Controversial South Lake Avenue Project Before City Council on Monday

A South Lake Avenue building project that received a court-ordered appeals hearing is scheduled to come up for review at the City Council on Monday.

On August 18, the Board of Zoning Appeals heard the appeal for a new six-story building at 141 S. Lake Ave., consisting of 134 residential dwelling units, with use of density bonus, and 3,954 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The application was reviewed for completeness against the required submittal checklist for Concept Design Review.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, a motion was made to deny the appeal on the grounds the application is incomplete. 

According to a city staff report, the application did not include application fees, a  notification packet; and density bonus concessions and incentives information. 

“The reality is the city is still blatantly violating state law refusing to grant one concession the applicant is entitled to under state law and doing everything it can to prevent the construction of affordable housing,” Richard McDonald, who represents the developer on the project, told Pasadena Now on Sunday. 

Last year, the BZA voted to overturn a zoning administrator’s determination on the project on South Lake Avenue after the zoning administrator ruled that concessions could only be used for development standards, like building height.

The city refused to process an affordable housing concession permit on the grounds that housing cannot occupy more than 50% of the total floor area of the building on South Lake Avenue.

Under terms of that plan, the developer applied for one concession under state law that grants bonuses if developers add more than the required number of lower-income housing units.

DC Properties attempted to use a concession for an exemption to the housing rule.

In April 2021, Pasadena Now reported that a Superior Court judge ruled the city must allow DC Properties to appeal the ruling.

According to the judge, the city’s refusal to hear an appeal did not comply with the city’s municipal code, which states, “an appeal can be filed by any person affected by a determination, decision, action rendered by the Director, Hearing Officer, Board of Zoning Appeals, Environmental Administration, Design Commission, Arts and Culture Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Advisory Agency or Commission.”

District 2 Councilmember Felicia Williams called up the item for consideration by the City Council in July.