AR 15 SUPP CORR PART 2 CORRESPONDENCE — Pasadena City Council, March 23, 2026

McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

David Fairris
Monday, March 23, 2026 4:43 PM
Candice Pearam
Subject:Re: 511 S. Uak Knoll Appeal
Some people who received this message don't often get email from iLearn why this is important [ ,1 ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
^.O'.jl.*-<i<..v/^i ../rote:

I believe you have answered your own question.

On Non, Mar 23, 2026, 4:31 PM Candice Pegram
at 111 north Madison -Playhouse district, just above Union, they have already done that—5 foot separation-a massive block-- to the bldg next door-under construction now-even after strong opposition from PASADENA HERITAGE-A NEIGHBOR!!! who do the commission members actually work for???!
s
Candice
I On Non, Mar 23, 2026 at 2:54 PM Nicole Roberts ---'• wrote:

Oak Knoll Appeal
I
3/23/26
( I am Nicole Roberts, an owner in 501. Let's be clear - we WANT affordable housing in Pasadena. We WANT a diverse neighborhood. But what we of Oak Knoll DON'T want is a big box that could be scaled differently to better suit the character and design of the neighborhood.

I Does quality and individuality mean take nothing just because you're well below the California mandates for housing?
Do cultural factors like Pasadena's rich Craftsman heritage of the early 20th century mean nothing when the California housing shortage seems to prioritize density/profit over community design? Committee members - you represent us. The residents of Pasadena. Kevin Cao and these developers do not ) live on our block. If you're going to look at the current piecemeal taw of California and ^y^)^§^b^ be 1 Item 15
glad it's not 8 stories," then you are NOT speaking for those of us who cling to a Pasadena that is, at its core, a tow-density, human-scaled neighborhood.

Some immediate issues to keep in mind:

The Eaton fire of January 2025 has necessitated the influx of Eliot Arts Magnet, which is something like 300+ more students and yet unmeasured light, traffic, and pollution in the area. • Traffic and safety studies were done well before the fire- where is the updated data on altered road conditions, compromised evacuation routes, and changed traffic patterns? • The residents of 501 have only a chain link fence separating McKinley/Eliot school and the property. How much of a strain would it be to put the trees on the outside of the 511 building, per City of Gardens guidelines, to not only create:
o additional privacy and a more passable walkway for the residents of 501 and o a barrier to the 24/7 light and noise to provide a better standard of living for all residents? Again, affordable housing is GOOD - but the unprecedented fire has irrevocably changed the baseline conditions, and current safety-critical data is URGENTLY NEEDED. This isn't about managing inconvenience or "not in my backyard" - it's about ensuring student AND resident safety in a community that just experienced a major emergency.

The 46 units can and WILL go up - but why compromise safety and historical charm, especially when there might be cheaper and better suited alternatives, such as placing the gardens on the OUTSIDE of the building?
Thank you.

Nicole Roberts
On Non, Mar23, 2026at 1:58 PM andyyan
To Whom It May Concern,
/rote:

This is Andy Yan from, Oak Knoll.

I
I We would like to bring this concern to your attention once again. The only distance between the two buildings is I approximately five (5) feet, a space that would accommodate only one fully equipped firelighter.

I Any object falling from their building within this narrow gap could easily land on our back patios, posing serious risks to both property and personal safety.

Furthermore, should any damage occur to either building's exterior walls, a five-foot separation is clearly insufficient to allow workers to safely perform repairs with the necessary equipment.

I
Allowing for a more reasonable distance between the two buildings may require minor design adjustments, but it should not constitute a major modification or require additional studies. While it may cause some inconvenience to the developer, we believe that public safety of the surrounding residents must take precedence.

Street parking is another major concern for us. The committees already know about our street parking conditions.

Thank you for taking the time to address our concerns.
2 Jun (Andy) Van
Resident,e
Pasadena, CA
Nicole Roberts
3 McMillan. Acquanette (Netta)
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Judy
Monday, March 23, 2026 4:44 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse
City Council Meeting 3/23 - Agend Item 15, Against the 511 S Oak Knoll Unit Appeal Some people who received this message don't often get email frorrearn why this is imoortant [ A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.

Hello Councilmembers,
I am a Pasadena resident writing to ask you to reject the appeal against the proposed 511 S Oak Knoll apartment building. Affordable housing in reasonable areas will allow nearby businesses (in this case, the Lake Ave. corridor) to flourish and positively boost the city's economy.

Thankyou,
Judy Mak
1 3/23/2026
Item 15
Brian Fulcher and Amanda Elioff
Pasadena CA 91101
2S2SMAR23 PM 5:03
CiTY CLERK
,CETf OF PASADENA
Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department
Pasadena Permit Center
175 Garfield Avenue
Pasadena,CA 91101
Attention: Stephanie Cisneros and Kevin Johnson
23 Mar 2026
Subject: 511 South Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena, CA
Four story Multi-Family Development, Case No. DHP2024-00261 Response Comments to the Agenda Report dated 23 Mar 2026 Dear Mr. Johnson and Ms. Cisneros,
Please consider the following comments and supplemental information regarding the Agenda Report dated 23 Mar 2026 on the matter of the proposed multi-family development for 511 S.

Oak Knoll Avenue. It is expected that we will address many of these topics in a brief presentation at the City Council Public Hearing on 23 Mar 2026, but due to time restrictions, we would like to provide more inclusive written response(s) to the various issues listed in our Appeal letter dated 07 Nov 2025 related to the Concept Design dated 28 Oct 2025.

Overall, we much appreciate your commitment and guidance to this multi-family development project. We share the same commitment for increasing housing in Pasadena and are looking to help guide the Applicant to a more integrated residential neighborhood building and property development solution that achieves all goals for South Oak Knoll Avenue.

1. Response Comments to the City's Agenda Report dated 23 Mar 2026 For ease of reference, we have prepared a Comparative Table in Appendix B, based on the Appeal Submission dated 07 Nov 2025. We have also enclosed in Appendix C, a "dot-matrix" summary of related letters and correspondence pertinent to the elements of the Appeal to the Design Commission's decision (28 Oct 2025) on the Applicant's Concept Design defined as;. "Applications for Concept Design Review normally address the basic design of a project, including compatibility with surroundings, massing, proportion, siting, solid-to-void relationships, and compliance with applicable design guidelines" [Source: Pasadena Design Commission].
3/23/2026
Item 15
Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 2 of 20 ends

The Appeal to the Design Commission's decision on the Concept Design (described below) comprised several elements as addressed in the Agenda Report and as further summarized in Table 1. As we understand it, several of these matters are still under study needing additional clarifications and/or are in abeyance until the Final Design and additional information is submitted by the Applicant to the Design Commission for its consideration, evaluation and comment.

For reference and clarification, the Applicant's submission at the Concept Design (28 Oct 25) stage and in response to the Appeal to the Design Commission's decision, a "de novo" submission is under consideration by City Council pursuant to the City's letter dated 29 Oct 2025. "Please note that appeals and calls for review are conducted as de novo reviews, meaning that the lower decision is set aside and the entire application is reviewed as a new proposal."
//

2. Role of the Design Commission in the Proposed Multi-Family Development We and our neighbors on South Oak Knoll Avenue consider the Design Commission as advocates for "design excellence" within the City's neighborhood development plans and ordinances. The State density bonus considerations (i.e. building height, total and affordable units, concessions) did not in any way subvert the City's well-established design requirements that were very deliberately and thoughtfully developed to maintain neighborhood character and quality of life for residents of the City. A citation from the Pasadena City Planning's website includes the following describing purpose and function f the Design Commission. "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 desian excellence."
//
Please be very respectfully reminded that the Design Commission has in extensive verbal discussions at both the Preliminary and Concept Design Public Hearings expressed considerable informal recommendations to enhance and align the building and property design with the City's "design excellence" charter. City of Gardens and other requirements and aspirations linked to well-established planning goals. In the Appellants' view that these recommendations, while not formally recorded as "Conditions of Approval", will again be addressed in the Final Design submission evaluation. Our desire would be to have most of these addressed in a revised Concept Design before costly and time-consuming changes are needed in the Final Design stage. 2 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 3 of 20 ends

3. Appellant's Request for a Recommendation by the City Council in this Appeal In support of the preceding comments and in tight of considerable neighborhood engagement (e.g. letters, petitions and messages) in the Appeal to the present Concept Design decision, we suggest strong consideration for the following at the City Council and Design Commission levels.

Establish a sub-committee within the Design Commission for focused and constructive design review(s) and compliance matters and especially within the context of the neighborhood "built fabric" and nearby historical features.

Provide meaningful Community Workshop(s) and liaison(s) to discuss recommend adjustments to the Concept Design before it progresses to the Final Design stage while more fully dispositioning current and past design and functional issues in a timely manner.

The above suggested actions are supported by the following within the Design Commission's purview (as copied from the Pasadena Planning Department's website). "The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, continue to a subsequent meeting, or disapprove applications for Concept Desiqn Review and may establish a subcommittee to conduct additional reviews."
//

4. Appellant's Request of the City Council in this Appeal The Appellants have expressed considerable merit in their Appeal and, therefore, seek City Council's approval of the Appeal to Design Commission's decision on the Concept Design. We are a also very encouraged by many additional initiatives and Conditions of Approval developed by the City after 28 Oct 25 (basis of the Appeal) and that are now enclosed in the Agenda Report.

We are standing by ready to assist and contribute to several elements of the Appeal to the Concept Design that remain unresolved and/or where additional work is needed to achieve compliance, maintain neighborhood character, produce a distinctive high quality residential property and avoid potentially difficult issues later, in the Final Design stage.

In Appellant's view, the following should be considered by City Council as part of the scheduled Public Hearing on Monday, 23 Mar 2026. The data and narratives listed in Table 1 support these request as part of the hearing process and desired outcomes.

Return the Applicant's de novo Concept Design submission to the Design Commission with comments and recommendations (i.e. Conditions of Approval and recommendations, etc.) largely based on the narratives in the Agenda Report. • Conduct a comprehensive Concept Design review and eliminate design coordination issues, therefore, making the Concept Design compliant with City Ordinances at this stage 3 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 4 of 20 ends

of the building and property design. In particular, eliminate the pervasive issues (light emissions, tree protection and building massing) that have been identified and frequently expressed by local residents in both the Preliminary Design (September 2024) and the Concept Design (October 2025) submissions. Please Appendix C for records.

Eliminate correctable issues (now) at the Concept Design stage and avoid cumulative "leave for later" tasks and uncertainties to be resolved in the Final Design submission to the Design Commission and that would still be subject to additional public comment. This would appear to be a far more efficient and less costly approach and especially in consideration of the type and nature of the issues remaining unresolved.

Table 1: Summary and Status of Appeal Issues
Summary of action items and conclusions arising from the Appeal of the Design Commission's decision of the Applicant's Concept Design. While several have been resolved since filing the Appeal on 07 Nov 2025, others remain open and in need of additional attention as described below.

ItemDescriptionCity Response, Action or Conclusion(s)
Related to the Appeal
1 I Design Gu^deNnes
Described in Appeal letter
dated 07 Nov 25
Staff Report for the Design Commission (Concept Design) determined the project is compatible the Appellants (and the South Oak Knoll neighborhood) strongly disagree.

This matter is the primary subject of the Appeal, the City Council hearing and the de novo submission on 23 Mar 2026
Do not meet Section 1.1, bullet 2 in Attachment I to the Agenda Report dated 23 Mar 2026.

A............1 .!!FIYilr9?IT*?JI?1t:?llln1IRi1^?
Described in Appeal letter
dated 07 Nov 25
a | Light Emissions
i
(Appendix H)
b I Noise - emitting from building
(Appendix J)
c I Noise - reflected by building
I (Appendix J)
dStreet parking
(Appendix K)
Needs to comply with PMC
Applicant needs to hire lighting consultant
Design issue must be resolved with Final Design
Needs to comply with PMC
Night-time noise baseline not established but needs to be to confirm compliance
Applicant needs to study night-time noise from building meets PMC and baseline dB
It is rare to have a substantial electrical substation in close proximity to residential uses. Appellant is unaware of other similar examples for comparison.

Applicant needs to study potential substation noise reflection from its building onto all neighboring properties after considering acoustical data and its preferred building materials.

Day time street parking issues appear not regulated under the Conditions of ...A.PPI9.Y?.f....9l^.?...£9.[?£lPly..?i.P..?.?JiD.;......y.??.^...^P...^.?...f.y?h.e.Ls.ty.^i^ 4 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 5 of 20 ends

ItemDescriptionCity Response, Action or Conclusion(s)
Related to the Appeal
eTraffic Studies
(Appendix K)
Nighttime street parking issues have not been resolved. Anyone from 511 can park at night on S. Oak Knoll as presently permitted.

The current City traffic study pre-dates significant changes to McKinley School (K-8) student and staff populations
Appellant will wait and observe impacts form the increased vehicle traffic at the school.

3...i..../-"Adjacent HV Substation
Described in Appeal letter
dated 07 Nov 25
(Appendix F.2)
The 28 Oct 2025 Staff Report did not address a response from the Department of Water and Power, hence the concern raised by the Appellant in an Appeal letter dated 07 Nov 25.

Appellant will wait to review "PWP Standard Conditions of Approval" referenced in the Agenda Report dated 23 Mar 26 (Attachment B) 4Rre.Sa/ety
Described in Appeal letter
dated 07 Nov 25
(Appendix F.1)
The 28 Oct 2025 Staff Report did not address a response from the Pasadena Fire Department hence the concern raised by the Appellants in an Appeal letter dated 07 Nov 25.

Appellant will wait to review "Fire Code Requirements" referenced in the Agenda Report dated 23 Mar 26 (Attachment B)
5 I Tree Protection Requirements
Described in Appeal letter
Idated 07 Nov 25
] (Appendix I)
At present:
• Concept Drawings are incorrect in several aspects, hence the Appellant's serious concerns raised in the Appeal letter dated 07 Nov 25 and again in its letter dated 06 Mar 26.

As far as we are aware, the current Concept Design (as submitted) is non- compliant with the City's Tree Protection Ordinance and PMC 8.52.

Applicant is still uncertain the Applicant fully disclosed the building foundation construction plan and dimensional layout affecting the roots and canopy to the City's Consulting Arborist since Concept Design drawings in this regard date to September 2024 and have not been changed Also, there is no mention of building scaffolding allowance for the proposed building superstructure. Also, no mention the finished building tree clearance allowance distance.
..*...........N.ol.a..^re.ss..e^...inJ..^.e...^.e..n
5 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 6 of 20 ends

Thank you for your consideration of the enclosed comments, lists and tables as part of our commitment and preparations for the City Council Hearing on Monday 23 Mar 2026.

Please feel free to contact us at any time for clarifications or additional information as needed.

Regards,
Brian Fulcher and Amanda Elioff
541 S. Oak Knoll Avenue
Pasadena,CA 91101
Attachments:

Appendix A - Attachments to the City's Agenda Report Dated 23 Mar 2026 Appendix B - Summary of Response Comments to the City's Agenda Report Dated 23 Mar 2026
Appendix C - Letter and Correspondence Summary to the City Related to the Preliminary and Concept Designs from the Applicant
+ Signed petitions from engaged neighbors (pdf file)
ec: South Oak Knoll neighborhood contributors to the design assessment and Appeal of the Concept Design decision.
6 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 7 of 20 ends

Appendix A
Attachments to the City's Agenda Report Dated 23 Mar 2026 Within the Agenda Report, we note that there were several Attachments needing careful attention and comments. At this time, we are not prepared to comment on these beyond what is summarized in the table enclosed in Appendix A but given a little more time and after the Public Hearing on 23 Mar 2026, we will review and respond as appropriate for the benefit of the City, the Applicant and our neighborhood. We will, therefore, appreciate you understanding and patience in this matter.

Table 2: Attachments to the City's Agenda Report - 23 Mar 2026 Summary of specific attachments to the Pasadena Planning Department Agenda Report dated 23 Mar 2026 in preparation for the City Council Public Hearing on 23 Mar 2026. In light of the copious quantity of these documents (some without their original attachments) additional time for reading and review as deemed appropriate by all Parties.

Document Author(s) and Source InformationPrimary Topic of Referenced Document Att ITitleSource | PagesBldg Design / Shape
Bldg | Herti | Hgt
Environmental Matters
Noise I Light | Tree | Gard
Street Related
Traff ] Park | Trash
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Findings of Consistency
with Design Review &
Private Tree Removal
Recommended
Cpnditjons of^^^^
Concept Design Review
Staff Report, dated
October 28, 2025
(without attachments)
Request for Appeal
Application (with
Attachments)
Environmental
Documentation
Environmental
Documentation
City
Planning
City
Planning
City
Planning
3 I
t~
14 11
Appellant | 219*
City
Planning
Concept Design Review
Decision Letter (with
Attachments)
City
Planning
1783
27 Development Plans
Weblinks to the Central
] District Specific Plan
1 and Design Guidelines
for Neighborhood
Commercial & Multi-
Family Residential
! Districts
Applicant
City
Planning
37 300**
•••
•
• i •I •
I
"•"T"
•
............
1 7
Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 8 of 20 ends

Document Author(s) and Source InformationPrimary Topic of Referenced Document AttTitleSource | PagesBldg Design / Shape
Bldg I Herti | Hgt
Environmental Matters
Noise I Light | Tree j Gard
Street Related
Traff I Park ! Trash
Design Guidelines
I I Applicable to the
Project
JLocal Mobility Analysis
City
Planning
City
Planning
4 143
CorrespondenceMultiple
;.-..

Total Page Count
..?p.p.??l^'?^'j.9.J.^'?r.
42 983
•
----•4--—-—•••••••—"
•
........I...

T—i
* Includes all correspondence and tree Addendums
**All sections of codes (some not applicable)
8 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 9 of 20 ends

Appendix B
Summary of Response Comments to the City's Agenda Report Dated 23 Mar 2026
Table A-l: Summary of the Appellant's Appeal Issues, City Responses and Additional Comments The summary below lists the Appellant's Appeal issues based on the 07 Nov 2025 letter, the City responses and additional information and clarifications from the Appellant. Based on the following, it apparent there is more work to do to resolve several pervasive issues with the Applicant's current de nova Concept Design. 1Design Guidelines
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.

The Appellant asserts that the proposed design, as
approved, is out of character with the context of the
neighborhood and maintains an inappropriate
massing that should be re-designed to be more
sensitive to the neighborhood to allow for a
reduction of the scale and increased privacy and
natural light to adjacent properties. The Appellant
has requested that the applicant restudy the project
with regard to massing, setbacks, materiality, roof
forms, landscaping, and arrangement of the interior
main garden and exterior enclosed hallways to
provide for a design that responds to the
neighborhood in a more compatible manner and at
a smaller scale with more green space while
providing for the programming proposed at the site.

In addition, the appellant argues that the use of
SDBL, which the project is taking advantage of,
creates discrepancies with the City of Gardens
requirements and guidelines.

Staff and the Design Commission assessed the
project for consistency with the
applicable design guidelines, within the constraints
of the SDBL allowances. The project provides
affordable units on-site and makes use ofSDBL to
achieve a density bonus and requests one
concession to increase the allowable building height.

Staff and the Design Commission determined that
the project is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines and standards subject to Conditions of
Approval in Attachment B, which will be addressed
during the Final Design Review phase. The Findings
in Attachment A and the Design Commission staff
report from the October 28, 2025 meeting in
Attachment C provide analysis of the project's
consistency with the applicable design guidelines.

Upon approval of the Concept Design Review
application, and in conjunction with the adopted
conc/fftonso/op^
Please see the numerous letters
starting 24 Sep 24 up to and including
the formal Appeal letter dated 07
Nov 2025 for amore extensive
response. The Concept Design as
submitted, DO NOT meet numerous
Ordinances and exhaustively
described in the referenced letters.

Discussions
28 Oct 25 - Design Commission Public
Hearing
12 Nov 25 - meeting with the City
20 Nov 25 - meeting with Applicant
18 Dec 25 - meeting with the City and
Applicant
Correspondence
24 Sep 24 letter (Prelim Design)
28 Jul 25 follow-up
27 Oct 25 Cone Design Hearing
07 Nov 25 Appeal letter
23 Mar 26 Agenda Report reply
9 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 10 of 20 ends

Table A-l: Summary of the Appellant's Appeal Issues, City Responses and Additional Comments The summary below lists the Appellant's Appeal issues based on the 07 Nov 2025 letter, the City responses and additional information and clarifications from the Appellant. Based on the following, it apparent there is more work to do to resolve several pervasive issues with the Applicant's current de nova Concept Design. found that the project was consistent with the
purposes of design review and with the applicable
design guidelines. The project was determined to
provide a strong integration with the pedestrian
experience along the street, provide a high level of
compatibility with the surrounding context in a
creative manner, and provide for additional housing
with a mix of market- rate and onsite inclusionary
affordable units.

Subsequent to the filing of a Request for Appeal,
Staff coordinated a meeting on December 18, 2025
between the applicant and the appellant to discuss
concerns raised in the appeal application and
determine if design modifications could be pursued
to help alleviate some of these concerns. Staff
provided options to potentially allow a redesign to
address the appellant's concerns and potentially
avoid an appeal. The applicant has indicated to staff
that they studied a variety of alternatives based on
comments and conversations at the December
meeting, which included increasing the side setbacks
at the north and south, placing an ancillary garden
at- the southwest side rather than at the center, and
narrowing of the main garden courtyard at the
center to allow the building to be set back further.

The applicant found that these alternatives would
deviate from the Zoning Code and require the use of
additional waivers, adversely impact the project
design, including introduction of a fifth floor to
accommodate the lost square footage and units that
would result from the redesigns, and were therefore
determined to be infeasible or otherwise
incompatible with the neighborhood. Subsequently
the applicant informed staff that they would not be
pursuing modifications to the project and requested
i-o proceed with the appeal of the project as
approved by the Design Commission.
2Lighting Impacts
The Appellant argues that
impacts from the light
emitted from the enclosed
corridors on the north and
south sides of the new
building have not been fully
studied.
"....The project will be required to comply with all
Building Code requirements pertaining to interior
and exterior lighting. Per the Building Code,
minimum lighting for emergency requirements is
one foot-candle, which is a very low level of light;
however, there is no maximum lighting level, except
os it relates to energy efficiency. There are
measures that can be taken to avoid light spillover
from the interior corridors, including providing
Appellant's Supplemental Response
This appears to be a very appropriate
response given the current situation,
BUT the Appellant remains very
concerned the Applicant will
continue to approach this matter as a
"leave for later" issue and not
assertively determine a working
solution. This is a pervasive issue
10 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 11 of 20 ends

Table A-l: Summary of the Appellant's Appeal Issues, City Responses and Additional Comments The summary below lists the Appellant's Appeal issues based on the 07 Nov 2025 letter, the City responses and additional information and clarifications from the Appellant. Based on the following, it apparent there is more work to do to resolve several pervasive issues with the Applicant's current de nova Concept Design. fixture shields and directing light inward. These
measures pursued will ensure the project is
consistent with the purposes of Design Review,
specifically Section 17.61.030.A.4.b, "enhancing the
surrounding environment" by limiting or avoiding
light spillover onto adjacent properties.

To further ensure consistency with this goal, staff
recommends a Condition of Approval requiring the
Applicant to engage a lighting consultant to
demonstrate that the lighting levels within the
interior corridors along the north, south and west
walls of the building will not result in substantial
light spillage onto adjacent properties and to
implement the consultant's recommendations as
part of the project's lighting design, for review
during Final Design Review and Building Plan
Check. A lighting impact assessment (e.g.,
photometric plan) or other equivalent standards
may be used to address light concerns.
preset on the Preliminary design in
Sep 2024 and again in the Concept
Design , Oct 2026 and with a building
design that utilizes exterior corridors
for the upper three floors on both
the north and south sides of the
building.

Reference discussions and
correspondence include the
following.

1. The Appellant argues
that impacts to nighttime
noise from the proposed
46 air conditioning units
at the roof of the project
operating simultaneously
have not been sufficiently
studied and addressed.

2. In addition, the Appellant
argues that additional
noise will occur from the
4-story vertical walls
reflecting existing noise
coming off of the
adjacent substation
[located southwest of the
project site].

3. The Appellant also
asserts that existing
The Noise Study prepared by EcoTierra
(Attachment E) assessed stationary noise
sources, which include HVAC units. The study
determined that, due to the location of the units
with respect to building height and distance
from surrounding residents, the noise generated
from HVAC units would not exceed ambient
noise levels. EcoTierra advised that there are no
requirements to take noise readings at night for
residential projects for CEQA noise analysis. The
only uses or scenarios that would require noise
analysis at night or over the course of 24-hours
would be excessively noisy land uses that would
be operational during nighttime hours, such as
warehouse uses, manufacturing uses, or vehicle
dispatch centers. Residential uses would not
generate operational noise at day or night that
would have th^potenticil to exceed the
established ^^cafel^esf^^ and would
therefore not have a significant impact.

Appellant's Supplemental
Response(s)
The Appellant remains very
concerned about nighttime noise
generated by the multi-family
building.

It does not seem reasonable to
assume that 46 individual roof-
top air conditional unit would
not remain below ambient noise
levels
• Building 501 is a mere 10 feet
from the property line and the
proposed 511 development.

Other multi-family buildings
located to the west are also very
close and would most certainly
be impacted by night-time noise
generated by the 511
development.
11 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 12 of 20 ends

Standard mechanical equipment for a
residential project is not an
unusual occurrence that results in an impact.

According to their analysis, EcoTierra indicated
that each HVAC unit would operate
at 44.5 dBA (individually), which is substantially
/es5 than the existing noise levels in the project
vicinity; the existing noise levels currently exceed
60 dBA during daytime, which is established as 6
AM to 11PM. For comparison, a refrigerator
condenser emits noise at 40 dBA. The threshold for
a significant noise impact is 5 dB over
ambient noise at the property line per the City's
Noise Ordinance.
.. The distance of 20 feet is conservative
because it does not reflect the additional distance
due to the elevated position of the HVAC units on
the roof of the proposed building. If four HVAC
units were running together at a distance of 20
feet, the noise level would be 50.52 dBA, which is
still below the existing noise levels measured by
EcoTierra.

With regard to potential noise generated from the
existing substation reflecting off of the proposed
new building, this is not a topic studied in a Noise
Study as there are no metrics for measuring this. In
addition, due to the urban nature of the context, it is presumed that there can and will be noise that
reflects off of buildings, however this is not a CEQA
i-op/c that is studied and there is not insufficient
evidence to support a finding of a significant impact
with respect to this project.

In addition, it is not a unique condition to have an
electrical substation in close proximity to residential uses; examples include the Wilson Substation at
McDonald Park within the Bungalow Heaven
Landmark District, the Goodrich Substation within
Eaton Wash and near residences on Eaton Drive
..?.£f^...?£^.??.?.?..^.r?.^..?.?.^..^..?..y'././a_^.t/_fas^t7?r) A review of the City's day and night-
time noise Ordinances is needed
regardless of the CEQA requirements.

Typically, the following ae
considered.

Day-time = 63 dBA
Night-time -= 5 dBA over
ambient Once established)
The Appellants request a practical
noise study of the 46 roof-top air
conditioning units as part of the
Concept Design stage BEFORE it may
be later found that while operating
together at night-time, they exceed
the City's allowable night-time noise
levels and a redesign and (noise
attenuation provisions) are needed to
be compliant.

The Appellants respectfully disagree
with the yellow-highlighted portion
the adjacent narrative.....having prior
"noisy" experience with AC units.

Based on the information provided in
the Staff report dated 28 Oct 25
(Appendix D) night-time ambient
noise level were not measured
No field measurement
No baseline data for comparison
Need to consider all receptors;
to the west and north
Appellant's Supplemental Response
This appears to be a very appropriate
response given the current situation,
BUT the Appellant remains very
concerned the Applicant will
continue to approach this matter as a
"leave for later" issue and not
assertively determine a working
solution. This is a pervasive issue
preset on the Preliminary Design in
Sept 2024 and again in the Concept
Design , Oct 2026 and with a building
design that utilizes exterior corridors
for the upper three floors on both
the north and south sides of the
building.
12 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 13 of 20 ends

Reference discussions and
correspondence include the
following.

Discussions
28 Oct 25 - Design Commission Public
Hearing
12 Nov 25 - meeting with the City
20 Nov 25 - meeting with Applicant
18 Dec 25 - meeting with the City and
Applicant
Correspondence
28 Jul 25 Concept Design prep
06 Oct 25 follow-up
27 Oct 25 Cone Design Hearing
07 Nov 25 Appeal Letter
23 Mar 26 Agenda Report reply
4Street Parking
The Appellant argues that
there may be impacts to
street parking due to the fact
that overnight parking
permits will not be issued to
residents of the proposed
[511] project. The Appellant
questions how this will be
enforced and how this may
affect daytime parking
permits.

Parking, including street parking, is not a topic that
is required to be studied under CEQA. Based on the
number of units and bedroom mix, the project is
required to provide 67 on-site parking spaces. The
project provides 67 parking spaces and complies
with the Zoning Code.

The Department of Transportation provided a
Condition of Approval that prohibits the issuance of
permanent on-street, overnight parking permits for
the residents of this project. This Department will
oversee the implementation and enforcement of
this condition upon project completion, as is
typical for most new housing projects in the Central
District.

Appellant's Supplemental Response
Thank you for the response.

The Appellants and our neighbors
will also be observant of potential
street parking issues during the
construction phase. We would
expert that this matter will be
addressed separately in the future.

Reference discussions and
correspondence include the
following.

Discussions
28 Oct 25 - Design Commission Public
Hearing
12 Nov 25 - meeting with the City
20 Nov 25 - meeting with Applicant
18 Dec 25 - meeting with the City and
Applicant
Correspondence
23 Sep 24 (Prelim Design prep)
28 Jul 25 follow-up
07 Nov 25 Appeal Letter
23 Mar 26 Agenda Report reply
13 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 14 of 20 ends

The project scope is below the adopted threshold for
requiring a CEQA-level traffic
analysis. Projects greater than or equal to 50 units
require CEQA-level traffic analysis.
ft, Local Mobility Analysis (LMA, see Attachment Jj
was prepared for the proposed project, which
studied both current and future baseline conditions
for traffic volumes. LMA is not a study conducted
pursuant to CEQA and is used to determine if local
improvements are needed and available to address
localized traffic conditions associated with the
project.

The LMA concluded that the proposed project will
not have a negative impact on the existing active
transportation system within a 0.25-mile radius, per
the City's guidelines, upon implementation of a
recommended Condition of Approval requiring the
Applicant to fund a traffic signal improvement at the
intersection of Lake Avenue and Del Mar Boulevard.

While the LMA used traffic counts collected in
mSiySS, which was prior to the Eaton Fire
and subsequent move of the Eliot School to McKinley
Elementary, staff of the Department of
Transportation confirmed that the additional
population is not anticipated to change the findings
of the LMA based on the intersection Level of Service
studied. The temporary addition of Eliot School
students to the McKinley School site will not result in o substantial deficiency that would require
additional permanent roadway improvements.

Appellant's Supplemental Response
Thank you for the response.

The Appellants and our neighbors
will also be observant of potential
traffic congestion increases that have
already occurred due to the following
conditions at the McKinley School
and after the City's LMA was
completed in December 2024.
• Approximately 300 more
students have been added
Unknown additional parent (and
vehicles) drop-offs and pick-ups
daily
• Unknow number of additional
school teaching and operations
staff deployed
Unknown number of additional
school operations deliveries and
maintenance required to service
the expanded school population
and operations.

The Appellant would expect that this
matter will be addressed separately
in the future.

Additionally, we respectfully disagree
with the adjacent portion of the
narrative highlighted in yellow.

Reference discussions and
correspondence include the
following.

Discussions
28 Oct 25 - Design Commission Public
Hearing
12 Nov 25 - meeting with the City
20 Nov 25 - meeting with Applicant
18 Dec 25 - meeting with the City and
Applicant
Correspondence
23 Sep 24 (Prelim Design prep)
28 Jul 25 follow-up
07 Nov 25 Appeal Letter
23 Mar 26 Agenda Report reply
14 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 15 of 20 ends

The Department of Water and Power reviewed the
project during Concept Design Review and provided
standard conditions of approval that the project will
be required to address during the Plan Check review
process and/or during construction. The conditionsare included in ^^f^rnffS and do not affect the overall design of the proposed project.

Appellant's Supplemental Response
Thank you for the response.

As the Appellants did not see an
inclusion on the Concept Design
Submission related to the Pasadena
Department of Water and Power and
its substation (address = 525 S. Oak
Knoll Avenue), this prompted and
question.

Reference discussions and
correspondence include the
following.

Discussions
28 Oct 25 - Design Commission Public
Hearing
12 Nov 25 - meeting with the City
20 Nov 25 - meeting with Applicant
18 Dec 25 - meeting with the City and
Applicant
Correspondence
28 Oct 25 Cone Design Hearing
07 Nov 25 Appeal Letter
23 Mar 26 Agenda Report reply
7Building Fire Safety
The Appellant argues that
fire safety concerns have not
been adequately addressed
and requests a fire
protection plan to
demonstrate access to the
new building and adjacent
properties given the
proposed setbacks from
property
lines, building height, and
interior corridors.

The project will be reviewed for Fire Code
requirements during the B(||![i|||^^rlJ^|. Since
the Design Commission review of the project, the
Fire Department has reviewed the project and has
provided standard Conditions of Approval. The
conditions are included in Attachment B and do not
require design changes to be made to address fire
safety code requirements.

Appellant's Supplemental Response
Thank you for the response. The
Appellants are pleased that the
Pasadena Fire Department has
started to weigh-in on the design.

Best to do this at the Concept Design
stage and to address / mitigate /
eliminate avoidable fire safety issues
BEFORE the final stage
The Appellants (and others) will
review Attachment B more in depth
and respond separately if required.

Reference discussions and
correspondence include the
following.

Discussions
15 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 16 of 20 ends

Table A-l: Summary of the Appellant's Appeal Issues, City Responses and Additional Comments The summary below lists the Appellant's Appeal issues based on the 07 Nov 2025 letter, the City responses and additional information and clarifications from the Appellant. Based on the following, it apparent there is more work to do to resolve several pervasive issues with the Applicant's current de nova Concept Design. 28 Oct 25 - Design Commission Public
Hearing
12 Nov 25 - meeting with the City
20 Nov 25 - meeting with Applicant
18 Dec 25 - meeting with the City and
Applicant
Correspondence
28 Oct 25 Cone Design Hearing
07 Nov 25 Appeal Letter
23 Mar 26 Agenda Report reply
8Native Tree Protection
Tree Protection: 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.

In addition, the Concept
Design drawings do not
accurately show the Canyon
Live Oak Tree in its correct
position relative to the
property line and proposed
building.

The appellant's property contains a protected
Canyon Live Oak tree, the canopy and root structure
of which extend onto the project site. During the
Design Commission review of the project, measures
were implemented to ensure protection of the tree;
however, the Appellant argues that additional
measures are necessary to ensure the protection of
the tree during and after construction. In addition,
the Appellant argues that a proper assessment of
the replacement value of the Canyon Live Oak needs
to be made and verified and that an additional five-
feet or more will be needed for the placement of
shoring and scaffolding for construction, in order to
further protect the roots, canopy, and drip line of the tree (for a minimum of 22 feet from the trunk of the
tree).

The tree and its relationship to the proposed project
were evaluated by three consulting
arborists - one h/red by the applicant, one hired by
the appellant, and one hired by the City. All three
arborists visited the project site on two separate
occasions prior to the DC meeting. The original
application, supported by the Applicant's arborist,
proposed trenching eight to nine feet from the trunk
of the tree. Concerns were raised early in the
process that this may be too close to the tree's root
system. In response, the ^3^3B|a||3B^B
evaluated the project and inspected the tree's root
system to understand how the project may or may
not impact it. Based on assessment and
recommendations by the City's consulting arborist,
the Applicant modified the parking plan and
relocated parking space No.48 so that trenching can
be extended another eight to nine feet to the west
Appellant's Supplemental Response
Thank you for the very
comprehensive response. The
Appellants are pleased that the City
is taking a strong active interest in
address measures to protect the
mature native Canyon Live Oak tree
that is situated on the 541 property
and extends into the 511 property.

This majestic tree must not be in any
way marginalized or dismissed
through building encroachments,
pruning or root bulb intrusions in the
building design and property
development. Moreover it needs to
be afforded all "care and
protections" in the same manner as
all other Native trees under PMC

8.52. This tree is a very key and
distinctive visual element in the
South Oak Knoll residential
neighborhood.

The Appellants are still very
concerned about the following
critical considerations
Deviations from the City's Tree
Protection Ordinance (Chapter

8.52) as well as associated
descriptive and dimensional
requirements. Please reference
City Standard drawing S-642
Public Safety. Please reference a
preliminary Risk Analysis
enclosed in Appellant's letter
dated 06 Mar 2026.
16 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 17 of 20 ends

The City's consulting arborist determined that this
distance would be sufficient to address all
construction requirements, Including shoring and
scaffolding. The other two arborists did not provide
updated reports to dispute or contradict the
recommendations from the City's arborist. However,
the Appellant's arborist spoke at the Design
Commission hearing and expressed concern with the
potential for additional excavation beyond the
proposed foundation wall and its proximity to the
tree root structure. The City's |^KSit»||| arborist
finds that the excavation as proposed will not harm
the tree.

In addition, the City's consulting arborist reviewed
the level of canopy pruning that
would be required to accommodate the project
(including construction equipment and scaffolding)
and determined that it would require 10% to 20% of
the canopy to be pruned, and noted that this is an
acceptable level of pruning, if conducted during an
appropriate time of year. The pruning would only
need to occur at the north side of the tree,
immediately adjacent to the proposed project.

Additional pruning at the other side(s) of the tree
would not be required and there would not be
concern about the longevity or health of the tree
based on this minimal pruning. The tree protection
requirements by the City are also required to be met
to ensure preservation and protection of the tree
and were included as conditions of approval as
recommended by the City's consulting arborist, in
addition to a condition requiring pruning work for
construction equipment and scaffolding to only
occur from October to February to reduce the stress
placed on the tree.

Staff has worked with the Applicant to ensure
drawings are correct and reflect exact
locations, dimensions, etc. The location is based on a
professional survey conducted for the project (see
page 2 of Attachment G) and the colored elevations
depicting the tree location are utilizing a general
graphic element for the tree and not the actual tree,
on site. The most accurate depiction of the tree and
its canopy is reflected in the survey, which is the
basis for the site and floor plans that were
Tree heath and protection
during and after building (and
extended foundation)
construction
Integration of the tree (roots
and canopy) into the 511
property and landscape design.

Long-term maintenance and
care of the Protected tree from
511.

At this time, notwithstanding the City
Consulting Arborist's report, and
subject to more discussions and
modified building layout drawings,
the Appellants are still VERY
concerned about the full and
complete assessment(s) ofimpact(s)
on the Protected tree that have not
been sufficiently addressed.

Tree Protection Zone (per City
Ordinances)
Protective fencing (per S-642)
Building excavation and
foundation construction
o Location,depth and
thickness
o Support-of-Excavation
design including materials,
means and meths of
construction
The Appellants (and others) will
review Attachment B more in
depth and respond separately if
required.

All of the above directly influence the
building (and foundation)
footprint......which are considered
some of the most important building
blocks of the Concept Design. Hence
a full and comprehensive Tree
Protection Plan needs to be
completed as part of the adjusted
Concept Design and not "left for
later", resulting in potentially
awkward and costly rework, redesign
and substantial compromises.
17 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 18 of 20 ends

Table A-l: Summary of the Appellant's Appeal Issues, City Responses and Additional Comments The summary below lists the Appellant's Appeal issues based on the 07 Nov 2025 letter, the City responses and additional information and clarifications from the Appellant. Based on the following, it apparent there is more work to do to resolve several pervasive issues with the Applicant's current de nova Concept Design. developed for the project. During Final Design
Review, Staff will continue to work with the
Applicant to ensure the drawings are correct and
accurate. Also, a Tree Protection Plan is required and
is a Condition of Approval that will be reviewed and
approved prior to construction with monitoring
during construction.

Additionally, a//Concept Design
drawings must adequately and
correctly illustrate the Protected tree.
• Location and size
Other descriptive data to be
corrected and consolidated
To properly and correctly represent
the Protected tree within the
proposed building since it was
apparent in several discussions and
past presentations, the Protected
tree was NOT correctly described,
hence design development (i.e.
building footprint) and key decisions
were flawed.

Reference discussions and
correspondence include the
following.

Discussions
24 Sep 24 Design Comm'n Public
Hearing on Prelim Design
28 Oct 25 - Design Commission Public
Hearing on Cone Design
12 Nov 25 - meeting with the City
20 Nov 25 - meeting with Applicant
18 Dec 25 - meeting with the City and
Applicant
Correspondence
15 Se p 24
28Jul 25 Concept Design prep
27 Oct 25 Cone Design Hearing
28 Oct 25-Public Hearing
07 Nov 25 Appeal Letter
06 Mar 26 - Composite summ'y
23 Mar 26 Agenda Report reply
18 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 19 of 20 ends

Appendix C
Letter and Correspondence Summary to the City Related to the Preliminary and Concept Designs from the Applicant
Table D-1 from 07 Nov 2025 Appeal letter (with Appendices) revised to include additional correspondence up to 23 Mar 2026.

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 InformationPrimary Topic per Communication ItemSourceLocationDateBldg Design / Shape
Bldg | HertiHgt
Environmental Matters
Noise ] Light | Tree i Gard
Street Related
Traff I Park | Trash
A
1 3
4 I
5 6
7 8
9 .............I..........................................

Letters - Formally Written
Brian Fulcher & I Oak Knoll
Amanda Elioff I Resident
Brian Fulcher& I Oak Knoll
Amanda Elioff i Resident
Brian Fulcher & | Oak Knoll
Amanda Elioff I Resident
Brian Fulchergi | Oak Knoll
Amanda Elioff I Resident
Oak Knoll
Resident
Sep 24
....(A),..
23 Sep 24
28 Jul 25
06 Oct 25
Amanda Elioff
Brian Fulcher &
Elioff
Sue Mossman
Brian Fulcher &
Elioff
Oak Knoll
Resident
Madison
Heights
Oak Knoll
Resident
..^^.^^^..^..........^....^..^^.

Elioff
1—1"
Resident
10 11
12 13
Leon Bitting and | Oak Knoll
Shauna dark | Resident
Oak Knoll
Resident
Oak Knoll
Resident
Sue Mossman
27 Oct 25
28 Oct 25
28 Oct 25
07 Nov 25
06 Mar 26
18 Mar 26
20 Mar 26
Christine Copper
Brian Fulcher&
Elioff
Oak Knoll
Resident
I 22 Mar 26
23 Mar 26
•
Fire | Safety
Fire | Safety
•"""I""
-T"
............L
•
..............................
•
•
•
•
19 Request for Appeal - 511 Oak Knoll Avenue, Case No.DHP2024-00261 Response Comments and Supplemental Information
Letter to K. Johnson and S Cisneros, dated - 23 Mar 2026

Page 20 of 20 ends

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 top/cs 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 InformationPrimary Topic per Communication ItemSourceLocationDateBldg Design/Shape
Bldg I HertiHgt
Environmental Matters
Noise I Light ] Tree ] Gard
Street Related
Traff I Park I Trash
E'MaliIy'essa8e.5an^^^^
^......^.....^.^.^.^^_....,.......,..^....^.^..^^^^..1 ] BuffGontierI Resident Arth.y.F-6e?ttteF I Gak-KneU
..1....^^<??M??I^1..........1...^?^'^..

Oak Knoll
3 Lcvbe"esato [Resident'
Oak Knoll
Resident
I Oak Knoll
Resident
21 Sep 24
4 | Ben Bock
5 6
7 David Fairris
.24-Sep-34
21 Sep 24
23 Sep 24
23 Sep 24
:..........L-—-——-}-—--}
•
.+.......
€.hris.-Say.teF.(B)
Marwin and
Resi'deFrt
Oak Knoll
.3..3-Se.p.-34
'!""T""""""""
..Na.n<::Y..G.Ol:lle....................!.....Resident. ^salacob^_LSS
Oak Knoll
I _ Sep 24
•""T----
19 Oct 25School
9 i Nicole Roberts
10 i Andy Van
11 I David Fairris
12 I Chris Sayler
.1.
13 ! Ben Brock
14 15
16 17
18 Lisa Jacobs
David Fairris
Roger Servick
Nancy and
Marwin Goble
Chriss Saylor
Resident
f OakKnoii
I Resident
Oak Knoll
Resident
I Oak Knoll
Resident
I Oak Knoll
I Resident
Oak Knoll
Resident
Oak Knoll
Resident
Oak Knoll
I Resident
I Oak Knoll
Resident
j Oak Knoll
I Resident
-r-
28 Oct 25
28 Oct 25
28 Oct 25
28 Oct 25
06 Nov 25
08 Mar 26
16 Mar 26
18 Mar 26
• I School
"-I-""
t
Safety
~T
""""I"'"
• I •
.......................j......................
••• I •••
I Safety
—-}-—^^^^^^^^^
• 1"""
18 Mar 26
I 20 Mar 26
•
...............................
•
...........j......................
••
(A) Added-Was not included in the 07 Nov 25 Appeal letter table (B) Not included (not found or duplicated)
20 ^
^
^
^>
^
I,
:t\<J
•J\
^
^^i-^<0^T^z
p
J?..
<^ ^
&i -^'
^
's?
i>
r
^
^-s:
s< ^ ^
:5
^
^s ^Q.4^
^
.1
T:
m
$
c
x
0 \M
r»
0 VA
0 I
-s
p
ro
i6
Q)
3 <D
\
^
^
k
.^f
c
&
^-&
^
r^
^ s \c^
r^^
^-.
^
1^\ ^'
^
^<
4^
'<:
^^ ^l^s
•s.tf» U)
v<
^p ^4BX ^1
^ N
)•-^
^
<\
ea. i^
^
^
-fc.
^
C/5

00. 3
m
>c
I^
's
^
^
1^
§
(^
I
I/*
^
.52'" ly'"^- F^
K ^
'?:> I'a
?1-^- r
^0
t^\
<a>
^
t->
r\
N
^
^
?s
^
\
\
^
^^ \
^
0 c^
0 ?
t
to^
t
Q.
3 w
w
w
c (D
Q.

Q)
w
tU
-0
T!
0 s
CD
CD
T3
-0
0 (D
^ ffl^
0 —h
5 co
5'
I
Q.

CD
3 SB
D
(D
w
OQ
3 0
0 3
3 w
w.
0 3
w
SB
-0
-a
I
£.
s,
U1
w
0 0
D)
TV
^
3 0
t
0 I
.i
3 (D
5 GS
3 Q.

I
?
D-
co
^.\
^
^^ ^^ ^
r" ^,
0 ^'£ s"
~4™^?
|V^
•^
c
X 1
?.
?1
\^-
>-.
^~
M
o?
1^
It^
s'
!§'
te
I/
^
i
z
p
1B
3 co
^V?
^^) ^s>00 CS •^:3
s ^i-A
&c )^. s;-s">-~^ .^r^0 (->•^s. &$s>
CD
^s=>^ ^
^ ^
-Sa.

T -\
^->^
s^
"< >>£
€•
^> -JU) 7Q. ra.
3 i?w
^nw ^\^
^ \
^ (-<» 0w
"»,<
tftr
1^^

5.F y ^
t-
^A^ r-~^^
r-^
•^
^
<--»
^
^ re
^ \p ^.
-^<-K>-^^ 0 p-
A>r •"»..
^s^R -^K
<-nu
-£)\
s0
^

8. £U
w
s>
I!
1 11
11 I I
s,
3-
(D
ri?
Wl
SB
a.

I
EU
0 (Dw
00,
3 n
0 3
3 w'
w
3 co"
su
T3
I
s.
cn
Crt
0 c
?
p
m
7~
7;
3 0
I
0 I
5'
T;
3 co
5 os
3 a.
cu
I
CD
s
D-
CD
^
^
--X .
^^-
?
^
^'
^
^
:^
^
^
1^
,t
w
,-^
0 z
£C
3 (D
y
OCt
3 s
c
ro
0 I
t
Q.
®
co
u
IIII
tl
I i
I I
s,
(0
5'
w
SB
a.
§
SB
0 I
(§•
0 0
3 3
v>
M
0 ^
0)
n
T!
I
s,
cn
cn
0c
3-
0 u
^-
?
0F=
I
0 I
^
"D
3 ec
m
3 a.

00. I
s
(T
CD
I
p
^^ 3 fc 1^il^fv
2 ^'
^ 'sca A
3 ^i ^ i*"
.s.
s^.
r
(D 5 ^~S i) -i\
-S)(<•s n?^ ^^^ B ^
s, r
<:
^
ilSk ~" -7^
^:?\ ^r i^\ fcv r^-m'&
po^ }s r^?
Si (1» r
If- I.?\, ^^
y., ^' ?
r-' ix
u>0 <\ 3;^ >.i^ ^^<
\
^cn
's.
^g<„^ ^ \(TO
3 "s
^s.

J
^:£t^^c
c5 p
^ ^
^
N))(0
s ^
^ \
(D
^
i
>•
P;!.
fc;
^)^ ^ u^
^^ w^ :^A) •^ ^}^ Q\^
U) ^ 1^^^<fCt^ ^ ^-e; rs<-'s (Sl
y
\)
^ ^(^ ^0»
\)» ro^ ^•• <M ^<r\KJ v>u 5^.QT\ (.r--"»•r-.,
^ K:c\ e^<~»
^ ~JL/. v\ K^vA> ^ ^^ rs./*^<^
^^a. •^J
^ t^(7Q. 3of
6 ^ (/{03 ^ ^
^sL^tco ^^V?w IA^^) ^ V)Q0
35 ^IU^ ie-a 0
s^^ ^ P-.s> ^^^ ^' k^Y- K-te h-^
^ ^1 r\^^^ f•s ^^ » y
0c ^..
^^fs "<^
^r^>"fc>- c,-> ^^ 14>I- -^ ^[s <T-
'A ^ b-\)os
^
^\^-L-A ^^.s x^, ^gN^ •^0
^ &.0 ^^^ ^ 1^sI"c ^1 ^Q
3 ^•s. oft -N:l^-^ ^M^
L.
b^ K^
01C. ^s
^^
K^%sM^ —
"V.p^1^
1^ Q M -X)^•^ r\^p•«;
&. ^u,I ^.s
dTO <;»
ZT ^
11 -0a.

SBw
m
-a
0 ^
^ ?§1
n
-a
I I

0. 3-
(D
-0co
cn
tU
I
co
0 CD

OQ
3 0
0 3
3 w"
in
3 w"
CD
-0
T3
3 §
s,
cn
^
=r
0 CD
^-
7^
3 0^
I
i
-D
CD
su
3 Q.
co
I
s
cr
(0
co
^
(^
i2
z
p
O") •Sy
z f^y 0^^T^TI
r- A fc>-^--03 c
^
K
3 !*<'^ z.
^
as
(D "2^
Ca.1
^';< >
s& J->•<-
^p^ ^^^•\
r ^^ } \, /<
•r^^ ^ rs
(^? A0 c
-^. n 0^1 I V^
^ ^)
gffl^) 0Q» 5^
^
DK Gto £^ /^) ^ ^0t>32T- %J\
3co [^ ^ ^^00
^ (3
^^s t- ^..^ [^
c ^
xl::>0
M.,
0 ^ .^Ks.

A-(S
^
^ \^
T
ly^
k^ ^^ ^
u.
-4- a^.^^p
^ ^
&<?.(T-
^
>
v> ^ ^^1CJ) ^
Q. ^.ona. ^ ^,^h, o103 0 ^0 00. 0w 0^ aCOw ^^^u PQ(^V- V ^^ 0, '3 Q I-^^ ^^ 0^0
d
M ?^ 7^ ^> ?^, r"K p •? ^> 0 •-rv-
^- ts, I' i
g-^0~~n*.
•?" <3/\
f 'C5
l£\ ?^^ ?
M \
^
?; ^
'<!r<>
?^0 -^3yr^,<J ^\> •fs
s^c0 -Si •^^ <
^
=: \
^^^> 0 A;^' ^^
^} "X5-^^^ ^32k
^0*> \
^^,0
^
-^ ^a.
-jp ^?<;
r?
=1 ^ 0
^<3
•s.,-s.,
Ca ^
0 EZ: —
w (/)
??c
-0 a•D
m0
M3
03 3- w
TO
os 3
-0 s.T5 0CD
CD
y l^-'
5 (D
-0
cu
w
EU
a.
cs
3 CD
0 CD
w
era
3 0
0 3
3 w

2.1 -^^" •
M~
CB
3 -a
-0
3 <
CD
U1
^=0)
0 ^
c
?
^
?»
I
0 M
7-
^
3 0
r=
I
D
I
5"
•D
3 (D
5 ca
3 a
CD
00,
i
s
0-
(0
i^l^U), eJ^^nefe.. ^rq/p/ S'fi-s-'e»<J<-^<n6/^/~9--/-^^^f^-^g>^-"^e>%i^c/ >»/ ' ' <y NNama::
petition_si9naturesjobs_491060809_20260317223205
Ft!?'",' ,,-''11~T~^^~-^'.'^,.::^'':']^'T^ ^;:B,:S"KT^^:,;:.'If^;?g3^53iii:.:;?'3SilRB^ _ '^ i|j|j,l:':;;,,|City..i;|:':::?:^ Lisa Ann Jacobs
Amanda Etioff
Nancy Petersen
Desiree Gill
Abbie Miller
Veronica Cross
David Fairris
Brian Fulcher
Alessia Aguilar
Mira Maatouk
Wenda Friesner
Sandra Sinanian
Alexis Estrada
Jose Pimentel
Peri Corso
William Olson
Rene Moreno
Christopher AImeida
Anne Rodman
Carl ebinger
Alex Alleruzzo
Lesley Schott
Anne McNeill
Janet Kubler

ARMAGHAN RAEI
Amanda Knight
Jessica Menchaca
Valerie Okorocha
iECThomasKotrla
pas
Pasadena
Pasadena
Los Angeles
Monrovia
Pasadena
Pasadena
Riverside
Altadena
Pasadena
Los Angeles
Pasadena
Azusa
Los Angeles
Pasadena
Burbank
South Pasadena
Pasadena
Altadena
Pasadena
Santa Ana
-r
ICA
!CA

4.CA-
i-.j_
iCA
--i—
ICA
ICA
...,{..-.-..—
iCA
"TCA"
ICA
90014
91101
91107
I United States | 2026-03-02 |-t.7'~;;-----:: •—l-t-l:--771-::''l-'7:~iUnited States j 2026-03-02 i -...pr""""'[
United States | 2026-03-02
!United States i 2026-03-02'4
90025 i United States l 2026-03-02
„'.,......„..... ..^..,..... ............„„.„„„„„...............„. ^.,............„„„ „„. ..,,,^^,.- 91016 iUnited States j 2026-03-02
!
91101 ; United States j 2026-03-02
91101 United States 2026-03-02
92504 j United States | 2026-03-02 j
.-1CA.-
ICA
CA
JCA
CA
ICA
,.4..——
ICA
ICA
[CA
ICA
91001 j United States I 2026-03-02
91^10l! United States | 2026-03-02
:I1
~;
I
90039 i United Stales j 2026-03-02 |
91107! United States ] 2026-03-02 j
i
91702
90028
United States
l-1-1
2026-03-02
United States | 2026-03-02
-i-
_1_
91106 j United States I 2026-03-02 I
•i
91501 • United States I 2026-03-02
91031 | United States i 2026-03-02 I
I
..I—
91103
91001
91101
1:

United States ! 2026-03-02
United States | 2026-03-02
__..4........ — -——
United States j 2026-03-02 j
La Crescenta-Montrose | CA
Valencia ! CA
92706 ] United States j 2026-03-02 ,
91214 j JJnited States J 2026-03-02 j
Glendale
Los Angeles
Pasadena
Pasadena
Los Angeles
ICA
CA
CA
!CA
iCA
•T
91355
91208
"II
United States I 2026-03-02
United Statesi-
90048 ! United States
2026-03-02
I
2026-03-02 I
91101 I United States j 2026-03-02
•-4---91101 i United States2026-03-02
i
90042 [United States I 2026-03-02
1 Nancy Fox 1%
Buff Gontier
Vivian Woolfson
Andrea Leos
Colleen Hall-Johnson
Lance Armor
Dylan Sherman
Rodolpho Solorzano
Amy Barach
Jon Inwood
Beatrix Zilinskas
Rene Lopez
Zaid Bari
Kent Kunitsugu
Bellanira Tiguila
Martha Mora
Elizabeth LeVin
Michael Prusek
Deborah Tannenbaum
Man Noosh
Chanelle zinanzva
Lilian De La Torre
behnaz Panah
Navid Masoudinia
Daniel Quezada
All Zand
kat sal
Brittney Alvarez
(^aljSU IjLuj
Nicholas German
Ashley M
Dan De Yb: •:^:-:|:|Ss%';&::.:?
Pasadena
Pasadena
Arcadia
Pasadena
Whittier
Orange
Pasadena
Brooklyn
Van Nuys
Van Nuys
Los Angeles
CA
CA
CA

4...-
91101
91105
Unted States] 2026-03-03
United States J 2026-03-03
United States | 2026-03-03
JCA
HI
•ll?i1"
-..4-
ICA
~^:

ICA
!NY
JCA
ICA
iCA
91 OQ7 j United States j 2026-03-03 j
91104 I United States | 2026-03-03
United States | 2026-03-03
,..___.^_.)_r^90602 i United States ! 2026-03-03 !
4_.._.......„_„,-„ .._....^._
92868 i United States I 2026-Q3-03 i
t:~--';':-'--~l-1-ll';-::ll':--'.7'iT""
I
-i"--
-i-
.u_.

Pasadena
Pasadena
West Covina
Tustin
Arcadia
Pasadena
Anaheim
Edmonton
Perris
Glendale
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
laguna beach
CA
CA
r
91104 ! United States | 2026-03-03
11226 i United States I 2026-03-03
:t:—:.-:_:-. ll--t7::l:-:-:-T:91406 i United States ! 2026-03-03 91405 I United States I 2026-03-03
902721 United States ! 2026-03-03
91101 j United States l 2026-03-03 i
"'-—i1-:'1:11-:! . :1-11" !11 --111111--—-|
91104 ] United States i 2026-03-03 i
ICA
..,.......-...;——.-
ICA
I
-1
CA
JCA
CA
r4w'" '""'
91790 ] United States j 2026-03-03 j
....................^..__
92780 I United States
91006 I United States
2026-03-03
2026-03-03
.....j
91101 i United States I 2026-03-03
92807 I United States I 2026-03-03
,.,.)
..4ICA
T6H 5W6 | CanadaI 2026-03-03
---j
92571I
CA
•-1-
Pasadena
Irvine
Pasadena
Newport Beach
Yorba Linda
JCA
TCA
CA
ICA
1CA~
CA
ICA
ICA
!CA
91206
United States i 2026-03-03
United States
"T~
--+-
92627 I United Stales
2026-03-04
17"1:7"1 2026-03-04 !
-'-t-'-—----^
90005 I United States | 2026-03-04 j
91367 i United States I 2026-03-04 j
—1-,...........,....._._._.-4-..--------.-...-""""••r
92651
91104
92614
I United States j 2026-03-04
United States j 2026-03-04 |
United States I 2026-03-04 !
91101 i United States I 2026-03-04
' I92658
i
92886
United States I 2026-03-04 I
...„.[..„
United States j 2026-03-04 [
2 Neda Moetamedi
reza nasr
Manya Mohsenian
Jennifer Bohnert
Jesus Canales
Kimia bagheri
Debra Roswell
zara Hamidi
Mlyra Arbabi
Rosa mohammadi
Eric Helge
Jaurdan Budgett
Patty Fan
James Hamilton
Benjamin Bock
Sahand Safaei
Christopher Stephenso]
polin yadak
Vida Slna
Sudie Laraen
i marjan asvadi
Juan Castro
' Heidi Kash
Mo Ely
Nazanin Kashanl
Holly Flanagan
Geoffrey Frank
Krystine Moreno
Stephanie lopez
Miles White
Juli Ramos Gutierrez
ITelenaHill
Arcadia
Los Angeles
Ladera Ranch
North Hills
San Francisco
Van Nuys
San Bernardino
Santa Ana
Sherman Oaks
Laguna Niguel
Pasadena
Belton
Pasadena
Northridge
Pasadena
Van Nuys
Hacienda Heights
Anaheim
Glendale
Los Angeles
-j—
JCA
—-—
ICA
-J--
—,4-
CA
CA
91007 I United States j 2026-03-04
90048 ! United States I 2026-03-04
J..................,-...92.694j..united.st^s....!2c^6-03'04. 91343
!CA
TCA
CA
-t-—
94116
United States I 2026-03-04
United States j 2026-03-04
"t;
-1
j
j
j
91406 j United States I 2026-03-04 I
-t-
CA
92407
92706
United States i 2026-03-04
United States i 2026-03-04
"I"'"""'
I
_.j
I
•I—
CA
JCA
\CA
|MO
--f-------:-:-:-::-t-7
91403 j United States i 2026-03-04
.....1
92677
f
'-1
United States | 2026-03-04 i
--J -!
91105 I United StatesTJ.
64012
4-.

United States
2026-03-04
2026-03-04
'....I
CA
CA
-{
91101 ! United States | 2026-03-04
........
|CA
iCA
ICA
iCA
CA
j 91343-1848 i United States | 2026-03-04 j
-4-—-11"-'^^^^^^^—^^^^^^^^^ - •1 i! I
I 91101 ! United States I 2026-03-05
91401 | United States j 2026-03-05 |
91745 j United States I 2026-03-05 I
Los Angeles
Victorville
Agoura Hills
Mission Viejo
Pica Rivera
Los Angeles
Pasadena
Los Angeles
Riverside
Agoura Hiils
Los Angeles
Skokie
-r
1'":
',
92825 I United States ! 2026-03-05 I
91208United States I 2026-03-05 I
CA
•;-:-""
iCA
CA
CA
^
ICA
TCA
.....,--.-
CA
]CA
CA
JIL
90066 j United States 12026-03-05
90017 I United States | 2026-03-05
92392
91301
United States I 2026-03-05 i
"t.United States | 2026-03-05
:i
92692 j United States I 2026-03-05 I
^..^^.^..^_-^-.-,^^.-,^,..,.,,., j^
90660 [United States j 2026-03-05 J
90045 ! United States ! 2026-03-05 i
-j
91107| United States
-)••
90011 | United States

1.—
92506 i United States
2026-03-05
2026-03-051
'.j
2026-03-05 I
91301 j United States I 2026-03-05
90045 I United States j 2026-03-06
^...j,r-:r".^r.j.^r^r..rr.i
60076 j United States | 2026-03-06 |
3 Caleb Martinez
Ariel Bermudez
Jorge Guzman
Claudia Beeman
Jermain G
claudia gonzalez
TVrie B
Jasmen Karami
Milo Cuevas
Leila Shabani
Harvey Cordner
Reid schenck
Hem-young deFazio
Laura Hobart
Corona
Moreno Valley
Newport Beach
Woodland Hills
China
Moreno Valley
Burbank
Ontario
Van Nuys
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
-r
«t—.,^^.
!GA
CA
CA
!CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
r
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
^^^..^^^..^.-^^^^
92982 I United States ! 2026-03-06 I
92555 i United States I 2026-03-06
92663 | United States I 2026-03-06
91364 I United States j 2026-03-06
::Ti-':,':;::-Li-F-::-i^:E:71::1191710 I United States j 2026-03-06 T :-."::":•:: ":"~--192551 | United States |
-j
,(
91504 ! United States
2026-03-06
2026-03-06 j
11---!1-1-----1-"--'11-11-1111---111----1-1-111|-1111-- 91762 I United States | 2026-03-06
_>_—.. .....--.-.I... ^^..^,- -.—j
91406 ! United States I 2026-03-06 j
91101 j United States | 2026-03-06 |
91105 United States 2026-03-07
91101 I United States | 2026-03-09
91101 J United States i 2026-03-10 I
4

Pasadena City CouncilMarch 23, 2026

Pasadena City Council
March 23, 2026