Pasadena council upholds approval for 46‑unit Oak Knoll project, orders study of exterior corridors

The Pasadena City Council on March 23 denied an appeal of the design commission’s approval of a 46‑unit residential project at 511 South Oak Knoll, approving concept design and tree removal subject to added conditions that require the applicant to study alternatives to exterior enclosed circulation corridors.

Council members and staff described the hearing as a de novo review of the design commission decision. Planning staff and outside consultants told the council the project meets applicable design guidelines, that a Class 32 CEQA exemption is appropriate, and that three arborists had reviewed the protected canyon live oak adjacent to the site and recommended measures (including shifting a subterranean parking stall) to avoid impacts. Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the project with conditions.

Appellants Amanda Eliaff and Brian Fulcher, neighbors who filed the appeal, urged the council to remand the project to the design commission or require a redesign. Eliaff told the council the neighborhood’s concerns center on massing, a long narrow courtyard, light spilling from exterior corridors and risks to the mature canyon live oak: “We are not seeking less dense construction. We support additional housing. We are really seeking a building that achieves design excellence, accommodates the density, but is mutually beneficial for the developer, the new residents of the building, and maintains the neighborhood character,” she said.

Applicant Brian Taylor, project manager for K 27 Capital LLC, said the team studied multiple redesign options and concluded alternatives either reduced unit count, cut square footage or would require a fifth floor; he said the applicant would remain engaged with staff and the appellants during final design review. “We're certainly excited to bring a new 46‑unit residential housing project to the city of Pasadena,” Taylor said.

After extended deliberations over design intent, tree protection and nighttime lighting, the council voted unanimously to deny the appeal and approve the application for concept design review and private tree removal, adding a condition. The motion, made by Council Member Andy Cole and seconded by Council Member John Klein, requires the applicant to eliminate or reduce enclosed exterior circulation corridors to “maximize access to light and air and ensure facade treatments” unless the applicant can demonstrate to city staff that doing so would reduce the number of units, reduce total livable square footage, change unit sizes, increase building height, or impose unreasonable cost. As a backup, the council added a condition requiring a lighting consultant study and implementation of measures (patterning, film, fixtures or other steps) to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties if corridors remain.

City Attorney Caroline Monroy reminded the council that state density bonus law and government code provisions limit the city's discretion on concessions and waivers, and staff said the feasibility analysis the motion requires will be performed by planning staff in coordination with the applicant. Council members who supported the condition said it seeks only to test whether a reconfiguration is feasible rather than to unilaterally reduce housing density.

The project remains subject to final design review and the conditions adopted by council; the council's action does not authorize construction. The council also left in place standard plan‑check and construction‑stage protections for the tree, including a required tree protection plan and monitoring by the city's consulting arborist. The vote was unanimous with one council member absent (Hampton).