yes No









Adopted IS/MND



Impact

July 2019 141 Final

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for mandatory findings of significance.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐

Approved Project: As concluded in the 2015 IS/MND, the approved project would either have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a potentially significant impact mitigated to less than significant levels for all environmental topical areas. Thus, the approved project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Revised Project: The revised project would not result in any new potentially significant impacts compared to the approved project. As such, the revised project would similarly not have any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Union Street Condominiums Project IS/MND: The 2015 IS/MND does not include mitigation measures for mandatory findings of significance and no new mitigation measures are required.




July 2019 142 Final





July 2019 143 Final

4.0 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017,

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, accessed April 30, 2018.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates, accessed April 10, 2018.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Facility/Site Summary Details: Scholl Canyon Landfill (19-AA-0012), http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/ Directory/19-AA-0012/Detail/, accessed April 10, 2018.

California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_ FINAL.pdf, accessed May 2, 2018.

City of Pasadena, City of Pasadena General Plan Land Use Element, adopted August 18, 2015, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2017/07/Land-Use-Element-2016-01-25.pdf, accessed April 11, 2018.

City of Pasadena, Low Impact Development, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/planning/building-and-safety/low-impact-development/, accessed December 5, 2018.

City of Pasadena, Pasadena Climate Action Plan, March 5, 2018, https://ww5.cityofpasadena. net/planning/planning-division/community-planning/pasadena-climate-action-plan/, accessed May 31, 2018.

City of Pasadena, Climate Action Plan Appendix D, Consistency Checklist, December 28, 2017.

City of Pasadena, Pasadena Municipal Code Figure 3-5 Central District Transit Oriented Development Area.

City of Pasadena, Specimen Tree List, https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 52/2017/06/TPO_6-Specimen-Tree-List.pdf.

City of Pasadena Department of Transportation, Transportation Impact Analysis CEQA Evaluation Category 2, 250 East Union Street, March 21, 2018.

City of Pasadena Department of Transportation, Transportation Analysis Outside of CEQA Analysis, 250 East Union Street, July 14, 2017.

Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (CORTESE), https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed on May 21, 2018.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06037C1375F Panel 1375 of 2350, September 26, 2008.




July 2019 144 Final

Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

GPA Consulting, 254 E Union Street Pasadena, California Historical Resource Report, June 2015.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Gold Line Map and Station Locations, http://www.metro.net/riding/maps/gold-line/, accessed April 11, 2018.

Pasadena Water and Power, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016, https://ww5. cityofpasadena.net/water-and-power/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2017/08/2015_Final_ UWMP.pdf, accessed April 10, 2018.

RTKL Associates, Central District Specific Plan, District-wide Map 2: Historic Resources, adopted November 8, 2004.

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, County Sanitation District No. 3 Service Charge Report for Fiscal Year 2015-16, Table 1, http://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload. aspx?blobid=8968, accessed April 10, 2018.

Southern California Association of Governments, Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001, Page 4

Southern California Association of Governments, Final 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Appendix Demographics & Growth Forecast, page 25, http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf, accessed April 10, 2018.

U.S. Geological Survey, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Pasadena Quadrangle, March 25, 1999.
