Pasadena City Council
March 23, 2026

PASADENA PERMIT CENTER
www.cityofpasadena.net/permitcenter

APPLICATION INFORMATION
51 1 S. Oak Knoll Ave nue, Paf; ;tfkfA1-,J9�19!i)E1 JA Project Address:------------------'---------'------------- Case Type (MCUP, TTM, etc.) and Number: ____ D_H_P_2_02_4_-_0_02_6_1 ________________ _ Hearing Date: Octobe r 28, 202 5

APPELLANT INFORMATION
APPELLANT: Brian Fulcher and Amanda Elioff
Address: 54 1 S. Oak Knoll Ave.

Appeal Deadline: ___ N_ov_e _m_be_1_· 7...:.,_2 _0_2 _5 ____ _ Telephone: [
Fax: [
l 213-422-4987
l
City: _P_a_s_a_de_ n_a ____ state: _C_A __ Zip: 91101 Email: ae01 @msn.com [email protected] APPLICANT (IF DIFFERENT):

I hereby appeal the decision of the:

D Hearing Officer
[xi Design Commission
D Historic Preservation

REASON FOR APPEAL
D Zoning Administrator
D Director of Planning and Development
D Film Liaison
The decision maker failed to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, General Plan or other applicable plans in the following manner (use additional sheets if necessary):
1) Findings For Concept Design Approval. The design as accepted does not comply with the Design Guidelines for Neigl rboll ,uod Cur III rrer cial a11d Multi-Farr lily Resider ,tial Distlicts (Desig11 Guideli11es) a:::; stated in the findings
2) Environmental Determination: Environmental impacts/effects from noise, light, traffic, and parking, street lighting and other previously noted concerns have not been adequately studied or addressed in the Conditions of Approval. The reports also contain errors that would likely contribute to incorrect or • • • • ' ction of the tree "0S1" is not sufficiently addressed in
Date
See attachments for additional reasons
• OFFICE USE ONLY
PLN# ____________ CASE# _______________ PRJ# _______ _
DESCRIPTION _____________________________________ _
DATE APPEAL RECEIVED: _______ _
■ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
APPEAL FEES $. ________ _ RECEIVED BY: ______ _
APP-RFA Rev: 1/18/07
175 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE
PASADENA, CA 91101
T 626-7 44-4009
F 626-744-4785

ATTACHMENT D
Brian Fulcher and Amanda Eliott
541 5. Oak Knoll Avenue
Pasadena CA 91101
213.422.4987
Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department
Pasadena Permit Center
175 Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Attention:

Subject:

Stephanie Cisneros and Kevin Johnson
511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA
Proposed Multi-Family Development
Request for Appeal of 28 Oct 2025 Design Commission Decision of the Concept Design Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Cisneros
This letter provides our written Request for Appeal of the decision by the Pasadena Design Commission (Design Commission) to move forward with the Concept Design for the proposed multi-family development located at 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue in Pasadena. Please find attached, a completed Request for Appeal form (Appendix A), signed by Brian Fulcher and Amanda a Elioff (Appellants). We reside in the single-family home located at 541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, immediately adjacent to the proposed property development. Concurrence with this Request for Appeal from many of our neighbors on S. Oak Knoll Avenue is demonstrated by the list of signatures attached (Appendix B).

Our appeal of the decision made at the Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25 at the Pasadena City Hall is based on objections to the Design Commission's Findings presented in the City's letter to Burke Farrar of Odyssey Development Services (the Applicant) on 29 Oct 2025:
• Findings For Concept Design Approval: The design as accepted does not comply with the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-Family Residential Districts (Design Guidelines) as stated in the City's Findings for Concept Design Approval. • Environmental Determination. Environmental impacts/effects from noise, light, traffic, and parking, street lighting, trash collection and other previously noted concerns have not been adequately studied or addressed in the Conditions of Approval. The reports also contain several errors that would likely contribute to incorrect conclusions and decisions. • Findings for Compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance: The City's Tree Protection Ordinance is cited for the City's trees, however, protection of the tree "OS1" is not sufficiently addressed in the design or the Conditions of Approval.

These points are more fully detailed in this letter and its Attachments.

Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Given the above, and the extremely short review process for the Design Commission and the public (3 Business Days) we find it essential to appeal the Design Commission decision so that the Concept Design can be more fully reviewed. We further articulate the reasons and provide constructive ideas for improvement of the proposed development in this letter and its Attachments.

In addition to the objections to the Staff and Design Commissions findings, we also object to the apparent lack of consideration of public comment and response to those comments. We count over 20 letters and E-mails providing comments and concerns by the community. Comments were also given in person at the Preliminary and Concept Design Review Hearings (Appendix D). As we understood from the City's announcements of the Public Hearing for the proposed building development, we were expecting to offer comments in a public forum on a Concept Design submitted by the Applicant and represented on drawings that were labelled, "Concept Design". Relying on AIA references, a Concept Design may be described as follows.
"Concept design is the initial phase of architectural design where the architect explores high-level ideas, vision, and basic layout through sketches, models, and diagrams to answer fundamental questions about purpose, function, and form. This process involves analyzing the site, understanding client needs, developing a core concept statement, and creating initial visualizations that form the foundational framework for the project before moving on to more detailed design stages'� While listening to the dialogue at the hearing between the Commission and the Applicant, it became very clear that both the Applicant and the Commission were reticent to make any substantive changes to the submitted Concept Design, notwithstanding the significant issues, errors, and overall lack of respect the design had for the immediate neighborhood. This has been the universal outcry from the residents of S.

Oak Knoll (and beyond) since the Preliminary Design was first exhibited in September 2024, at the Preliminary Desing Review Public Hearing, during informal discussions with the developer in December 2024, informal meetings with City Staff, and numerous letters and E-mails from the community.

In spite of all the meetings and comments, there were no substantive changes made to the Preliminary Design and subsequently represented on the Concept Design, even though the Commission in September 2024 had remarked that the Applicant "had a lot of work to do" and to significantly rethink its approach to the building to better fit into the community and architectural context of the neighborhood.

We seek to correct a design that fails on several design standards of excellence to achieve a positive relationship with the neighborhood and a design that better relates to the existing historical landmarks and residential density. So much of what we and our neighbors have commented on starting 14 months ago remains unattended, uncorrected, and consequently, the Concept Design remains substantially out of context with the community. As stated on the City's website, the Commission is:
2 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

(an) Advisory of the City Council on the establishment of design standards, criteria, concepts and policies for the implementation of public and private projects. Reviews projects for the purpose of creating uniform design concepts and to ensure the maintenance of design excellence To this end, we looked to the Commission's experience and guidance to positively influence design and function related aspects of the proposed 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue development that is virtually surrounded by landmark designated and historical buildings, homes and residential buildings ranging in height from 1 to 3 stories, and more importantly, buildings less than 40 feet high. Instead, the project design ignores the requirements presented in the City's Design Guidelines - particularly those related to Block Character and Relating to Neighbors by massing and scale (page 30 of Design Guidelines inserted below for ease of reference): None of these recommendations have been addressed, and it is, therefore, difficult to find "design excellence" represented in the Concept Design submitted to the Commission. The City of Pasadena prides itself on design excellence and green space, this design will not provide that. For reference, please see excerpt from Block Character, Section 5 of the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial & Multi-Family Districts (Adopted by the City of Pasadena) page 30, next page.

While the attached Request for Appeal form briefly summarizes the reasons for appeal, the following provides a summary of the key points, issues and suggested corrective actions that in our view are needed to amend the Concept Design before proceeding further. These would address community comments to mitigate severe and pervasive impacts and improve construction efficiency Appendices E - K to this letter provide additional basis for appeal related to environmental and safety concerns.

Summary of the Appeal
The basis for this Request for Appeal is focused not only on the Concept Design, but also on what appear to be errors, and inconsistencies found in the documents (~450 pages) provided only three Business Days in advance of the 28 Oct 2025 Public Hearing for Design Commission review and public comments. These documents were the basis of a decision by the Design Commission on the proposed Concept Design that the Appellant (and neighbors listed in Appendix B) find significantly non-compliant with the written goals of the City of Pasadena, are incomplete with respect to environmental mitigations, and contain some errors. As such, the project will be detrimental to the S. Oak Knoll Avenue community. The design lacks respect for the community's block character and will present environmental impacts if not satisfactorily mitigated. While this is not a formal legal complaint, it comes after an intensive "page-turn" assessment of the City of Pasadena provided documents representing the Concept Design and written after a review in a very compressed period of time.

We seek reasonable adjustments to the proposed Concept Design with a minimum delay or costs to the Applicant. We also consider it reasonable to seek a refund of the Appeal filing fee once the Commission reviews our collective observations, findings and recommendations in this matter as substantially described in this letter and all Attachments. Had the Applicant fulfilled its responsibilities when submitting its Preliminary and Concept Designs, much of the enclosed discussion would been addressed and fianlized. 3 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and 5 Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

V. Bio-ck Character

7. RELATil.NG TO NEIGHBORS BY MASSING AND S:CALE
New buildings oveT two rtorfes 1n .111:ight slJould respect adJacent buildl-ngs by nsprmding to the,;,- mossing, scale, and need f:or JIJht, natural w,dllaUon, and vle.M.

Recommend:a1ions;;
► 7.'1 Scale. Buildmg;s should be sc.aled. to respon.d to their context by ser,,;iti•,•1,d)' and pa-sitively- eddress.i11g the scale and massing oftheir a.dj:?cent neighbors. This.
can be .aa:omplished by:
• Matching e:cistins building heights or l!Xceeding
them by only one story. Additiooel stories should
be modula.ted by setbacks.
• Modula.ting side }'ard and rear tard volumes to
provide as much d.isrance as. possible betwi:!en
th,e facades of a prnpos.ed building ,md &is ·ng
buildings in order to preserve the privacy- of the
outdoor spaces of both.
• Orienting the side yard5 of proposed buildi 1gs to
face tf:ie side yards -of adja�ent bu:ildings.
,. lndudingelements su<li as porches, galleries.
ar,:ades, etc. to relate the scale offacades to those
of exis,ting buildings.
• Red ucing building b1Jlk by int1oducing d�lling
space in at1ic spaces.
• lntrQducing la.nd:sc:a.pc and/or treEs as a sueel'!
betw!,'!!n exisl>rt5 and new building'-.
7 .2. Side and rear elevations. The rear and/or side
elevations of new buildings that are visible from the
public realm should be cfesis.ned with equal care a.nd
quality as. 1he front or principal facade.

7.3 Side and re-a r winodows. The plMement and size of
windows in side ) 'ards and rea.rya ds should reslfleC! the priva-cy a.nd need for light an.cl air of e:.:i sting buildings.
(Lrfr.j 6 Tl!i, ,m�d"'"' b:.1Tdin,t CO'CIWNlm,
r/1< ""£�""-""f: Jiau« &y ITGt ,ctti"11 l:-ark ,r.
tJ1in/ j�,- a.nd bt to'1t.i.\r:1,1t:n·n-ir <NrJ the urtr-r ,� ttJ. ra.r;ae,-:..
(Jtrgt;(J A mtirt:d'•vr.t: b1,i/d,:r.l step; dOM'l1 ta d;t:
�raJt er/the G'\tiru:cJ!t sinftt: fr11W,"r �u.

7.4 -Existing site features. Unique 111atu<al
charncteristic.s. such as mature lrees .and
topography, on both the project site aind adj.a.cent
sites should 'be respected and taken int·o account in
new building dt>sign.
7 .S. Multiple Lot Projects. The ma s:si n g of projects 011 rnmbined lols. should be bmken down into
increments that relate to surrmmdinB buildings. On
wzry large lots, th-e division of projects into rw.o or mo e :separate buildings. of different ty-pe, density.
heigfa, a.nd mas.sing is rncouraged.

Bui.lding� desigmd in js,7/crtio.n a11d w-ilhcut rof!,ard to tl,dr mm,rmdings am c,ppear lo be glaringly out of
c.onJ:c.-J'. This i� c:spe.ciolly I ru,: wnrn large n1ixed-11stc er mulli-fomi.ly i1��/.1 b!Jildin.es are it1se-n.cd i1110 Jots surrout1dcd by si11g!efamily II.ousts or small mulii­
fcrmiJ,• buf,ldit1gs o-r arr located on a pcrrGeh111ihin o highu d.cns,ty w•m that is im1ncd'ia1ely adjocet1t loo
lower demit)• .ZOii!. As a ,csu.lt, puipfe li�i,rg hi such buildings so negoti11t:ly ajf t:ar:J bj, nt:111 01m. su the q.uafr'W of ill16r li11�_s dimi11ishe-d.

Th!! c.ompotibility o.f 1111111 buildinf,S inrut£d into emting conkx.ts can bt. ensurid by fittjng thtir
rnalt. amJ mass to toot of th err mr-ighlroring e:ristjng burlclinrs,. This proc:us of c-ronsforming cxisti11g !'etti11g� hos been the 11:cy to forming Posodeno 't t.xem1J,!ol",I tmiJdir;g fabric Oll't'.r the dcwdcs..
4 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

We believe the changes we request the Concept Design, are a benefit to the Applicant and the community, and attainable with modest time and effort. Therefore, they should be further considered by both the Design Commission and building developer with the goal of designing a far more suitable building for the neighborhood while avoiding the objectionable "Big Box" building, fully built-out to the lot lines that is unquestionably out of character as it is presently designed.

Changes We are Seeking -Appellant and Local Residents
The requested changes are needed for compliance with City of Pasadena Goals, Plans and Guidelines as well as to address environmental concerns.

1. Adjustments to the building design to reduce the massive uniform appearance and be more consistent with the neighborhood context and Pasadena Design Guidelines. For another example, the Block Character described on page 25 of the Design Guidelines relates:
"The successful fit of a new project into an existing context depends on how it relates to neighboring buildings to its side and rear in terms of setbacks, height, massing, scale, arrangement of shared and private open space, and landscape. This is especially Important for lots located along the boundary between higher-density and lower-density zones where taller, larger buildings that are insensitively designed could pose a visual nuisance to existing, smaller scale buildings. For zones that are In transition from less intense to more Intense uses, the Issue of compatibility Is particularly important.

New higher-density projects need to respond to lower-density, existing buildings through compatible massing and thoughtfully designed side yard elevations." The project as presented needs to be more sensitive to the neighboring buildings, including space to allow both privacy and light to the adjacent properties and to reduce the perceived scale of the building. Many other examples of good design are provided in the Design Guidelines.

The City of Gardens Ordinance has been cited by the Applicant as a mandatory reason for design of the long narrow courtyard in the center of the U-shaped building. This causes the building to be set back only 5 ft from the property lines on the north, west and partial south sides. However, City of Gardens (RM District Gardens requirements) allows for alternatives with approval. Gardens on the sides of the building - rather than only in the center, would allow a smaller building footprint and allow more sunlight, landscaping and privacy for the adjacent properties - and the building residents. Gardens can still be readily seen from the street with good design.

There are better and less expensive solutions to the transformer substation noise than surrounding the entire building with enclosed exterior corridors. As the Concept Design stands, the courtyard garden can only be seen from the sidewalk/street from a very limited area.

2. Provide specific mitigations for the environmental concerns related by the public comment. While City staff has given us some assurance that our collective concerns will be addressed, why not put it in the Conditions of Approval? In particular, since to date these have been overlooked in both the Preliminary and Concept Design submissions, please consider the following. 5 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

o Excessive light from the enclosed exterior corridors (if those corridors should remain in the design).
o Nighttime noise from 46 air conditioning units operating simultaneously. o Potential additional noise from 4 story vertical walls against the substation reflecting noise to adjacent properties.
o Parking plans - The Conditions of Approval say there will be no nighttime parking for new residents - however, parking at night is not currently restricted on S. Oak Knoll Avenue. o Traffic studies. The current reports do not adequately reflect the new McKinley School population - at least 8 new classrooms have been added and other facilities. Estimates are that there are 200 to 300 additional students, staff and teachers. They require transportation to the school and parking; most twice per day.

3. Provide extensive tree protection plan for the Canyon Live Oak Tree designated OS1 on the drawings - including protection of canopy branches during construction and final landscaping and water. As shown in the concept plan, part of the area under OS1 would be use for "pet relief", meaning it would be washed down regularly. This water would be detrimental to OS1.

4. Provide a fire protection plan to demonstrate access to the new building and adjacent properties given the minimal 5-foot set-back from property lines, 4 stories and interior corridors.

Our comments need to be addressed. The community has been passionately commenting on this proposed development for over 12 months since the Preliminary Design package was provided to the public expressly for this purpose. With a single exception (small change in foundation layout for OS1 tree roots that is still inadequate), and to extent that we are aware of, none of the submitted verbal and written comments have been addressed by the City- either in writing or within design changes. Meanwhile, the proposed development presents numerous significant impacts to the S. Oak Knoll Avenue neighborhood.

Please refer to the letter references enclosed in Appendix D - Comment Letters and Communications - Preliminary and Concept Designs.

Pasadena Design Commission Staff Report Conclusions
The Planning Department's Staff Report is a comprehensive and report based on the Applicant's Concept Design and includes a number of the supporting reports prepared by or for the City. It also included a few (but not all) of the letters and communications submitted by local and concerned residents. Please reference Appendix D for a summary of known letters and communications from the Appellant and local residents expressing concern over both the Preliminary Design (September 2024) and Concept Design (October 2025).

We are deeply concerned that the Staff Report (28 October 2025) and Notice of Decision Letter concluded that the Findings for Concept Design Approval were:
6 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

"The Project... will comply with the purposes of design review the design-related goals and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the design-related goals and policies in the Central District Specific Plan, and the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Commercial and Multi-Family Residential District..."
and
"Found that approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relate to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, or cultural resources."
Our review of the design and environmental analysis has revealed many impacts and conflicts with the City's goals of allowing denser development within transitional areas, but in a form sensitive and compatible to neighbors. Additionally, we have found errors, incomplete studies, and inconsistencies in the Concept Design Review package that should have been corrected (or clarified) by the Applicant well in advance of the Public Hearing. as well as before any "go", or "no go" or "hold for clarification" decision by the Commission at the Hearing. And, at this juncture, we find ourselves faced with making this formal Appeal of the Concept Design Decision. This should have been substantially avoidable with responses to neighborhood concerns and a process seeking continuous input, rather than a hearing with 3 days to review documents and no opportunity for an informational dialogue with the Commissioners.

Design Commission's Vote on the Concept Design
We note that two of the six Design Commission Members present at the Public Hearing voted not to accept (or proceed) with the Concept Design in its current form (notwithstanding the Recommended Conditions for Approval drafted by the Staff). In the dissenting Members' view, significant design adjustments were needed to achieve their approval at the Concept Design stage - and comply with the City's published Design Guidelines. These same Members continuously pressed (in the Hearing) for more definition and adjusted exterior fa�ades, finishes and most importantly, the issues, waste and inefficiency resulting from the interior garden in the rectangular footprint of the proposed building. Other issues were discussed between the Members and the Applicant are a matter of public record in the recording from the Hearing.

This dissent from two Commissioners supports our Appeal.

Conditions of Approval of the Applicant's Concept Design As stated above, several of the Members of the Design Commission were truly concerned about the design, mass of the building, perimeter set-backs, enclosed exterior corridors and overall inappropriateness to the neighborhood. We note that even though these and many other issues, concerns and suggestions were openly discussed between the Commission Members and the Applicant, none were recorded into "adjusted" Conditions of Approval subsequent to the Hearing for the Concept Design. To comply with design guidelines a number of good solutions were proposed, but none pursued:
• Massing adjustments
• Building set-backs
7 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

• Changes in brick fac;:ades
• Mansard roof adjustments
• Landscaping plan
• Interior garden re-arrangements to allow more green space and smaller building scale Our more detailed comments on issues related to the Conditions of Approval are included in Appendix C and should be read in conjunction with all other focused Appendices.

Potential Path Forward
This building is 4 stories tall and fully extends to the property lines, presents a massive box in an otherwise Pasadena zoning compliant neighborhood. We realize that the State of California now allows for a "density bonus", but there are conflicts and competing goals such as Pasadena's Design Guidelines, City of Gardens and the State's "Density Bonus." This has resulted in a Concept Design that will be detrimental to our neighborhood and the City. The impact is lose-lose for all. The neighborhood, the building occupants and the City. The building with a 4 story deep narrow interior courtyard clearly "turns it back" on its neighbors surrounding and nearby properties to protect itself from the adjacent substation noise (only impacting about a 1/6 of the property perimeter). The 4-story height means that virtually no direct sunlight reaches much of the interior courtyard. Additionally, the minimal lot line clearances along with the building height, prevent natural light and green space to the neighboring properties.

An obvious alternative would be to change or eliminate the interior courtyard as designed (and discussed at the Public Hearing on 28 Oct 2025) and instead, allow more space for elegant garden landscaping on the exterior of the building. This would allow more light to the proposed building AND adjacent buildings, as well as additional privacy and green space. This would also reduce the non-guideline compliant building's footprint and address privacy concerns with additional building spacing.

Closing Remarks
We understand the City and State's need for more housing, and do not object to the density. However, the project design as currently represented in the Applicant's Concept Design could be vastly improved for all - the residents of the proposed development, the neighbors and the City. Please do not allow this experiment with housing density, noise mitigation, and completely secluded interior gardens for the new occupants (only) to proceed without really understanding what the lasting impacts will be to all. Is this the new standard that Pasadena can accept? It certainly does not comply with existing guidelines. A bit more study is truly warranted here - a few more months of design work will be minor compared to lifetimes of living with the current design. As stated in the City's Design Guidelines:
8 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025 Page9 of37
"The City's Comprehensive General Plan promotes architectural and design excellence in buildings, landscape, open space, and urban design. It also stipulates that preservation of Pasadena's character and scale, including its traditional urban design form, shall be given the highest priority in consideration offuture development. {P.1}
"The long-term character and vitality of Pasadena's neighborhoods, districts, and corridors are more important than any one architectural project. Yet, because the development process is incremental, the insertion of an infill project into an existing context can contribute either to a long­ term process of harmonious city building or its slow unraveling'� {P. 26 Section \I, Block Character) This project will surely start a slow unraveling of our block- if not a fast raveling. There are solutions, and in our collective view at this Concept Design stage, it is not too late to set a good and creative example for better and far more efficient multi-family building design. This building, with the "moat inspired" fortress like design, protects itself to the detriment of the neighbors and the Concept Design is contrary to the goals and spirit of the Pasadena Design Guidelines.

Thank you for your attention to this letter, Appendices and Request for Appeal of the Design Commission Decision to proceed with the Concept Design of the proposed multi-family development at 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue. We and many members of the neighborhood would be pleased to discuss further how we can improve this project to the benefit of all.

Sincerely,
1:::.t.2��Elio��
541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101
cc: Jason Lyons, Pasadena District 7 Representative
Attachments:

Appendix A - Request for Appeal - Pasadena Permit Center, Planning and Development Department
Appendix B - Request for Appeal - Endorsements from Local Residents Appendix C- Issues Related to Conditions of Approval of the Concept Design Appendix D - Comment Letters and Communications - Preliminary and Concept Designs Appendix E - Documents Reviewed in Preparation for Request for Appeal for Pasadena Design Commission Decision to Approve the Concept Design with Conditions of Approval 9 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix F - Public Utility and Public Safety Considerations Appendix G - Building Design Optimization and Construction Cost Saving Suggestions Appendix H - Excess Light Issues Related to the Concept Design Appendix I - Protected (Landmark designated) Canyon Live Oak Tree and Issues Related to the Concept Design and lmpactful Encroachments
Appendix J - Noise Study Issues Related to the Concept Design Appendix K - Traffic Study Issues Related to the Concept Design 10 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix A
Request for Appeal - Pasadena Permit Center, Planning and Development Department
Please find enclosed, a completed and signed Request for Appeal form (APP-RFA Rev 1/18/07) issued by the Pasadena Permit Center, Planning and Development Department.

Please note that this letter and all attachments are considered part of the Request for Appeal to the Pasadena Design Commission decision on 28 Oct 25 related to the Concept Design submission for 511 S.

Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA.

The Appellant understands that the accompanying filing fee for the Request for Appeal may refunded to the Appellant subject to the outcome of the Appeal
11 PASADENA PERMIT CENTER
www.cityofpasadana.net/permitcenter
REQUEST FOR APPEAL _JI

APPLICATION INF OR MA TION
Project Address: 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena CA, 91191 Case Type (MCUP, TTM, etc.) and Number: ___ D_H_P_2 0_2_-4_-_0 0_ 2_6_1 _______________ _ Hearing Date: October 28, 2025 Appeal Deadline: November 7, 2025

APPELLANT INFORMATION
APPELLANT: Brian Fulcher and Amanda Elioff
Address: 541 S. Oak Knoll Ave.

Telephone: ( ] 213-422-4 987
Fax: [ l 201-290-6050
City: _P_a_sa_d_e_n_a ____ state: -=cC"'-'A'--_ Zip: 91101 Email: [email protected] brian.fulcher [email protected] APPLICANT (IF DIFFERENT):

I hereby appeal the decision of the:

D Hearing Officer
[xi Design Commission
D Historic Preservation

REASON FOR APPEAL
D Zoning Administrator
D Director of Planning and Development
D Film Liaison
The decision maker failed to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, General Plan or other applicable plans in the following manner (use additional sheets if necessary):
1) Findings For Concept Design Approval. The design as accepted doBs not comply with the Design Guideli11es fol Neigl 1b0r I 100d Cull I111e1 cial a11d Multt--Fa11 lily Resider 1tial Dislr icts (Desig11 Gaideli11es) -as st�ted in the findings
2) Environmental Determination: Environmental impacts/effects from noise, light, traffic, and parking,. street lighting and other previously noted concerns have not been adequately studied or addressed in the Conditions of Approval. The reports also contain errors that would likely contribute to incorrect 3) Finciinge for Compliance with th@ City's Tr9Q Prot9ction OrdinancQ: The City'e tree protection ordinance is cited for the Cit 's Trees however rot(�ction of the tree "OS 1" is not sufficiently addressed int
7 lvove�u ){7lJf
Date
See attachments for additional reasons
' OFFICE USE OtlLY
PLN # ___________ CASE# ______________ PRJ # _______ _
DESCRIPTION ____________________________________ _
DATE APPEAL RECEIVED: _______ _
■ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CURRENT PLANNING SECTION
APPEAL FEES:$ ______ _ _ RECEIVED BY: _____ _
APP-RFA Rev: 1/18/07
175 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE
PASADENA, CA 91101
T 626-744-4009
F 626-744-4785
Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 202S

Appendix B
Request for Appeal - Endorsements from Local Residents
The following lists 42 individual local residents who endorse this Request for Appeal of the Pasadena Design Commission's decision allowing for Conditions of Approval for the proposed Concept Design at 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA based on the Applicant's Concept Design. We have also noted those local residents who attended the Public Hearing held at the Pasadena City Hall on 28 Oct 2025 as well as those who have voiced their comments, concerns and issues through letters, messages and other forms of communications since mid-2024 when the Preliminary Design was first provided to the public for comment by the Pasadena Design Commission. Please refer to Appendix D.

Appellants
Brian Fulcher
Amanda Elioff
541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101
541 S. Oak Knoll. Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101
Local Residents in Support of the Request Appeal for the Design Commission's Decision William H. Beckhardt South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
Christine B. Cooper
James Moore
Saraid Donnelly
T. A. Chen
Noelle Ito
Sharon Jarrett
Kevin Brown
Blaire Wilson
David Fairris
Chris Sayler
Ashley Finnance
Michael Armstrong
Jane McMahon
Mary K. Hansen-Adams
Dominic deFazio
Hem-Young deFazio
Marwin Goble
Nancy Goble
Tanita J. Brown
Buff Gontier
Arthur J. Gontier
Ricardo Sosapavon
RobertM. Adams
Ben Bock
Paula Gooden
Debby Tannenbaum
Sarah Jane Ball
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
12 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Christina A. Smith
Valery Widing
Janet L. Davis
Jennifer Mario McCardy
Michael R. McCardy
Camila Rison
Nicole Roberts
Andy Yan
Jun Yan
Ellen Yu
Enrique Cadenas
Doug Ewing
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue resident
South Oak Knoll Avenue business owner
There are some important and sensitive communication and process issues related to advising and conducting the Public Hearing to consider and resolve. In our view, these contributed (poorly) to Hearing discussions and ultimately to a Commission decision that did not fairly engage the immediate neighborhood for the proposed development. Respectfully, please consider the following.

Physical Notifications and Errors for the Public Hearing We asked the Pasadena Planning Department (09 Oct 25) about signage posted on the lot to notify the public of the proposed building development and the Public Hearing that the signage stated a 3-story building.

NOTUlt11illlt'VGIYIHNa.ht.lpl
�•.<Ofl .. ..,,�,..,..16(i1*.W
,.�.,_. ... ,�,,.."f,il;
Mlft>.llltOaSCJflOUUOOfri-
1>-.: 1�0:1-1e.2'n
,,... um, ,._. C.,.,_Ct,.r,,.,_._,,11oc111•x• ,ro�c-1MM111,..�.r .. �t01 fH�ac,tw.,.w,u,.:n,� .-.:• NX"' � •lit - tMJ
The Pasadena Planning
Planning Department
changed the poster board
Department
subsequently
but failed to
correct or change the numerous 8.5" x 11"
paper notices that were placed on the
utility poles around the neighborhood. In
fact, one of our neighbors told us after the
hearing that he did not attend the Public
Hearing on 28 Oct 25, because once he
read the posted paper notice, he saw that
the building height had been reduced to 3-
stories. He was satisfied with this
adjustment.
13 I agree to be listed as a signatory on the appeal of the Pasadena Design Commission's approval of 511 S Oak
Knoll Ave development.
13 a
_I

1. t Jf- W\ l\,o�� � �-eJ��,�i

2. tAri-sl-r�e r
,-,,;'"

3.-----,'----,''-------l--"-------_;::J:__l)._�_-s_M-o_o� ____ _

4. � � Scnr4\� Di�!'le\�
-1.-=!--�L-r----'-::.....:...___c=--=�---8=---'0=r<=.:o(\_�_n----=--r�e_tt ____ _ s.-J.--�--=--------'-·K_e_11_,· .... _B r---=---o"'_I-"\ _____ _ :��

11. C3q;L
JJ4V 1'0 FAt�I�
Chd'.:l ?S°c!JfeC
119:fey £01, ccn<J' <
Cl-\f-\EL
l6._�--l:-l1=-�;----=---------..::..JL_:.:._..:...!.._..;_:__ ___ 4_z._1 _D_ 17 •. ...L-.f-=---r-----=-..Y....:..-.::----�=------------:.______:_..L_�---=--..t=-'e=----- fD I °D z._
13b

24. --------------------

25. --------------------

26. --------------------

27. --------------------

28.____________ ; ___ _

29.___________________ _

30.___________________ _

31.___________________ _

32.___________________ _

33.___________________ _

34.___________________ _

35._________c__ __________ _

36.___________________ _

37. ___________________ _

38.___________________ _

39. ___________________ _

40.___________________ _
f-/ Iv ()J lo 2,<
13c
I agree to be listed as a signatory on the appeal of the Pasadena Design Commission's approval of 511 South Oak
Knoll Ave. development. ,.,.. t::JJD u ..
�
. . 500 :>. OitK -
I. .f.����_____:;c___._ ______ _

2. J� -.-ea

6._ _4-+J,J.�'----'L-�ol----.A----l---'lc-"-----"+-------------- 7, __ --'---------'i_(.,¼'-'-ra.;...:._.\_&_, )1-----'--l C..;:__u _r J.,'----1-1----------- 8 .. ___________________ _
9 .. ___________________ _

10., ___________________ _

11.___________________ _

12.___________________ _

13.___________________ _

14.___________________ _

15.___________________ _

16.___________________ _

17.___________________ _

18.___________________ _
13d
I agree to be listed as a signatory on the appeal of the Pasadena Design Commission's approval of 511 South Oak
Knoll Ave. development.
3:i..7J-e/OS--5LtJ f,;)_..
. � � , �,Jc;!.,..,d kl f!ts;P,u-1
-:.61JtJ �5 (J(l::kk,,,01 I #�/7 818-t ;? 1-,;;.,? 7£
� 5 <{)�.,/,,/ �1k-:;rJ2- ,U-!t.4£/-2 77-<-J

4. ___________________ _
5 .. ___________________ _
6 .. ___________________ _

7.___________________ _

8. ___________________ _

9. ___________________ _
10 .. ___________________ _

11. ___________________ _

12. ___________________ _

13.___________________ _

14. ___________________ _
15 .. ___________________ _

16.___________________ _

17., ___________________ _

18.___________________ _
13e
I agree to be listed as a signatory on the appeal of the Pasadena Design Commission's approval of 511 Oak Knoll Development.
�IU--Y Enrique Cadenas
Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix C
Issues Related to Conditions of Approval of the Concept Design As the Appellant and in full recognition of our neighbors and other local residents, we are very concerned with many the Conditions of Approval of the Concept Design approved by the Commission at the conclusion to the Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25. Whereas it was briefly discussed that the Commission was really not on a clear position to move forward with and decision, pending numerous clarifications and more abundant discussion with the Applicant, a formal approval (with Conditions of Approval) was nonetheless granted. It is for this reason that we are now compelled to submit and Request for Appeal (together with a substantial fee) with the Pasadena Permit Center to stay or overturn the Commission's approval of the Applicant's Concept Design that our collective view is flawed and, in several cases, non­ compliant with the City's Codes and related guidelines.

As noted in the oral presentations, numerous letters and messages to the Commission, beginning in September 2024, we simply want our collective voices to be heard and duly recognized and considered in the building development and design approval process to achieve a more desirable outcome and a distinctive structure nestled into the mature South Oak Knoll neighborhood.

The following summarizes a critique of the published Conditions of Approval for the Concept Design as noted in the City's letter dated 29 Oct 25 to Burke Farrar of Odyssey Development Services. As of this writing, this letter has not been posted at any announced City website or sent to Oak Knoll neighborhood attendees at the Public Hearing.

Environmental Determination (page 1 of letter dated 29 Oct 25 to Burke Farrar "2. Found that approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality or cultural resources."
Appellant's Comment:

The Appellant as well as all referenced local residents and neighbors DO NOT agree with this statement. As abundantly noted in this letter (and attachments) and summarized on the enclosed Request for Appeal form (APP-RFA Rev 1/18/07), there are a considerable number of compliance issues currently represented on the Concept Design ...... many carried-over from the Preliminary Design submission in September 2024 and remain unattended and uncorrected. These matters need to be addressed and rectified for the design to achieve compliance with Pasadena Codes, Ordinances and Guidelines, etc.

As depicted in the Conceptual Design submission from the Applicant, it is very apparent the project will suffer from significant effects (impacts) relating to traffic, noise, light pollution and protected tree issues.
14 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

17 Tree Protection Plan
The Appellants would like (and expect) the same protection provisions for tree designed OPl on the Concept Design plans as provided under City Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance for the City street (and private) trees including the security deposit consistent with the mature Canyon Live Oak tree.

Appellant's Comment:

1. The Conditions of Approval for the Concept Design report did not require specific permanent landscaping to include protection of Canyon Live Oak tree 051. In fact, shows a "dog relief" area. This would undoubtedly require frequent washing down and add detrimental water and sanitary waste to the tree root system - especially during dry seasons.

2. The Applicant should revise a small portion of its landscaping design to provide assertive protection for Canyon Live Oak tree 051. This is a landmark tree on a designated landmark property and provides considerable distinction the adjoining properties. It is the first thing everyone notices when approaching the properties and should be well preserved and protected.

3. Concept Design drawings need to be corrected to show the Canyon Live Oak Tree OS1 in its correct position relative to the property line and the proposed building. • AG-1.0, A-0.5, A-2.6
• Additionally, the tree is missing from drawing AG-2.1 • Additionally, there may be a clash with landscaping proposed on drawing LP-1.0

14. Parking Permits
No permanent, on-street, overnight parking permits will be issued to future residents of this project.

Future tenants shall be advised by the property management regarding the unavailability of permanent, on-street, overnight parking permits.

Appellant's Comment:

Oak Knoll Avenue presently does not have restricted parking at night - how will this be implemented? What about daytime parking permits?

15. Building Interior Parking
The layout and required number of parking spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the Pasadena Planning Department.

Appellant's Comment:

How many parking spaces are needed?

18. Department of Public Works
Appellant's Comment:

No drilling or tiebacks or any subgrade anchors (temporary or permanent) may be placed in the Appellant's property. There are existing underground high voltage conduits present, among other utility systems.
15 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

22. Street Lighting
The existing street lighting fronting the subject site is substandard. In order to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, the Applicant shall replace/renovate one streetlight on Oak Knoll Avenue, per the City requirements and current standards. The renovation shall include but not limited to new LED light, conductors, lamp socket, fuse, photocell, and miscellaneous related parts per the public comment Lights to match existing historic lighting on street.

Appellant's Comment:

This point was discussed at the Public Hearing, and while it may seem minor, it is an important and distinctive feature of the neighborhood and to current residents also.

27. Tree Protection Zone for OS1 - Canyon Live Oak Tree Appellant's Comment:

City Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance applies to all private trees also.

32. Tree Protection Deposit for OS1 - Canyon Live Oak Tree Appellant's Comment:

A proper assessment of the replacement value of the landmark Canyon Live Oak tree 051 needs to be made and verified. Additionally, a credible risk evaluation and cost estimate is needed should the Canyon Live Oak topple (due to 511 construction activities of any kind) and damage the Appellant's property or the nearby Pasadena Water and Power High Voltage Substation. A damage liability deposit is deemed to be appropriate in this case in the same manner as called for under the City Ordinances.

39. Building Area Limits as required for OS1 Tree Protection Canyon Live Oak Tree Appellant's Comment:

As shown on the current Concept Design drawings, the building and its foundations will project well into the 051 tree canopy with shoring and scaffolding placement for construction, an additional 5-feet (or more) and will be needed and will further impact tree 051 roots and canopy.

The Applicant cannot encroach on the Tree Protection Zone (i.e. roots, canopy and drip line) for the Canyon Live Oak tree 051).
16 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated -07 Nov 2025

Appendix D
Comment Letters and Communications - Preliminary and Concept Designs Members of the community have been passionately commenting on this proposed development for over 12 months and since the Preliminary Design package was provided to the public expressly for this purpose.

With a single exception, and to extent that we are aware of, none of the submitted verbal and written comments have been addressed by the Applicant and assertively incorporated into the Concept Design submitted to the Commission. Meanwhile, the proposed development presents numerous significant systemic impacts to the S. Oak Knoll Avenue neighborhood.

Please refer to the letters and messages listed below, all from local residents, many of whom attended the Public Hearing in person or via a virtual meeting connection. Many of these points were also repeated voiced during public comment portion at the Public Hearing. As an example, the Concept Design Review (and the Design Commission Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25), found no significant affects relating to traffic, noise, and excessive light emissions, etc. In our collective opinion, these conclusions as well as additional words recorded in a letter dated 29 Oct 25 to the Applicant (citation below) are flawed for the many reasons, most of which form the basis for this Appeal to the Commission's decision. "2. Found that approval of the project will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, water quality or cultural resources." The following summarizes over 8 of the letters and 13 E-mail messages from local residents who considered both the Preliminary and Concept Designs for the proposed multi-family development in need of adjustments to better suit the community and fulfill the Pasadena Guidelines and Code requirements for multi-family developments. Attendees to the Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25 are shaded in green for reference. In additional to written communications. The Appellant and local residents have also attended informal meetings with the City Planning Division Staff and the Applicant.

Copies of the listed letters and communication are on record at the Commission and will not be attached here unless it was noted that there has been no apparent evidence of public circulation of the letter or communication in accordance with customary practice. Please refer to the Commission Staff Report dated 28 Oct 2025.
17 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Table D-1: Summary of Letters and Communications
Summary of formal letters, messages and other communications submitted to the Pasadena Design Commission related to the Preliminary and Concept Design for the proposed multi-family development at 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue. A matrix of the primary topics per communication is also listed for ease of reference. Persons who attended the Hearing on 28 Oct 25 are shaded in green Document Authors and Source Information Primary Topic per Communication Item Source Location Date Bldg Design / Shape Environmental Matters Street Related Bldg Herti Hgt Noise Light Tree Gard Traff Park Trash
A Letters - Formally Written
1 Brian Fulcher & Oak Knoll 23 Sep 24 • • • • • Amanda Elioff Resident 2 Nancy Goble Oak Knoll 23 Sep 24 Resident • • •
3 Brian Fulcher & Oak Knoll 28 Jul 25 • • • • • • • • • Amanda Elioff Resident 4 Brian Fulcher & Oak Knoll 06 Oct 25 • Amanda Elioff Resident 5 Amanda Elioff Oak Knoll 27 Oct 25 Resident • • • •
6 Amanda Elioff Oak Knoll 27 Oct 25 Resident • • • •
7 Brian Fulcher Oak Knoll 28 Oct 25 Fire Safety • • Resident 8 Sue Mossman Madison
Hei�hts 28 Oct 25 • • •
I
B E-Mail Messages and Calls
1 Buff Gontier Oak Knoll 21 Sep 24 Resident • • • •
2 Arthur Gontier Oak Knoll
Buff Gontier Resident 21 Sep 24 • • • •
3 Cybelle Sato Oak Knoll
Resident 21 Sep 24 • • • • • •
4 Ben Bock Oak Knoll 23 Sep 24 Resident • • • •
5 David Fairris Oak Knoll 23 Sep 24 Resident • • •
6 Chris Sayler Oak Knoll
Resident 23 Sep 24 • • •
7 Marwin and Oak Knoll
Nancy Goble Resident _Sep 24 • • • •
•••••••••••••••-••••-••m
8 Lisa Jacobs Oak Knoll
Resident 19 Oct 25 • School • • • • •
9 Nicole Roberts Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25 • School • Safety • • • •
10 Andy Yan Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25 • • • Safety •
11 David Fairris Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25 • • •
12 Chris Sayler Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25
13 Ben Brock Oak Knoll 06 Nov 25 • • • • • Resident
18 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix E
Documents Reviewed in Preparation for Request for Appeal for Pasadena Design Commission Decision to Approve the Concept Design with Conditions of Approval
Pre-Hearing Documents
The following documents were briefly reviewed in the limited time allowed since publication very late on 23 Oct 25 from the Planning & Community Development Department, Planning Division in preparation for the Public Hearing that occurred on 28 Oct 25 at the Pasadena City Hall.

1. City of Pasadena - Planning & Community Development Department • Pasadena Design Commission - Staff Report, dated 28 Oct 25 o Attachment A- Recommended Conditions for Approval
o Attachment B- Tree Inventory and Exhibit- Private Tree Removal Application o Attachment C - Current Plans and Elevations - Concept Design o Attachment D -Environmental Documentation
■ Air Quality and Global Climate Change Analysis Report ■ Noise Analysis Report
o Attachment E -505 S. Oak Knoll Avenue Residential Local Mobility Analysis Report o Attachment F -Dudek Tree Report - Review of Protected Tree Construction Impacts, 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, California
o Attachment G -Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines
• Pasadena Design Commission - Public Hearing Agenda, dated 28 Oct 25 • Pasadena Design Commission - Public Hearing Announcements, dated 23 Oct 25 19 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix F
Public Utility and Public Safety Considerations
While we would not normally feel a need to address Public Utility and Public Safety concerns, a complete lack of reference to these matters in the Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25 reinforces the need to address at least the following and to be assured the adjusted Concept Design accounts for the particular site conditions, risks, and hazards present. Please, therefore, consider the following remarks as sent to the Pasadena Design Commission prior to the Hearing (28 Oct 25) but were not heard at the Hearing.

1. Fire Safety Concerns
• We have seen one mention in the Pasadena Design Commission Staff Report that the Concept Design Review documents had been sent to the Pasadena Fire Department. No apparent feedback provided to the extent we are aware of to date.
• In light of the recent extensive and tragic fires in Altadena, we request that a comprehensive fire risk assessment be made on the building design and configuration. What comes to mind are the following, to be further augmented by fire safety professionals; o Potential fire related damage to adjacent properties
o Fire issues originating at adjacent properties
o Firefighting; personnel and equipment access from the street • The proposed development stretches to all four corners of the property with a nominal 5'-4" lot line clearance to perimeter walls, but is also the tallest, two stories higher than all adjacent properties and buildings. A fire risk assessment needs to take into account the difficulty in light of the proposed building geometry, length of lot and restrictive site condition (i.e. landscaping and overhead power lines) accessing a fire in a rear or elevated unit.

Reference Documents sourced on-fine at City of Pasadena Planning Department website • Planning & Community Development Department - Staff Report, dated 28 Oct 25, Page 9 under the heading, "Comments from Other Departments".

Four story apartment fire (while under construction) in Los Angeles at the Highway 101 and 110 junction. 20 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

2. Pasadena Department of Water and Power
• We did not see a mention in the Pasadena Design Commission Staff Report that the Concept Design Review documents had been sent to the Pasadena Department of Water and Power. They are the owner and operator of the high voltage electrical substation located on the south side of the proposed multi-family development.
• No apparent feedback provided to the extent we are aware of to date. • In light of the recent extensive and tragic fires in Altadena, with ignition allegedly related to an electrical power source, we request that a comprehensive risk and hazard material assessment be made on the building design and configuration. What comes to mind are the following o Public Safety provisions
o Fire protection (and fighting) issues originating in the substation o Collateral damage issues rom heat, chemical and possible explosions • The proposed development stretches to within 5'-4" of the property line of the electrical substation. At present, there is a only chain link fence separating the properties.

Reference Documents sourced on-line at City of Pasadena Planning Department website • Planning & Community Development Department - Staff Report, dated 28 Oct 25, Page 9 under the heading, "Comments from Other Departments".
large transformer fire (and explosion) examples. Picture on the right occurred in a Burbank neighborhood. 21 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix G
Building Design Optimization and Construction Cost Saving Suggestions During Public Hearing addressing the Applicant's Concept Design held at Pasadena City Hall on 28 Oct 25, there was an abundant discussion on the location of the mandatory garden areas required for the property development under the Pasadena's Residential Multi-Family District Garden Requirements (Zoning Code

17.22.080). This matter was also addressed in several prior letters to the Commission pointing out that there were considerable inconsistencies with the "City of Gardens" requirements and the State's "density bonus" goals. Additionally, the interior gardens could not readily be seen from the street which is one of the key City goals. See drawings A-0.4 and A-0.7.

The Appellant was not permitted to speak on this matter at the Hearing but within this letter, offers several alternate solutions to the placement of the gardens and the very positive results that come forward. These include, for example the following for more consideration. • Building space, mass and function optimization
• Improved property utilization, public viewing of the gardens • Improved public safety (firefighting), access and mobility • Capital cost reduction
• Construction schedule time reductions
• Building operating and maintenance costs reductions
It would appear that based on a very modest dialogue at the Hearing that the Commission is receptive to alternate garden locations/ configuration and this is clearly supported by the City's written Guidelines.

Overall, and in the Appellant's view, this would result in a far more attractive and merchantable development and would, quite frankly, solve so many of the pervasive issues raised by the local residents (after looking at the both the Preliminary and Concept Designs) and that are the core issues of this Appeal to the Commission.

Overall Adjusted Building Concept - Suggested Scopes
On the basis that some productive and commercially viable adjustments are made to the building and the property, many positive outcomes will emerge. Consider the following. • The current interior garden (per drawings A-0.4 and A-0.7) that illustrate the nearly fully obstructed view of the interior gardens from the sidewalk and street, even with the entry gate open, is relocated to a far more attractive location surrounding the building. • The north and south portions of the building mass are merged, using a central interior two-way corridor for access to the living units. Improved building and public safety too. • The exterior (double-wall construction) corridors are removed in favor of an attractively appointed interior two-way corridor. Additionally, the garden-facing exterior walls are transitions to interior wall construction.
22 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

The above adjustments result in considerably more publicly visible exterior space for elegant landscaping including the mandatory gardens and protected trees. It also provides for a more efficient massing of the building along with economies in all mechanical+ electrical+ plumbing systems, etc. See Table G-1 below.

Advantages Arising from Exterior Gardens
There are many clear and subtle advantages arising out of locating of the gardens to areas outside of the building footprint. While a more in-depth study will reveal these more fully in a building and property optimization study, the following appear to be the initial advantages from such an adjustment. All should be carefully assessed and evaluated.
• Better (more efficient) use of the property (lot);
o Gardens and area landscaping (developer's key investment) are far more visible, appreciated and passively integrated into the existing neighborhood plantings and foliage. o Saving protected tress already present on the property. o Integrating the landscaping plan with the elegant mature Canyon Live Oak Tree designed OSl, making the 60-foot tall tree a show piece in the overall landscaping plan. o No encroachment on the roots or canopy of the Canyon Live Oak Tree OSl. • Simplified subterranean structures
o Fewer columns and more unified pattern development
• Building simplicities, resulting in reductions in costs and manpower requirements o Improved personnel mobility and access within the building o Optimized and centralized HVAC and MEP systems
o Centralized fire/ life/ safety systems
Building Construction Quantity and Cost Reductions - Initial Summary Segueing from the bulleted comments above, the following are some initial construction quantities and capital cost reductions resulting from suggested building and property design adjustments.

Correspondingly there will be significant construction time savings too.

Table G-1: Initial Summary of Suggested Building and Property Design Adjustments Based an relocating the interior gardens to more attractive outside areas of the building, merging the north and south portions of the building and utilizing and central two -way interior corridor for access and eliminate the costly exterior enclosed corridors, the following reductions and additions will accrue. Preliminary only and needs more brainstorming and evaluations to fully consolidate and integrate into an adjusted building and property design to be more efficient and cost effective.

Item Description Adjustments and Outcomes {Initial Assessment only) Reductions in Scope, Quantities and $$ Additional Scope(s) and Advantages A Building
1 Exterior walls The north and south side exterior corridor walls would be eliminated
The north and south side exterior walls
facing the internal gardens would be
transition to interior wall construction only
23 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Table G-1: Initial Summary of Suggested Building and Property Design Adjustments Based on relocating the interior gardens to more attractive outside areas af the building, merging the north and south portions of the building and utilizing and central two -way interior corridor for access and eliminate the costly exterior enclosed corridors, the following reductions and additions will accrue. Preliminary only and needs more brainstorming and evaluations to fully consolidate and integrate into an adjusted building and property design to be more efficient and cost effective.

Item Description Adjustments and Outcomes {Initial Assessment only) Reductions in Scope, Quantities and $$ Additional Scope(s) and Advantages 2 Exterior windows Potentially fewer windows needing cleaning Living units would have exterior windows on following elimination of the enclosed the north and south sides; improving outside exterior corridors and windows views and overall building appearance, neighborhood harmony and buyer
attractiveness
3 MEP systems Reduction in electrical cable lengths
Reduction of plumbing runs and grades
Reduction in HVAC ducting runs
4 F/L/S Systems Simplified Fire /Life/ Safety __ �ystems Greatly improved access for firefighting
Greatly improved access in emergencies
5 Building Interior Additional merchantable space for living Spaces units. $$$ resulting from the reduction in
inefficient exterior enclosed corridors.

Better natural lighting conditions too.
6 Building High likelihood of reduction in building
Operations heating, cooling and lighting loads due to the elimination of the exterior enclosed
corridors
7 Building Simplified structure relocated to a "denser" Foundations building mass and structurally efficient
arrangement. Should result in a cost
reduction
B Property
1 Sunlight More sunlight to more living units
More sunlight exposure to landscaping
2 Views The northside building residents could
actually see the mountains from the upper
floors (and the annual Rose Parade flyover).

Presently there are no views of the
mountains.
3 Protected Trees Issues related to Pasadena protested trees should be substantially reduced or
eliminated entirely
3 Canyon Live Oak Fully integrated into an attractive exterior Harmonized and more fully integrated with Tree 051 landscaping plan along with other attractive the existing neighborhood plants and trees. planting Achieves the Pasadena Guideline
requirements
Given more time, the above initial listing could be expanded, refined and priced. It is very apparent that with the suggested building and property design changes, there will be significant construction time savings too, leading to an earlier completion and occupancy date. 24 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix H
Excess Light Issues Related to the Concept Design
The current building design as represented in the Concept Design is unique and untested from the point of view of exterior enclosed corridors together with windowless walls for the living units, if only to provide a defense against the substation noise on the southwest side (only) of the building. The "doubling" of the exterior walls on the north and south sides of the building seems to be a wasteful expense when other noise mitigation (attenuation) options are plainly available. The Appellants live in an historic (landmark house) next to the substation without a double exterior wall or double-paned windows.

As we understand it, the north and south side exterior
enclosed corridors need to be continuously lit 24/7 to
comply with existing fire/ life/ safety codes. This light will continuously shine through the corridors'
, windows onto the adjacent properties all day and all
night. Motion detecting switches will aggravate a
poor situation even more during the dark hours of the
day, with corridor lights switching on and off randomly as they detect movement. This is not Code compliant.

The exterior enclosed corridors will require additional energy to light, heat and cool in all seasons and
outside weather conditions. Building maintenance
will be more substantial too.

Hand sketch of the southwest facing portion of the
proposed building as would be seen daily in dark hours.

At a minimum exterior enclosed corridors need more study and mitigation, particularly at night.

Please refer the hand-drawn sketch of the proposed building as seen by all residents in view of the north and south sides of the building. This is commonly referred to "light pollution". '1Light pollution is excessive or misdirected artificial outdoor light that disrupts natural light patterns, impacting the environment and human health. It includes issues like sky glow, glare, and light trespass and is caused by sources such as streetlights, building lighting, and advertising.

Overcoming it requires responsible lighting practices, such as shielding lights, using timers and sensors, and choosing appropriate light colors'�
Another side note. The building living units themselves will actually be deprived of natural light by these exterior enclosed corridors. Meanwhile, the northside facing units could easily have mountain views. 25 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

References:

Pasadena Building Code, Section 17 .40.080 - Outdoor Lighting Exterior lighting on private property shall comply with the following requirements. Parking lot lighting shall comply with Section 17 .46.220 (Outdoor Parking Area Lighting).

A. Lighting shall be energy-efficient, and shielded
Lighting shall be energy-efficient, and shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are confined to the maximum extent feasible within the boundaries of the site, and shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. No lighting on private property shall produce an illumination level greater than one footcandle on any property within a residential zoning district except on the site of the light source.

B. No lights shall blink, flash, or be of high intensity or brightness No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

C. Lighting shall be appropriate in scale, intensity, and height All lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in scale, intensity, and height to the use they are serving.

D. Outdoor sports court lighting
Lighting for an outdoor sports court or field within 300 feet of a residential zoning district shall require Minor Conditional Use Permit approval
26 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix I
Protected (Landmark designated) Canyon Live Oak Tree and Issues Related to the Concept Design and lmpactful Encroachments Since our initial review the Preliminary Design package in September 2024, we have taken note of the proximity of the proposed multi-family development to the existing (+/-100-year-old and very healthy) Canyon Live Oak tree on our property located a mere 3 feet from the property line with the 511 S. Oak Knoll development.

This magnificent mature tree and our property (formerly Pasadena Fire Department Engine House 34) are considered City landmarks and as such deserve dedicated care and protection as generally described in the City Codes and Guidelines. There is no avoidance or sidestepping of these mandatory requirements.

Accordingly, we (Appellant) have written on three occasions and participated in two Public Hearings regarding the proposed development on the 511 property. In each instance, we have expressed our great concern that the tree will be impacted by encroachment on the roots, canopy and drip line that are fully understood and even recorded in the Applicant's Preliminary Design. Nonetheless and after writing the letters listed below, the Concept Design fails to fully recognize this grand tree and the City's Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance that is expressly written the safeguard "protected trees. 24 Sep 24 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA Proposed Multi-Family Development Comments on Design and Environmental Review Submittal for Project 28 Jul 25 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA Proposed Multi-Family Development Comments on Design and Environmental Review Submittal for Project 28 Oct 25 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA Proposed Multi-Family Development Notes and Comments to be Provided at the Public Hearing - 28 Oct 25 Protected Tree Preservation Construction Related Issues, Fire and Public Safety Concerns, Building Height
East Profile of the Proposed 511 S. Oak Knoll Development. Canyon Live Oak Ttree 051 is shown about 12 to 15 feet south of its true position. It actually crowds into (clash) the south building fm;ade by many feet since the trunk is actually located approximately 3 feet from the property line. 27 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

The landmark tree is so important that we (Appellant) have hired a professional arborist to advise on tree health and long-term preservation strategies and to be our experienced advocate when discussing the tree with the City. This 35" OHS x 60' x 60' (approximately) Canyon Live Oak is the dominant feature of our property and a modest and sculptured overhang into the 511 property adds considerable natural elegance to both properties. We would like to suggest that there are very few other properties that enjoy the appearance, shade and beauty of such a mature tree. All agree this is a magnificent healthy tree and one this is very characteristic of the immediate neighborhood.

This grand tree needs to be afforded all care and protection measures outlined in the Pasadena City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance and Tree Protection Guidelines and cannot be impacted by the proposed multi-family development or any construction related operations. <l
CJ
ltilliA ..

Plan View of the Canyon Live Oak Tree 0S1 Plan view of the Canyon Live Oak Tree 0S1 ..

Note the location and clash with the building fa<;ade Approx. drip line shown in red. Building foundation in blue The Appellants recognize some modification of the building foundation design to move away from the 0S1 tree roots, however this is not a compliant Tree Protection Plan and called for the City Ordinances.

Moreover, it does not address potential damage to tree branches (canopy) and a landscaping plan that embraces the location and health of the Canyon Live Oak Tree.

The City of Pasadena's Tree Protection Ordinance protects public and private trees, including landmark, native, and specimen trees, from damage during construction or development projects. The ordinance requires permits for removing or significantly trimming certain trees and mandates that construction projects have an approved Tree Protection Plan that includes establishing a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).

The TPZ is a radius of four feet around the tree's widest canopy extent, and the ordinance aims to prevent mechanical injury, soil compaction, and changes to the existing grade.

Landmark Tree Conservation and Preservation Concerns
The following are condensed bulleted remarks related to the landmark Canyon Live Oak tree located on the property at 541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue (a landmark property) and whose roots, canopy and drip line extend in all directions and into the vacant property at 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue. A "landmark tree" is generally described as following, pursuant to Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance. 28 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

"Landmark tree" means a tree designated as a landmark under Chapter 17.62 of this code as a tree of historic or cultural significance and of importance to the community due to any of the following factors: It is one of the largest or oldest trees of the species located in the city; it has historical significance due to an association with a historic building, site, street, person or event; or it is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood.

General Comments
• This is a protected "landmark" status mature tree
• Care and protection provisions protected "landmark" status mature tree fall under the formal Pasadena "Tree Protection Guidelines", part of Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance
• Several qualified and experienced arborists have made assessments of the tree's current size, health and general condition.
• This tree, including roots, trunk, canopy, drip line and the essential Tree Protection Zone, need to be correctly shown on many drawings and renderings related to the proposed multi-family development on the 511 property. To date, our observations of the Concept Design (as preceded by the Preliminary Design) include the following, o Incorrectly shown on some
o Missing on others
o Foundation and canopy have significant conflicts (clashes) with the proposed building superstructure.

Protected Tree
• A protected tree is generally described as following, pursuant to Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance.

Protected tree" means a native, specimen, landmark, landmark-eligible, mature (except for the trees in RS or RM-12 zones), or public tree.

Tree Protection Guidelines
• Tree protection Guidelines are referenced in Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, Article 8.52.032 - Tree Protection Guidelines.

Protective Fencing Defining the Mandatory Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) • The mandatory Tree Protection Zone is not currently shown on any documents reviewed to date. What is illustrated includes the following only on various, but not all drawings and sketches;
o Tree canopy perimeter with notation confirming the drip line plus 4 feet o Tree canopy drip line (canopy+ 4 feet radially from the tree trunk) • The Tree Protection Zone needs careful definition, location coordinates and barrier fencing installation per the Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines. • At this time, and based on the current Concept Design, it is very likely the designated Tree Protection Zone will interfere with the proposed building foundations (per the Concept Design) and in particular, the subgrade Support-of-Excavation system needed to install the subterranean portion of the building.
29 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

• Concept Design drawing A-1.1- Ground Floor Plan dated 19 Jun 24 (and 06 Aug 24) shows a layout of many trees including the canopy of Canyon Live Oak 051. o Tree Protection Fencing is in the wrong place since it is violation of Chapter 8.52 - City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance.
o Tree Protection Fencing is shown under the 051 tree canopy and, therefore, well inside the 051 tree drip line limits. It is also within the Root Protection Zone. Cannot be placed in this location. This drawing needs to be corrected, and the building fa�ade correspondingly adjusted to avoid tree 051 impacts.
• What is needed before the design proceeds further in this sector of the proposed structure, is a detailed Support-of-Excavation system design and more particularly, a dimensional layout plan that fully respects and embraces the Tree Protection Zone and associated barrier fencing.

The Support-of-Excavation layout has not been discfosed by the Applicant to date.

Building Foundation Construction - Tree Root Conflicts
• The proposed multi-family building development will require a subterranean parking level, say about 14' below grade.
• To accomplish this, construction of a Support-of-Excavation (SOE) wall will be placed "outside" of the design lines of the building foundation wall yet remain inside the legal property lines. • It is uncertain whether the numerous tree assessment reports and root exposure inspections were performed in locations for the following;
o Building foundation walls, or
o Expanded Support-of-Excavation location that in this case, further encroaches on the subject Canyon Live Oak tree location and its roots
• This matter is crucial for the mandatory successful care and protection of the landmark tree. • Additionally, and owing to the adjacent surface (heavy oak tree) loading and proposed SOE configuration, very careful attention needs to be paid to; o Deflections
o Surface settlement
o Ground and moisture loss
o Tree stability and its lean
Building Superstructure Construction - Tree Canopy Conflicts • The East Side rendering (Concept Design drawing AG-1.0) incorrectly shows the location the landmark Canyon Live Oak tree. It is actually located approximately 3 feet from the property line and considerably encroaches on the building superstructure (as currently drawn). • Based on several Concept Design drawings and renderings posted to the Pasadena Planning website, a portion of the canopy (as drawn) conflicts with the building's superstructure (by several feet) and perhaps on several floors.
o Significant conflicts (clashes) would emerge during construction operations o Additionally, exterior scaffolding would be in conflict with the space o Material handling needs for building construction would be highly compromised. • Several referenced documents mention that the landmark Canyon Live Oak tree could be "pruned" (under a professional arborist supervision) to suit the multi-story building configuration. This approach appears to be in conflict with the following goals and guidelines 30 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

and may result in a "one side shaved tree canopy" if only to suit the building superstructure encroachment.
o Development landscaping plan (preliminary)
o Pasadena "City of Gardens" goals (as further optimized) o Attachment G: Tree Protection Guidelines
• In the Appellant's view, no selective pruning should be permitted on the canopy of the landmark Canyon Live Oak tree OS1.
o Creates unbalance loads and may quickly look "unnatural" if only to accommodate the encroaching exterior building wall location.
o Fails to embrace several of the primary and very attainable objectives of the Pasadena landscaping critical guidelines.

Reference Documents sourced on-line at City of Pasadena Planning Department website • Planning & Community Development Department - Staff Reports, dated 28 Oct 25 o Attachment B: Tree Inventory and Exhibit, Private Tree Removal Application o Attachment F: Dudek Tree Report, dated 27 Aug 25
o Attachment G: Tree Protection Guidelines [Chapter 8.52 -City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance, Article 8.52.032 - Tree Protection Guidelines] Reference Documents sourced on-line at City of Pasadena Planning Department website • Planning & Community Development Department - Staff Report, dated 28 Oct 25, Attachment C, "Current Plans and Elevations".
31 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix J
Noise Study Issues Related to the Concept Design
Several issues related to noise emanating from the proposed building are considered significant and at present, are unaccounted for in the Concept Design. The building design as presently represented could in-fact exasperate noise related issues and should, therefore, reconsider exterior surfaces and material selections as appropriate based on the following, for example. • Reflective noise from the Pasadena Water and Power (PWP) transformers and substation yard located immediately south of the proposed building
• Building generated noise, say from mechanical and other systems and equipment While we note that the Commission's Staff Report under the heading, "Environmental Analysis" (page 10) states the following;
"Based on the documentation prepared, which is included in Attachment D, this project would not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to noise, or air quality'� please consider the above noise issues needing correction, substantial abatement or elimination before the design progresses forward since in fact, they do present significant impacts to the environment and the community.

City of Pasadena General Plan
The Noise Element of the City's General Plan (revised in December 2002) incorporates noise standards for various land uses, which are based on the California Office of Planning and Research's (OPR) Noise Element Guidelines. Table 3, City of Pasadena Noise Compatibility Guidelines, presents the City's noise guidelines for land use planning.

City of Pasadena Municipal Code
Project operations will be subject to City ordinances. Chapter 9.36, Noise Restrictions (Noise Ordinance), of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) establishes exterior noise standards by land use and the maximum duration of time that the noise standards may be exceeded without being considered a nuisance punishable by law. As such, the City's Noise Ordinance prohibits any "unnecessary, excessive, or annoying noises" in the City. The Noise Ordinance does not control traffic noise but applies to all noise sources located on private property.

According to Section 9.36.050 of the PMC, the City generally limits intrusive noises from exceeding the ambient level at the property line by more than 5 dB, with adjustments made for steady audible tones, impulsive noise, and noise emitted for limited durations. The ambient noise is the actual measured noise level. In addition, Section 9.36.060 sets the interior noise limit for multi-family residential uses to 60 dB during 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and SO dB during 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. 32 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Eco Tierra Consulting - Noise Report to the City of Pasadena, dated October 2025 This report was commissioned by the City to address, measure and mitigate potential noise impacts resulting from the presence on the proposed building.

Section 4 -Summary of Impacts
B. Operational Noise Impacts
The proposed project would not result in a perceptible increase in noise due to the increase of project related traffic on roadways in the project vicinity. As the project-related increase in traffic noise would not exceed 5 dBA, the project would not contribute to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Impacts are considered less than significant.

On-site noise sources (HVAC and parking lot noise) associated with the proposed project will not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels at closest receptor locations. Impacts related to project operational noise would be less than significant.

In the Appellant's view, several of these generalized conclusions are unsupported by the data as well the means for measurement to obtain noise and vibration data. Additionally, this reports states in Section 3 - Project Description, that the construction " .... and take approximately 6 months to complete .... ". This is considered far less {say, 24 to 30 months) than a practical construction duration.

Please consider the following comment based on the statement and data written in the referenced report..

Noise Studies and Reports
Within the City's Environmental Report, the EcoTierra Consulting Noise Report {aka the "Noise Report"), only three ambient noise measurements were made for a 15-minute duration at mid-day as stated in the report. Surprisingly, the "Noise Report" concluded that NO mitigations were needed. This conclusion is puzzling and completely unsupported with easily measured data obtained at different times of the day as needed to more thoroughly record ambient noise levels at the 511 S. Oak Knoll property in particular at night.

Building Generated Noise(s)
The City's Noise Report did not address nighttime noise or specifically consider the effects of 46 roof­ mounted HVAC units operating simultaneously: As stated in Public Comments (and written comments) to the Pasadena Planning Department before the Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25, no nighttime operational noise{s) were formally addressed on the noise study, therefore, no baseline noise levels were established.

This is clearly an oversight and needs to be reviewed again and corrected with additional data in accordance with Pasadena Municipal Code {PMC) Section 9.36.050.

Please reference Part II - Noise Fundamental, Section 1 - Noise Descriptions in the referenced report. " ..... to the sound levels at these times because during the evening and nighttime hours, when compared to daytime hours, there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason, the sound is perceived to be louder in the evening and nighttime hours and is weighted accordingly ..... " 33 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Please note that nighttime ambient noise at the proposed building site is typically about 40 dB (about 20 dB less) than daytime and noise from 46 HVAC units (depending on unit noise rating and the type of roof­ top enclosure) is considered significant and should have been clearly and analytically addressed in the "Noise Report". If for some unexplained reason, the baseline nighttime ambient noise level is considered 60 dB this represents approximately 100 times increase in the true ambient nighttime noise level (sound intensity).

Meanwhile, we note the following from Part VI. Noise and Vibration Impact Analyses, Section 3 - Operational Noise in the City's Noise Report.

8. Stationary Noise Sources
As part of the Project, HVAC units are anticipated to installed for the proposed use. A typical HVAC unit operates at a noise level of 66 dBA Leq at 3 feet from the source. The HVAC units will be placed on the flat roof of the building and shielded from the neighboring uses the parapet that would be tall enough to completely block the HVAC units from view. The closest receptor would be located at least 20 feet from the closest HVAC unit. The noise generated from operation of the HVAC units would be less than 50 dBA at the closest receptor. As the existing noise levels in the project vicinity exceed 60 dBA (see Table 4), the HVAC would not exceed the ambient noise level.

The conclusion in the above citation is erroneous. Actual nighttime ambient noise levels at the property are approximately 40 dB. The roof top HVAC units operating noise exceeds this level.

Building Reflective Noise Issues
We are concerned that the proposed 4 stories of vertical building walls will reflect and amplify noise originating from the PWP substation to the adjacent properties surrounding the existing substation. After reading the latest report (MD Acoustics, LLC - listed below) and some further discussions with others with expertise in this field, we request the City require the following • An additional and more comprehensive acoustical analyses by an experienced noise and vibration specialist to study the impact of the building height next to the substation • Building exterior surfacing materials (i.e. noise reflectivity and attenuation characteristics The report should study the impacts on existing residents for daytime and nighttime, and weekends considering current ambient conditions (day and night), and what mitigations are needed to minimize and/or eliminate these impacts. While the MD Acoustics report appears to provide a noise and vibration study related to reflection of substation noise, it falls short on many other critical requirements and measurements to assess contributing noise impacts on neighboring properties and residents directly resulting from the proposed building development.

Moreover, the conclusions of the MD Acoustics report state that presence of the proposed 4-story building located basically on the property line between the proposed building development and the PWP transformer yard will have no net effect on the noise level measured at surrounding buildings. This is very surprising - especially in light of the detailed graphic elements (i.e. yellow and light green shaded noise and vibration distribution levels) included in the report (see next page) that illustrate denser and redistributed noise levels (generally southward) from the proposed 4-story building development. 34 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Exhibit A
Sound PLAN Model Output: Existinit Condition
Utc»ltl_O� KNl'I N04t Wefflo
...,...uw .. eon.to.n
........
< <IS
45 SO
so ss
55 60
to GS
65 and ..,.mbols
l"""' !ilbl<!, dB.A
Sulldints
Elristir-e\\'itll
Powtir Subst:atlon
Ex.hibit B
SoundPLAN Model Output: Future Proposed Condition
t3,0151D_O111l ICtooh NNu Mi,"'°
�L.-IC-ofMDun
,,,opnMCt
< 45
�s so 50 S!l
SS 60
60 65
eulld1n,-l
E.xi�tlf\e\Yall
65 PoV1i·er Svb,t,i(ion
Point Aecet-.•�,s
35 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Final Comments on Engineering Studies and Associated Reports Since the City's Noise Report is considered a formal engineering work product, it needs to be stamped by a California registered Professional Engineer with experience and credentials for the work described. This is customary to assert authentication and reliance. Specialist consultants are fully aware of this requirement and the City should directly insist on it to be assured of professional Standard of Care, coverage and reliability.

Reference Documents sourced on-line at City of Pasadena Planning Department website • Planning & Community Development Department - Staff Report, dated 28 Oct 25, o Page 10 under the heading, "Environmental Analysis"
o Attachment D, "Environmental Documentation"
Additional Reference Documents:
505-511 South Oak Knoll Avenue Residential Project Noise Analysis Prepared By: Katie Wilson, M.S. EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. 633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
Dated October 2025
MD Acoustics, LLC,
510 S. Oak Knoll Avenue - Noise Evaluation/Survey, Review Memo and Substation Noise, City of Pasadena
Dated 01 July 2025
36 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue,
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 07 Nov 2025

Appendix K
Traffic Study Issues Related to the Concept Design
The City's Environmental study related to local traffic did acknowledge and estimate another 209 car trips that would be generated by the proposed new development. The report, however, did not include additional trips that now exist and will continue to increase due to the new class-room buildings at McKinley School (K to 8) located at 325 S. Oak Knoll, on the same city block as the proposed multi-family building development. Informal estimates indicates that another 300 students, plus an additional unknown number of teaching and school operations staff are present now and require vehicle transportation to and from the school (i.e. two times per school day) and parking areas.

To our knowledge, none of the additional school generating traffic was included and needs to be in order for the Traffic Analysis and Report to be complete and credible. Parents typically drop kids off in the morning and collect them in mid-afternoon as seen in the images below. Mass congestion on South Oak Knoll that needs to be properly and correctly accounted for in a comprehensive adjusted Vehicle Traffic and Residential Local Mobility Report.

McKinley School traffic at 3:00 PM daily Parents, teachers and staff exiting the school Reference Documents sourced on-line at City of Pasadena Planning Department website • Planning & Community Development Department - Staff Report, dated 28 Oct 2S, Attachment D - Environmental Documentation.
o lteris, Inc. - 505 S. Oak Knoll Avenue - Residential Local Mobility Analysis Dated 28 Mar 25
37 Table D-1 from November 7, 2025 Appeal, revised to include additional correspondence Table D-1: Summary of Letters and Communications
Summary of formal letters, message s and other communications submitted to the Pasadena Design Commission related t o the Preliminary and Concept Design for the proposed multi-family development at 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue. A matrix of the primary topics per communication is also listed for ease of reference. Persons who attended the Hearing on 28 Oct 25 are shaded in green Document Authors and Source Information Primary Topic per Communication Item Source Location Date Bldg Design / Shape Environmental Matters Street Related Bldg Herti Hgt Noise Light Tree Gard Traff Park Trash
A Letters – Formally Written
1 Brian Fulcher &
Amanda Elioff
Oak Knoll
Resident
15 Sep
24(A) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
2 Brian Fulcher &
Amanda Elioff
Oak Knoll
Resident 23 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
3 Brian Fulcher &
Amanda Elioff
Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Jul 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
4 Brian Fulcher &
Amanda Elioff
Oak Knoll
Resident 06 Oct 25 ⚫
5 Amanda Elioff Oak Knoll
Resident 27 Oct 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Amanda Elioff Oak Knoll
Resident 27 Oct 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
6 Brian Fulcher &
Elioff
Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25 Fire Safety ⚫ ⚫
7 Sue Mossman Madison
Heights 28 Oct 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
B E-Mail Messages and Calls
1 Buff Gontier Oak Knoll
Resident 21 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
2 Arthur Gontier
Buff Gontier (B)
Oak Knoll
Resident 21 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
3 Cybelle Sato Oak Knoll
Resident 21 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
4 Ben Bock Oak Knoll
Resident 23 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
5 David Fairris Oak Knoll
Resident 23 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
6 Chris Sayler(B) Oak Knoll
Resident 23 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
7 Marwin and
Nancy Goble
Oak Knoll
Resident __ Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
8 Lisa Jacobs Oak Knoll
Resident 19 Oct 25 ⚫ School ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
9 Nicole Roberts Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25 ⚫ School ⚫ Safety ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
10 Andy Yan Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ Safety ⚫
11 David Fairris Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
12 Chris Sayler Oak Knoll
Resident 28 Oct 25
13 Ben Brock Oak Knoll
Resident 06 Nov 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
(A) Added - Was not included in 07 Nov Appeal letter table (B) (B) Not included (not found or duplicate)
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.1
A.2
A.2
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
A.3
Attachment AA.3
A.3
A.3
Pasadena Planning Department
Re Proposed 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue Development

Photos of Historic 541 South Oak Knoll (views from Northeast and from East} Pasadena Planning Department
Re Proposed 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue Development

Figure 1 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA
Proposed Development Site Plan with Comments
nN J\ 110 )I )IV
·.1.:1 00'91:�
INCLUDED IN LETTER A.1
Attachment BA.3
A.4
A.4
A.4Typo - 6 October 2025
A.46 October 2025
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.4
A.5
A.5
A.6A.7 IS THE ATTACHMENT
A.6
A.6
A.7
A.7
A.7
A.7
A.7
A.8
B.1
B.3
Cybelle Sato
Specialist- Series I Production Technology and Operations -etter version of us around every comer if we are authentic, empathetic and trustworthy" My working day may not be your working day. Please do not feel obligated to respond outside of your normal working hours. 2 B.4
B.5
The electric substation behind the house across the street (Amanda Elioff and Brian Fulcher's home, which is a historic fire station, an important part of Pasadena's history, and a source of great fondness to the neighborhood and local firefighters) emits a hum that we fear may be far more pronounced given the height of the proposed development. We would welcome a study of this issue, and well in advance of any sort of groundbreaking activity.

Given that this development will be more than the currently-existing 42 units south of the school playground, we are deeply concerned about the impact this will have on street parking. At present, we often have parking issues during the day with workers and visitors, and overnight, with unlimited public parking. We request an impact study of parking on our block as a result of the new development, with the possibility of implementing permit-only parking, and a consideration of other ways to mitigate parking congestion. We feel that 2 parking spaces per unit in the development should be required given the reality of Southern CA car ownership.

Traffic, too, will be an issue. For example, at present, when school starts and ends, traffic congestion on our street can be intense, and especially at the intersections with both California and Del Mar. School safety also needs to be addressed given the proposed massive increase of residents with the proposed development. Please note that we do not favor a traffic light at California and S. Oak Knoll. A traffic light, to our way of thinking, would simply bring more traffic to the street, as people divert from the already congested traffic streets of El Molino and other blocks to the west.

Neither of us will be able to attend the Design Commission meeting on September 24. We hope the above comments will be taken into consideration despite our absence. We hope to attend future meetings of the Design Commission and Planning Department, at which we will make these important matters known in person.

Thanks for your consideration. Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Dave
David Fairris
Professor Emeritus of Economics
Department of Economics
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
https://profiles.ucr.edu/app/home/profile/dfairris
B.7
setbacks from the lot lines will have a significant negative impact on the neighborhood in general, but especially the existing buildings adjacent to the south, west and north boundaries of the proposed structure. Any changes that can be incorporated to reduce or minimize these negative impacts should be incorporated before this project is approved.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Nancy and Marwin Goble
2 B.8
• Our new neighbors will find their units noisy with so many HVAC units on the roof.

Please consider sending this project back to the drawing board.

We're a friendly bunch here on Oak Knoll Avenue and we want our neighbors to be happy and to stay for a long time. I fear with this design, the building will become a revolving door of dissatisfied tenants. 2 B.9
B.10
periods - such as school pick-up and drop-off times or weekend soccer matches - traffic congestion and parking shortages will almost certainly worsen, creating significant inconvenience for both residents and parents in the area.

2. Perception of Safety
At present, the block of 501 S. Oak Knoll Ave is a safe and family-oriented community, especially in the evenings and on weekends. The addition of a large apartment complex will inevitably increase both traffic volume and foot traffic from non-residents, which could alter the sense of security and tranquility that current residents enjoy. If committee members were in our position, I believe they would share these same reservations about such changes to our neighborhood character.

3. Noise
We are also concerned about the inevitable rise in ambient noise once the new 60-unit building is completed and fully occupied. I would appreciate it if the committee could share whether there are any plans or mitigation measures in place to help preserve the current level of quietness and residential comfort for existing neighbors.

4. Potential Impact on 501 Property Value
Several specific factors could negatively affect the property value and quality of life for residents at 501 S. Oak Knoll:
a. Privacy:

The planned four-story structure will tower over surrounding buildings. Residents on the upper floors of 511 will have direct lines of sight into our back porch, living rooms, bedrooms, and bathrooms - severely compromising privacy. b. Noise, Traffic, and Parking:

As mentioned above, the combined effect of increased population density and vehicles will exacerbate existing challenges.
c. Sunlight and Airflow:

A four-story building constructed just five feet from our property line will undoubtedly block natural sunlight and airflow to our rear units.
d. Safety and Emergency Access:

From a safety perspective, a five-foot separation seems inadequate in the event of a fire or earthquake. Our building already has limited egress - a passage of about ten feet between our front stairway and the wall bordering the soccer field. In an emergency, residents must be able to evacuate from both sides. We therefore strongly urge that the setback between 501 and 511 be increased to at least ten feet to ensure safe access for residents and emergency vehicles. It is difficult to imagine how fire trucks could reach Units 7-10 once the new construction and the soccer field enclosure are complete.

5. Respecting Mutual Rights and Neighborhood Character
While we recognize the developer's right to build on the 511 property, the existing residents surrounding the site also have legitimate rights - to preserve their property value, privacy, peaceful living environment, and safety.

We would welcome a smaller-scale development, such as single-family homes or townhouses, which would integrate more harmoniously with the character and density of the existing neighborhood. 2 I would be grateful for the committee's time, attention, and dedication to maintaining the balance between responsible development and neighborhood livability. I sincerely hope that our concerns will be taken into thoughtful consideration before the project's final approval.

Jun (Andy) Yan
On Monday, October 27, 2025 at 06:46:16 PM PDT,
Anything I can do to encourage you? An email to the city would show interest.

Amanda
Not really.

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 26, 2025, at 4:48 PM,
Andy Are you thinking of commenting on the 511 development? Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 14, 2025, at 1:18 PM, andy yan
NP.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Sunday, September 14, 2025, 1:17 PM, Amanda
wrote:
wrote:

Thanks I think I read the j as an I I will try again later this afternoon Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 14, 2025, at 1 :07 PM, andy yan
Hi Amanda.

Jun (Andy) Yan
3 B 11 and 12
B 11 and 12
B.13
Pasadena, CA
Brian Fulcher and Amanda Elioff
541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue
Pasadena CA 91101
213.422.4987
06 Mar 26
Pasadena Planning and Community Development
Department Design and Historic Preservation
175 Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101
Attention: Kevin Johnson and Stephanie Cisneros
Subject: 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA
Case DHP2024-00261; Proposed Multi-Family Development
Composite Protected Tree Requirements for the Building and Property Design Protected Tree Preservation and Construction Related Issues Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Cisnaros,
As Appellants, we would like to summarize our understandings of the Pasadena Department of Public Works Protected Tree requirements for the design and construction of the proposed multi-family, multi- story development at 511 S. Oak Knoll. This correspondence as well as all tables, attachments, drawings, sketches and images are expected to be incorporated in the City’s Staff Reports and be readily available to the Pasadena City Council for the Public Hearing scheduled for 23 Mar 26 at the Pasadena City Hall.

While much of the following has been used in part in various communications and meetings since September 2024, as Appellants would like to state the following as the goal s for this letter related to a Pasadena Protected Canyon Live Oak tree located at 541 S . Oak Knoll Avenue (541 protected tree) and located six feet (to tree trunk centerline) from the property line with the proposed “511” development. • That the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinances (TPO) (and related informational and guidance documents) are fully understood by the Applicant and other parties engaged in the development. • The references and requirements to the TPO are visibly and reliability used within the Applicant’s adjusted Concept Design for the proposed 511 S. Oak Knoll development related to Pasadena Protected (Native, Landmark and Spe cimen) Tree requirements. No exceptions and no compromises since at this p oint in time, it appears the building design significantly invades the designated Tree Protection Zone abundantly described in the TPO. • Ensure protection of the 541 Native Tree is provided in the same manner as for City Trees.

1. Summary of Current Issues
We believe the current building design and physical layout need more attention and adjustment to eliminate apparent impacts to the Protected Native Canyon Live Oak tree located on the 541 property with its canopy overlying a portion of the 511 property. The issues that need immediate attention in a revised Concept Design include the following.
• Establishment of a definitive Tree Protection Zone and assign designated protection fence location. Adjust the relevant Concept Design drawings to suit. The current Concept Design is not compliant with the TPO.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

• Adjust the current building design (foundation and superstructure) to properly accommodate the designated Tree Protection Zone.
• Fully addres s in an adjusted Concept Design, all related construction operation s that may impact the designated Tree Protection Zone. Consider the following, for example. • Consider an integrated 511 landscaping plan that respects and embraces the Protected Native Canyon Live Oak tree

2. Goals of the Appellants
In preparing for the City Council Public Hearing for the proposed 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue multi-family development, and after reviews of a significant number of reports posted with the Design Commission Concept Hearing announcement, we have several notes and comments that in our view, need to be formally recorded since they will not likely fit into the brief speaker time allowance at the next Public Hearing. Therefore, ple ase consider and record the following related to the Protected Canyon Live Oak tree at 541 S. Oak Knoll.
• Protect the Pasadena designated “Native Trees” as defined in the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance and related Guidelines including;
o Establish and securely fence a correct Tree Protection Zone, per PMC Chapter 6.52 o Protect the root (bulb)
o Protect the canopy
• Maintain uncompromising stability & health of the tree; during construction and afterwards. • Recognize the risks to tree roots and canopy during construction operations and that these should be fully recognized in the design development phase starting with the Preliminary Design and continuing efficiently through the Concept Design to the Final Design stage. Key elements for tree protection include, but are not limited to the following. o Foundation footprint as well as excavation means and methods o Root moisture retention and tree stability
o Support-of-Excavation (SOE) design location, rigidity and deflections o Canopy and drip line and Tree Protection Zone interferences

3. Concerns – Summary Based on the Concept Design Submitted to the City • Building and foundation design to date has not correctly accommodated the presence of a mature Protected Canyon Live Oak Tree overlying a portion of the 511 property. • Fundamental design issues relate to the actual location of the tree; its roots, trunk and canopy as well as provisions for the mandatory Tree Protection zone. o The East Elevation rendering shown in Figure 1 has the 541 Protected tree in the wrong location by approximately 10 to 11 feet It is in fact more than 10 feet further north towards the 511 property, e.g. only 6 feet (to the tree centerline) from the property line with a portion the canopy overlying an additional 25 feet onto the 511 property) o The proposed multi-family building as shown in Figure 1 (as well as on all other design plan views) is placed too far south on the 511 property and , therefore, significantly interferes with th e Protected Tree. Severe ro ot and can opy interference issues are addressed in more detail below.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Figure 1: East Profile (Concept Design Drawings AG-1.0, A-0.5 & A-2.6) of Proposed 511 S. Oak Knoll Development Canyon Live Oak Tree OS1 is shown about 12 to 15 feet south of its true position. It actually crowds into (clash) the south building façade by many feet since the trunk centerline is actually located approximately 6 feet from the property line. • Preliminary and Concept Design drawin gs are incorrect; some data, images, renderings have significant errors related to the location and protection provisions for the Protected Canyon Live Oak tree. These will be addressed below with tables and illustrations. • Building foundations and superstructure substantially clash (interfere) with the location of the tree roots and canopy and the mandatory Tree Protection Zone. This issue will grow even more acute during building foundations and superstructure construction operations. • Mandatory tree protection safeguards have not yet been sufficiently and reliably built into the Concept D esign and in the Appellant ’s view, need to be address ed in a ccordance with the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinances (PMC Chapter 8.52) with a modified Concept Design.

4. Building Design Changes Appellants are Seeking Related to the Protected Tree While abiding by the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance and Guidelines, the Apellants are seeking the following, consistent with good building (and foundation) design and surrounding landscape planning.
• Sufficient building cut-out (or set-back) to adequately accommodate and protect the Canyon Live Oak tree, including all roots and canopy in accordance with City T ree Protection Ordinances. No compromises.
• Landscape plan for 511 that recognizes and embraces the grandeur and prominence of the Canyon Live Oak tree while protecting its health and longevity. • Seamless integration of the 511 landscape design with neighboring properties (per Pasadena Planning Guidelines).

The Appellants note that the desired changes would be beneficial to future residents at 511 and the neighborhood.

5. Canyon Live Oak Tree Located at 541 S. Oak Knoll and Partially Overlying 511 S. Oak Knoll A general description and illustration of the Canyon Live Oak tree includes the following for reference and to connect this information with the P asadena Tree Protection Ordinance and the Applicant’s Concept Design. Please reference Figure 2.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

• Tree Location (541 and 511 S. Oak Knoll)
o Located on the north side of the Landmark property at 541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue o Trunk (centerline) is approximately six feet (72 inches to the centerline trunk ) from the north property line with 511 S. Oak Knoll (please refer to images and sketches). o Canopy extends approximately 30 feet north and overlays the 511 property by approximately 25 feet.

Figure 2: Ground Floor Plan (Concept Design Drawing A- 1.1) of Proposed 511 S. Oak Knoll Development Canyon Live Oak Tree OP-1 is shown correctly at about 6 feet (tree centerline) from the property line . Tree Protection (and Root Protection) Zone illustrated [green dashed line] and the general outline of the overhanging canopy [or ange line]. This view highlights the clash with the south building façade by several feet. An even greater clash exists with the foundation walls and Support-of-Excavation installation. The Tree Protection Fencing (magenta dashed) line is incorrect. • Tree Dimensions and Lean
o Diameter 36” DBH (drawing A-0.9 - Tree Plan and Inventory, of the Concept Design states 25”).
[Note this is Native tree is well over the 8” diameter described in the Native and Protected Tree requirements]
o Height overall 60 to 70 feet (estimated top of canopy) and is considerably taller than and adjacent Engine House 34 hose drying tower.
o Width 60 feet (estimated canopy width) and variable
o Lean Slightly to the south (sun side) towards 541 S. Oak Knoll single family Landmark residence and the Pasadena Water and Power Department electrical substation.
• Tree Condition
o Excellent; green, leafy and robust. Please reference Figures 3a and 3b. o Very productive with acorns and popular with many squirrels o Inspected regularly by a licensed local Professional Arborist

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Figures 3a & 3b: 541 S. Oak Knoll – North Side Yard Adjacent to the 511 Property Canyon Live Oak tree OS1 is shown about 6 feet south of the property line with 511 S. Oak Knoll . The lush and healthy canopy extends over the 511 property by approximately 25 feet.

6. Tree Description and Protection Status
Pursuant the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinances, the 541 Protected tree may be described as follows with appropriate Ordinance and/or publications reference noted. • Canyon Live Oak (Quercus Chrysolepis) and more than 8’ DBH o TPO_1 13 Native Trees Protected by the City Trees and Tress Protection Ordinance – May 2002 Amendment
• Designated Native Tree in Pasadena
o TPO_3 Protected Species List – for the City of Pasadena [including Native – Protected Trees)
• Protected Tree under Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance and Guidelines o S-642 Standard Plan S-642, “Tree Protection Standard” o TPO_2 Pasadena Tree Ordinance – Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 – City o TPO_5 Sample tree Inventory and Tre Protection Plan
o TPO_7 Tree Protection Plans and Tree Protection Guidelines • “Landmark Tree” located on a Pasadena City Landmark Property, [formerly Pasadena Fire Department Engin e House 34 , built in 1917 ], i.e. historically significant or among the oldest/largest of their species, designated for historic significance, age, or size; protected in all zones. This Native tree is eligible to have “Landmark Tree” distinction. • “Specimen Tree”. Inasmuch as the Native Canyon Live Oak tree located on the 541 S. Oak Knoll property is “Native” and “Protected” under the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance, it may well also qualify as a ”Specimen Tree” which as we understand it, is legally defined by the City Council as “a tree of a specific size and species that possesses distinctive form, size, or age ”.

These trees are considered outstanding examples of their species and are also protected under the city's Tree Protection Ordinance.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

In that this tree is considered “Native“ to Pasadena and, therefore “protected” it requires Ordinance specified protection during all phases of construction. It is essential th at mandatory tree protection measures and adjacent building designs are addressed and accommodated properly and early in the design development stage to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Please refer to Figures 4a and 4b that were obtained from the City of Pasadena, Department of Public Works.

Figure 4a & 4b: Tree Inventory and Protection Plan, City of Pasadena, Department of Public Works Standard tree inventory and Tree Protection Plan showing the key tree protection requirement s and in particular, those applied to “Native – Protected Trees” under the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 8.52.

7. Protected Tree Conservation and Preservation Requirements The following are key considerations and requirements related to the 541 Protected Canyon Live Oak tree and whose roots and canopy extend in all directions and into the vacant property at 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue.

7.1 General Comments
• This is a native, protected and “landmark” eligible status mature tree • Care and protection provisions fall under the formal Pasadena “Tree Protection Guidelines” enclosed in Appendix A
• Several qualified and experienced arborists have made assessments of the tree’s current size, health and general condition.
o All agree this is a magnificent tree and one this is very characteristic of the immediate neighborhood.
o It, therefore, needs to be afforded all care and protection measures outlined in the Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines and cannot be impacted by the proposed multi- family development or any construction related operations. • This tree, including roots, trunk, canopy and the essential Tree Protection Zone, need to be correctly shown on many of the Applicant ’s Concept Drawings and renderings. They are currently;
o Incorrect on some drawings.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

o Missing on other drawings.
o Proposed building f oundation and superstructure have significant conflicts (clashes and interferences) with tree roots and canopy.

7.2 Protective Fencing Defining the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) • The mandatory Tree Protection Zone Fencing is not currently shown correctly on any documents reviewed to date. Please refer to Figure 5 that illustrates the TPO requirements.

What is illustrated in Figure 5 is generally shown only on one drawing. Other drawings omit the Tree Protection Zone as well as the following critically important features. o Tree canopy perimeter
o Tree canopy drip line (canopy + 4 feet radially from the tree trunk) • The Tree Protection Zone (same as Root Protection Zone) needs careful definition, location coordinates and robust barrier fencing installation per the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance. Please se Figure 6a, 6b and 6c.
• At this time, it is very likely the proposed building foundations will substantially interfere with the designated Tree Protection Zone and particular, the Support-of-Excavation (SOE) system needed for the subterranean portion of the development. o The Support-of-Excavation system design and more particularly, a dimensional layout plan, have not been disclosed to date in the Concept Design submission.

Figure 5: Tree Protection Standard, City of Pasadena, Department of Public Works Standard Plan S-642 dated 24 Aug 2018 showing the key tree protection requirement s and in particular, those applied to “Native – Protected Trees” under the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance, PMC Chapter 8.52.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Within the Tree Protection Zone per Pasadena Standard Drawing S-642

1. No materials storage, trash or equipment operation shall occur inside the protected zone.

2. The established protected zone extends underground and “the sky”. Any encroachment is prohibited.

3. Tree protection is applia ble during the construction, repair, alterati on, relocation or removal on any building, structure or accessory structure in the City.

4. A Public Work permit is required for the installation of public tree protection chain link fencing. Please contact 626-744-4195 doe permit requirements and fees.

Figure 6a, 6b & 6c: Mandatory Tree Protection Plan and Canopy Images Tree Protection Zone per TPO criteria and dimensions (left image), stylized (architectural) tree canopy (center image) and probable actual tree canopy perimeter (right image) as illustrated in the Concept Design.

7.3 Building Foundation Construction – Tree Root Conflicts • The proposed multi -family building development will require a subterranean parking level, say about 14’ below grade.
• To accomplish this construction , a Support -of-Excavation (SOE) wall will be placed “outside” of the design lines of the building foundation wall yet remain inside the property lines. Please refer to Figures 7a and 7b as well as 8a and 8b for the foundation walls. • It is uncertain whether the numerous tree assessment report s and roo t exposure inspections were performed in locations for the following; o Building foundation walls, or
o Expanded Support-of-Excavation location that in this case , further encroaches on the subject 541 Protected Oak tree location and roots • This matter is crucial for mandatory successful care and protection of the Protected tree. • Additionally, and owing to the adjacent surface (very heavy oak tree) loading and proposed SOE configuration, very careful attention needs to be paid to; o Deflections
o Surface settlement
o Ground loss

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Figure 7a &7b: Mandatory Tree Protection Plan and Support of Excavation Interferences Tree Protection Zone per TPO showing considerable interference from Support-of-Excavation for building foundation (left image ) and placement on SOE element (right image) due to the over -size of the planned subterranean level. Assume pipe and lagging for SOE (typical). No additional space reservation(s) shown for SOE equipment and materials.

Figure 8a & 8b: Mandatory Tree Protection Plan and Foundation Wall Interferences Tree Protection Zone per TPO showing considerable interference from subterranean foundation walls (left image) And actual wall location (right image) due to the over -size of the planned subterranean level. Assum e cast-in- place concrete foundation walls. No additional space reservation(s) shown for SOE equipment and materials.

7.4 Building Superstructure Construction – Tree Canopy Conflicts • The East Side render ing (drawing AG-1.0) incorrectly shows the location the landmark Canyon Live Oak tree. See Figure 1. It is actually located approximately 6 feet (tree trunk centerline) from the property line and considerably encroaches on the proposed building superstructure (as drawn).
• Based on several drawings and renderings provided with both the Preliminary and Concept Design submittals, a portion of the canopy (as drawn) conflicts with the building’s superstructure (by several feet) and perhaps on several floors. o Conflicts (clashes) would emerge during construction operations o Exterior access scaffolding would be in further conflict with the space o Material handling needs would be highly compromised.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

• Several referenced documents mention that the 541 Protected tree could be “pruned” (under a professional arborist supervision) to suit the multi -story building configuration.

This approach appears to be in conflict with the following goal s and guidelines and may result in a “one-sided shaved tree canopy” if only to suit the building superstructure and construction shoring and scaffolding. Please refer to Figures 9a and 9b. o Development landscaping plan (preliminary)
o Pasadena “City of Gardens” goals
o Attachment G: Tree Protection Guidelines
• In the Appellant’s view, no selective pruning should be permitted on the canopy of the 541 Protected Oak tree.
o Creates unbalance d loads and m ay quickly look “unnatural” if only to accommodate the exterior building wall location.
o Future owners of the proposed development will undoubtedly want to further prune the branches that currently clash with proposed building. o Fails to embrace several of the primary objectives of the Pasadena landscaping guidelines.

Figure 9a & 9b: Mandatory Tree Protection Plan and Building Superstructure Wall Interferences Tree Protection Zone per TPO showing considerable interference from building superstructure walls (left image) and access scaffolding (right image) needed for exterior finishing due to the over-size of the building

8. Concept Design – Drawing Review and Critique Related to the Protected Tree

8.1 Conceptual Design Drawings
The data and comments listed in Table 1 summarize attendance (e.g. illustrations and inclusions) to the location, dimension s and protection requirements under the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance for the 541 Protected Canyon Live Oak tree with a canopy overlaying a portion of the neighboring 511 S. Oak Knoll property. This process is sometimes referred to as a “design scrub” intended to check for occasional errors, omissions and inconsistencies, as well as to optimize the developing work product more efficiently. In the case of the 511 Concept design, many revisions are needed.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Table 1: Summary of Protected Tree Issues on the Concept Design Drawings Summary of issues, discrepancies, errors and omissions as illustrated in the Applicant’s Concept Design drawing submission related to the mandatory requirements for Protected Trees stipulated in the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance Chapter 8.52 as well as other related and compulsory compliance documents.

Item Drawing Data and Description Apparent Protected
Tree Issue Seen
Apparent Consequences
Design Stage Construction Stage
Title Number Date Rev Pos’n / Ht Omited Base SS TPZ Fen Exc Fdn SS A Concept Design
Cover Sheet AG-1.0 17 Feb 25 N/A Incorrect Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major Site Plan A-0.1 14 Feb 25 N/A Correct Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Design Evol’n A-0.4 13 Feb 25 N/A Correct Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Design Evol’n A-0.5 13 Feb 25 N/A Incorrect Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Design Evol’n A-0.6 13 Feb 25 N/A Incorrect Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Design Evol’n A-0.7 13 Feb 25 N/A Incorrect Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Tree Plan/Inv A-0.9 13 Feb 25 N/A Correct DBH wrong Major Major Not shown Major Major Major P-1 Flr Plan A-1.0 18 Sep 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Grd Flr Plan A-1.1 14 Feb 25 N/A Correct Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major 2nd Flr Plan A-1.2 07 Feb 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major 3rd Flr Plan A-1.3 07 Feb 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major 4th Flr Plan A-1.4 07 Feb 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major Roof Plan A-1.5 14 Feb 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major Grd Flr Plan A-1.1 (1 of 3) 14 Feb 25 N/A Correct Major Major Incorrect Not shown Not shown Major Grd Flr Plan A-1.1 (2 of 3) Unknown N/A Correct Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major Ext’r Elev’ns A-2.1 14 Feb 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major Ext’r Sect’n A-2.4 14 Feb 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Ext’r Sect’n A-2.5 14 Feb 25 N/A Yes Major Major Not shown Major Major Major Ext’r Elev’ns A-2.6 12 Feb 25 N/A Incorrect Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major Ext’r Elev’ns A-2.9 12 Feb 25 N/A Incorrect Major Major Not shown Major Major Major 3D Views A-3.0 17 Feb 25 N/A Incorrect Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major B Topographical
Topo Survey Unknown N/A Correct DBH wrong Not shown Not shown Not shown Not shown Not shown Not shown C Landscaping
1 Planting Plan LP-1.0 N/A o Yes Major Major Not shown Not shown Not shown Major General Notes:

A Acronyms and Abbreviations
1 Pos/
Ht
Protected Canyon Live oak tree
position or approx. height
2 TPO Tree Protection Ordinance, PMC
Chapter 8.52
3 Base Subterranean basement / garage
design and dimensioning
4 SS Building superstructure design and
construction
5 TPZ
Fen
Tree Protective Fencing
(TPO Chapter 8.52 and S-642)
6 Exc Excavation of the basement / parking
7 Fdn Building foundation wall construction
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Many of the Concept Design drawings listed above illustrate practical issues related to the location and/or height and/or width of the protected tree canopy and need correction (s) along with building modification to comply with the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance. All issues are noted and color coordinated in the table. Please also consider the following comments in reference to Figure 10.

Figure 10: Ground Floor Plan (Concept Design Drawing A- 1.1) of Proposed 511 S. Oak Knoll Development Canyon Live Oak Tree OP-1 is shown correctly at about 6 feet (tree centerline) from the property line . Tree Protection (and Root Protection) Zone illustrated [green dashed line]. The Tree Protective Fencing, however, [magenta dashed line] is not in accordance with the requirements of the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO). • Drawing A-1.1 – Ground Floor Plan (with Arborist Tree Inventory Overlay) Shows the locations of “Native” and “Protected” trees as well as other details related to tree inventory and condition survey. Issues with this drawing include:
o Canopy of Protected Tree (Canyon Live Oak - OP-1) clearly shows an impact with the Superstructure in the proposed building.
▪ The extended Tree Protection Zone per PMC 8.52 (for roots and canopy) further exasperates the extent of the impact.
▪ The drawing does not show construction related impact s to be experienced in foundation and superstructure construction that further invade the designated Tree Protection Zone.
o Location of the “Tree Protective Fencing” as drawn is incorrect and completely erroneous. See Figure 10.
▪ Fence is NOT in compliance with the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance (PMC Chapter 8.52) and other related documents.
▪ Leads to a flawed foundation layout and building superstructure design (dimensioning) resulting in severe intrusion into the designated Tree Protection Zone and tree damage.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

• Drawing A-0.9 – Tree Plan and Inventory
o Shows (Canyon Live Oak - OS-1) protected tree as having approximately 24” diameter. This tree is approximately 36” diameter (DBH). • Topographical Survey (Southand Civil Engineering and Survey, LLP) o Shows (Canyon Live Oak - OP-1) protected tree as having approximately 24” diameter. This tree is approximately 36” diameter (DBH).

8.2 Conceptual Design – City Planning Department Staff Report – 28 Oct 25 Drawings Immediately prior to the Pasadena Design Commission Public Hearing of the Applicant’s Conceptual Design, on 28 Oct 25 the Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department (Planning Division) issued a letter (with attachments).

Report date 28 Oct 25
Regarding Application for Concept Design Review (DHP2024-00261) New Four -Story, 56,019 Square -Foot, 46 -Unit Residential Project with One Level for Subterranean Parking
Programming and Circulation
The project proposes one building in a U-shape to be generally sited at the north, south and west perimeters of the site and around a central main garden and ancillary gardens. The building will maintain five-foot, three-inch setbacks at the north, south and west sides of the lot and a 22-foot, six-inch setback at the east side (front). At the southeast corner of the project site, the building is proposed to have a 15-foot wide by 64-foot-deep setback from the south and east property lines to provide relief to the adjacent protected Canyon Live Oak tree on the adjacent property. This carve-out spans the entire height of the project at this location and at the parking level as well. A 21-foot-wide driveway is proposed at the north side of the site to provide access to the subterranean parking level.

Figure 11: Historical Adequacy Encroachment Plane – Concept Design Drawing A-2.1 One of the mandatory reasons for the superstructure set-back along the building south side and adjacent to the Landmark designated Engine House 34 (541 S. Oak Knoll) is the requirement for an Historical Adequacy Encroachment Plane as shown in red lines. This is not directly related to Native Tree Protection requirements.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Appellant’s Special Note:

The Design Reports provided to the Pasadena Design Commission would lead one to believe that the 15 -foot building set-back from the south 511 property line is to satisfy Native Tree protection requirements. We note that the 15 -foot set -back (Figure 11) was more likely established to comply with the Historic Adequacy Encroachment Plane (per PMC 17.40.160) and not tree protection requirements in accordance with the TPO (PMC Chapter 8.52). This is also supported by the layout of the subterranean foundation walls further to the south.

Protected Tree Removal
The proposed landscape design is appropriate and complementary to the architectural style and will create visual interest throughout the year as demonstrated by the plant palette. The design, selection and placement of plant materials are cohesive and consistent throughout all landscape areas. It should also be noted that in addition to new trees to be planted, two existing public street trees, and a Canyon Live Oak at the adjacent property to the south, with root structure extending onto the subject property, will be retained. The tree and its relationship to the proposed project was evaluated by three consulting arborists – one hired by the applicant, one hired by the adjacent property owner, and one hired by the City. All three arborists visited the project site and the Canyon Live Oak and inspected the tree’s root system to understand how the project may or may not impact it. Based on assessme nt and recommendations by the City’s consulting arborist (see Attachment F), the applicant has modified the parking plan to relocate parking space no. 48 so that trenching can be extended another eight to nine feet to the west and occur approximately 17 feet from the trunk of the tree. This change has already been addressed and is reflected in the drawings in Attachment C. The standard tree protection requirements by the City are also required to be met to ensure preservation and protection of the tree and are included as recommended condition no. 4 along with additional condition nos. 5 through 7 as recommended by the City’ s consulting arborist.

Appellants’ Special Note:

The Appellants note that the mandatory Tree Protection Zone has not been adjusted correctly.

Also, the current landscaping design drawings submitted with the Concept D esign package do not address the 541 Protected Oak tree.

Dudek Tree Report – Dated 27 Aug 25 (Attachment F)
Included with the Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department (Planning Division) Staff Report dated 28 Oct 25 , several supplementary reports were attached for reference. One such report described an on-site tree and exposed root inspection by Ryan Allen from Dudek.

Attachment A, Representative Site Photographs, depicts the trenching and grading impacts that are expected to occur for development of 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue. Photographs 5 and 6 depict trenching impacts that are expected to occur at the edge of the tr ee’s dripline. This will impact approximately 10 roots that are 1 to 2 inches in diameter. Photographs 7 and 8 Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

depict trenching impacts that will occur within 7 to 8 feet from the tree trunk that will require pruning approximately four roots that are 2 to 3 inches in diameter.

Additionally, site development will require pruning the tree crown to allow construction equipment to operate without damaging the oak tree. This includes selectively pruning portions of the tree crown to create space for the equipment to operate. Finally, the site plans indicate that a decomposed granite walkway will be installed underneath the dripline of the protected oak tree.

Root Impacts: Trenching and grading impacts will occur at two distinct locations near the protected oak tree. First is the linear grading that will occur along the north side of the tree’s dripline (Photographs 5 and 6). Root pruning will impact approximately 7% to 10% of the tree protection zone and will occur approximately 18 feet from the tree trunk, or 6 times the trunk diameter. This combination of factors would have a minimal impact on tree health. In addition, the roots that are identified for pruning are not larger structural roots. As such, pruning these roots will not impact tree stability.

Second is the root pruning that will occur on the north and west sides of the tree , approximately 7 feet from the tree trunk, or 2.5 times the trunk diameter. Four roots were identified that measure 2 to 3 inches and will impact approximately 5% to 7% of the tree protection zone. Pruning these roots will not have an impact on tree stability, but will present an impact to the tree’s health based on the size and proximity to the tree trunk. The site plans indicate that trenching is needed to accommodate underground parking.

Tree Pruning: The north portion of the tree’s crown will need to be selectively pruned to accommodate construction equipment during site development. It is anticipated that this could result in the removal of 10% to 20% of the tree’s canopy . This is an acceptable level of crown reduction within a growing season. Pruning work should be approved under the following conditions:

Tree Preservation: Tree protection measures should be implemented prior to site development to improve soil conditions and promote the health of the tree. Such measures include the following: - -
• Install a protective chain-link fence at the edge of the proposed trenching impacts with a sign that clearly indicates that it is a tree protection zone and that no equipment, debris, liquids, or other materials shall be placed within the fenced area. • Apply a 2- to 3-inch layer of mulch over the soil within the fenced tree protection zone to reduce soil compaction and increase soil health.

4. Disclaimer Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways not fully understood. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. There are no guarantees that a tree’s condition will not change over a short or extended period due to weather or cultural or environmental conditions. Trees can be managed but not controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk.

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Appellants’ Special Note:

It is very important to note that when reading the Dudek report and enclosed graphics that; • There was no close dimensional relationship confirmed between the Concept Design drawings and field conditions during the site visit.
`
• That construction equipment sizes and h eights needed for the work , while generally discussed, were not confirm ed and especially considering the extent for possible intrusion(s) into the mandatory Tree Protection Zone for building foundations, excavation and superstructure construction operations.
• The marked-up drawing enclosed in th e Dudek report is a “stylized plan view” of the Canyon Live Oak tree which does NOT represent the actual tree (canopy) dimensions.

This image originated from Concept Design drawing A-1.1 and is not the actual drip line or outline of the mandatory Tree Protection Zone for tree OP-1 (OS-1). • The Dudek Report does not represent or grant a formal waiver from the mandatory provisions in the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance, per PMC Chapter 8.52 Figures 12a & 12b: 511 S. Oak Knoll – Canyon Live Oak Tree Canyon Live Oak tree OS-1 on the 511 S . Oak Knoll property looking (left image) and looking at the upper canopy (right image). [Source, Dudek Report 27Aug 25]

8.3 Concept Design – City Planning Department Staff Recommendations – 29 Oct 25 Following the Pasadena Design Commission Public Hearing of the Applicant’s Conceptual Design on 28 Oct 25 the Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department (Planning Division) issued a letter (with attachments).

Letter date 29 Oct 25
Regarding Notice of Decision
Concept Design Review – New 46 Unit Multi-Family Residential Development 511 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No. DHP2024-00261

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

The following summarizes the portions of the City’s letter that re late to protecting the Native Canyon Live Oak tree located in the adjacent 541 S Oak Knoll property with a canopy overlying a portion of the 511 property.

Attachment A: Conditions of Approval
522 South Oak Knoll Avenue – Concept Design Review
Design and Historical Preservation

4. A tree protection plan prepared by a Certified Arborist shall be incorporated into the plans submitted for Final Design Review and shall include the City of Pasadena Tree Protection Guidelines dated 5/13/19 (see Attachment G). The tree, which shall be prot ected, is tree number OP1 as shown in the ground floor plan included in Attachment B.

Department of Public Works

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

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

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

The final conditions of the Tree Protection Plan shall be approved by the Forestry Superintendent. A non -refundable flat fee, per the current General Fee Schedule, will be required for staff time to review the Tree Protection Ordinance compliance.

30. Prior to any construction, tree protections including the installation of fencing to protect public trees must be in place. The fencing material shall be chain -link attached to posts inserted into the ground at the edge of the dripline and shall be a minim um of 6’ in height.

See Standard Plan S-642 – Tree Protection Chain Link Fencing. Fencing shall maintain visual lines of sight in order to avoid vehicle and pedestrian hazards. Fencing shall include a minimum 8.5” x 11” warning sign with the following info rmation: ‘Tree Protection Zone’; name and contact information of project owner or authorized representative; ‘Please contact the City of Pasadena Citizen Service Center to report any concerns (626) 744 7311’. All protective fencing must be permitted, inspe cted and approved by Public Works prior to the commencement of any construction.

31. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall submit a valuation assessment report of the existing public tree(s) along the boundary of their project. The report shall be prepared by a registered Arborist and submitted to PNR for review and approval. If it is determined that the applicant has failed to care for any City tree within their Tree Protection Plan, and Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

9. Risk Analysis – Tree Protection, and Health Summary (preliminary) Table 2 summarizes a preliminary assessment of the risks and threats t o the 541 Protected Oak tree located at 541 S. Oak Knoll.

Table 2: Preliminary Risk and Threat Analysis and Summary Preliminary assessment of the possible and probable risks and threats to the Protected Canyon Live Oak tree on the 541 property due to current design issues and anticipated construction operations on the 511 property. Total Score of 20 and higher highlighted.

Item Subject and Description Severity Score Frequency Score Total Score Comments / Mitigations 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
A Tree Stability
1 Severed roots ⚫ ⚫ 20 Need to respect the defined TPZ
2 Unbalanced canopy ⚫ ⚫ 20 Minimal pruning only
3 Wind loading ⚫ ⚫ 4 Santa Ana winds from north
4 SOE weakness ⚫ ⚫ 8 SOE needs careful, robust design
5 SOE rupture ⚫ ⚫ 4 SOE needs careful, robust design
6 Loss of moisture ⚫ ⚫ 9 Measured moisture controls
B Moisture Issues
1 Declining health ⚫ ⚫ 8 Over watering (bad)
2 Structural weakness ⚫ ⚫ 6 Root pruning
3 Vulnerability to failure ⚫ ⚫ 6 High winds and seismic event C Building Collisions (clash)
1 Foundation walls ⚫ ⚫ 25 Need to move fdn walls north
2 Superstructure walls ⚫ ⚫ 25 Need to move bldg. walls north 3 Superstructure balconies ⚫ ⚫ 20 Need to move bldg. walls north D Construction Interferences
1 Initial site grading ⚫ ⚫ 2 Potential damage to canopy 2 Foundation SOE (support) ⚫ ⚫ 20 Pot’l damage to roots & canopy 3 Foundation excavation oper’ns ⚫ ⚫ 12 Pot’l damage to roots & canopy 4 Foundation wall construction ⚫ ⚫ 12 Pot’l damage to roots & canopy 5 Superstructure walls ⚫ ⚫ 16 Pot’l damage to roots & canopy 6 Superstructure ext’r finishes ⚫ ⚫ 25 Conflicts with access scaffolding E Final Landscaping Design
1 Planting integration ⚫ ⚫ 4 Over watering potential
2 Long-term tree protection ⚫ ⚫ 4 Over watering potential 3 Moisture controls ⚫ ⚫ 9 Over watering potential
4 Chemicals and pollutants ⚫ ⚫ 20 Wash down pet relief area F Health and Safety (tree)
1 Construction chemicals ⚫ ⚫ 12 Storage and use of chemicals 2 Fire ⚫ ⚫ 5
3 Combustible materials ⚫ ⚫ 10 Required proper storage
4 Soil compression & density ⚫ ⚫ 6 No operating / stored equipment 5 Soil moisture control ⚫ ⚫ 12 Dust control & SOE containment 6 Wind loading and tolerance ⚫ ⚫ 8 Compromised root capacity Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

10. Conclusions
We believe the current Concept Building Design and physical layout need more attention to mitigating objectionable and correctable issues, concerns and measurable impacts to the Protected Native Canyon Live Oak tree located on the 541 property with its canopy and roots overlying a portion of the 511 property.

The issues that need immediate attention (and adjustments) in a revised Concept Design include the following as more fully described above.
• Establishment of a definitive Tree Protection Zone and assign designated fence location .

Adjust the relevant Concept Design drawing to suit.
o The Tree Protection Zone is incorrectly shown on many Concept Design drawings. o The Protected Native Canyon Li ve Oak t ree is incorrectly shown on several key Concept Design drawings, leading to flawed approach(es) to design and construction. • Adjust the current building design (e.g. foundation and superstructure) as we ll as the corresponding shoring and scaffolding requirements to properly accommodate the designated Tree Protection Zone.
• Fully addres s in an adjusted Concept Design, all related construction operation s that may impact the designated Tree Protection Zone including;
o Foundation ground support
o Foundation excavation
o Superstructure construction
o Superstructure exterior finish installation (access and scaffolding space requirements) o Other miscellaneous work (i.e. utilities) that may impact the Tree Protection Zone • Consider an integrated 511 landscaping and maintenance plan that respects and embraces the 541 Protected Native Canyon Live Oak tree.

The proposed building height size and configuration (massing), while being the subject of numerous letters and other communications, remains considerably taller than all surrounding buildings, cutting- off natural light and unreasonably dominating the area if only to take advantage of the State’s “density bonus concession”. The enormous building footprint as illustrated in the Concept Design drawings also confounds and conflicts with a Protected Native Canyon Live Oak tree. It is , therefore, strongly recommended that a modified Concept Design address the 541 Protected Tree while concurrently addressing other impacts and be more harmonious in the immediate neighborhood.

We hope that the City will take into account our concerns as the building design is more fully developed and refined resulting in a well-designed and engineered development that minimizes (and eliminates) correctable impacts and nestles into the mature South Oak Knoll Avenue neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Brian Fulcher and Amanda Elioff (Appellants)
541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Attachments:

Appendix A – Glossary of Terms and Definitions
Appendix B – Letters from Appellants Related to Protection of the Landmark Native Protected Canyon LiveOak Tree Located at 541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue
Appendix C – Reference Documents
Appendix D - Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinances and Related Documents Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Appendix A
Glossary of Terms and Definitions
• Basal flair or root crown
o Tree trunk where it emerges from the root system and flairs out to create the base of the tree.
• Canopy
o Area of a tree that consists primarily of branches and leaves. • City Trees
o Trees in the parkway are managed by the city; homeowners cannot remove or heavily prune them.
• Construction Restrictions
o No excavation, storage, or traffic is permitted within the TPZ. • Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)
o The standard, specialized method for measuring the diameter of a tree’s trunk, taken at 4.5 feet (1.37 meters) above the ground.
o This measurement helps determine tree volume, biomass, and health, and it is usually taken on the uphill side of a tree to ensure accuracy on slopes • Dripline
o Means the outermost area of the tree canopy (leafy area of tree). • Fencing for Tree Protection
o 6-foot high, in-ground chain-link fencing is required around the TPZ • Pruning
o Only permitted for hazard reduction, with cuts authorized by a qualified arborist, avoiding "flush cuts".
• Root Protection
o Trenching near trees requires specialized techniques, with roots hand-excavated, not cut, to avoid damaging the tree.
• Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO)
o Pasadena Municipal Code, Chapter 8.52
• Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
o Area within a circle with a radius equal to the greatest distance from the trunk to any overhanging foliage in the tree canopy plus four (4) radial feet. • Tree Replacement Value/Cost
o Value or cost of the injured or removed tree determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA").

Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Appendix B
Letters from Appellants Related to Care and Protection of the Landmark Native Protected Canyon LiveOak Tree Located at 541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue The Appellants have on several occasions recorded their observations and concerns and offered a few solutions to both the Preliminary and Concept Designs. Just the same, t here has been no apparent willingness to change the building (and foundation) design in a manner that would b e totally responsive to Pasadena Tree Protection‘s mandatory Tree Protection Ordonnance (TPO) requirements. Pleas e consider the communications listed below in Table B-1.
15 Sep 24 Preliminary Design Review Comments
Comments on Preliminary Design and Environmental Review Submittal for Project 23 Sep 24 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA Proposed Multi-Family Development Comments on Preliminary Design and Environmental Review Submittal for Project 28 Jul 25 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA Proposed Multi-Family Development Comments on Design and Environmental Review Submittal for Project 28 Oct 25 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA Proposed Multi-Family Development Notes and Comments to be Provided at the Public Hearing – 28 Oct 25 Protected Tree Preservation Construction Related Issues, Fire and Public Safety Concerns, Building Height
07 Nov 25 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA Proposed Multi-Family Development Request for Appeal of 28 Oct 2025 Design Commission Decision of the Concept Design Table B-1: Summary of Documents and Meetings – Protected Canyon Live Oak Tree Summary of key correspondences, meetings and discussions related to the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance as they apply to the Protected Canyon Live Oak tree located on the 541 S. Oak Knoll property and overlying and portion of the 511 S. Oak Knoll property.

Item Document or Meeting
Description and Function Date
Reference
Document
Design
Portion
Construction Operations,
Equipment, Staging and
Temporary Works, etc.

Peripheral Issues and
Concerns Related to
Tree Protection
TPO PD CD Base SS Fenc SOE Exc Fdn SS Fire Risk Safe Adm A Written Correspondence
1 Letter from Appellants
Preliminary Design Review
Comments
15 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
2 Letter from Appellants
Preliminary Design Review
Comments
23 Sep 24 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
3 Letter from Appellants
Preliminary Design Review
Comments
28 Jul 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
4 Letter from Appellants
Public Hearing with the Pasadena
Design Commission
28 Oct 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
5 Appeal Letter 07 Nov 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Table B-1: Summary of Documents and Meetings – Protected Canyon Live Oak Tree Summary of key correspondences, meetings and discussions related to the Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinance as they apply to the Protected Canyon Live Oak tree located on the 541 S. Oak Knoll property and overlying and portion of the 511 S. Oak Knoll property.

Item Document or Meeting
Description and Function Date
Reference
Document
Design
Portion
Construction Operations,
Equipment, Staging and
Temporary Works, etc.

Peripheral Issues and
Concerns Related to
Tree Protection
TPO PD CD Base SS Fenc SOE Exc Fdn SS Fire Risk Safe Adm Request for Appeal of 28 Oct
2025 Pasadena Design
Commission Decision of the
Concept Design
6 Letter from Appellants
Preliminary Design Review
Comments
06 Mar 26 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
B In-Person Meetings
1 Public Hearing
City Planning and Design
Commission (at City Hall)
28 Oct 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
2 Joint Meeting
City and Appellant at Pasadena
Planning Office
12 Nov 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
3 Joint Meeting
Applicant and Appellant at 541 S.

Oak Knoll Residence
20 Nov 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
4 Joint Meeting
City, Applicant and Appellant at
Pasadena Planning Office
18 Dec 25 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
5 Joint Meeting
City and Appellant at Pasadena
Planning Office
17 Feb 26 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
General Notes:

A Acronyms and Abbreviations
1 TPO Tree Protection Ordinance, Ch 8.52
2 PD Preliminary Design by Applicant
3 CD Concept Design by Applicant
4 Base Subterranean basement / garage
5 SS Building superstructure above ground
6 Fenc Tree Protective Fencing (TPO Ch 8.52)
7 SOE Support-of-Excavation for basement
8 Exc Excavation of the basement
9 Fdn Building foundation wall construction
10 Fire Incendiary fire (risks)
11 Fdn Risks from design and construction
12 Safe Risks to Public Safety
13 Adm Administration and City processes
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Appendix C
Reference Documents
• Pasadena Planning Staff Report dated 28 Oct 25
o Prepared for the Pasadena Design Commission and Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25 • Applicant Concept Design Submission
o Reviewed at the Pasadena Design Commission Public Hearing on 28 Oct 25 Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros
Date – 06 Mar 26

Appendix D
Pasadena Tree Protection Ordinances and Related Documents • TPO_1 13 Native Trees Protected by the City Trees and Tress Protection Ordinance – May 2002 Amendment
• TPO_2 Pasadena Tree Ordinance – Municipal Code Chapter 8.52 – City • TPO_3 Protected Species List – for the City of Pasadena [including Native – Protected Trees)
• TPO_4 Tree Protection Guidelines
• TPO_5 Sample Tree Inventory and Tree Protection Plan
• TPO_7 Submittal Requirement for Tree Protection Plans • Tips for Tree Care Flyer
• Pasadena Urban Forestry – Frequently Asked Questions
• Pasadena Urban Forestry – Urban Forestry - Department of Public Works • Tree Protection Standard – City of Pasadena – Department of Public Works o Standard Plan S-642 (Sheet 1 of 1), dated 24 Aug 2028

TREE PROTECTION ZONE MINIMUM
TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ) IS DR/PLINE PLUS FOUR (4) RADIAL FEET PER TREE PLANTING AND PROTECTION CONDITIONS REVISED 3/15/17.

FINAL PROTECTED ZONE TO BE DETERMINED BY URBAN FORESTRY STAFF.

LESS THAN 4'
6 2
8' MAX. SPACING

OF STEEL POSTS
LEGEND:
0 TREE PROTECTION FENCE - 6' HIGH MINIMUM CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH AN ACCESS GATE. FENCING LIMITS SHALL EXTEND TO TPZ. 0 0
0 0
0 2"0 x 6' STEEL POSTS INSTALLED AT 8' MAXIMUM ON CENTER, TYPICAL WITH PIPE RAIL AND CORNER BRACES.

MAINTAIN EXISTING GRADE WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION FENCE 8 1/2" x 11" MINIMUM RETROREFLECTIVE SIGN WITH THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 'TREE PROTECTION ZONE'; NAME AND

CONTACT INFORMATION OF PROJECT OWNER OR AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE; 'PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF PASADENA
CITIZEN SERVICE CENTER TO REPORT ANY CONCERNS (626)
744-7311'.

SIGN MUST BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED, SPACED A MAXIMUM OF EVERY 50' ALONG EACH FENCE PERIMETER WITH A MINIMUM OF
TW0(2) SIGNS, ONE(1) FACING THE STREET AND THE SECOND
PLACED ON A DIFFERENT FACE IN THE MOST VISIBLE LOCATION.

PROVIDE MULCH AND TREE IRRIGATION WITHIN TPZ AS
DESCRIBED IN TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES.

PROVIDE STEEL PLATE PROTECTION WHERE FENCING CANNOT

EXTEND TO TPZ AND UNPAVED AREAS OUTSIDE OF FENCE BUT

WITHIN TPZ WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND/OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

NOTES:

1. REFER TO TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES AND ORDINANCE
FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. (TREE
PROTECTION STANDARD IS PURSUANT TO PMC CHAPTER 8.52)

2. NO MATERIALS STORAGE, TRASH, OR EQUIPMENT OPERATION
SHALL OCCUR INSIDE THE PROTECTED ZONE.

3. THE ESTABLISHED PROTECTED ZONE EXTENDS
UNDERGROUND AND "TO THE SKY." ANY ENCROACHMENT IS
PROHIBITED.

4. TREE PROTECTION IS APPLICABLE DURING THE

CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, ALTERATION, RELOCATION OR

REMOVAL OF ANY BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE IN THE CITY.

5. A PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE

INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC TREE PROTECTION CHAIN LINK
FENCING. PLEASE CONTACT 626-744-4195 FOR PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS AND FEES.

CITY OF PASADENA - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
DRAWN BY:

DAVID WONG
CHECKED BY:

BOB SULISTIO
SUBMITTED BY:

LOREN PLUTH /

MICHAEL KING

TREE PROTECTION STANDARD
DECEMBER 31, 2019
Rt.VISION: UNITS:
2 ENG
STANDARD PLAN.

S-642
SHEET 1 OF 1
s-642 owe os;1s;1a
In light of Pasadena California’s historic drought many residents and business owners are changing their landscapes to use less water. While removing turf and other water hungry plants, please consider the trees. The Department of Public Works offers the following tips for maintaining trees while modifying your landscape practices.

Tree Protection Measures with Changing Landscapes
Tips for Tree Maintenance and
Care When Amending Landscapes
Water trees once
every 5-7 Days
Roots
extend
2-3x
canopy
Drip
Line
Place Bubblers Here
Water Here
Canopy
Support Roots
(tree does not
drink water here)
Feeder Roots
(tree drinks
water here)
De P A rT M e nT of Pub L IC Works n ATu rA L & P Ar ks re sour Ce s D IvIsIo n Always avoid irrigation
water from coming in
contact with the trunk
of the tree (trees cannot
absorb water through the
trunk/bark).

It is important
to continue to
water newly planted
and existing trees
once every five
to seven days.

If removal of unwanted
landscapes requires digging
out plant material use hand
tools and dig carefully, as
this can damage important
absorbing tree roots.

When removing turf or other
landscaping, cut the existing
material to ground level and
cover with 3 to 4 inches of clean
mulch to avoid damaging needed
any absorbing tree roots.

Modifying landscapes and
irrigation practices in both the
parkway and front yard areas at
the same time can severely stress
or kill trees, if proper deep watering
is not provided to the tree.
u
se a soak hose or bubbler/drip irrigation
to water trees within the “drip line” area
which is directly along the outside edge of
the trees’ canopy and can be a great distance
from the trunk (this is where mature trees
drink/absorb available water not at the trunk).

Use hand tools and dig
carefully to prevent
damage to the tree roots
Mulch should
be placed 1-2
inches away
from the trunk
More information on drought tree care can be found at the California Urban Forests Council website http://investfromthegroundup.org/wp-content/uploads/Drought-infographic.pdf-Reg-Print-pdf.pdf or download the Inland Urban Forest Council’s tip sheet at http://cityofpasadena.net/waterandpower/healthytrees/.

Tree Well Maintenance
Additional Tree Protection Measures
us e extra care when
using a weed-eater
and seek to avoid hitting
the base of the tree
as weed-eaters may
damage, impede, or
kill the growth of trees.
remo ve climbing
ivy from the trunk
or branches of the
tree, and clear ivy
and plants within
five feet of the
tree trunk.
remo ve rocks
from the base of
the tree as rocks
can cause poor
water movement
in the soil.

Layer three to four inches
of mulch in a five-foot
area, 1-2 inches from the
base of tree to reduce
water evaporation, keep
soil cool, deter weeds and
promote healthy soil.

If there is a green
moss or fungus
on the trunk of
the tree this is an
indication of water
hitting the trees’
trunk which can
damage the tree.

When green moss or
fungus appears on
the ground in your
landscape this is an
indication that the
water in not moving
through the soil
properly the tree is
being over watered.

To mitigate water
movement problems
use a six point pitchfork
or tool to carefully poke
holes along the edge of
the dripline for adequate
water penetration in to
the planted areas.
be
ing aware of changes
in the landscape can
assist in early detection
of stress/decline and will
allow time to make needed
adjustments to save
drought suffering trees
and landscapes.

Tree Protection Measures with Changing Landscapes
Continued...

Avoid digging under the canopy of tree which can kill
small roots, and reduce the tree’s capacity to absorb water, especially in times of drought.
u se fire wood
from a reputable
source to stop the
spread of pests
and diseases.

Properly dispose
of contaminated
material.

As part of the City of Pasadena’s commitment to preserving and growing the City’s urban forestry, the Department of Public Works continues to provide educational information on tree maintenance and care during the drought in the
City Manager’s Weekly Newsletters, Pasadena In Focus
issues, and Pasadena Water and Power utility bill insert.

For more information about City trees and
tree programs, contact the Department of
Public Works Natural & Parks Resources
Division at (626) 744-7311, or visit
http://cityofpasadena.net/PublicWorks/
Parks_Natural_Resources_Division/ .

Parkway
Tree
13 Native Trees
Protected by the City Trees and Tree Protection
Ordinance May 2002 Amendment
13 Native Trees
California Black Walnut
(Juglans californica)
This native tree is
15-30 feet tall and
frequently has sev-
eral trunks. Trunks
of mature trees are
dark brown. Many
separate leaves,
the same size and
shape, grow along
a stalk up to 11
inches long; they
turn from bright
green to yellow
before falling off
in the winter. The
walnut is small,
thick-shelled and
when cracked open
resembles the face
of an owl. Black walnuts, like acorns, were an
important food for indigenous people of California
and remain important for wildlife.

The May 2002
amendmentto the City Trees
and Tree Protection Ordinance
created protection measures for
three types of trees on private
property — native, specimen, and
landmark. Native trees are specified
for protection because they help
maintain native populations of
birds, insects, and other animals,
and promote better environmental
conditions. The 13 native trees
that are protected in the amend-
ment are illustrated and described
in this brochure. To qualify for pro-
tection, native trees must have a
trunk diameter of 8 or more inches
at chest height. In residential
zones, the trees must be in a spec-
ified setback. On non-residential
properties, native trees are
protected on the entire site.

City of PasadenaCity of Pasadena
The brochure is intended as a general guide
to identifying native trees. To determine the
species on your property, please consult with
a certified arborist.

Canyon Live Oak
(Quercus chrysolepis)
The Canyon Live
Oak is a variable
tree adapted to
the often dry, hot
conditions in
Southern
California. It can
grow in a shrub
form in harsh hill-
side conditions, or
to heights of 70
feet in open areas.

The average canopy spread is 20-60 feet. The
leaves are bright, shiny green on top and bluish
gray underneath; leaf edges can be spiny or
smooth. The bark tends to be smooth while the
tree is young, but becomes rougher and grayish
with age. Besides its exceptionally strong hard
wood, another feature is the large acorns that
take two years to mature and can be between 2
to 3 inches long. The scientific name “chrysolepis”
means “gold scale” and comes from the tiny golden
hairs that cover the underside of the leaves and
the bumpy scales of the acorn cups.

Department of Public Works
Parks and Natural Resources
100 North Garfield Ave., Pasadena, CA 91109 (626) 744-4321 www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/publicworks click on tree ordinance California Buckeye
(Aesculus californica)
Like other native trees, the California Buckeye, or Horse Chestnut, is adapted to Southern California’s dry climate.

Its umbrella-like canopy spreads out to 30 feet, but it only reaches heights
of 15-25 feet. The
palm-shaped leaves
include 5-7 leaves
that are oblong and
pointed at the end.

The large, light red
or white flower
clusters are attractive
and pungently
scented, producing
nectar that is deadly
to bees. In native
settings, this tree
loses its leaves in
midsummer; in
cultivated areas, it retains them until late fall. Once the leaves fall, the large, pear-shaped seedpods are
silhouetted against the silvery trunk and bare branches.

California Sycamore
(Platanus racemosa)
Sycamores are stream-loving
natives, reaching heights of 80
feet with a canopy spread of
50 feet. The highly recogniza-
ble bark sloughs off as the tree
grows, displaying a patchwork
of light and dark colors. Leaves
are broad, deeply fingered and
turn light brown/orange before
dropping in late fall and winter.

Fruits of this tree are bristly brown balls comprised of many small, narrow seeds connected to tufts of “hair.” In natural settings, Sycamores survive dry periods by having deep roots that reach down to ground water. In landscape areas, they need supplemental water during droughts.

California Laurel
(Umbellularia californica)
The Laurel is an evergreen tree
that can grow 90 feet tall and 50
feet wide. The dark green leaves
are glossy on top, finely hairy
beneath, 3-5 inches long and
leathery. The bark is generally
smooth and reddish-brown. The
round, 1/2 to 1-inch berry is
green when young, turning dark
purple when mature. Bay trees need steady access
to water and grow naturally on canyon slopes and along
streams. When rubbed or crushed, the leaves and twigs are distinctly aromatic and can cause itching in eyes. Leaves are not to be confused with the cultivated bay leaves that are used in cooking.

Black Cottonwood
(Populus trichocarpa)
This tree is named after
the dark color of its bark.

The tallest native
Cottonwood, it reaches
heights of 120 feet. Fast
growing, Cottonwoods
require moist soil that
exists along streams and
in flood plains. Leaves are heart-shaped and have small serrated-like edges. They are dark green on top and pale green underneath, turning bright yellow before dropping in the fall. The fruit is a round, brown capsule that
splits open to release many cottony seeds that drift in the breeze. Cottonwood leaves make a distinct rustling
sound in the wind.

Western Cottonwood
(Populus fremontii)
This water-loving tree, also called
Fremont Cottonwood, grows to
heights of 80 feet and has a
broad, open canopy. The trunk is
gray with thick, rough bark. The
triangular leaves are often wider
than long. They are shiny yellow-
green during spring and summer,
but turn bright yellow in the fall before dropping. Fruits are light brown, egg-shaped capsules that open in the spring to release many cottony seeds. Early settlers planted Cottonwoods for shade and windbreaks.

Arroyo Willow
(Salix lasiolepis)
This tree is native to
streams where there is
plenty of water, which
allows it to form a
dense root mass. It
may look like a shrub
in areas that have
frequent scouring
floods; otherwise it
can reach heights of
35-40 feet with a
45-foot spread. Arroyo
Willows frequently
have more than one
trunk that is smooth
and gray-brown when
young, becoming
darker and rough with age. Leaves are oblong, dark
green on top and silvery-white underneath, turning
yellow-brown in summer and falling off in the winter.

Large trees may look like they’re “weeping” because of
their hanging branches and long leaves. In spring, the
cottony seeds can be seen blowing from the tree.

Scrub Oak
(Quercus berberidifolia)
This shrub-like Oak is a
dense growing, short,
wide tree that may reach
heights of 15 feet. This
species usually grows
like a shrub with many
trunks. The bark is
generally gray, smooth when young and rough when
older. The Scrub Oak has small, leathery leaves with
spines on the edges and small, oval acorns with knobby
caps. This Oak is not common as a street tree in
Pasadena, but is abundant in Pasadena’s foothills and
the Arroyo Seco.

California White
Oak/Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata)
This majestic tree thrives in
deep, rich soil and can reach
a height of 150 feet, with a
spread of 75-100 feet. The
name lobata denotes the leaf’s
shape with 7-11 lobes. Leaves
are glossy green in spring and
summer, turning brown before falling in autumn. Valley Oak acorns are 1-2 inches long and chestnut brown. The bark is gray, thick and cracked. Legend says that when rainy winters are approaching, Valley Oaks drop more acorns than usual.

Engelmann Oak
(Quercus engelmannii)
Also known as the
Pasadena Oak, this is a
large, wide-spreading
evergreen tree. The
canopy has an average
height of 40-50 feet and
can be twice as wide. It
has smooth, wavy-edged
leaves that are 2-3 inches in length and gray-blue in
color. The bark is light gray and furrowed. Acorns are
round-tipped and half enclosed in bumpy caps. These
Oaks are adapted to Southern California’s dry climate
but may lose some leaves during drought years.

White Alder
(Alnus rhobifolia)
This is a fast-growing tree that
will reach heights of 50-70 feet,
with a canopy spread of 40 feet.

It has one main trunk that is
usually very straight and light
gray, white or light brown in
color. Branches that break off
from the trunk leave scars that
resemble eyes. Alder leaves are
bright green, triangle shaped and
have small teeth on the edges. The seeds are contained in tiny cones that are clustered on short stems. Alders need a continuous water supply and grow naturally along streams in Pasadena’s canyons.

Coast Live Oak
(Quercus agrifolia)
One of Pasadena’s most common
native trees, the Coast Live Oak
is highly recognizable by the
dense canopy of small, cupped,
dark green leaves that have
prickly points along the edges.

Trunk bark is gray; smooth and
light colored in youth, rough and darker when mature. The acorns are dark brown, thin and pointed. Coast Live Oaks are generally slow-growing trees that may reach 70 feet in height with a canopy of 100 feet or more and a root system about the same size as the canopy. The trees drop some of their leaves in the spring, while gradually gaining new leaves. Over 200 native bird species rely on Coast Live Oaks for food and shelter.

Chapter 8.52 – CITY TREES AND TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE

8.52.010 - Short title.

This chapter shall be known as the "city trees and tree protection ordinance." (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.015 - Purposes of ordinance.

Pasadena is graced by the presence of thousands of mature trees that contribute long -term aesthetic, environmental, and economic benefits to the city. Aesthetically, trees offer dimensions in the form of color, shape, texture, scale and variety. Mature trees are often integral components of many historic sites and their presence contributes to the site's cultural and historic significance.

Environmental benefits derived by trees include the filtering of air pollutants; increasing atmospheric oxygen levels; stabilizing soils; reducing heat convection; decreasing wind speed; and reducing the negative effects of solar glare. The biological diversity of wildlife and plant commun ities is enhanced by the favorable conditions created by trees.

The economic benefits derived from trees include increased property values, and additional revenue generated by businesses, visitors and new residents attracted to the urban forest image of t he city. Trees are a major capital asset to the city and like any valuable asset they require appropriate care and protection.

Therefore, it is the purpose of this ordinance to:

A. Preserve and grow Pasadena's canopy cover by protecting landmark, native and specimen trees on specified areas of private property and expanding the protection of street trees and trees on public property.

B. Safeguard the City's urban fore st by providing for the regulation of the protection, planting, maintenance and removal of trees in the city.

C. Protect the visual and aesthetic character of the city.

D. Improve and enhance property values by conserving and adding to the distinctive and unique aesthetic character of the many areas of Pasadena.

E. Improve the quality of life for residents, visitors and wildlife.

F. Create favorable conditions for the protection of designated landmark, native and specimen trees, for the benefit of current and future residents of Pasadena.

G. Maintain and enhance the general health, safety and welfare of the city and its residents by assisting in counteracting air pollution and in minimizing soil erosion and other related environmental damage.

H. Protect and maintain healthy trees in the land use planning processes as set forth her ein.

I. Establish procedures and practices for fulfilling the purposes of this city tree and tree protection ordinance.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.020 - Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms are defined as follows:

A. "City" shall mean the City of Pasadena.

B. "City manager" means the city manager and such representative as he or she may designate in writing.

C. "Diameter-at-breast-height (DBH)" means the diameter of the tree 4½ feet above ground on the uphill side of the tree. If a tree forks below breast height, it is considered "a multi -trunk." A measuring tape can be used to measure tree trunk circumferenc e and then the cir cumstance divided by 3.14 to determine diameter.

D. "Established corner yard" means the area between the side property line and the principal structure on a lot.

E. "Established front yard" means the area between the front property li ne and the princip al structure on a lot.

F. "Hazard" or "hazardous" means a tree, or part of a tree, that has a high potential for failure and falling on a nearby object because of dead or dying branches, roots or trunk.

G. "Injure" means any act or om ission which subst antially affects or seriously jeopardizes the health of a living tree, in the determination of the city manager.

H. "Landmark tree" means a tree designated as a landmark under Chapter 17.62 of this code as a tree of historic or cultural significance and of importance to the community due to any of the following factors: It is one of the largest or oldest trees of the species located in the city; it has historical significance due to an association with a historic building, site, street, person or event; or it is a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood.

I. "Landmark-eligible tree" means a tree which meets the criteria for designation as a landmark tree, as determined by the review authority.

J. "Located" or "location" of a tree means that place where any portion of the trunk of a tree is found at natural grade.

K. "Maintain" or "maintenance" means pruning, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, watering, treating for disease or injury or any other similar act which promotes growth, health, beauty and life of trees.

L. "Master street tree plan" means the comprehensive street tree plan approved by the city council, which lists the official street tree to be planted or replaced for all streets or sections of streets within the city.

M. "Mature tree" means an otherwise non -protected tree with a diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) of 19 inches or greater.

N. "Median" or "traffic island" means a raised area within a street not used for vehicular traffic.

O. "Multi-trunk" means any tree with multiple trunks attributed to a single tree. Each trunk shall be measured at a height of 4½ feet above natural grade, and the combined areas of the trunks shall be used to determine the tree's size for the purposes of this ordinance.

P. "Native tree" means any tree with a trunk more than 8 inches in diameter at a height of 4 ½ feet above natural grade that is one of the following species: Quercus agrifolia (Coast live oak), Quercus engelmannii (Engelmann oak), Quercus chr ysolepis (Canyon oak), Platanus racemosa (California sycamore), Juglans californica (California walnut), Quercus berberidifolia (Scrub oak), Quercus lobata (Valley oak), Umbellularia californica (California bay), Populus fremontii (Cottonwood), Alnus rhomb ifolia (California ald er), Populus trichocarpa (Black cottonwood), Salix lasiolepis (Arroyo willow), and Aesculus californica (California buckeye).

Q. "Official street tree" means an approved species of street tree designated in the master street tree plan.

R. "Parkway" mea ns an area between the property line and the face of the curb, or an area between the property line and the area where the face of the curb would ordinarily be located.

S. "Property owner" means the person listed as the owner in fee simple of a lot or pa rcel with the office of county recorder or lawfully exercising the power of the property owner with respect to said lot or parcel.

T. "Protected tree" means a native, specimen, landmark, landmark -eligible, mature (except for the trees in RS or RM-12 zones), or public tree.

U. "Pruning" means the removal of dead, dying, diseased, live interfering, and weak branches according to the most recent standards of the International Society of Arboriculture.

V. "Public benefit" means a pub lic purpose, service or use which affects residents as a community and not merely as particular individuals.

W. "Public tree" means a tree located in a place or area under ownership or control of the city including but without limitation streets, parkway s, open space, parklan d and including city owned property under the operational control of another entity by virtue of a lease, license, operating or other agreement.

X. "Replacement matrix" means the table of requirements for replanting replacement tree s on private property when removing protected tree/s per Finding 6 in Section 8.52.075.

Y. "Specimen tree" means any tree meeting the criteria established by resolution of the city council by species and size of tree which is thereby presumed to possess distinctive form, size or age, and to be an outstanding specimen of a desirable species and to warrant the protections of this chapter.

Z. "Street" means any public right-of-way regardless of whether it is described as a street, avenue, road, boulevard, drive, lane, court, place, alley, or by any other such designation.

AA. "Street tree" means any public tree whose trunk is located primarily within any parkway, public sidewalk, street median, traffic island or other right -of-way under the ownership or c ontrol of the city by easement, license, fee title or other permissive grant of use.

BB. "Tree" means a woody plant that has a single main trunk with clear apical dominance (i.e., one primary stem is significantly larger than the secondary stem/s). (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 2, 3-15-2010)

8.52.025 - Applicability.

The provisions of this chapter providing protection for specific trees shall apply as follows, unless excepted by provisions of this chapter.

A. Native and specimen trees located in the esta blished front yard, required side yard, established corner yard, or required rear yard of all property located in a single -family residential or RM -12 multifamily residential zone, and in all areas of all other zoning districts within the city.

B. Landmark trees and trees that meet the criteria for designation as a landmark as determined by the review authority.

C. Public trees located at all places within the city.

D. Mature trees in all zoning districts e xcept for trees on properties subject to the RS or RM -12 development standards.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 3, 3-15-2010)

8.52.030 - City manager responsibilities.

The city manager shall:

A. By use of city employees, private contractors or authorized volunteers, plant, mainta in and otherwise care for, or, if necessary, remove public trees; B. Prepare an annual program for tree planting and tree care in public places of the city; C. Recommend to the city council changes or additions to the master street tree plan as needed; D. Inspect the planting, maintenance and removal of all public trees; E. Develop maintenance standards as they relate to trees in public places; F. Make determinations on public tree removal based upon tree reports prepared by certified arborists, other relevant facts, and upon established public tree removal criteria; G. Review development and construction plans as they affect mature, landmark, landmark -eligible, native, public and specimen trees;
H. Act as advisor to the design commission of the city; I. Prepare and periodically revise the tree protection guidelines; J. Prepare and submit the specimen tree list, and any revisions thereto to the city council for adoption by resolution;
K. Issue permits and make determinations specified under this chapter; L. Maintain a comprehensive inventory of public trees; and M. Act as the enforcement official who is designated to issue a compliance order or an administrative citation to enforce this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.25 or 1.26, respecti vely, of this code.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 4, 3-15-2010; Ord. No. 7322, § 2, 5-7-2018)

8.52.032 - Tree protection guidelines.

Tree protection guidelines are the standards and specifications for the protection of trees under this chapter. The tree protection guidelines, and any revision thereto, shall be prepared by the city manager.

All guidelines and any revisions thereto shall be effective upon publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. All published guidelines shall be filed with the city clerk and will be linked to the official website of the city.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7322, § 3, 5-7-2018)

8.52.040 - Consultation policy.

All departments, agencies and personnel of the city shall consult with the city manager prior to engaging in any action which would require the removal of, or which would otherwise substantially affect or seriously jeopardize the health of any existing public tree. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.050 - Design commission.

The design commission shall review, advise and make recommendations to the city council relating to the city's tree planting, maintenance and removal practices and proposed amendments to the master street tree plan.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.060 - Protection policy.

It shall be the policy of the city to protect and maintain mature and healthy trees. Special consideration shall be afforded mature, public, landmark, landmark-eligible, native and specimen trees as set forth in this chapter.

A. Incentives for the Preservation of Mature Trees. When considering an application for any permit or approval that preserves mature trees, a decision may be made through the design review process o r other entitlement process to waive development standard s or accept alternative solutions to assist in the preservation of these trees. The review authority or director, if there is no other review authority, may modify the development standards or accept alternative solutions to assist in the preservation of p rotected trees. Modifications may include a reduction to garden requirements, guest parking requirements, location of driveways and building height limits. The review authority may approve the modifi cation of up to two development standards after first finding that:

1. Applicant investigated alternative site designs and building footprints using existing development standards;

2. Tree/s to be preserved is/are in good health and condition (taking i nto account species and longevity) as determined by a certified arborist;

3. Project includes a well integrated and thoughtful design solution that enhances the property and its surroundings;

4. Project is not injurious to adjacent properties or uses, or detrimental to environmental quality, quality of life, or the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and

5. Project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the applicable design guidelines and the citywide design principles in the general plan. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 5, 3-15-2010)

8.52.065 - Designation of landmark trees.

Any person or city agency may propose to the historic preservation commission that a tree meets the criteria set forth in Section 8.52.020 and should be designated as a landmark under Chapter 17.62 and, thereby, as a landmark tree under this Chapter 8.52.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 6, 3-15-2010)

8.52.066 - Designation of native and specimen trees.

Designation of native, specimen and mature trees. All trees meeting the definiti on of native, specimen, landmark, landmark-eligible, or mature trees in Section 8.52.020 are automatically subject to the protections of this chapter, as of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 7, 3-15-2010)

8.52.070 - Private property tree removal and landmark tree pruning permits—Applications.

A. Where other discretionary approval is requested: Where a property owner wishes to remove a tree protected under this ordinance as part of a plan for which a discretionary approval under Title 17 of this code is otherwise required, the application for discretionary approval shall also be deemed an application for a permit under this chap ter to the decision maker for the discretionary appro val. Any decision on the application for a permit shall be subject to the same procedures for appeal and call for review as a decision on the associated discretionary approval.

B. Where no discretionar y approval is requested: Where a property owner wishe s to remove a tree protected under this ordinance on private property, and no other discretionary approval is required under Title 17 of this code, an application shall be made to the city manager or his /her designee for a permit according to the standard application procedures and submittal requirements set forth in Chapter 17.60 except that the decision shall be made in accordance with the time set forth in Section

8.52.075(B). A decision on an applicat ion shall be made according to the standards of this chapter and shall be subject to the same procedures for appeal and call for review set forth in Chapter 17.72 as if it were a decision of the director within the meaning of that chapter. No noticed publi c hearing shall be required for an application under this section unless otherwise required by another section of this code or state or federal law.

C. Landmark tree pruning. Any property owner desiring to prune a landmark tree located on their property shall make an application to the city manager on a fo rm provided by the city to assure that the pruning shall be conducted according to the most recent standards of the International Society of Arboriculture.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 8, 3-15-2010)

8.52.075 - Private property tree removal and landmark tree pruning permits—Issuance.

A. Any permit or approval which will result in injury to or removal of a mature, landmark, landmark- eligible, native or specimen tree protected under this chapter shall be denied unless one of the following findings is made: (1) there is a public benefit as defined in Section 8.52.024(R), or a public health, safety or welfare benefit, to the inj ury or removal that outweighs the protection of the specific tree; or (2) the present condition of the tree is suc h that it is not reasonably likely to survive; or (3) tree is an objective feature of the tree that makes the tree not suitable for the protec tions of this chapter; or (4) there would be a substantial hardship to a private property owner in the enjoyment and use of real property if the injury or removal is not permitted; or (5) to not permit injury to or removal of a tree would constitute a taki ng of the underlying real property; or (6) the project, as defined in Section 17.12.020, includes a landscape desi gn plan that emphasizes a tree canopy that is sustainable over the long term by adhering to the replacement matrix prepared by the city manager and included in the associated administrative guidelines. Finding 6 shall not apply to permits or approvals seek ing removal of a landmark tree and landmark -eligible trees. In addition, for removal of a landmark tree, any such permit or approval shall be denied unless procedures specified for removal of landmarks in Chapter 17.62 are first followed.

B. An applicati on shall be granted, denied, or granted conditionally on the date of the associated discretionary decision, or, if none, within 15 business da ys after a complete application is made. The approval may be based on imposed conditions reasonably necessary to m eet the standards of this chapter.

C. Alternative to Replacement Matrix Requirements. When using Finding 6 for removal of protected trees, t he planting of required replacement trees on -site may be satisfied through the following alternative, in compliance with the city's regulations for the implementation of this chapter.

1. Alternative Replacement Fee. The developer may request to pay a fee instead of planting on site up to 50 percent of the required number of replacement trees, as follows:
a. The amount of the fee shall be 100 percent of the appraised value of the tree/s that cannot be replaced.
i. Applicant must submit an application t hat includes: an appraisal by a certified arborist utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Apprai sal (published by the International Society of Arboriculture), the number replacement trees calculated using the replacement matrix, and a rep ort by a certified arborist or landscape architect that determines that the number of required on-site replacement trees would inhibit healthy growth (e.g., overcrowding of new trees; interfere with roots and canopy of existing protected trees and street trees);
ii. Up to 50 percent of the required replacement trees must be planted on -site and the replacement fee shall be a maximum of 50 percent of the appraised value of all trees to be removed, prorated as necessary.
b. The review authority may approve an alternative replacement fee only after first making all of the following findings:
i. Applicant investigated alternative site designs and building footprints using existing development standards;
ii. Placing the required number of replacement trees on site with existing plan is not conducive to a sustainable landscape plan (e.g., overcrowding with existing or new trees; occluding important view corridors; disrupting the configuration of existing open space; or a landscape design which has historic o r aesthetic importance; interfering with existing site features —walls, driveways, berms, planting beds, pergolas —which have historic or aesthetic importance);
iii. A minimum of 50 percent of the required replacement trees are on -site and the spacing and selection of the proposed trees and the landscape design contributes to the city's long -term goals of a sustainabl e urban forest as determined by the city's arborist;
iv. Project includes a well -integrated and thoughtful design solution that enhances the property and its surroundings;
v. Project is not injurious to adjacent properties or uses, or detrimental to en vironmental quality, quality of life, or the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and vi. Project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the applicable design guidelines and the citywide design principles in the general plan. c. One-half of the alternative replacement fee required by this subsection shall be paid (or alternate security provided in a form acceptable to the director of finance) before issuance of a building permit for any part of the project. The remainder of the fee shal l be paid before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any portion of the project. d. Fees collected in compliance with this section shall be specified for additional plantings that are above and beyond the city's regular planting programs. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 9, 3-15-2010; Ord. No. 7322, § 4, 5-7-2018)

8.52.076 - Work on public trees.

Public Trees. No permits will be issued to any person or entity for pruning or removal of public trees, and all pruning and removal of public trees shall be undertaken by employees or contractors of the city pursuant to Section 8.52.080. Any person desiring to initiate special maintenance or removal of a public tree by the city, may make a written request to the city manager and pay the cost s of service and replacement at rates established by the city manager and set forth in the tree protection guidelines, should the request be granted. Any such request will be considered based on the provisions of this chapter, established public tree removal criteria, other ongoing public tree work and available resources. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7322, § 5, 5-7-2018)

8.52.077 - Tree relocation.

If recommended by a certified arborist or landscape architect, proposals to relocate a protecte d tree shall be considered by the review authority if after receiving an approval, the applicant posts a performance bond (or alternate security provided in a form acceptable to the director of finance) in an amount equal to 100% of the appraised value of relocated tree/s, calculated using the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the International Society of Arboriculture) to ensure that the relocated trees are properly established and maintained for three years. Landmark trees are ineligible for relocation.
(Ord. No. 7184, § 11, 3-15-2010)

8.52.080 - Exemptions—No permit required for certain pruning and removal.

A. No permit is required to prune a native or specimen tree on private property as long as the tree is not injured.

B. No permit is required to prune, injure or remove a tree that is not explicitly protected by this chapter.

C. Where immediate action is required for the protection of life or property, no permit is required to remove or to injure a protected tree w hich ha s been determined to be hazardous, by the city manager or his/her designee, any police officer or any fire fighter, after inspection of the tree.

D. No permit is required for city employees or contractors of the city to do the following: to prune native, public or specimen trees under the direction of the city manager; to prune native, public or specimen trees as required for compliance with statewide regulations applicable to trees around electrical lines; to injure or remove native, public or spe cimen t rees as the city manager has determined is necessary or prudent for the public health, safety or welfare provided advance notice is given by the city manager to the city council unless advance notice is not feasible, in which case notice will be given prom ptly thereafter. All tree removal shall be otherwise consistent with adopted public tree removal criteria.

E. No permit is required to prune, injure or remove a tree on a project for which a variance, conditional use permit or design review approv al has been obtained from the city prior to the effective date of this chapter or for a project for which a valid building permit has been lawfully issued by the city prior to the effective date of this ordinance.

F. No permit is required for any tree re moval u ndertaken to cover the city -owned drainage channel known as the East Side Storm Drain as shown on Drawing No. 5095 on file in the offices of the city department of public works and transportation.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 10, 3-15-2010)

8.52.085 - Prohibited acts.

The following are prohibited acts under this chapter unless expressly exempted:

A. Landmark Tree. To prune, injure, or to remove without a permit, a landmark tree located anywhere in the city.

B. Native Tree. To injure, or to remove without a permit, any native tree located in the established front yard, required side yard, established corner yard, or required rear yard of all property located in a single-family residential or RM-12 multifamily residential zone, and in all areas of all other zoning district anywhere in the city.

C. Public Tree. To prune, to injure or to remove a public tree located anywhere in the city.

D. Specimen Tree. To injure, or to remove without a permit, any specimen tre e located in t he established front yard, required side yard, established corner yard, or required rear yard of all property located in a single -family residential or RM -12 multifamily residential zone, and in all areas of all other zoning districts anywhere in the city.

E. Landmark-Eligible Tree. To injure, or to remove without a permit, any landmark -eligible tree located in the established front yard, required side yard, established corner yard, or required rear yard of all projects subject to RS and RM -12 development standards, and in all areas of all other zoning district anywhere in the city.

F. Mature Tree. To injure, or to remove without a permit, any mature tree located in any zone except projects subject to RS and RM-12 development standards.

G. To plant a t ree of a species other than the official street tree in a parkway, median or traffic island, and a violator shall be subject to a civil penalty.

H. To fail to adhere to the terms and conditions of any permit issued under this chapter.

I. To fail to adh ere to the terms of any tree protection plan imposed as a condition of any discretionary land use approval or development agreement with the city.

J. To do or commit any unpermitted act that is injurious to a protected tree, including, but not limited to , causing root damage, damage to the trunk, scarring, or any other unpermitted alteration of a protected tree.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 12, 3-15-2010; Ord. No. 7322, § 6, 5-7-2018)

8.52.090 - Sidewalk and street repair.

The repair of sidewalks, curbs, gutters or streets may create a need to prune tree roots to the extent that the tree is damaged or becomes unstable. When this occurs, the city manager, whose decision shall be final, shall give consideration to the following in lieu of action that may damage, destabilize or cause the removal of a tree:

A. To not make such improvements;
B. To displace the sidewalk laterally away from the tree trunk, either locally for each tree, or uniformly along length of the street;
C. To displace the curb and gutter laterally into the paved roadway of the street, either locally, or uniformly along a length of the street, which in some cases may n ecessitate the prohibiting of street parking of vehicles at all times, provided such displacement d oes not create traffic hazard, or conditions adverse to proper street sweeping or drainage; D. To defer repairs with temporary asphalt patch to eliminate hazard; E. To widen the parkway;
F. To relocate the sidewalk or curb;
G. To eliminate the sidewalk on one side of the street; H. To raise the sidewalk.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.100 - Hazards—Private property.

It shall be unlawful and a violation of this chapter to allow any tree, shrub or plant located primarily on private property to create a hazard or to create danger or likelihood of harm to any public place, public area, parkway or street or to public health, safety or welfare. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.110 - Protection of trees during improvements.

During the construction, repair, alteration, relocation or removal of any building, structure or accessory structure in the city, no person in control of such work shall leave any protected tree without sufficient guards or protections to prevent injury to the protected tree, in connection with such construction, repair, alteration, relocation or removal and it shall be unlawful and a violation of this chapter to do so.

Condition monitoring shall be required for all projects with affected protected trees and/or the planting to ensure that trees are properly established and maintained for three years. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7184, § 13, 3-15-2010)

8.52.120 - Attachments to street trees.

No person shall, without the written permission of the city manager, attach or keep attached to any public tree, street tree, shrub or plant in any street, park or other public place of the city, or to the guard or stake intended for the protection there of, any wire, rope, sign, nail or any other device whatsoever. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.140 - Interference.

No person shall interfere with any city employee or city contractor acting under this chapter. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.150 - Notice of public tree removal.

The city manager shall give at least 10 days written notice to abutting property owners prior to the removal of any public tree. No notice shall be required to be given, however, if the public tree has been determined to be hazardous under the standards in Section 8.52.080(C). In the event of a de cision under this chapter for the removal of 3 or more public trees in an area, the city manager shall also notify the city council, the design commission and any neighborhood organizations located in such area which are known.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)

8.52.155 - Prosecution of violations.

A violation of any provision of this chapter shall be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or infraction at the option of the city prosecutor and as further set forth in Section 8.52.160 with respect to penalties and administrative proceedings.
(Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7322, § 7, 5-7-2018)

8.52.160 - Penalties and administrative proceedings.

A. Misdemeanors. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter and is convicted of a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a period of not more than 6 months or by both such fine and imprisonment.

B. Infractions. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter and is convicted of an infraction shall be punished by a fine as established in Section 1.24.025. Each per son convicted may be deemed guilty of a separate offense for every day during any portion of which any violation is committed or permitted.

C. In addition to the penalty provisions of subsect ions A and B of this section, violations of Sections

8.52.085, 8.52.100, 8.52.110, 8.52.120 or 8.52.140 may be subject to the administrative proceedings set forth in Chapters 1.25 and 1.26 of this code, including, but without limitation, civil penalties, l ate payment penalties, administrative fees, other related charg es and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, tree replacement costs as established by the city manager and as set forth in the tree protection guidelines.

D. Civil Penalties. In addition to the penalty provisions of subsections A, B and C of this sect ion, the city may bring a civil action against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter. As part of such civil action, a court may assess agains t any person who commits, allows or maintains a violation of an y provision of this chapter a civil penalty in an amount up to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per violation or in an amount as set forth below:

1. Where the violation has resulted in irrep arable injury to or removal of a tree, the civil penalty shall be in an amount of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per tree unlawfully injured or removed, or in the full amount of the replacement value of each such tree, whichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the city. Replacement value for the purposes of this section shall be determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA").

2. Injunctive Relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation.

3. Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in which the city prevails, the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees.

E. In addition to the penalty provisions of subsections A, B, C, and D of this section, the city may suspend or revoke any ap plication for, or grant of, any discretionary permit that may be associated with the address upon which such irreparable injury or removal of a protected tree has occurred.

1. Protected Trees. If a tree that is protected by this chapter is irreparably in jured or removed in violation of this chapter after the responsible person has been previously notified or warned of the tree's protected status, then no building or construction -related permits shall be issued, and no permits or use of the property shall be allowed, from the date of irreparable injury or removal for a period of one year.

2. Date of Actual Injury or Removal. For purposes of this section, the irreparable injury or removal of any tree protected by this chapter shall be presumed to have occu rred on the date the city has actual knowledge of the injury or removal. The person responsible for the injury or removal shall have the burden of proving a different date if one is claimed. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
(Ord. No. 7322, § 8, 5-7-2018)

8.52.165 - Remedies not exclusive.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, administrative remedies specified in this chapter are in addition to and do not supersede or limit any and all other remedies, civil or criminal. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. (Ord. 6896 § 2 (part), 2002)
Genus Species Common Name
Protection
Size
Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple 20"
Acer buergeranu m Trident maple 12"
Acer palmantum Japanese maple 12"
Aesculus x carnea Red horse chestnut 12"
Aesculus x hippocastamu m Horse chestnut tree 12"
Agonis flexuosa Australian peppermint 12"
Albizia julibrissin Mimosa silk tree 20"
Angophora costata Gum myrtle 25 "
Araucaria heterophylla Star pine 15"
Arbutus menziesi i Pacific madrone 12"
Arbutus uned o Strawberry tree 12"
Archontophoenix cunninghamiana King palm 12'
Bauhinia candida White orchid tree 18"
Bauhinia variegata Variegated orchid tree 18"
Bauhinia blakeana Hong Kong orchid 18"
Brachychiton acerifoliu s Flame tree 25"
Brachychiton discolo r Hat tree 25"
Brahea armata Mexican blue palm 10'
Brahea eduli s Guadalupe palm 10'
Butia capitata Pindo palm 10'
Callistemon citrinu s Lemon bottlebrush 20 "
Calocedrus decurrens Incense cedar 12"
Calodendrum capense Cape chestnut 12"
Camellia sp. Camellia 8"
Carya illinoensi s Pecan 20"
Casuarina cunninghamiana River she-oak 25"
Casuarina equisetifolia Horsetail tree 25"
Casuarina stricta Beefwood 25 "
Cassia excelsa Crown of Gold 12"
Castanospermum australe Australian chestnut 20"
Catalpa speciosa Western catalpa 15"
Cedrus atlantica Atlas cedar 20"
Cedrus deodora Deodar cedar 20"
Cercidium microphyllum Little leaf Palo Verde 12"
Cercidium floridum Blue Palo Verde 15"
Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud 8"
Cercis occidentalis Western redbud 8"
Chamaerops humilis European fan palm 20"
Chilopsis linearis 'AZT Bi-Color' Desert willow 10"
Chilopsis linearis 'AZT Desert Amethyst' Desert willow 10" Protected Species List For the City of Pasadena
Chionanthus retusus Chinese fringe tree 10"
Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalapa 12"
Chorisia insignis White floss silk 25"
Chorisia speciosa Floss silk 25"
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor 18"
Dombeya cacumium Dombeya 20"
Dracaena draco Dragon tre e 12"
Erythrina bidwilli i Coral bean tree 12"
Erythrina caffra Coral tree 18"
Erythrina coralloide s Naked coral tree 18"
Erythrina crista-gall i Cockspur coral tree 12 "
Eucalyptus nicholi i Willow peppermint 20"
Eucalyptus citridori a Lemon scented gum 25"
Eucalyptus cladocaly x Sugar gum 25"
Eucalyptus deglupta Mindanao gu m 20"
Eucalyptus ficifoli a Red flowering gum 25"
Eucalyptus leucoxylon White ironbark 25"
Eucalyptus parvifolia Small-leaved gum 25 "
Eucalyptus sideroxylo n Red ironbark 20"
Ficus macrophylla Morton Bay fig 30"
Ficus microcarpa 'Nitida ' Indian laurel fig 30"
Fraxinus oxycarpa Raywood ash 30 "
Fremontodendron californicum Flannel bush 12"
Geijera parviflora Australian willow 12"
Ginko biloba, male Maidenhair tree 18"
Grevillea robusta Silk oak 20 "
Heteromeles arbutifolia California holly or Toyon 10"
Jacaranda mimosifoli a Jacaranda 12"
Juglans nigr a Black walnut 25"
Juglans regi a English walnut 25"
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame tree 15"
Lagerstroemia indica Crepe myrtle 12"
Leptospermum laevigatum Australian tea tree 12 "
Liquadambar styraciflua American sweet gum 20"
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree 15"
Livistona australi s Australian cabbage palm 15"
Livistona chinensi s Chinese fan palm 15"
Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia 20"
Melaleuca linariifoli a Flax leafed paperbark 25"
Melaleuca quinquenervi a Cajeput tree 25 "
Melia azedarac h Chinaberry 18"
Michelia doltsopa No common name 12"
Olea europae a Olive 15"
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm 20'
Phoenix dactylifera Date palm 20'
Phoenix reclinata Senegal date palm 10'
Pinus brutia Calabrian pine 20"
Pinus coulteri Coulter pine 20"
Pinus radiata Monterey pine 20"
Pinus canariensis Canary Island pine 25"
Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine 20"
Pinus pinea Italian stone pine 25"
Pinus torreyana Torrey pine 25"
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian box 15"
Platanus acerifoli a London plane tree 15"
Podocarpus gracilior Fern pine 20"
Pseudotsuga menziesi i Douglas fir 25"
Quercus douglasii Blue oak 12"
Quercus kelloggii California black oak 12"
Quercus macrocarpa Burr oak 12"
Quercus robur English oak 12"
Quercus rubra Northern red oak 12"
Quercus suber Cork oak 12"
Quercus virginiana Live oak 12"
Sambucus mexican a Mexican elderberry 15"
Schinus molle California pepper 25"
Sequoia sempervirens Redwood 25"
Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel tree 12"
Syzygium paniculata Eugenia or brush cherr y 12"
Tabebuia chrysotricha Trumpet tree 10"
Tabebuia avellanedae Trumpet tree 10"
Tabebuia impetiginosa or ipe Pink trumpet tree 10"
Tristania conferta Brisbane box 20"
Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm 20"
Washingtonia filifera California fan palm 35'
Zelkova serrata Sawleaf zelkova 15"
NATIVE Protected Trees
Aesculus californic a California buckeye 8"
Alnus rhobifoli a White alder 8"
Juglans californic a California black walnut 8"
Platanus racemosa California sycamore 8"
Populus fremontii Western cottonwood 8"
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood 8"
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 8"
Quercus berberidifolia Scrub oak 8"
Quercus chrysolepis Canyon live oak 8"
Quercus engelmannii Mesa oak, Engelmann o 8"
Quercus lobata Valley oak 8"
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow 8"
Umbellularia californica California laurel 8"
These guidelines establish
a “Tree/Root Protection Zone”
to safeguard the health of
protected trees.

Tree #1 is a specimen tree, which is protected.

Tree roots are generally located in the top 12-24
inches of soil and can extend to a distance
exceeding the tree’s height and/or width.

To comply with the tree protection guidelines:

Any required trenching should be routed in a
manner that minimizes root damage.

All work conducted in the ground within the root
protection area of any protected tree should be
accomplished with hand tools.

Construction activity should be diverted fr
om the
T
ree/Root Protection Zone. Cutting of roots should
be avoided (i.e., place pipes and cables below uncut
roots).

Additional Protective Measures
Protective chain-link fencing with an access gate
of minimal width should be installed.
The T
ree/Root Protection Zone should be irrigated
suf
ficiently with clean, potable water to keep the
tr
ee in good health and vigor before, during, and
after construction. This may mean deeply soaking
the gr
ound periodically.
No construction staging or disposal of construc-
tion materials or byproducts is allowed within the
T
ree/Root Protection Zone.

Public Trees–Maintained by the City of Pasadena
These trees are located in the parkway between the
curb face and the property line, and therefore are
public trees. To have any work done on these trees,
contact Forestry Operations at 626-744-4321.

Please Note: Before obtaining a permit to build an addition onto your home, a tree inventory must be made. If one of more of your trees qualifies for protection, then a tree protection plan will be required prior to construction.

Tree/Root Protection Zone
Sidewalk
Front Property Line
Rear Property Line
E Parkway
Side Property Line
An ordinance amending Chapter #8.52 of the Pasadena
Municipal Code, City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance and amending-related sections of Title 17 and Chapter #1.25 Front yard
In single-family residential zones, native and specimen trees located in the area between the front property line and the principal structure. (This does not include projections such as chimneys, trellises, porches, patios, and bays.)
Cor
ner yard
In single-family residential zones, native and specimen trees located in the area between the side property line and the principal structure.

Side or corner yard
In corner lots that lie within single-family residential zones, native and specimen are protected if they are located in the area that is typically 10% of the lot width; 5-feet minimum or 10-feet maximum.

Rear yard
In single-family residential zones, native and specimen trees located 0 to 25 feet from the back property line are protected. In multi-family (two or more on a lot) zones, native and specimen trees located 0 to 10 feet from the back property line are protected, if they meet the size and species requirements.

Public right-of-way
All trees located between the curb face and the property line are publicly maintained trees, and are protected by the City of Pasadena’s municipal code.

See PMC Title 17 (Zoning Code) for specific yard requirements. (residential zones RS-1, RS-2, RS-4, RS-6, and RS-12)
Specimen and Native Tree Protection Areas
City of Pasadena
Canopy
Tree/Root Protection Zone (dripline)
Dripline
DriplineRoot Crown
6-ft.

G
G
A
A
B
D
Proposed
Extension of House
Proposed
Gas Line
Existing House
Garage1
A A
C
C
B
5'-10'
25'
*Diameter at 4.5 feet above natural grade.

Cinnamomum camphora
Citrus sinensis
Magnolia grandiflora
Magnolia grandiflora
Zelkova serrata
Zelkova serrata
Zelkova serrata
36" DBH
12" DBH
24" DBH
24" DBH
22" DBH
15" DBH
12" DBH
35' tall
20' tall
32' tall
45' tall
28' tall
22' tall
15' tall
Good
Poor
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Protection Zone D
Fruit trees not protected
Protection Zone E
Protection Zone E
Protection Zone E
Protection Zone E
Protection Zone E
Tree No. Tree Species Trunk DBH* Height Condition Tree Protection Sample of a Tree Inventory
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 C
D
E
 A Native tree is “native” to the Pasadena area, and is one of 13 tree species identified in the “City
Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance #8.52.” Trees must be 8 inches diameter at 4 feet above natural grade to qualify for protection.  A Specimen tree is a tree of a particular size and species established on a list that was passed by resolution of the City Council.
2 1
3 Sample TREE INVENTORY and TREE PROTECTION PLAN
for making improvements on residential property.
4 5
6 7
Parkway
Side Property Line
5'-10'
E
Tpp_req.doc revised 6/12/02
Submittal Requirements for
Tree Protection Plans
The items listed below are basic requirements to be included in the tree protection package. As each project is unique, the applicant should consult with city staff to determine exact submittal requirements.

Required information may be shown on detailed grading, footing, landscape (planting), irrigation, demolition, utility, and/or architectural plans as part of the tree protection plan package.

Standard Plan Requirements:

1. Clearly differentiate between existing and proposed site improvements on all plans.

2. Include preparer’s name, title, license number, address, and telephone number (preparer must be a Certified Arborist, a Landscape Architect, or other qualified professional as approved by the City Manager).

3. Include project title, project address, and property owner’s name.

4. Provide date of last revision, north arrow, and scale (no smaller than 1” = 20’-0”). All plans must be drawn to scale.

5. Label all property lines.

6. Show and label existing and proposed easements.

7. Label and provide width of adjacent streets, highways, access driveways, easements, and existing improvements within the public right-of-ways.

8. Prepare a staging plan showing storage location of all construction materials and equipment, and vehicular and equipment ingress and egress.

Trees:

1. Identify existing trees and show exact locations to scale as follows:

A. All Public Trees (regardless of size)
B. Trees in hillside zones (HD) over 4” in diameter
C. Trees in all other areas over 8” in diameter
D. Show each trunk for multi-trunk trees

2. The tree’s genus, species, and common name must be directly on the plan or keyed to a legend.

Indicate whether trees are single- or multi-trunk, to be removed or retained. If symbols are used for trees, a different symbol must be used for each species.

3. Draw the Root Protection Zone and label. The Root Protection Zone is defined as the area within a circle with a radius equal to the greatest distance from the trunk to any overhanging foliage in the canopy.

4. Draw and label the Root Protection Zone of adjacent property trees if the tree is a protected tree and will be affected by the proposed site improvements.

5. For all existing trees to be retained on site clearly show the location of fencing protecting the Root Protection Zone as well as location of support poles, and access gate showing direction of swing.

Fencing must be located at or beyond the Root Protection Zone. The protective fencing must be in- ground chain link and at least 5 feet in height.

6. Where mulch is required, show the mulch area and indicate mulch materials and depth.

7. On the plans, include notes or measures to maintain and/or improve the health of the protected trees.

These measures may include a schedule of watering the tree(s) during construction, deadwood removal, integrated pest management and similar cultural practices.

Tpp_req.doc revised 6/12/02
Utilities:

1. Show location of proposed utility lines (above and below grade), and width, depth, and method of tunneling or digging of proposed trenches.

2. Show point-of-connection for utilities and controllers.

Grading/Drainage:

1. Show approximate width and location of all existing or proposed drainage easements and watercourses; indicate drainage structures.

2. Show existing and proposed contour lines.

Structures:

1. Outline and label all existing or proposed structures (including accessory structures such as pools, trellises, spas, fences, and walls) drawn to scale, and shown in their exact location.

2. Provide outline of all roof overhangs as dotted lines and label.

3. Indicate location, width, and depth of all trenches for footings including excavations for basements, pools, spas or any other subsurface improvement.

Irrigation:

Indicate location, width, depth and method of tunneling or digging of proposed trenches for irrigation lines (mainlines and lateral lines) effecting protected trees.

Photographs:

1. Provide photograph of protected trees that show the tree(s) form and orientation on the property, as well as the conditions on the site. Protected trees on adjacent properties that are affected by the project must also be shown.

2. Photographs must be labeled with the property address, date, and keyed to a site plan showing the viewpoint in which the photograph was taken.

City of Pasadena
Tree Protection Guidelines
Revised 5/13/19
Purpose:

The City's Tree Protection Guidelines are established for projects subject to Chapter 8.52 'City Trees and Tree Protection' and for projects for which compliance with the Tree Protection Guidelines is a condition of approval.

Specifically, the guidelines seek to avoid negative impacts to protected trees that may occur during construction such as:

Mechanical injury to roots, trunks or branches
Compaction of soil
Changes to existing grade, which may expose or suffocate roots Definitions for standardized terms and diagrams are included in the guidelines.

A. General Requirements:

1. Applicants may be required to place a security deposit in the amount of the assessed value of the tree as determined using the most recent version of the International Society of Arboriculture guide to plant appraisal. The security deposit wil l be returned to the applicant upon successful completion of the project and upon verification that the tree has not sustained signi ficant damage during construction. If significant damage has been sustained, and the subject tree requires further monitoring pos t-construction, the City Manager or designee may hold the security deposit for an additional period of time. If the subject tree has fallen into irreversible decline and must be removed based on its condition, the applicant may forfeit the deposit to the City in order to cover removal and replacement costs.

2. Violations of the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance may result in administrative fines in an amount up to the Tree Replacement Value of the subject tree(s).

3. Compliance Orders issued respective to violations of the City Trees and Tree Protection Ordinance may include corrective action to replace the tree canopy loss that resulted from tree removal or catastrophic damage to a protected tree.

4. Violations to the Tree Protection Guidelines may result in fines assessed per day and imposed per violation, and the potential generation of a stop work order on the construction project.

5. When a tree protection plan is required, the plan may include written recommendations for the health and long-term welfare of the protected trees during the pre-construction, demolition, construction, and post-construction development phases. Notes on the plans would include specifics on avoiding injury, • damage treatment and inspections of protected trees.

6. If an applicant finds that the implementation of the following guidelines is impracticable due to the unique site, landscaping, or other characteristics of the project, the applicant may submit a request to deviate from the guidelines to the Department reviewing the permit application. The Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Community Development will review the applicant's tree protection measures for public trees and private trees, respectively. The Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Community Development (or their designees) may approve requests to deviate from these guidelines.

TPO Guidelines Revised 5/13/19 Page 1
Such requests may be submitted by the applicant on a tree protection plan; consulting arborist report; or other manner that articulates how the tree protection measures cannot be reasonably implemented.

B. Tree Protection Zone:

The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established to the extent of the tree's dripline plus four (4) radial feet.

The guidelines herein shall be applied to the TPZ to safeguard the health of protected trees. Tree roots are generally located in the top 12-24 inches of soil and can extend to a distance exceeding the trees height and/or width.

1. Refer to Standard Plan S-642 'Tree Protection Standard' for full details.

2. Protective (6-foot high minimum) chain-link fencing with an access gate of minimal width should be installed around the TPZ to the extent practicable subject to approval by staff prior to the commencement of any grading, construction, or demolition. Fencing must also include 8 ½" x 11" (minimum) signage that includes the following information: Tree Protection Zone; name and contact information of project owner or authorized representative; and "Please contact the Pasadena Citizen Service Center to report any concerns (626) 744-7311."

3. The TPZ shall be irrigated sufficiently with clean water to keep the tree in good health and vigor before, during, and after construction. This may mean deeply soaking the ground periodically.

4. No construction staging or disposal of construction materials or byproducts including but not limited to paint, plaster, or chemical solutions is allowed in the TPZ.

5. The TPZ should not be subjected to flooding incidental to the construction work.

6. All work conducted in the ground within the TPZ of any protected tree should be accomplished with hand tools, unless an air spade is utilized. Trenches in the TP Z should be tunneled, or completed with an air spade to avoid damage to roots within the TPZ. Information regarding air spades is available from staff.

7. Where structural footings are required and major roots (over 3" in diameter) will be impacted, the engineer of record should submit acceptable footing design alternatives and or location alternatives to staff before proceeding with further plan review.

8. Where more than 50% of the TPZ is impacted or roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are to be removed within the TPZ, the engineer of record should submit acceptable design alternatives to staff for review.

9. Any required trenching should be routed in such a manner as to minimize root damage. Radial trenching (radial to the tree trunk) is preferred as it is less harmful than tangential trenching.

Construction activity should be diverted from the T P Z. Cutting of roots should be avoided (i.e. place pipes and cables below uncut roots). Wherever possible and in accordance with applicable code requirements, the same trench should be used for multiple utilities.

10. "Natural" or pre-construction grade should be maintained in the TP Z. At no time during or after construction should soil be in contact with the trunk of the tree above the basal flair.

11. In areas where the grade around the protected tree will be lowered, some root cutting may be unavoidable. Cuts should be clean and made at right angles to the roots. When practical, cut roots back to a branching lateral root.

TPO Guidelines Revised 5/13/19 Page 2

12. When removing existing pavement in the TPZ, avoid the use of heavy equipment, which will compact and damage the root system.

13. If staff requires mulch in the TPZ, the mulch materials and location should be shown on the plan.

Larger projects will require construction staging plans to indicate where materials will be stored and how the equipment will move in and around the property to minimize damage to the TPZ. Root damage and soil compaction may be mitigated in some cases by using trench covers or mulch in the TPZ.

C. Pruning:
* Pruning guidelines are for private trees only. Contact the Department of Public Works for public tree service requests 626-744-7311.

1. Pruning of all trees should be in accordance with industry standards (In ternational Society of Arboriculture or ANZI 133.1 ).

2. Pruning of oaks should be limited to the removal of dead wood and the correction of potentially hazardous conditions, as evaluated by a qualified arborist. Excessive pruning is harmful to oaks.

Removal or reduction of major structural limbs should be done only as required for actual building clearance or safety. If limbs must be removed, cuts should be made perpendicular to the branch, to limit the size of the cut face. The branch bark collar should be preserved (i. e. no "flush cuts"), and cuts should be made in such a way as to prevent the tearing of bark from the tree.

3. Pruning of trees other than oaks should be limited to the removal or reduction of major structural limbs and should be done only as required for actual building clearance or safety. If limbs must be removed, cuts should be made perpendicular to the branch, to limit the size of the cut face. The branch bark collar should be preserved (i. e. no "flush cuts"), and cuts should be made in such a way as to prevent the tearing of bark from the tree.

4. Landmark Trees must be pruned by or under the direction of a qualified arborist.

D. Inspections:

1. Inspection of Protective Fencing: City staff may require inspection of fencing to verify placement and approval of materials prior to the commencement of construction.

2. Pre-construction meeting. City staff may require an on-site pre-construction meeting with the contractor and or applicant to discuss tree protection with the site supervisor, grading equipment contractors, and demolition crew.

3. Inspection of rough grading. City staff my require inspection to ensure protected trees will not be injured by compaction, cut or fill, drainage and trenching activities.

4. Special Activity in the Tree Protection Zone: City staff may require the direct on-site supervision of work in the tree protection zone.

5. Periodic Inspections: City staff may require inspections verifying adherence to tree protection measures during the on-going construction process. The cost for inspections by City staff or a contract Certified Arborist may be invoiced to the property owner.

E. Definitions:

1. Basal flair or root crown means the tree trunk where it emerges from the root system and flairs out TPO Guidelines Revised 5/13/19 Page 3
to create the base of the tree.

2. Canopy means the area of a tree that consists primarily of branches and leaves.

3. Dripline means the outermost area of the tree canopy (leafy area of tree).

4. Certified Arborist means an individual who has demonstrated knowledge and competency through obtainment of the current International Society of Arboriculture arborist certification, or who is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists.

5. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) means the area within a circle with a radius equal to the greatest distance from the trunk to any overhanging foliage in the tree canopy plus four (4) radial feet.

6. Tree Replacement Value/Cost: the value or cost of the injured or removed tree determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA").

APPROVED BY:

Steve Mermell, City Manager
TPO Guidelines Revised 5/13/19 Page 4