Fairfield City Council
May 6, 2025

CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

RESCISION OF ABATEMENT TERMS, CONDITIONS AND AUTHORITY
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2020
TO: CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION
FROM: JON POLLARD — CODE COMPLIANCE MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESCISSION OF ABATEMENT TERMS, CONDITIONS AND AUTHORITY CODE COMPLIANCE CASE NO. CTP2018-01229
1136 E. GREEN STREET, PASADENA, CA. 91106
ABATED CONDITION: PUBLIC NUISANCE CANNABIS DISPENSARY
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Code Enforcement Commission (COMMISSION) rescind the terms, conditions and authority set forth in the "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement' heard and approved by a unanimous vote of Panel No. 1 on September 5, 2019, and direct staff from the Planning & Community Development Department to remove all securement devices from the building and site at 1136 E. Green Street.

BACKGROUND:

At the time of the September 5, 2019, Code Enforcement Commission hearing, the property at 1136 E. Green Street was being used as an unlawful cannabis dispensary. The property was (and is) owned by Tony Tsung Cheng Huang (HUANG) through Group 25 Holdings, LLC. In an effort to cause closure of the illegal dispensary the CITY had engaged both property owner HUANG and property lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz (DIAZ) in the code compliance process which included issuance of numerous administrative citations to both HUANG and DIAZ, scheduling hearings for both before the Code Enforcement Commission, and serving both an inspection warrant and criminal search warrant at the property. As a result of the criminal search warrant, numerous dispensary employees were arrested and contraband cannabis and cash were seized. Despite those efforts the unlawful activity persisted.

At the September 5'1 COMMISSION hearing, the COMMISSION considered the CITY'S submittal of a "Petition for an Order for Abatement" in which the CITY sought COMMISSION approval to remove the occupants from the building, board and secure the property, and obtain limited control of the property through a court order.

The CITY'S request for "limited control of the property" was set forth in a request to seek from the court, authorization in which property owner HUANG be required to seek Commission approval of any future tenant prior to that tenant taking tenancy and that HUANG must provide written and oral testimony, and evidence of the tenants fitness for occupancy to a panel of the

Commission wherein it would be the function of the Commission to fully vet, approve or disapprove any proposed tenant.

The "Petition for an Order for Abatement' that was heard before Panel No. 1 is attached as "Exhibit V and the order of Panel No_ 1 entitled "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement" is attached as "Exhibit 2."
As set forth in the COMMISSION'S "Finding and Decision for an Order for Abatement," the CITY obtained an abatement warrant authorizing the CITY to board and secure the property and requiring:
"For a period extending three years from the mailing date of the City of Pasadena Code Enforcement Commission's (COMMISSION) "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement" (mailing date: September 12, 2019, effective commencement date- September 12, 2019, ending date: September 12, 2022,) prior to HUANG again leasing the property, and at all times therein, the CITY shall convene a panel of the COMMISSION to vet and approve, or disapprove any proposed tenant at 1136 E. Green Street by holding a properly noticed public hearing before the COMMISSION whereupon property owner HUANG must seek COMMISSION approval of any future tenant prior to their taking tenancy, and HUANG must provide written and oral testimony, and evidence attesting to the tenant's fitness for occupancy.':

The warrant application (identified as "Case No. 6474") was submitted to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles Northeast Judicial District. The abatement warrant was approved by the Honorable Teri Schwartz, Judge of the Superior Court on October 28, 2019 and the abatement activities occurred on November 1, 2019. A photocopy of the abatement warrant is attached as "Exhibit 3."
The building has remained fully boarded and the gates locked since November 1, 2019. Rather than re -lease the property HUANG has opted to sell the property. HUANG has accepted a purchase offer from Dr. Kosol Vipapan and Nukunthorn Darakananda, husband and wife. A photocopy of the escrow instructions are attached as "Exhibit 4." Dr. Vipapan comes now before the COMMISSION offering his bona fides with a request that the COMMISSION approve rescission of the abatement terms, conditions and authority, and direct the Planning & Community Development Department to remove all securement devices from the building and site at 1136 E. Green Street so that he may commence tenant improvements whereby he will then move his optometric practice from 230 S. Lake Avenue to the subject location.

Dr. Vipapan is a Doctor Optometry with 25 years' experience. He has owned his optometric- practice
ptometricpractice for over 16 years, 13 of have been at 230 S. Lake Avenue. A short letter from Dr.

Vipapan is attached as "Exhibit 5," Dr. Vipapan's current Pasadena business license is attached as "Exhibit 6," a City of Pasadena 'Business License Inquiry" for "Eye Place Optometry" is attached as "Exhibit 7," and Dr. Vipapan's California State Board of Optometry licensure documentation is attached as Exhibits "8" and "9."

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the Code Enforcement Commission accept testimony and evidence from all interested parties including Code Compliance Manager Jon Pollard, and which may include HUANG'S real estate agent, Dr. Vipapan and Ms. Darakananda's real estate agent and the seller, affirming the fact that the impending sale between HUANG and Dr. Vipapan and Ms.

Darakananda is "arms -length" and unassociated with the illicit cannabis industry, that Dr.

Vipapan has an extensive professional history as Doctor of Optometry in Pasadena and that his purchase of 1136 E. Green Street will allow him to transition his professional practice from his leased space at 230 S. Lake Avenue to the subject property.

Respectfully submitted,
JON A. POLLARD
Code Compliance Manager
Exhibits
Exhibits 111 through 1124: Petition for an Order for Abatement Exhibits 211 through 218: Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement Exhibits 311 through 313: Abatement Warrant — Case No. 6474 Exhibits 411 through 419: Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street Exhibit 511: Letter from Dr. Vipapan
Exhibit 611: Current Business License — Eye Place Optometry Exhibit 711: Pasadena "Business License Inquiry" — Eye Place Optometry Exhibit 811: California State Board of Optometry licensure documentation Exhibit 911: California State Board of Optometry licensure documentation

JON A. POLLARD, Code Compliance Manager
Planning & Community Development Department
175 N. Garfield Avenue, r' Floor
Pasadena, CA. 91101
Telephone (626) 744-6831
For Petitioner
City of Pasadena — Planning & Community Development Department

BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEALS COMMISSION
In the Matter of

CITY OF PASADENA PLANNING &

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
Petitioner,
V.

PROPERTY OWNER GREEN STREE T

PASADENA LLC I TONY TSUNG CHENG

HUANG AND PROPERTY LESSEE AMY
SAHADI DIAZ. 1136 E. GREEN STREET.

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 5735-014-024,
Respondents.

1. Case No. CTP201841229

PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR

ABATEMENT
Pasadena Municipal Code §14.50.060
Hearing Date: September 5, 2019
Time: 4:00 p.m.

Place: 175 N. Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA. 91101
Hearing Room

THE CITY OF PASADENA PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT ("PETITIONER" or "CITY") petitions the Code Enforcement Appcals Commission (COMMISSION) for issuance of an Order for Abatement directed to Respondent property owner TONY TSUNG CHENG HUANG ("HUANG") and Respondent Lessee AMY SAHADI DIAZ ("DIAZ") with regard to the operation of an unlawful cannabis dispensary Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

which is a public nuisance' ! and a violation of the Pasadena Municipal Code' (PMC). The cannabis dispensary known as "Undefeated 25" (DISPENSARY) has been in operation since at least August 2016, during which time the CITY has taken enforcement action against both HUANG and DIAZ in an effort to eliminate unlawful activity. That unlawful activity continues, necessitating the instant abatement proceedings. In support of this Petition, the CITY alleges as follows:

PETITIONER is and at all times relevant herein was, a charter city organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, established and possessing the power to make and enforce all laws and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in Chapter 1 of the Pasadena Municipal Cade and the Constitution of the State of California, It is within the PETITIONER's power to exercise any and all rights, powers, and privileges heretofore or hereafter granted or prescribed by general laws of the State, or by other lawful authority, or which a municipal corporation might or could exercise under the Constitution of the State of California. 2 UNDEFEATED 25 is an unlawful cannabis dispensary operating from within the building confines leased by DIAZ. It is located at 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91106.

3. RESPONDENT HUANG is the owner of the real property located at 1136 E. Green Street (the PROPERTY) in the city of Pasadena and is subject to the jurisdiction of the CITY. The CITY has taken enforcement measures against HUANG including the issuance of multiple administrative citations and obtaining a COMMISSION Order in an effort to compel HUANG's compliance with the PMC yet HUANG remains non-compliant.

4. RESPONDENT HUANG has been and is currently strongly involved in the retail sales of cannabis at several other locations in Southern California. In publicly available documents (Huang's redacted application for a Pasadena cannabis retailers license submitted to the CITY on January 31, 2019) HUANG self -reports being in the cannabis ixaeahaAw.u+pal[b�Craptees-= Conrmre�altaneabnAausq semm5s22Acmra l-VpWDoged"rodapabbcaarsuoa' Moms`Each and e.rn vhalaMho+r artl4s Chapin ra heraby deaahed hrlawtd and a pi8hc amaerre " = O'rraaah a Cox dk&A muquansdnpmmy- hu bees I a pddk eunaero a o pddahad :,� laws 60kit Seeorrd Dmnat Cote of AN*&% on C" (am dkrkaf .%MW •r r taankw f 2012► 21 Cd App. $" It1>D6 SrelloaId30OIq2�(SSlo!dePasakwMNWAyyCode Shaw.' Itis ded+radunbwfn1artaspubhemrsarseforany penesowoft laaarn& orrvwy qL dl hatsns Aute at polssum army propaiy in din sky a ruaaaua asci proptov 96sard4ae of wMdha swi propeny eoata wsa conloeeud or legA aoarroaromain savor simian ma MUNI dar any of thefol"W4 000ditara ce aosynco art ioaarl bamn dwaoa 1221 Any o0a caadrdon a awnely raapahmd in law a N"Ity is cohaliratYq a public a duw,1131 Any vnhaoa of say pave" offtairy Anka fakal rgwhooa- adaaaoe or slaw 2 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

industry since 2007, including owning a cannabis dispensary in Los Angeles called "Ironwood Collective," formerly operating a cannabis dispensary in Santa Ana called "1212 Broadway Medical Center, Inc.," and managing a cannabis dispensary called "10 Spot Collective" in Santa Ana.

5. RESPONDENT HUANG has not complied with the COMMISSION Order, the property remains in use as an Wegal cannabis dispensary, and the property is now subject to abatement proceedings pursuant to Pasadena Municipal Code § 14.50.060.

6. RESPONDENT DIAZ is the lessee of the real property located at 1136 E.

Green Street in the city of Pasadena and is subject to the jurisdiction of the CITY. The CITY has taken enforcement measures against DIAZ including the issuance of multiple administrative citations and obtaining a COMMISSION Order in an effort compel DIAZ' compliance with the PMC yet DIAZ remains non-compliant.

7. RESPONDENT DIAZ has not complied with the COMMISSION Order, the property remains in use as an illegal cannabis dispensary, and the subject property is therefore subject to abatement proceedings pursuant to Pasadena Municipal Code § 14.50.060.

A copy of that Code section is attached hereto as Exhibit 171 through 1/3.

8. RESPONDENT DIAZ, as lessee of the real property has allowed the commercial building identified as 1136 E. Green Street to be used for the purposes of an illegal cannabis dispensary identified as "Undefeated 25" ("UNDEFEATED 25"). A photocopy of the lease agreement bearing the signatures of HUANG and DIAZ is attached hereto as Exhibit 211 to 216.

9. UNDEFEATED 25 openly advertises the availability of cannabis and cannabis derivatives on the website %%%%".NccdmaM.can (Weedmaps) which is an internet based advertising media for cannabis dispensaries nationwide. The reference to the number "25" in "Undefeated 25" refers to the cost ($25.00) to purchase 118 ounce, or four grams (4g.) of cannabis. The name "Undefeated 25" and similar variants is a coded way of advertising cheap cannabis typically found in unlicensed dispensaries. Through Weedmaps, UNDEFEATED 25 has posted information regarding various types and prices for cannabis and cannabis products carried in stock including 18 different types of "Indicia" cannabis, 2 different types of "Saliva", 2 different types of "Hybrid", 7 different types of cannabis "wax," 27 different types of cannabis "edibles" and 23 different types of cannabis "concentrates." 3 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

The sale of such items absent local and state permits is unlawful No local or state commercial cannabis activity permits have been issued to UNDEFEATED 25. nor has a local business license been issued.

10. On August 13, 2018, the CITY confirmed that the lease space was being used as an unperrnitted and illegal cannabis dispensary". Such confirmation was achieved by having CITY's private investigators purchase cannabis at this location, The CITY provided the INVESTIGATOR with $50.00 in U.S. currency with which the investigators purchased five grams of "Birthday Sex" marijuana bud, The INVESTIGATOR's "Controlled Purchase Declaration" is attached to this petition as Exhibits 311 to 36, Subsequent to the controlled purchase, Code Compliance Manager Jon Pollard (POLLARD) took the purchased cannabis intact in its' original packaging to the Pasadena Police Department where it was booked for safekeeping. A photocopy of the Pasadena Police Department Property and Evidence Report is attached hereto as Exhibit 411.
11, On October 4, 2018, a properly noticed public hearing was held before Panel No. 3 of the COMMISSION regarding property owner HUANG's allowance of a cannabis dispensary to operate from 1136 E. Green Street. The COMMISSION heard testimony and received evidence regarding operation of the illegal cannabis dispensary. A copy of the CITY's staff report presented to the COMMISSION may be referenced as Exhibit 511 through 5143. At the conclusion of the hearing the COMMISSION made six factual findings, of which the first finding noted; "That Tony Huang was the owner of the real property addressed as 1136 E. Green Street at the time of the City's issuance of the "Cease and Desist" notice on July 1, 2018, and the sixth finding noted "That the presently existing condition violates Section 17.78.060(1)(2)(3)5 and 14.50.040 subsections (28) and (35)1 of the � P4tadcaa M,raicpel Code Sttuon S A 064 a ereidod'Cvirmirrtial canrtsbes pesmiu requucdw ewyrp mtotnmoacaal wnndtts aan i�' sMsgwr 146 persue my "draw a nom nermi eaowhs business at ca" tR torr ricFdal carinmbu attirtly 1631lsia rhe C ty of F"Xk n, rmdadtis caeviiem. p:04now . nawfactamss.wmn&ule,drh.ery drtlnetitioo,attratspon4tsoeeftwist"araeolxall"pro" 41MMdie1 01huatandw-unrtaa tionaaboperrert from The Cor of Pasabeaa 11 M hmr ary W ad nhwl sple a tical giwmiuti, ad {)� is weently is coatgtlranta wide a{i mpplleebk sUsa taidlc Cal lu+s madre4alafgi6 petswtatf to On commmiel aanrbis bmsinds and the temaamial tamsahis actinlp,mrhsdusy hoWns the sectuary Meet liteme to *p8e er eomimd oal comr ilin aerwity .
' d'ooMpeed iafomelwn tam oDuaaod mi orfs" gsgttd sew l PMC Section l T 78 060iA K l K- y,3 r spur -Ary uff of lad a w ummeopr awdo r rw
auorstomrary Nib: Feacsroas orlh4 Zannay, Cade,imy V. Wme awwtecsed or mmimaned nNraq to The prow w ss oftho 2cob $Cc& ad any eo"Iti oca ar land ase perma or subdimmar, approval not popetq toaphed wilb go# be subped To die follo.us (A) Piihlic Nwmaot Amy use w s4nicain witr8 naltrad. wmrtructd.man �u���,emlar- etecsed,cusbldiedintmlled n2mumed.emwd_openied suwta mtp.atedeoninrytheprowimmdlhisZook%!Cc& tochrdue
the Gilmre racoiroiy with or tartat so
y oy crosditme alis" a dic Kram of may Cearrmot of App,aptimems, Coed, kind Urs Parrott Veirem.or other pamsto r t"Ibemea Omuta ea comphaace with that Zonras Code. ft hereby dechmd a public **baro and shin hep iSwbvect to the ssriiedits ad Babies idenufod in din Q►tpltr mad Cliapler M SO fptaprsry hfaititemamoe and lfaisaate Abaamemt)af die Mm*gral Cove (2 suNea to the remediet e l pemli: s Warts led at 0kViers 1 25 (A6meisuaints Pewxxres Ceslianslofihr hhtrapil Codr. end h }sumraedy aliettd lir tiesCia� - l'asadeas Ffurrdpal Code snow* it 50 01413811)3$ salts 'h u dinlared uaisw til and a public oudmite for my perms Damp hm w im-Mens or lane= charge cc pnstpsmo oraq• ploWly in this ciky to mamitema tach proprtty, reprdltu of wleaher tarh propeay tontsoa 4 coatoeaths *00441 meaeoafbrmois use or tetk "I'of a oraanor die any oftht kdawigo cotedltitmtor achviTto me ford so crime dheitw 12111 Any odic undaie- or aeidti) reco"aw I a law cur in egerty AS CMIM eta$ a ptAhc aueanee.1351 Any vwWom of airy pmmm Jany city, sure a federi rev"*&, *dineneaor ealim 4 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

Pasadena municipal Code as set forth in the Stats Report." The COMMISSION produced a single point Order requiring that HUANG "Within ten (10) calendar days from the date the Order is signed by the Chair, cause the cessation of the illegal land use." The Order was mailed on October 31, 2018. A photocopy of the Order of the COMMISSION may be referenced as Exhibits 611 to 6/4.
12_ On October 4, 2018, POLLARD posted and personally delivered to UNDEFEATED 25 a "Notice to Cease and Desist". This notice was posted on the primary entrance door of the PROPERTY and hand delivered to a dispensary employee. The notice directed the owner and operator of the business to cease and desist all illegal and nuisance activity at the location. Illegal cannabis dispensary operations did not cease. A photocopy of the notice may be referenced herein as Exhibits 7+1 and 712.

13. On Octcber 25, 2018, the CITY served a Court ordered inspection warrant upon UNDEFEATED 25. During the service of the warrant another "Notice to Cease and Desist" was served on the occupants of the location and posted on the primary entrance door of the business location. This notice, again, directed the owner and operator of the business to cease and desist all illegal and nuisance activity at the location. Illegal cannabis dispensary operations did not cease. A photocopy of the notice may be referenced herein as Exhibits 811 and 8/2

14. On January 16, 2019, the CITY served a criminal Search Warrant at the location. During the service of this warrant the CITY seized approximately 15.5 pounds of contraband cannabis and 51,7,4.00. The CITY also arrested four individuals for the illegal sale of marijuana Despite this warrant service, seizure and arrests, the dispensary continued to operate.

15. On April 11, 2019, a properly noticed public hearing was held before Panel No. 3 of the COMMISSION regarding lessee DIAZ' a:lowanc:e of a cannabis dispensary to operate from the property she leases at 1136 E Omen Street. The COMMISSION heard testimony and took evidence regarding operation of the illegal marijuana dispensary. A copy of the CITY's staff report presented to the COMMISSION may be referenced as Exhibits 9/1 le 9143. `Khat Commission report property identified the property owner as Tony Huang, with an address of 1706 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite "F", Fullerton, CA. 92833 and HUANG's business entity, "Green Street Pasadena, LLC" with an address of 1706 W. Oningethorpe S
Code Enforcement Commission - Petition for an Order for Abatement

Avenue, Suite "F", Fullerton, CA. 92833. The Commission report inadvertently included the name of Xiaodong Tony Huang (2111 Hilltop Court, Fullerton, CA. 9283 1) as an owner.

Despite the inclusion of Xiaodeng Tony Huang as a responsible party, the report properly identified the property owner as "Tony Huang", who it was later learned has the full name of "Tony Tsung Cheng Huang."
I6. The Commission ordered DIAZ to take the following corrective action:
"Cause and maintain cessation of the illegal land use within five (5) calendar days from the date the Order is signed by the Panel Chair." The Order was signed on April 30, 2019. A photocopy of the Order of the COMMISSION may be referenced as Exhibits 1011 to 10/3.

DIAZ has not complied with the COMMISSION order resulting in the instant abatement petition.

17. On August 7, 2019, at approximately 11:45 a.m. from the parking lot located to the rear of 1136 E. Green Street, POLLARD observed the building to determine its continued operation as a cannabis dispensary. Upon arrival, POLLARD observed the rear door was propped completely open. During a span of approximately 10 minutes, POLLARD observed three separate patrons enter the dispensary through the primary entrance door. Each patron entered empty-handed, and each left within a span of approximately five to 10 minutes later holding small white paper bags. Such activity is consistent with UNDEFEATED 25 continuing operation as an illegal cannabis dispensary.

Grounds for this Petition
The grounds for this Petition are:

1. That at the October 4, 2018 meeting of the Code Enforcement Commission, Panel No. 3 of the COMMISSION received evidence and heard testimony regarding the illegal operation of UNDEFEATED 25 cannabis dispensary at 1136 E. Green Street and based upon that evidence and testimony ordered HUANG to cause discontinuance of the nuisance condition in the form of an illegal marijuana dispensary. HUANG has failed to do so, resulting in the continuance of a public nuisance condition.
2: That at the April 11, 2019, meeting of the Cotte Enforcement Commission, Panel No. 3 of the Commission received evidence and heard testimony regarding the illegal operation of UNDEFEATED 25 cannabis dispensary at 1136 E. Green Street and based upon that evidence 6 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

and testimony ordered DIAZ to cause discontinuance of the nuisance Condition in the form of an illegal marijuana dispensary. DIAZ has failed to do so, resulting in the continuance of a public nuisance condition.
3: The owner and lessee of the PROPERTY have been given notice of the public nuisance condition and ordered to abate the nuisance and in spite of such notice and order, the owner and lessee of the PROPERTY have failed to abate the nuisance; 4: This failure has continued even after the CITY has properly noticed, executed, and returned an inspection warrant signed by the Court on October 25, 2018, authorizing CITY staff to enter the PROPERTY to inspect, investigate, and search the commercial building for documents, identification and instrumentalities associated with operation of an illegal marijuana dispensary, and wherein CITY staff entered the premises and found a fully stocked and operational marijuana dispensary.
6: This failure to discontinue unlawful activity has continued even after the City has properly noticed, executed, and returned a criminal search warrant signed by the Court on authorizing CITY officers and personnel to enter the PROPERTY to seize all illegal items from the location contributing to the public nuisance.

Abatemenj
§ 14.50.060 of the Pasadena Municipal Code is entitled "Abatement procedure" and is as follows:
"Pursuant to California Government Code Section 38773.5, the city establishes the following procedure for abatement of the nuisance activities and conditions described in Section 14.50.040 tSubsection A] "When the administrator of the neighborhood services division determines that any property within the city is being maintained contrary to one or more of the provisions of Section 14.50.040, he shall mail a notice to abate to the owner of said property, stating the section being violated, and desciiliug die %mudition-, which cunstitutr the public nuisance.

Such notice shall order the abatement of the nuisance within a reasonable period of time and may also set forth suggested methods of correcting the same. Such notice may be served by regular mail to the owner's last known address. In the ' 7 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

discretion of the administrator, a second or third notice may be mailed to the owner."
POLLARD, in the instant matter as authorized by the Director of Planning & Community Development, is fulfilling the functional requirements of the "administrator of neighborhood services" and accordingly has determined that the property at 1136 E_ Green Street is being maintained contrary to the provisions of section 14.50.040, subsections (28) and (35) of the Pasadena Municipal Code. On August 7, 2019, POLLARD sent HUANG and DIAZ a "Notice and Order to Abate a Public Nuisance". The notice directed to HUANG and DIAZ was sent by regular and certified U.S. mail and advised both that the PROPERTY was being used contrary to the provisions of Section 14.50.040 of the Pasadena Municipal Code.

The notice described the conditions that constituted a public nuisance and ordered the abatement of such nuisance by August 18, 2019. Such abatement did not occur and the dispensary remains in operation contrary to the Pasadena Municipal Code. A copy of the Notice issued to HUANG and DIAZ may be referenced herein as Exhibits t 1 l to It 13.

Mmu"W Diaz are Both wners," and Both Hav& Rights and Reumnsibilities Pasadena Municipal Code § 14.50.060 requires that a notice to abate shall be mailed "...to the owner of said property...". The CITY mailed notices to both HUANG as the property owner, and DIAZ. as the lessee and owner of a "leasehold interest." As the holder of a leasehold interest, DIAZ can be considered an "owner" of the property. To that point, §14.50.020(E) of the Pasadena Municipal Code contains the definition of "Owner" which states that: " `Owner' means any person owning property, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for city taxes or the lessee.t or other rson having control or W§sgsion of the property." (Emphasis added.) For the purposes of this abatement petition, both HUANG and DIAZ are considered -owners" of the property. A photocopy of §14.50.020(E) may be referenced herein as Exhibit 1211.

While the Pasadena Municipal Code considers both HUANG and DIAZ to be "owners," ownership interest in property vary, so real property (which includes all interests, benefits and rights inherent in the ownership of physical real estate), is said to include the conceptual "bundle of rights", The distinct and individual rights in this bundle of rights can be sold, leased, transferred or otherwise disposed of separately, subject to government limitations and 8 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

private restrictions. Partial interests in real estate can be created by selling, leasing, or otherwise limiting the bundle of rights in a fee simple estate. A "leased fee estate" is held by a lessee, and conveys the right of use and occupancy for a stated term under certain conditions.

HUANG is considered the "owner" of the teal estate, while DIAZ can be considered an owner of the leased fee estate, which is one of the elements of a property's "bundle of rights." As "owners" of the property, (albeit with different terms, rights and responsibilities,) both HUANG and DIAZ were issued a "Notice and Order to Abate a Public Nuisance." HUANG's "Notice and Order" was mailed to his office located at 1706 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite "F" in l=ulletton. DIAZ's "Notice and Order" was mated to her at P.O. Box 864 in South Gate, and to the address of UNDEFEATED 25 at 1136 E. Green Street in Pasadena. The notice to HUANG and DIAZ required each to abate the public nuisance conditions at It 36 E.

Green Street by causing permanent discontinuance of the operation of an unlawful dispensary at said location before August 18, 2019
,Earlier Commission Hearings involving HUANG and DIA7�Ilaye Provided Both An Opoortun& to be Heard Before a Fair Tribunal Serving As a Basis Bx Which Ikk Petition blav crdicated
In both ease law and statutes, the terms "quasi-judicial hearing" and "administrative hearing" are used interchangeably. An "administrative hearing" occurs when: (1) a hearing is held to apply a rule or standard; (2) to an individual person, project, or circumstance; (3) it involves the taking of evidence; (4) it results in the rendering of a written decision issued by the hearing officer or tribunal (including the adoption of findings), and (5) the written decision is based on the facts and arguments submitted at the hearing.

Matters brought before the COMMISSION, including bath of the public hearings for HUANG and DIAZ contain each of the five elements associated with quasi-judicial and administrative hearings. Quasi-judicial hearings are subject to federal and state due process, the fair hearing requirement of Code of Civil Procedures section 1094.5, and additional requirements applicable to particular hearings. Relying on these authorities, California courts have held that administrative hearings must be fair and that administrative decision makers must be impartial.

In People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal.3d 260, the California Supreme Court adopted the federal factors laid out in Matthe+vs, supra, 424 US 319, 334, but added the dignitary protection of 9 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

individuals. As reframed, the California due process factors are: "(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional safeguards; (3) the dignitary interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds, and consequences of the action and in enabling them to present their side of the story before a responsible government official; and (4) the governmental interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substantive procedural requirement would entail." (!d at 268-69.) The most fundamental requirements of procedural due process are: (1) adequate notice; and (2) an opportunity to be heard before a fair and impartial hearing body. Horn Y. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612. Notice is necessary to give the party a chance to defend against charges: (1) before property interests are disturbed; (2) before assessments or penalties are imposed; or (3) when a penalty or forfeiture might be suffered for the failure to act. People v.

Swink (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1079. Under the general principle of due process, notice must be of a type reasonably calculated to give the person with the property interest knowledge of the proceedings. Both HUANG and DIAZ have been provided with the protections afforded by the California due process considerations, as well as the fundamental due process requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before a fair and impartial hearing body.

Fair Tribunal
"When ... gin administrative agency conducts adjudicative proceedings, the constitutional guarantee of due process of law requires a fair tribunal." Morongo, supra, 45 Cal.4'' at 738 citing Withrow v. Larkin (1975) 421 US 35, 46. "A fair tribunal is one in which the judge or other decision maker is free of bias for or against a party." (!d) When they have no financia: interest in the outcome of the hearing, the adjudicators are presumed to be impartial. Moronga supra, 45 Cal.41h at 737, citing Haas v. County of San Bernardino, supra, 2 7 Cal.4' at p. 1025, and Withrow v. Larkin, supra 421 US at 47.

Fair Decision
Under the California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, courts are generally deferential to agencies' decisions under the substantial evidence test; however courts will invalidate any agency's decision if the agency fails to make required findings or fails to demonstrate an 10 Code Enforcement Commission - Petition for an Order for Abatement

analytical route betwgeert the evidence and the action. We& Chandler Nvd Neighborhood Assn v.

City of Los Angeles (2011)198 Cal.App.4a' 1506. The findings of a "fair decision", • "Bridge the analytical gap between raw evidence" and an agency's ultianate decision 11 Ca1.3d at 515.
• Enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of judicial review by explaining to the court what a decision means and how it was reached. I I Cal3d at 516 * Allow interested parties to understand the relevant issues and information so that they can decide whether and on what basis to seek judicial review. I 1 Cal -3d at 516_ • Diminish the importance of judicial review by enhancing the integrity and rigor of administrative decision making by cities. 11 Cal -3d at 516. • Serve "a public relations function" by showing the parties and the interested public that the city made its decision in a careful, reasoned and equitable manner. I I Cal -3d at 517.

The panel hearing the instant PETITION for abatement may reasonably rely on the earlier findings, determinations, and Orders trade by both Panel Number 3 on October 4, 2018, and Panel Number 3 on April 11, 2019, with the certainty that both RESPONDENT's were provided adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before a fair tribunal. ]k Instant Hearing involving Respondents HUANG and DIAZ Was Properly Noticed and Provides Respondents Adequate OpporWalty to be Heard Before a ]Fair Tribunal The CITY has met the threshold for "adequate notice" for this "Notice of Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance" by mailing on August 22, 2819, both regular and certified, a copy of the notice to HUANG at 1706 W. Otangethorpe Avenue, Suite "r, in Fullerton, California, 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, CA. 91106 and 315 N. Euclid Avenue, #200, Fullerton, CA. 92832, and to DIAZ at P.O. Box 864 in South Gate, California and 1136 E Green Street in Pasadena. Similarly, pursuant to noticing requirements of the Pasadena Municipal Code, on August 19, 2019, the CITY mailed Copies of the same notice to the property owner of the two adjacent parcels to the right and the two adjacent parcels to the left of the subject property, to the owner of the parcel directly in front of the subject property, as well as to the adjoining property owners to the right and left side of that parcel, and to the property owner of the parcel immediately behind the parcel. Such noticing was consistent with the requirements of § 14.50.060(C)(2)(a)(b#).

Code Enforcement Commission - Petition for an Order for Abatement

lI.

ADMINSTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY A MUNICPALITIY TO ABATE A

PUBLIC NUISANCE DO NOT REQUIRE A FULL, JUDICIAL -TYPE HEARING This COMMISSION is an appropriate venue to hold a public hearing in which the PEMTIONER seeks to abate a public nuisance on the private property located at 1136 E. Green Street_
Full Partoplt+ offmWural Prolertions Not Regulred
In Mohilef v. Janovici (1996) 51 Cal. App, 401 267, 276 286-301 which involves the abatement of approximately 400 ostriches and 404 emus from Mohilef's 7.5 acre ranch within the city of Los Angeles, the California Court of Appeals considered whether an administrative proceeding held by a municipality to abate a public nuisance required the offending property owner receive a full judicial -type hearing_ The Court declared that due process is satisfied as long as the property owner receives adequate notice of the nature of the alleged nuisance and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges against him. The Court further declared that the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions do not require the offending property owner receive the full panoply of procedural protections accorded in a judicial trial such as the ability to cross-examine witnesses under oath, to subpoena witnesses, or to engage in discovery.

In the Mohilef matter, the City of Los Angeles' nuisance abatement proceedings sufficiently implicated a protected property interest. (See Traverso v. People ex rel Dept of Transportation, supra 6 Cal. 4a' at pp. 1160-1161 [discussing types of property interests protected by due process].) [51 Cal. App. Ota 2861. Thus, the Mohilef's had a protectable property interest in keeping some of the livestock on their ranch and were entitled to due process safeguards in the administrative process. The Court made clear chat the due process clause applied to the City's nuisance abatement proceedings and consequently the Court was left to the matter of determining what process was due.

The Court noted that "Due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest." (Horn V.

County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 605, 612; see also Logan u Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 428-430 3't fn. 5 [due process requires adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard.]) However, there is no precise manner of hearing which must be 12 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

afi'orded; rather the particular interest at issue must be considered in determining what kind of hearing is appropriate. A formal hearing with full rights of confrontation and cross- examination is not required" (Saleeby v Stare Bar (1985) 39 Cal, 3d 547, 565.) III.

MINIMUM DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO
ABATATMENT.

Absent an emergency, minimum administrative due process protections are required before physical abatement (Leppo v. City of Petaluma (1971) 20 Cal -App. 3d 711, 717; Mohilef v_ Janovici (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 267, 276, 2$6-301.) Administrative proceedings are by design informal compared to judicial proceedings, and do not require the same adherence to rules of evidence, cross-examination, or subpoena powers. They may be based upon hearsay and do not require cross-examination or testimony under oath (Mohilef, supra, 51 Cal. App. 4th at 283.) Here, the records shows that RESPONDENT HUANG, the named party regarding a public nuisance condition in a matter heard before the COMMISSION, was offered an opportunity to be present and proffer evidence at the COMMISSION hearing of October 4, 201 S.

The records similarly shows that where RESPONDENT DIAZ was the named party regarding a public nuisance condition in a matter before the COMMISSION, DIAZ was offered an opportunity to be present and proffer evidence at the COMMISSION hearing of April 11, 2019.

At each hearing POLLARD presented evidence regarding RESPONDENTS violation of the CITY's ordinances. At the conclusion of the public hearing and as a result of testimony and evidence offered by POLLARD, an Order was issued by the COMMISSION requiring that both take certain corrective measures to alleviate the unlawful conditions. To date both RESPONDENT H YANG and DIAZ have not met the conditions of their respective Orders.

IV.

THE CITY WILL SEEK A WARRANT TO ENTER 1136 E. GREEN STREET AND

ABATE THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Warradl Rt?8yiad l4 E'ntpz Livate EMerty to Abate
In Gleaves v Waters (1985) 175 Cal,App.3d 414, the Califomia Court of Appeals considered the necessity for a warrant for government officials to enter private property for the purpose of abating the Japanese beetle, a stipulated nuisance, by the application of pesticides. 13 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

Before the abatement warrant was executed, the property owners sought injunctive relief to restrain the government from entering their property and abating the nuisance, They argued among other things that the abatement warrant was invalid. The trial court denied injunctive relief in affirming the denial of injunctive relief, the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of an abatement warrant to abate public nuisances on private property.

Upholding the warrant requirement, the Court stated- "[W]e hold that in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances, government officials engaged in the abatement of a public nuisance must have a warrant to enter any private property where such entry would invade a constitutionally protected privacy interest." (Gleaves Y. Waters (19$5) 175 Cal.App.3d 413, 419.)
In Connor v Santa Ana (1990) 897 F.2d 1487, 1490, which case involves the abatement of apparently inoperable automobiles stored on private property, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal declared that "[i]t is clear that the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment applies to entries onto private land to search for and abate suspected nuisances." The Ninth Circuit made clear that hearings and appeals afforded the owners by the police department and the city council did not obviate the need for a warrant when the city determined to abate the nuisance. (Id. at 1490, 1492)
The requirement for a warrant in the foregoing cases stems from the U.S. Constitution, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 et seq. provides a statutory process for obtaining inspection warrants. However, these statutes are silent regarding a process to obtain a warrant to enter property to abate a nuisance. (See Gleaves at 420.) Importantly, in Flahive v. City of Dana Point (1999) 72 Cal App.4"; 246, the California Court of Appeal held that a procedure that follows statutory requirements for other types of warrants such as an inspection warrant is sufficient. In Flahive, the City of Dana Point requested the court issue an abatement warrant to abate various public nuisances existing within the City. After a warrant was issued by the trial court, the owner of the nuisance property sued the City asserting, among other things, claims for trespass and inverse condemnation. The owners argued that the trial court did not have the authority to issue the abatement warrant. However in affirming the trial court's issuance of the abatement warrant to the City, the Appellate Court held that the lower court did have subject matter jurisdiction to issue an abatement warrant ordering the city to abate the public nuisance on the property. The Court reasoned that while "no statutory procedure has been enacted" for 14 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

obtaining an abatement warrent, "the procedure the_ City employed appears to pass constitutional muster bSUM h miaQm the statutory requirements of other types of warrants." (Mahtve, supra at p. 246 (emphasis added.)
The Appellate Court in Flahive, quoting the California Supreme Court, then detailed the procedure for obtaining an abatement warrant which mirrored the requirements for an inspection warrant: (1) a written warrant issued upon reasonable cause to believe grounds for the abatement existed, (2) an affidavit which particularly describes the place to be inspected and designates the purpose for the intrusion and the limitations on it; (3) a warrant valid for a reasonable time and limited to the hours which it could be executed; (4) requiring the City to post notice on the property at least 24 hours before the abatement; (5) requiring that consent to enter the property was sought and denied, or provided the reason why consent was not sought; (6) only reasonable force used to execute the warrant, and (7) after the abatement is complete, the city files a sworn return stating with particularity what action was taken to abate the nuisance and the results. (Flahive, supra, 72 Cal. App. 41b at 246, n.8, quoting Gleaves v.

Waters, 1985 175 Cal. App. 3d 413, 420; see also Ogborn v City of Lancaster, (2002) 101 Cal.

App. 4'h 448) These are the same requirements for an inspection warrant, as codified in Code of Civil Procedures sections 1822.50.1822.58 discussed below.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.51 provides; "An inspection warrant shall be issued upon cause, unless some other provision of state or federal law makes another standard applicable. An inspection warrant shall be supported by an affidavit, particularly describing the place, dwelling, structure, premises or vehicle to be inspected and the purpose for which inspection is made. In addition, the affidavit "I contain either a statement that consent to inspect had been sought and refused, or facts or circumstances reasonably justifying the failure to seek such consent." Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.52 provides: "Cause shall be deemed to exist if either reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting a routine or area inspection are satisfied with respect to the particular place, dwelling, structure, premises, or vehicle, or there is reason to believe that a condition of nonconformity exists with respect to the particular place, dwelling, structure, premises, or vehicle." 15 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

V.

THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN ABATEMENT WARRANT TO THE

CITY OF PASADENA SO THAT IT MAY EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POLICE POWER AUTHORITY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCES.

California Civil Code section 3491 provides three remedies for addressing a public nuisance: 1) indictment or information; 2) a civil action; or 3) abatement. The City is authorized to pursue any or all of the three options. (Selma Pressure Treating Co. v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. (1990) 221 Cal,App, 3d 1601, 1616 (public entity, like individuals, is able to pursue full panoply of remedies for nuisance)) However, under certain circumstances the Fourth Amendment requires that the City obtain an abatement warrant prior to the CITY'S non- consensual entry onto private property to abate the public nuisance. (Gleaves v. Waters (1985) Cai.App.3d 413, 419420.) Courts have accepted the use of the inspection warrant procedures set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 et. seq. to issue abatement warrants as well_ (Flahive v. City of Darya Point (1999) 72 Cal.App.0 241, 246 at fn. 8; People v. Todd Shipyards Corp. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d Supp. 20, 30-31 (court upheld warrant obtained under Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 er seq., which authorized the search and subsequent seizure of documents and samples.) ) The Flahive court cited with approval the use of the procedures set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 et. seq. for issuance of an abatement warrant.
"We note, however, the procedure the City employed appears to pass constitutional muster because it mirrored the statutory requirement for other types of warrants. The warrant was issued upon probable cause to believe grounds for abatement existed, shown by an affidavit which also particularly described the place to be inspected. The warrant was in writing, directed to a state or local official, and commanded the abatement authorized by an appropriate law. The warrant particularly described the place where the abatement was to take place and designated the purpose for the intrusion and limitation on it. The warrant was valid for a reasonable period of time and limited the hours during which it could be executed. The owner's presence was not required, but the City was required to post notice on the property at least 24 hours before the abatement. Only reasonable force to execute the warrant was authorized." - I!
Code Enforcement Commission -- Petition for an Order for Abatement

Here the City seeks to abate a public nuisance existing on the subject property, which is privately owned and for which an abatement warrant is necessary. As the Court held in Connor v. City of Santa Ana, (1990) 897 F.2d 1487, 1491: California courts have rejected for purposes Of the warrant requirement, any distinction between inspection and abatement of a declared public nuisance."
A city has police power authority to declare what activities or uses constitute a nuisance and, in an effort to protect the general welfare, to enact regulations designed to eliminate or reduce the occurrence of a nuisance. (California Constitution, Article X1, Section 7.) A city council may by ordinance, declare what constitutes a nuisaacc and may establish procedures for the abatement of the nuisance at the Property owner's expense. (Government Code section 38771.) Pursuant to this police power authority, the CITY enacted City of Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 5.78 (Commercial Cannabis Activity) and wherein section 5.78.230 declares "Violations declared a public nuisance" and which defines a public nuisance to include "Each and every violation of the provisions of this Chapter is hereby deemed unlawful and a public nuisance" Further, operation of an illegal dispensary has been deemed a public nuisance in a published opinion of the Second District Court of Appeals in Urgent Care Medical Services v Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5' 1086. California Civil Code section 3491 permits the City to address this nuisance by abatement.

Here, the undisputed evidence establishes that the PROPERTY constitutes a public nuisance as defined in Chapter 5.78 of the Pasadena Municipal Code and as set forth in Urgent Care.

VI.

THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO ABATE THE NUISANCE CONDITIONS AT 1136 E.

GREEN STREET, PASADENA.

The numerous efforts by the CITY to have the RESPONDENTS resolve this matter and bring the PROPERTY into compliance with local law have been unsuccessful. Due to lack of compliance by the RESPONDENTS, the CITY is left to abate the public nuisance for the welfare and benefit of its citizens. Given the fact that the RESPONDENTS have maintained the PROPERTY in violation of the Pasadena Municipal Code since at least August 2018, there is no reason to believe that they will remedy the ongoing hazardous conditions in the foreseeable 17 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

future. The CITY has afforded the RESPONDENTS every opportunity to comply with ceasing the activity at the property. Despite the CITY'S request, the RESPONDENTS have failed to do It is unnecessary for the COMMISSION to rehear testimony and reconsider the evidence that was presented in both RESPONDENT HUANG and DIAZ' original hearings before the COMMISSION In both hearings, the respective COMMISSION panel made factual findings based upon the testimony and evidence introduced, and based upon those factual findings, the COMMISSION rendered respective compliance Orders. In summary, the evidence clearly ,establishes a nuisance condition at the PROPERTY. Similarly, case law reveals that the PETITIONER has met due process requirements by making proper advance notification to both the OWNER RESPONDENT and LESSEE RESPONDENT of the pertinent public parings held before the CITY's Code Enforcement Commission and by allowing the OWNER and LESSEE the opportunity to be heard before the CITY's Code Enforcement Commission.

The CITY intends to seek an Order of Abatement to: (1) require RESPONDENT OWNER HUANG AND RESPONDENT OWNER/LESSEE DIAZ to cease violations of Pasadena Municipal Codes 14.50.040(28). 14.50.040(35), 5.78.030 and 5.78.060 by discontinuing the sale and storage of all cannabis products and, (2) permit the PETITIONER to secure the PROPERTY as described below should RESPONDENT's fail or refuse to discontinue the sale and storage of cannabis and cannabis products.

It is not unreasonable to require HUANG and DIAZ to comply with the Pasadena Municipal Code, and the issuance of an Order for Abatement upon a fully noticed hearing would not constitute a taking of property without due process of law.

The issuance of the prayed for Order for Abatement is not expected to result in the closing or elimination of an otherwise lawful business.

VI1.

CONCLUSION
THEREFORE, the Planning & Community Development Department of the City of Pasadena as PETITIONER prays for an Order of Abatement:

1. Which acknowledges that RESPONDENT PROPERTY OWNER Tony Tsung Cheng Huang was properly notified of the alleged violations of the Pasadena Municipal Code occurring at property he owns at 1136 E. Green Street, informed of the date, time and location of the Is
Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

"Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance," provided the opportunity to appear with or without legal counsel, and offered the opportunity to provide testimony and evidence to the Commission.

2. Which acknowledges that RESPONDENT LESSEE Amy Sahadi Diaz was properly notified of the alleged violations of the Pasadena Municipal Code occurring at property she leases at 1136 E. Green Street, informed of the date, time and location of the "Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance," provided the opportunity to appear with or without legal counsel, and offered the opportunity to provide testimony and evidence to the Commission.

3. Which acknowledges that Code Compliance Manager Jon Pollard appeared and testified on behalf of the City that the conditions regarding operation of an illegal cannabis dispensary violate the Pasadena Municipal Code, and persisted as of the date of the hearing.

4. Which acknowledges that the COMMISSION accepted into the administrative record this Petition and associated exhibits denoted herein, along with others that may be have been received at the time of testimony.

5. Which acknowledges that this panel of the Code Enforcement Commission finds that the past and present operation of an illegal cannabis dispensary from the commercial building at 1136 E. Green Street constitutes a public nuisance as defined by the Pasadena Municipal Code, and determined in recent case law, and must be discontinued within 10 days of the mailing date of the Findings and Decision jar an Order for Abatement of the Code Enforcement Commission.

6. Which acknowledges that this panel of the Code Enforcement Commission finds that RESPONDENT HUANG and RESPONDENT DIAZ have failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel, the willingness to eliminate the Code violations associated with the PROPERTY.

7. Which acknowledges that RESPONDENT HUANG has been involved in the cannabis industry since 2007 and since then has owned a cannabis dispensary in Los Angeles, formerly operated a cannabis dispensary in Santa Ana, and as recent as January 2019 operates a dispensary in Santa Ana called "10 Spot" Collective in Santa Ana.

8. Which acknowledges that this panel of the Code Enforcement Commission finds the PETITIONER has met all of CITY's procedural requirements for obtaining an Abatement I9
Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

Warrant, and that it is the PETITIONER'S objective to obtain and execute an Abatement Warrant at 1136 E. Green Street.

9. Which acknowledges that it is the PETITIONER'S intent to enter upon the PROPERTY for the removal of all unlawful contraband being sold and distributed at the PROPERTY (including all cannabis products being sold), the removal of all additional personal property at the location (including equipment and other miscellaneous items present on the PROPERTY) and the boarding up of the PROPERTY to prevent continued use of the PROPERTY for unlawful activity.

10. Which acknowledges that the CITY or its authorized agent shall complete the following:
a. Remove and properly dispose of all contraband property found at the location_ b. Remove and store all additional non -contraband property for a period of 30 days, during which time the legal owner of the property may claim and retrieve such property Should the non -contraband property not be claimed within that 30 -day period, the CITY may dispose of said property_
c. Hoard up the PROPERTY to prevent continued unlawful use of the location. d. Maintain, or cause to be maintained the security features of the board -up, and make necessary and periodic repairs to such features.

I Which acknowledges that HUANG has permitted the presence of an illegal cannabis dispensary at the property he owns at 1136 E. Green Street, that his behavior in failing to eliminate an unlawful condition at his property demonstrates a refusal to comply with the rule of law, and that HUANG has demonstrated a proclivity to allow unlawful behavior to continue unchecked at his property.

12. Which acknowledges the CITY's interest in balancing the rights of a property owner to fully, lawfully and gainfully use their property for legitimate and legal purposes with the CITY's duty to timely eradicate unlawful and public nuisance conditions wherever found, and that based upon the necessity of maintaining such balance between rights and responsibility thus require that for a period of three years from the date of signing of the COMMISSION's "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abalemenl, HUANG be required to seek COMMISSION approval of any future tenant prior to their taking tenancy. Further, that HUANG or an authorized representative must therefore provide evidence and testimony of the tenants fitness for occupancy 20 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

to a parcel of the COMMISSION wherein it shall be the duty of the COMMISSION to fully vet, approve or disapprove any proposed tenant -

13. For such other and further relief that this Commission deems just and proper.

VIII.

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Pasadena Municipal Code Section 14.50.060
Exhibit 2: Lease Agreement between Huang and Diaz
Exhibit 3: Controlled Purchase Declaration
Exhibit 4: Pasadena Police Department Property and Evidence Report Exhibit 5: Code Enforcement Commission Report -October 4, 2018 Exhibit 6: Code Enforcement Commission Order - Meeting of October 4, 2018 Exhibit 7: Cease and Desist Notice Dated October 4, 2018 Exhibit 8: Cease and Desist Notice Dated October 25, 2018 Exhibit 9• Code Enforcement Commission Report April it, 2019 Exhibit 10: Code Enforcement Commission Order - Meeting of April 11, 2019 Exhibit 11: Notice and Order to Abate a Public Nuisance Exhibit 12: Pasadena Municipal Code Section 14.50.020(E) Recommended Commission Findinp:
(I move that) The Commission makes the following factual findings:

1. That Tony Tsung Cheng Huang was the owner of the real property addressed as 1136 E.

Green Street during all times referenced in the CITY's Petition for Abatement.

2. That Amy Sahadi Diaz was the lessee of the real property addressed as 1136 E. Green Street during all times referenced in the CITY's Petition for Abatement.

3. That Torry Tsung Cheng Huang was duly notified of the alleged nuisance condition and violation of the Pasadena Municipal Code, and properly informed of the hearing date by CITY sending a "Notice of Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance" by regular and certified U.S. mail on August 22, 2019, to Tony Tsung Cheng Huang at 1706 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite "F", Fullerton CA. 92844, Tony Tsung 21 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

Cheng Huang at 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, CA. 91106 and to Tony Tsung Cheng Huang at 315 N. Euclid Avenue, 0200, Fullerton, CA, 92832,

4. That Amy Sahadi Diaz was duly notified of the alleged nuisance condition and violation of the Pasadena Municipal Code, and properly informed of hearing date by CITY's sending a "Notice of Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance" by regular and certified U.S. mail on August 22, 2019, to Amy Sahadi Diaz. P.O. Box 864, South Gate, CA. 90280 and to Amy Sahadi Diaz at 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, CA. 91106,

5. That the "Notice of Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance" was sent by regular mail to the property owner of the two adjacent parcels to the right and the two adjacent parcels to the left of the subject property, to the owner of the parcel directly in front of the subject property, as well as to the adjoining property owners to the right and left side of that parcel, and to the property owner of the parcel immediately behind the lM

6. That the Commission accepted into the administrative record the following document at the hearing of September 5, 2019:
a. Exhibit l City's Petition for an Order for Abatement 7 That Tony Tsung Cheng Huang as owner of the real property at 1136 E. Green Street appeared and testified on his own behalf at the hearing of September 5, 2019, or
That Amy Sahadi Diaz as lessee of the real property at 1136 E. Green Street appeared and testified on herown behalf at the hearing of September 5, 2019, or
That (representative) appeared and testified on behalf of (Respondent) at the hearing of September 5, 2019;
or
That neither Tony Tsung Cheng Huang nor Amy Sahadi Diaz appeared and testified at the baring of September 5, 2019;

8. That the following municipal code violations persist at 1136 E. Green Street:
c; Pasadena Municipal Code Section 1.24.010(A) - General Penalty c. Pasadena Municipal Code Section 5.78.030 -Commercial cannabis activities prohibited unless specifically authorized by this chapter.

Pasadena Municipal Code Section 5.78,060 - Commercial cannabis permit required to engage in commercial cannabis activity.
22 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

o Pasadena Municipal Code Section 14.50.040(28) - Prohibited activities --Any condition recognized in law or equity as constituting a public nuisance. o Pasadena Municipal Code Section 14.50.040(35) - Prohibited Activities Any violation of any provision of any city, state or federal regulation, ordinance or statute.

9. That it is not unreasonable to require either HUANG or DIAZ to comply with the Pasadena Municipal Code.

10. That issuance of an Order for Abatement upon a fully noticed hearing would not constitute a taking of property without dere process of law.

THEREFORE, the CITY prays for an Order of Abatement as follows:

Recommended Commission Corrective Action
The Commission orders RESPONDENT's HUANG and DIAZ to take the following corrective actions.

Within 10 calendar days from the mailing date of the Order of the Code Enforcement Commission, quit use of the premises for all unlawful purposes including the sale and storage of cannabis and any derivative thereof.

The Commission APPROVES PETITIONER's REQUEST to abate the public nuisance conditions occurring at It 3G E. Green Street by seeking COURT authorization of a requisite warrant and CITY taking efforts as described elsewhere in this petition required to board -up, or otherwise secure the building.

The Commission APPROVES PETTITIONERS REQUEST to maintain, or cause to be maintained the security features of the board -up, and make necessary and periodic repairs to such features.

The Commission APPROVES PETITIONERS REQUEST requiring that for a period of three years from the date of the signing of the COMMISSION's "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatemenr, " HUANG seek COMMISSION approval of any future tenant prior to their taking tenancy and that HUANG must therefore provide written and oral testimony and evidence of the tenants fitness for occupancy to a panel of the COMMISSION wherein it shall be the duty of the COMMISSION to fully vet, approve or disapprove any proposal tenant. 23 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

PETMONER shall not seek any required COURT warrant sooner than I 1 days from the mailing date of the Order of the Code Enfant Commission, or upon the conclusion of any properly submitted appeal hearing of the instant matter, whichever occurs first.

DATED: SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 THE CITY OF PASADENA

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
By:

JON A. POTUAIM
Code Compliance Manager
24 Code Enforcement Commission — Petition for an Order for Abatement

BEFORE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEALS COMMISSION
In the Matter of

CITY OF PASADENA PLANNING &

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DEPARTMENT
Petitioner,
V.

PROPERTY OWNER GREEN STREET

PASADENA LLC / TONY TSUNG CHENG

HUANG AND PROPERTY LESSEE AMY
SAHADI DIAZ, 1136 E. GREEN STREET,

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 5735-014-024
Respondents.

Case No. CTP201 M 1229

FINDINGS AND DECISION FOR AN

ORDER FOR ABATEMENT
Pasadena Municipal Code § 14.50.060
Hearing Date: September 5, 2019
Time. 4:00 p.m.

Place: 175 N, Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA, 91101
Hearing Room
IT IS HERl;BY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to Pasadena Municipal Code Section 14 50.060 and proper service of public hearing notices; an administrative hearing; open to the public regarding `'A Petition for an Order for Abatement" was held on September 5. 2019, before the City of Pasadena "Code Enforcement Appeals Commission" from which the Commission made -Factual Findings" including elements fundamental to, and resulting in the formation of the Commission Order herein
Rcspondcnt Property Owner Tony Tsung Cheng Huang, Repwndent Property Lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP2018-01229 ! 1136 E Green Street - Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

The following members of the Code Entorcement Appeals Commission sitting as "Panel Number 1" were present at the September 5, 2019 meeting, Commissioner Mary Machado Schammel (alternate), Commissioner Harvey Cordner, and Commissioner Michael Warner.

Commissioners Machado Schammel, Cordner and Warner were present for the entire meeting and heard the matter in its entirety Petitioner, City of Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department was represented by Nikhil Damle, Special Counsel for the City from Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley. The public was provided the opportunity to testify and submit evidence. As a result of that hearing, the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission finds and decides as follows.

FINDINGS OF FACT
L Respondent Tony Tsung Cheng Huang was properly notified of the alleged violations of the Pasadena Municipal Code occurring at property he owns at 1136 E. Green Street, informed of (lie date, time and location of the "Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance," provided the opportunity to appear with or without legal counsel, and offered the opportunity to provide testimony and evidence to the Commission.

2. Respondent Amy Sahadi Diaz was properly notified of the alleged violations of the Pasadena Municipal Code occurring at property she leases at 1136 E. Green Street, informed of the date, time and location of the "Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance," provided the opportunity to appear with or without legal counsel, and offered the opportunity to provide testimony and evidence to the Commission

3. Code Compliance Manager Jon Pollard appeared and testified on behalf of the Petitioner that the conditions regarding operation of an illegal cannabis dispensary violate the Pasadena Municipal Code, and persisted as of the date of the hearing.

4. Panel No. I of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission accepted into the administrative record City's Petition for an Order for Abatement which was marked as "Exhibit 1"

5. Panel No. 1 of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission finds that the past and present operation of an illegal cannabis dispensary from the commercial building at 1136 E_ 2 Respondent Property Owner 'cony Tsung Cheng Huang, Repsondent Property Lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP2018-012291 1136 E. Green Street - Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

Green Street constitutes a public nuisance as defined by the Pasadena Municipal Code and as determined in recent case law, and must be discontinued within 10 calendar days of the mailing date of the Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement" of the Code Enforcement Commission.

6. Panel No. 1 of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission finds that Respondent Huang and Respondent Diaz have failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the panel, the willingness and ability to eliminate the problems associated with the subject property.

7. Panel No. 1 of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission finds that Respondent Haung has been involved in the cannabis industry since 2007 and since then has owned a cannabis business in Los Angeles, formerly operated a cannabis dispensary in Santa Ana, and as recent as January 2019, operates a dispensary in Santa Ana called "10 Spot" Collective.

8. Panel No. l of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission finds the Petitioner has met all of City's procedural requirements for obtaining an abatement warrant, and that it is the Petitioner's objective to obtain and execute an abatement warrant at 1136 E. Green Street,

9. Panel No. 1 of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission acknowledged and affirmed that it is the Petitioner's intent to enter upon the Property for the removal of unlawful contraband being sold and distributed at the Property (including all marijuana products being sold), the removal of all additional personal property at the location (this includes all equipment and other miscellaneous items present on the Property) and the boarding up of the Property to prevent continued use of the Property for public nuisance activity.

10. Panel No. I of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission acknowledged and affirmed that the Petitioner or its authorized agent shall complete the following:
a. Remove and properly dispose of all contraband property found at the ideation. b. Remove and store all additional non -contraband property for a period of 30 days, during which time the legal owner of the property may claim and retrieve such property. Should the property not be claimed within that 30 -day period, the City may dispose of that property.
c. Board up the Property to prevent continued public nuisance use of the location.
3 Respondent Property Owner Tony Tsung Cheng Huang, Repsondent Property lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP2018-01229 / 1136 E. Green Street - Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

d. Maintain, or cause to be maintained the security features of the board -up, and make necessary and periodic repairs to such features.

11. Panel No. 1 of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission acknowledged and affirmed that Huang has permitted the presence of an illegal cannabis dispensary at the property he owns at It 36 E. Green Street, that his behavior in failing to eliminate an unlawful condition at his property demonstrates a refusal to comply with the rule of law, and that Huang has demonstrated a proclivity to allow unlawful behavior to continue unchecked at his property.

12. Panel No. I of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission acknowledged and affirmed the City's interest in balancing the rights of a property owner to fully, lawfully and gainfully use their property for legitimate and legal purposes with City's duty to timely eradicate unlawful and public nuisance conditions wherever found, and that based on the necessity of maintaining such balance between rights and responsibility thus require that for a period of three years from the date of signing of the Commission's "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement" Huang be required to seek Commission approval of any future tenant prior to their taking tenancy. Further, that Huang or an authorized representative must therefore provide evidence and testimony of the tenant's fitness for occupancy to a panel of the Commission wherein it shall be the duty of the Commission to fully vet, approve, or disapprove any proposed tenant.

COMMISSION FACTUAL FINDINGS
BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, panel No. I of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission found:

I. That Tony Tsung Cheng Huang was the owner of the real property addressed as 1136 E.

Green Street during all times referenced in the City's Petition for Abatement.

2. That Amy Sahadi Diaz was the lessee of the real property addressed as 1136 E Green Street during all times referenced in the City's Petition for Abatement. 3, That Tony Tsung Cheng Huang was duly notified of the alleged nuisance condition and violation of the Pasadena Municipal Code, and properly informed of the hearing date by 4 Respondent Property Owner Tony Tsung Cheng Huang, Repsondent Property Lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP2018-01229 / 1136 E Green Street - Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

the City sending a "Notice of Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of a Public Nuisance" by regular and certified U.S_ mail on August 22, 2019, to Tony Tsung Cheng Huang at 1706 W. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite "F", Fullerton, CA, 92844, Tony Tsung Cheng Huang at 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, CA. 91106, and to Tony Tsung Cheng Huang at 315 N. Euclid Avenue, 4200, Fullerton, CA. 92832.

4. That Amy Sahadi Diaz was duly notified of the alleged nuisance condition and violation of the Pasadena Municipal Code, and properly informed of the hearing date by City's sending a "Notice of Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance" by regular and certified U.S. mail on August 22, 2019, to Amy Sahadi Diaz at P.O. Box 864, South Gate, CA. 90280 and to Amy Sahadi Diaz at 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, CA. 91106.

5. That the "Notice of Administrative Hearing Regarding Abatement of Public Nuisance" was sent by regular mail to the property owner of the two adjacent parcels to the right and the two adjacent parcels to the left of the subject property, to the owner of the parcel directly in front of the subject property, as well as to the adjoining property owners to the right and left side of that parcel, and to the property owner of the parcel immediately behind the parcel.

6. That the Commission accepted into the administrative record the following document at the Dearing of September 5, 2019;
a_ Exhibit 1 —City's Petition for an Order for Abatement

7. That neither Property Owner/Respondent Tony Tsung Cheng Huang nor Property Lessee/Respondent Amy Sahadi Diaz appeared and testified at the hearing of September 5, 2019.

8. That the following municipal code violations persist at 1460 E. Walnut Street:
o Pasadena Municipal Code Section 1.24.010(A) -General Penalty o Pasadena Municipal Code Section 5 78.030 - Commercial cannabis activities prohibited unless specifically authorized by this chapter. o Pasadena Municipal Code Section 5.78.060 - Commercial cannabis permit required to engage in commercial cannabis activity.
5 Respondent Property Owner Tony Tsung Cheng Huang, Repsondent Property Lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP201"[ 229 / 1 136 E Green Street - Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

o Pasadena Municipal Code Section 14.50.040(28) - Prohibited activities Any condition recognized in law or equity as constituting a public nuisance o Pasadena Municipal Code Section 14.50.040(35) - Prohibited Activities Any violation of any provision of any city, state or federal regulation, ordinance or statute.

9. That it is not unreasonable to require either Respondent Huang or Diaz to comply wrath the Pasadena Municipal Code.

10. That issuance of an Order for Abatement upon a fully noticed hearing would not constitute a taking of property without due process of law.

ORDER
THEREFORE, subject to the aforesaid statements and good cause appearing, by UNANIMOUS VOTE, Panel No. 1 of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission consisting of Commissioners Machado Schammel (alternate), Cordner, and Warner orders Respondents TONY TSENG CHENG HUANG and AMY SAHADI DIAZ to take the following corrective actions.

1. Within 10 calendar days from the mailing date of the Order of the Code Enforcement Commission. quit use of the premises for all illegal purposes including the sale and storage of marijuana and any derivative thereof and;
WHEREAS, Panel No. I of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission APPROVES Petitioner's request to abate the public nuisance conditions occurring at 1136 E. Green Street by seeking court authorization of a requisite warrant and the City taking efforts to board -up, or otherwise secure the building and;
WHEREAS, Panel No. 1 of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission APPROVES Petitioner's request to maintain, or cause to be maintained, the security features of the board -up, and make necessary and periodic repairs to such features and; 6 Respondent Property Owner Tony Tsung Cheng Huang, Repsondent Property lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP2018-01229 f 1136 E. Green Street - Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

WHEREAS, Panel No. I of the Code Enforcement Appeals Commission APPROVES Petitioner's request requiring that for a period of three years from the date of the mailing of this Order, that Huang seek Commission approval of any future tenant prior to their taking tenancy and that Huang must therefore provide written and oral testimony and evidence of the tenants fitness for occupancy to a panel of the Commission wherein it shall be the duty of the Commission to fully vet, approve or disapprove any proposed tenant and; WHEREAS, Petitioner shall not seeks any required court warrant sooner than 11 days from the mailing date of these "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement", or upon the conclusion of any properly submitted appeal hearing of the instant matter, whichever occurs first.

Pursuant to Section 2.55.075 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, Respondents TONY TSUNG CHENG HUANG and AMY SAHADI DIAZ, have a right to appeal the panel determination to this matter to the full Commission. The Respondents may appeal by filing the attached appeal application with the Planning & Community Development Department within ten (10) calendar days following the date this Order was mailed.

Section 2.55.075(B) of the Pasadena Municipal Code sets forth the basis for appeal:
"The appeal application shall set forth previously unavailable new evidence regarding the matter; or state specifically the manner in which the panel determination was not supported by the record, misinterpreted the Municipal Code, misapplied established City policy, or erred in some other respect." In order for an appeal application to be accepted for processing, it must be filed in a timely manner, and the property owner/property lessee must explain how this case meets at least one (1) of the criteria set forth above.
7 Respondent Property Owner Tony Tsung Cheng I luang, Repsondent Property Lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP2019-01229 ! 1 136 E. Green Street - Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

If Respondents Huang and Diaz do not file an appeat, they must timely comply with the panel determination in this case. Failure to do so may result in the filing of misdemeanor criminal charges pursuant to Pasadena Municipals Code Section 1.24.010. IT IS SO ORDERED.

PANELCHAIR,­/wei:'j J�
Mary M ehado Schammel
SIGNAUTRE DATE: -
RECORDING SECRETARY:

Valeria Castillo
MAILING DATE; �-
Respondent Property Owner Tony Tsung Cheng Huang, Repsondent Property Lessee Amy Sahadi Diaz Code Compliance Case No. CTP2018-012291 1136 E. Green Street -Findings and Order for Abatement Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 s
g
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 MICHELE B. BAGNERIS, City Attorney SBN l 54 3
MICHAEL P. DOWD, Chief Assistant City Prosecutor SBN 180048 City of Pasadena
City Hall, Room 21.0 FILED
Pasadena., CA. 91109-7215 5nperiar Court of CaF#fore#8
Telephone {626) 744-4141 County of Los Anart.s
Attorneys for Applicant
P 1 fhe S fol'f
OCT ? d mg
eop e o t tate o a t ornta Steerrt Grier, &antl►e (NFa r+ Clerl of Coal
Breey rliht ' Dep°ty

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
IN RE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1136 E. ) Case No.

GREEN STREET, PASADENA, j

CALIFORNIA ABATEMENT WARRANT
—

ABATEMENT OF ILLEGAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY TO OBTAIN

COMPLIANCE WITH THE PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO JON POLLARD AND ANY D LY

AUTHORIZED AND APPOINTED AGENT OF THE CITY OF PASADENA, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
Proof by affidavit, having been this day made before me by Cade Compliance Manager JON POLLARD, and declaration of JAVIER AGUILAR, Police Lieutenant for the City of Pasadena, that there is probable cause and it is reasonably likely to believe that violations of the Pasadena Municipal Code exist at the premises located at 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, California and that those violations may be lawfully abated:

THIS COURT FINDS, based upon the arguments presented by the Applicant, that the requirement for the issuance of 24-hour notice, as otherwise required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822,56, is waived based upon a finding that immediate execution is reasonably necessary given the factual circumstances demonstrated by the Application for abatement warrant.

ABATEMENT WARRANT
1 Abatement Warrant —1136 E. Green Street

1 2
3 a
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 1s
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
21 28

YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED
On November 1 2019 or as soon thereafter practicable, but no later than November. 7, 2019. between the hours of 8:00 am. and 5:00 p -m., to arrange and conduct an abatement of the premises located at 1136 E. Green Street, Pasadena, California by and through all appropriate City of Pasadena employees or their agents by forcible entry, if necessary, for the purpose of:
(1) Remov'n and s vsirtg of all contra an
1 rvl2� C4 Io: yra
(2) Removing and storing all do non -contraband property for a period of 30 days, during which time, the 1 wner of the property may claim and retrieve such property, Should th roperty n claimed within thpt 30-0ay period, the City may dispose o t property, (%7�7l0 / td ,' L/ � {3) Board up or otherwise secure the building and property to prevent continued public nuisance use of the location,
(4) Chain and padlock the metal security doors over the front door, (5) Chain and padlock the metal and chain link fence driveway gates, (6) For a period extending three years from the mailing date of the City of Pasadena Code Enforcement Commission's (COMMISSION) "Findings and Decision for an Order for Abatement" (mailing date: September 12, 2019, effective commencement date: September 12, 2019, ending date: September 12, 2022,) prior to HUANG again leasing the property, and at all times therein, the CITY shall convene a panel of the COMMISSION to vet and approve, or disapprove any proposed tenant at 1136 E. Green Street by holding a properly noticed public hearing before the COMMISSION whereupon property owner HUANG must seek COMMISSION approval of any future tenant prior to their taking tenancy, and HUANG must provide written and oral testimony, and evidence attesting to the tenant's fitness for occupancy,
(7) The City shall take other such actions as are necessary to abate the nuisance and clear the property in accordance with applicable law, sufficiently to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the general public,
�I-f11p/U tf p�PG s
(8) The City shall, if necessary use all reasonable force to ekecute the warrant,

ABATEMENT WARRANT Z
2 , v
Abatement Warrant —1136 E. Green Street
A/

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
(9) The City shall maintain or cause to be maintained the security features of the board -up and other securement measures, and such features shall remain in place during all times except during which time the building and premises is occupied by a tenant meeting the conditions referenced above.

DATED: w /Z </I q
RETURN:

Hon.

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

TERI SCHWARTZ
Abatement of tie premises located at 1136 E. Green, Pasadena, California, was conducted by the City on _N Qsdgr 1 � 9
Jon Pollard
Code Compliance Manager

ABATEMENT WARRANT
3 Abatement Warrant —1136 E. Green Street

55 East Huntington Dave, Suite 120
LOTUS
Arcadla. CA 81006 Phone- (826) 282-4333 x803
E s c R aw F�`�'41�"�
[email protected]
[email protected] m
LOTUS ESCROW IS LICENSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 13USINESS OVERSIGHT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LICENSE NUMBER 004693

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMERCIAL SALE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
Escrow No.: 011446 -EF
Elia Fuentes
Certified Senior Escrow Officer Date: January 16, 2020
Buyer will hand Escrow Holder initial deposit in the amount of 48,000 00 (THIS AMOUNT DOES NOT INCLUDE CLOSING COSTS)
Total Consideration
$1,600,000.00
Buyer/Seiler will deliver to LOTUS ESCROW as Escrow Holder (herein after referred to as "Escrow Holder) any instruments which this escrow requires. fully executed, all of which Escrow Holder is instructed to use provided that on or before February 14, 2020 (close of escrow) and thereafter unless revoked by written demand by the undersigned or anyone of them, "Stewart Title of California' holds a policy of title Insurance with title company's usual w=ptlons, with a liability of $1,600,000.00 covering the following described property - LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND MADE A PART HEREOF SELLER STATES THAT THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS: 1136 East Green Street, Pasadena, CA 91106 TITLE POLICY TO SHOW TITLE VESTED IN: Kosol Vipapan and Nukunthom Darakananda, Complete Vestmg To Follow
FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT:

A General and special Taxes for the fiscal year, including bonds, special assessments and personal property taxes, if any, assessed against former owner, andlor supplemental taxes asseased pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 498, Statutes of 1983 of the State of California. (Change of Ownership will affect the taxes to be paid. A Supplemental Tax Bill will be issued and BUYER accepts all responsleitity for all responsibility for all additional taxes due because of said reassessment. TAX BILLS ISSUED AFTER THE CLOSE OF ESCROW SHALL BE HANDLED DIRECTLY BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS.)
B Covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights of way, and easements, and any oil, gas, or mineral reservations now of record, it any.
(CONTINUED)
Initials:

Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Dole January 16, 2020 Escrow No,- 011446 -EF

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS
Escrow Holder has been handed: Copy' of executed "Commercial Property Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions' dated January 12, 2020, as Addended and Countered dated January 13. 2020 hereinafter collectively referred to as the "AGREEMENT", by and between the undersigned tfosol Vrparpaa and Nukunthom Darakananda, Complete Vesting To Follow, the Buyer and Green St Pasadena, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company. the Seller. Loopy of which is attached hereto and made a pant hereon, and (fl) Buyers $48,000 00 initial Deposit orr January 16, 2020. The Agreement is to serve as your Escrow Instructions, and subject to the Additional Instructions as set forth below and any mutually agreed upon amendments to follow, Escrow Holder is authorized to act thereunder insofar as the processing of the above numbered escrow is concerned Escrow Holder Is to be concerned only with those paragraphs under the Agreement where Escrow Holder is ghmn instructions to perform certain ads or with those paragraphs where Escrow Holder would generally and reasonably be expected toad Ali other provisions of the Agreement, which the parties consider to be binding upon themselves, are considered to be outside the scope of Escrow Holders responsibiflties If there Is any disagreement between these instrueWns and the Agreement, (except as may be specifically addressed herein), the Agreement shall prevail
DATE CLARIFICATION: For purposes of this Escrow (and In accordance with the provisions of the Agreement), the Parties hereto acknowledge the followmng
"opening of escrow/' is January 16, 2020
"date of Agreenwr is January 12, 2020.
"effective date' is January 15, 2020.

Close of escrow date is on or before: February 14, 2020.

For the purposes of closing this escrow, all parties acknowledge that "close of escrow" shall be the date on which the deed conveying title (along with any financing documents) is recorded. 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Legal Description (with Assessor's Parcel Numbers "APN") of the subject property will be provided by the insuring title company, 'Stewart Title of Cattfomia", and approved by Buyer pursuant to Buyer's approval of the Prelknlnary Report and approved by Seller pursuant to Sellers execution of the Grant Deed in favor of Buyer.

4. PRORATIONS: In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph of the Agreement, you shall prorate:

Prorate as of Close of Escrow
+ Taxes.

Prepaid rents, free rents and/or security deposits shall be adjusted at the close of escrow in accordance with approved schedule delivered to Escrow Holder by debiting Seller and crediting Buyer

5. LOAN FINANCING: Although this escrow is NOT conditioned upon Buyer obtaining a new loan, if Buyer elects to obtain rmancing, 4 shall be obtained by Buyer at Buyer's expense. Buyer agrees to comply with lender's ban requirements and to pay lenders loan fees Buyer's signature on loan documents shall be indication of their approval of all terms and conditions contained therein and Escrow Holder's authorization for the use of same.

Escrow Holder is authorized and instructed to comply with the instructions of Lender (or its attorney or agent) relative to said new ban

6. PERSONAL. PROPERTY: In the event Escrow Holder Is rn receipt of a Bill of Sale for any personal property being conveyed to Buyer and/or an Assignment of any Leases, Rents, Agreements, Contracts, etc., for the benefit of Buyer, Escrow Holder shall not be concerned with the form and/or content of said document(s), but shall only be required to deliver same to Buyer at the close of escrow_ Buyer and Seller acknowledge that any and all leases, rental agreements, files and records related to the property wits be delivered to Buyer outside of this escrow
(CONTINUED)
Initials_
Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Date: January 16, 2020 Escrow No.. 011446 -EF

7 RECORDING: In the event that this escrow does not record at 8 00 am but does record during the same calendar day as a "special recordings, the undersigned Seller acknowledges that Seller's proceeds may not be available and existing encumbrances (if any) may not be pard until the first business day following the day of recordation. Seder acknowledges as evidenced by signature herein that Seller may be charged interest on the eA ting encumbranoe(s), if any, until the obligations) Ware paid m accordance with the demand(s) placed In escrow.

Unless Escrow Holder receives written notice to the contrary should recordation at 8:00 a.m. not be possible, Escrow Holder shall proceed with the recordation of this transaction as a special recording without further notice or authorization from Buyer or Seller.

8. HAZARD D(SCLOSURE REPORT: Buyer and sailer acknowledge the requiremant by the State of CaNcimia of the Hazard Disclosure Report (hereinafter "HDR") and that Escrow Holder Is not the responsible party for obtainment of the HDR or delivery of same. Charge Seller's account at close of escrow far the HDfi pursuant to invoice(s) presented to Escrow Holder. In the event no billing Is presented prior to the close of escrow, Escrow Holder "I not be further concerned with same.
9 CANCELLATION: In the event this escrow is cancelled for any reason whatsoever, the parties understand and therefore agree that Escrow Holder reserves the right to require mutually agreed to cancellation instructions caging for, among other things, the disbursement of funds on deposit and/or the deposit of funds in payment of any cancellation fees incurred.

10. FEES AND CHARGES: Buyer to pay all Buyer's customary closing costs, including by not limited to one half your escrow fees as charged, Notary service fees and/or any other special handling fees incurred on Buyer's behalf, charges for completing and recording applicable documents. premium for new or additional hazard insurance, lender's charges, impounds and prepaid interest as demanded, if any, special messengerlovemight delivery fees as incurred, premium for ALTA portion of Owner's policy, if needed and cost for lenders policy of title Insurance with required endorsements, and other applicable title company charges.

Seger to pay customary, Seller's charges including but not limited to one half your escrow fee as charged, Notary fees andlor other special handling fees incurred on Seller's behalf, charges for completing and recording applicable documents, charges for CLTA title policy as called for, other applicable Me charges, documentary transfer tax to be affixed to the Grant Deed and payment of any liens or encurntbrances as called for.

THE FOLLOVWNG ITEM(S) ARE REITERATED HEREIN SOLELY FOR CLARIFICATION AND ESCROW PROCESSING PURPOSES ONLY:

GOOD FUNDS NOTICE: Except for electronic payment or wire transfers, funds remitted Fnto an escrow are subject to availability requirements imposed by California Insurance Code Section 12413.1 (Chapter 598. Statutes of 1989) effective January 1, 1990, Cashier`s, Certified or Teller Checks, payable to Escrow Holder are generally available for disbursement on the next business day following the date of deposit Other forms of payment may louse extended delays in the closing of this escrow and Escrow Holder will not be responsible for accruals of interest or other charges resulting from complying with the disbursement restrictions imposed by State law.

FACSI-MILE TRANSMITTALS: Escrow Holder is authorized and instructed to rely on the Buyer, Real Estate Brokers and any other persons "facsimile' transmitted executed documents, for the processing of these escrow instructions, as if such documents contained their original signatures. Original signature copies shall be returned to Escrow Holder within 72 hours_ Parties further acknowledge that the County Recorder's office DOES NOT ACCEPT Mcshmile documents for recording.

APPROVAL OF EXPENSES INCURRED: Buyer and Seller are aware that there are certain expenses which must be paid through escrow. including, but not limited to, retrofit oasts and repair bills, property inspections costs. City report application fees, demand requests, homeowner association documentkertifrcation fees, if applicable. Escrow Holder is Instructed to pay said costs, based on Invoices submitted, without further written instructions. Signature of parties on (CONTINUED)
Initials -
Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Date January 18. 2020 EscrowNo,- 011446 -EF

these instructions shall signify their approval of the payment of said bills. Expenses shall be charged to the individual parties based on their original Agreement, if any, or if none, based on standard Southern Cafrfornia practice.

AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE UPFRONT FEES: If there are requirements from third parties to this escrow for upfront payment prior to release of documents andfor performance of services, Buyer and Seller agree. understand and authorize Escrow Holder to release the payment necessary from Buyer's good faith deposd held in escrow Ali parties understand that funds paid upfront aro not refundable. Expenses paid shall be charged to individual parties based on the original agreement, if any, or if none, based on standard Southern California practice.

In the event of escrow cancellation all upfront fees paid shall be listed on the cancellation amendment and roll be deducted from any final disbursement/return of deposit Escrow is released from any liability in connection with complying with these instructions
IRS 1098 REPORTING DISCLOSURE: Parties are made aware that we are required by law to report the total "grass" proceeds (total consideration/sales price) on all real estate sales to the IRS at closing In addition_ parties aro huther made aware that Escrow Holder will also be required by H R 636 "Home Sales Tax Fairness Act of IM" to report to IRS the amount of real estate property taxes apportioned between parties at close of escrow. Seller is to complete, sign and return the attached certifxation form to Escrow Holder, (all sellers must sign), and this escrow may not close If this form Is not received prior to closing, This Is an IRS requirement, and any questions should be directed to the Treasury Department and not Escrow Holder. NOTE: Corporations are automatically exempt from IRS 1099 reporting TAX WITHOLDING (FIRPTA): Pursuant to the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA)_ IRC Section Code 1445, Buyer must withhold from Seller's proceeds 10% of the Gross Sales Price and remit to the Internal Revenue Service, unless Seller affirms and delivers to Buyer an affidavit stating that he is not a foreign person Parts release Escrow Holder from any liability andlor responsibility regarding the reliance of parties that this transaction is exempt from said code.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA TAX WITHOLDING (CALFIRPTA): For transactions that are dosing after December 31, 2002, Seller herein is made aware that under the new AB 2065 law, effective January 1. 2003, a Buyer of real property Is required to withhold California income taxes from Seller's funds and send them to the Franchise Tax Board unless one of the following threee conditions are met: (a) The selling price is less than $100,000 00; (b) the property being transferred is the Seller's principal residence; or (c) the sale will result In a taxable loss which must be documented with the Franchise Tax Board prior to close of escrow. For transactions that are closing after January 1 2007, Seller herein is made aware that under the new AB 2962 law, effective January 1, 2007, the seller may choose between the origlnal withholding method of 3.33% of the Gross Sales Price or elect an alternate withholding amount applying the maximum tax rate of

9.30% to the Seller's Estimated Gain if Individual For questions the Seller may contact the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.

WITHOLDING AT SOURCE UNIT, P 0. BOX 651, SACRAMENTO, CA 95812-0651, and # (916) 845.4800.

PRELIMINARY CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FORM: Pursuant to State Law (Section 480.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code), all deeds and other documents that reflect a change in ownership must be accompanied by a Preliminary Change of Ownership Report to be completed by the transferee. If this report is not presented at the firne of recording, anadditional charge of $20.00, as required by law, will be charged to transferee & said form will be mailed directly to transferee after closing by the assessors office for completion outside of escrow SUPPLEMENTAL PROPERTY TAXES: The tax assessor has the right to reassess the subject property after dose of escrow and issue a supplemental tax bill to the Buyer, who shall be solely responsible for same. Any supplemental tax bills issued shall be paid as follows: (a) for periods AFTER the close of escrow, by BUYER, (b) for periods PRIOR to dose of escrow, by SELLER. Tax bills issued AFTER the dose of escrow shall be handled directly between Buyer and Seller and Escrow Holder shall not be liable or concerned with same.

SPECIAL MESSENGER FEES: In the event special courier services are called for during the course of this escrow, Escrow Holder is hereby instructed and authorized to order said messengers as required without further instructions from parties. Upon successful close of escrow, Escrow Holler is instructed to debd said costs from the account of the respective party benefiting therewith, In the event of cancellation, Escrow Holder to be released of the responsibilities and (CONTINUED)
Initials -
Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Dale- January 16, 2020 Escrow No.: 011446 -EF

expense of said couner services and to be reimbursed by parties. Courier services may indude special messenger, Federal Express. Overnight or Express Mail.

FIRE INSURANCE: Buyer is made aware that, prior to close of escrow, fine insurance coverage should be obtained with sufkient liability and replacement or fire coverage. If there is a new loan, insurance coverage will be a condition of the loan before funding. Buyer to deposit sufficient funds to pay for the first year's Fire Insurance Premium per insurance agent's Immice if the property is a part of a condominium project with blanket building coverage, Escrow Holder is then instructed to obtain the evidence of insurance from the insurance company handling the condominium complex.

NOTARY PEES: Notary Fees may be charged for documents signed in the presence of a Notary Public at Escrow Holder's office or elsewhere Said fees are to the Notary Public separately and are not part of the escrow fee. It an agent of Escrow Company is the notary, Escrow Company Is not liable for the notary services provided. Escrow molder is instructed to pay notary bills submitted as part of the closing costs. (CONTINUED)
In�ials:

Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Dais_ January 16, 2026 Fsaaw No. 011446•EF
Pap 6 of B: Additional Insinuegons made a pant of privAours pages as kft howporated (herein.

GENERAL PR(MSWNS
You "I not be raporgrGe or fable In any MMnrsr w haboauer to the OOMowarw (1) srdndency or wnecio an as In form, mauler of eraewstion or Validly of any documents deposited ht "Crow 114 ala kW&4 aLewrly, or Aglyls of any person amouMng the asme, eVbw a. b documents of moved at those twK%d in ids tea w or t3) Me Ulm of an f pry to comply vAh any of the provisions of any agmen t, oantred or other i stil r MPo Mild or depaeiled h Ohio escrow or mran to in tib esomw or refesrad b in it a escrow n IruMona Your dudes hereunder OW be 11111tkd 10 the tatekeepirp of such money and doG nacos rewired by you as escrow hOk*. and for the diapoaitbn of the Creme In 80000darv00 with the 1v We imuudkru aaosp6ed by you in this escrow You ndrae net be M%A-9d to UM any Mon Te eehnedlon vrilh rhe COONStn, nutlxtty. or apperard ouftw of any oblgaboru aeposiled In this swraw. mrhleaa Otherwise InstruNed in wring.

Your duty 00 ad as ascrow, holder dm not =nmencin unpf: (1) *me Instuakm aro signed by at partes and mLnod to Somm Holdr7 or (2) to Jain Escrow Holders Aducweadvaim. far has bean signed by Escrow Hoiden All hinds reconad in this ascrawr shall to ddposiled whits a Slals or NOtbrhal baric vA*i 91her "Crel1r ilrndf. Mode disburearrwnto by dmudc choda riot pt®eromd 1Q p synmant %Mn sir mordhs aftor date we su*ct la snyiee charges in agmirdanc a with you echedub in ellen from eerie to am, Maim am a4usow" and Mwevions on tM bow of a 3"W month. Movur *Iwwb u an any 400unente and Instrucpprq pataining to this escrow Inckals amble unconditional apprawl of urns Vd* wwr prwlsion is made herein far IIe lneyenenl Of may w nit the doh vw of any linYtrnasd, or rhe perMrmonce of any act boAalde, of wUow,' you, at escrow holder, shall hard no MPWWWOY dwreef, arid Oren not be eonoerned tMwMth and are npaet0oatir renewed of any obligations robvire thereto. If It Is necessary. proper or odrroon4ent for the cafeummeUen of No escrow, you aro hereby Mrti Odred to depash ally lufwls of deeoahants handed you under were "crow ftWdkM a cause the term to be depeetted, with any duty awho&Ad u*-ewOhv sp K indudng but not kftW b any bank ITM company 1250 company. eadhange oahpa ry, or tweed oKmw agent, subjed to your order at or balm close of escrow in the lymt such depose is naceosasy Or oorweNar lar tits 0000"MI Mn Of Oft eberow. Any uxlh dep0s3 shag be deemed a deposit under the n*wi ng of these levo eGorha.

All of the parties to this escrow, j*0V and seventy, promise t0 pew promptly on demand, as w4a4 as to meta ,V dy you arid to hold you hMrNrss 6om and against all ndnt nistrative govdlxnerilaf irhvlions, audit and lapid fees, I ftsmao+ all itlarpteammr costs, damages, judgments, afbraey h�m arbdramon mets and fees, w9ermM chagalioro acrd bmili nes at every kind which in good taftm you aW incur er sugar in don. —Inn whhor arcing oA o(this esuowr VArestitar smd coals arise during tie palwrrrance of or subu quW to Iles escrow, directly or udtedy, uwd whelner at Vital, or on appeak in ;x*nIn skaehna octin or in an ardtra+Im. You are given a lien upon of oil tM rights, Ubs and inbrest d me penbe0 and all esuvx papas and 011w property and moms dapossad Irvin tris esam In prolact your rights and to Indemnify and mimbuma you It tho partiev do not pay ary foes, -M or svpanses due you under the escrow bhs>tudlons or do not pay ler pails and elioaheys tees iwmrmed in any 14 gaton, adrninistra0re action andbr rtltrapwm, on doh they each agmee to p irf a reasonable M for any albmmy services which may be required to Oafoot such hos or air ww wfho0w atl Orrwys hes we wxN mod before trial. at trial, on appeal or In albbaLlcii
Any acklm brought againat the Escrow Holder, based on thane lea mcdorra or the uansactiorr arbhrg therehorn, atop be Meed wkhln one (t) yew from the Bebe Of C ora o►Hscrvw, if escrow elosaa, ervAthfn (IS) months Gem the dada o►openYtg of eaefow. It the escrow does not CIO". or "I be forever tamed. (Opening of escrow means the dale Of the Original Escrow bnsfrodttom.)
Your Eacrew Hodder agency shad lartainafa tilt la) rnonMw Ootlowing Ute date last not for dose of escrow and Mail he project to ea llm lowntnafotl by moept till You at muU* executed canoeMation irrotrbdorls. If Itis escrow was not dosed or IartedIM Mftin the doecrlbed rbc (0) fMr4 h period, you 00 have ase funhw obagailoas as Escrow Holder wcW to doWnse hinds and dominants purunvA to wrrhtien eaarow instrunfOna and to inompead or otherwise depose of funds and doemnents it accordance with a with a valldv issued sed allay served order from a courtof COMPOMM We6eficn. N IAO condlims Of this escrow have not been cc pip wth at the ewiratbn date N these esemw instrudMeees, you are inshucted las hsrs>pleee the hsehdrtorts at tfhe earliest poasiple date. unless Buyer Of Seiler have end* +ellen demand upon you for the realm of the funds mrdfor an4La. h its deposked by 9uyw or Sellar andfat for randeliadon of Chia oacrwv.

MA411Mlanding any other provisions in It escrow Itasud long and a adssen to olhar lees and casts to whkh you mart' be ordi the panes, joagty and severalty, agree drat if ibis escrow is not mraenorrated within ninety (9ny) dorms of two data eel for dosing, you are instrucood b, said without Purfvcr instrudiora, withhold your escrow hold open be of $63.00 par ma=th ham the funds an depmali wdh you ngords s of who depossed such funds The pwtlas, jdihtly and asverWy. Ourerer aeras twat if you are. for Ory reason, mWrod to told hinds after dose of escrow, you ars instructed b, card without turthor ihst ucapns esthdu0id an ae0rvw tee t>{tSi.Og par rtorhlet horn Ow funds an deport wah you rogard5ass of who doposiasd vxM funds. The parties Immvorably Instlud you Ip alAOrrtatcaly conOw this Ilk wnhwt mlttar laawrCrbns w mw at Muds ondapmA how bean disb=asad.

All Peaces M" to Ornetialsy corredb Ory shortage of funds in escrow nwdng tmm tr ouftent nmettry depae;f, or retuning from Wry disfaesat+wttts field to nn0 or an cry behalf. r agree to pay any b Ery suomMted b escrow for goods or services regrdred In fedRsts the dooing of this arrow, including brut not Ilmlbd to notary load. Inspection fees. appraised few, Insuanos oils, rrhaeeenger lees, city report Pass. hos uptown hit oormde insurence Wdaration pages. tramehr leas mqu w by city, !lata a Cauny, and eranefer fees reQNW by a hamovmas' essocatbn.

Interest on a now ban boons So soaua upon eunatrhg of the ban regardless or whslhar or not the aigehai ben has been paid In tug by Tile. or other aseiTnaled pant. As a resort. Interest racy earue an a now ban and old baneirculfmteoumh- Yerbua mur*v r tcouders we dosed alaher on Friday andfor ovary other Friday and some county recorders shay rat protide conf ...widen of rrs000ding for twenty four (24) to foe sight (ab) hduf s of bngw aemr the rsoordal n of the doamverds, As a tmA ken payoRs may not be made Min hadaMly arm moorMV. Ind* rase of an FHA ban payolf, an anMrs additional month interest may be due. An party's strature(a) hmdn oorobhAas hl&%M tteir epprovei b pay additional merest an dPor costs due to anv delay in oenentti>9 rs mhfi..nn&a of do uno uls
You are not respanible for the contents or accuracy at arty bansfidary demands aadbr bandohry staternants ddtwerad to you by gds existing ben' A' m You arw not nq<ind rn suborn arty suM bero6rnry staeemmts WWW donand to the parties for approval before tin does d aserow unless ovrpmssly indmoad to do so In wril:N 5howid the pestles casae to prdepprvva any such bwwelTcrary, etowmarhn andlx darns nd, the parties requesting the ume shad detrar sopanab and spedgr yeller escrowv InsVuctlans to you

NO NOTICE, DEMAND OR CHANGE OF INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE OF ANY EFFECT' IN THIS ESCROW UNLESS (MEN IN (CONTINUED)
Rem ZIGM Y111119tf
Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Oats. January 18, 2020 Escrow No - 01448 -EF
PROO 7 of S: Addltblrmt ln9nWWS made a pmt of Pr OVOWs popes as filly iuoorpvraMd therein.

WRITING BY ALL PARTIES AFFECTED THEREBY to lite aiwnt WactIng dsawlde or natka are suede or served upon you or Cdr aanf "IrW arises bcbmw pie panifis hanirto or vAM Mlyd persons "Mg out of or rel6tin)y to We eeciow. you Ault have the atsolwo tioM to with! and stop au torten Fowadnps in, end peft masse of. Sus afltlarV. tad you receive ernlarr rrol cohort satisfactory to you of to 8009 and d pie mnpoversy by agrwmsni ofthe Psf&n tnerlM1c. m try Ifilll jA*naM of a eotM or � rtk • AN pardea aoroo drat as tar am yar doftu and Nabilmoa we tmvohr[d, tui! bar as an esemw and rral any other Mgd reladon and you aro an *Mytw hddar orry on rte WIVdn OKP WUW iarM and you aMa tdw n0 responsibility of rit44hng mI or arty of tie parties to pilo escrow of Cry sant, hasaN, lawn, MCN1110e. Or COW U13010 ton involvil try Property herein disc r bed or of any profit resltmd bur any POVIOrA A- or corporation (171o14e1 "Old and pait3e 1 10 Ilia anAhf any other escrow Irrdudsd} in oonnadion Mervatik rvpardaq W pie het peal strap
(*)maybe handled by you in "ss escrow ar in artallow scow You aro riot to be respaas(We M WV way vAhabower nor to be cnsprnred wish the lune d arty now ivan a iho contsrd d airy Iain dOQWT* its abtaanad by any pent M 0anfhaai110n NM this escrow arooapt to order such ban dommotls Oft the escrow ft barrelfdl the WA dooumants to brlyer or borrower tar errewllon and transmit the escoAod loan docurramCs to lender In cannedbn wit Cry tam Iransae0an lffi" pan FHA a VA loan, You are and ftizW bs do%os r cagy d Cry such docwneM Ia FiiA, VA or Iarr I as the coal may fro The paf6es understand and scree thdf you aro not hw"vd nor ars you wncwrad with the app inial andfor limmairta crony loan or to MOM and Iliad of loan documents prepared by a fender You aro not b be concerned with the 96*V et any rbsclomous roquf red by Federal or Slaie f>lrv, specifically !tut not Ixchrehsy, RESPA (Reel F.steie .Sat"emerd Procedures Act}, Repukocnt Y (IrnrM and f.sndito I?tedoerrres), FuuwrA (ForelRn Ifwesbllaat h Red Pfepwv AcQ. Fed" Lead -Based Paint Disclosures and psmI I 1I (Land Olsabynres: }, and dgdoeiaoe or .orlon "M by sections 1102 at seq. and 1103 et. seq.of Che Cafif . Coil Coda (Stsix" Disckwzw }, Including but not lMbpd b Reed Este* Transfer Oieraoaure Motermewts (rDS), Natural Haaad Discicshm Staarnai t (NNO). dW=wa d Itlepal corrimtId subtlancee, and nodca ot sa -i tax andlor essesamenla. Neidier are you io be Qmxx rind wipe tfte dodo of aonfnp w tvx=, division repdslbes, hesasd menta, or bumN reahidiens rlhroll 1111127F t to or *tract Aro land or nWv4Wnard8 that an the eut4od of Chia escrow You shall make no physicA IMPwxian offt rail Properlyor personal proporty described by any Itrbuments deposited it% or ys is aubied of ft escrow The parties to this escrow time sa"stled ihemsabm maifa of escrow Mat fhb tranerrrllon eovrered by this "crow is not in violfibm of rho Subdivision Map Ad or arty I*w low pp1ABCV laird dyWoe, dry ordrtervoea and cemplianom As escrow holder you aro robawd of all hosponrbW WWW liability In corriaefi m ftnW K and are not b be omtcan, wHh die endorearrnm of said inrrt You are MW 10 be mncwmM WIM arty MPQ=08 d the Ps"arty, aoreernenq for repair_ or deadilm rot its0e990rt1 and disolosvres spadlfad in the Purchase Aafaanunt. You have made no rapreseemelfanp or warerfios 00r110eri on any such real property or pnsohpl property and aro nut h be oaltoenhld vlsh nor IWO lir Che co"llon of reel property or persarat Prop
M the evarrt anyOrw fo Puachave. Deposit Reoalpt or any other foam of Purdhaae Agreement isdtpceilad it this escrow, a e understood "ret such down sunt shill be elfsettiv only es bMWON rise peruse fpht4tp said dieumanL You as escrow bolder are rot b be mnoerned with the tarns of such do airrenits. and are relieved of AN responsbp4r andror eablity for the embrcen erd of such to...

Your arty duty is to cenply waM this WaVuWarhs sat out In Me pAchasa contract perteir" to Escrow Holder dudes ONLY it is also undwslood tial the Insmucdans prepared by to escrow holder ARE an addendum to the Purdlme CadradOgreemore it a pally on the: avaow uslasaraiy asaiorts or orders the proceeds of Itis escrow b be paid to other than the oA*W varves to chit a mmur, such aaignmarnt or order spial be eubordlnesed oro ft ahpOnsaa of fob escrow. IMM of roiirrl on Ria sidoo property, and POW010 dnc W by orlphel "I twoether. It the result of suM asefpnment or order would be to reeve Ria escrow without suf6onrtl fhatdsb doss, Cion you ora drectpd b dose nrevenlllfsls, and to Pay urct aaelpranenN or orders ally out d Ria nal proweds due ezcgd bar such assignments or orders, and b pay Weern M the order M which such saa4nnwis or orders aro received by you.

A Notary Public Is a loaned, banded entity, Mftlepandent of escrow. He at oho is an independent contractor repadess of whother err not he or she Is ernpfp"W by the escrow wlnplrry Tturolore, my servlon provided by a person ae fM M the tapaady of a Notary Public we to pan dths ssrwea prwJdsd by an Escrow ". nor are Cha Notary PuKes dodges included with aserow fires I agree to absolve escrow from any sinus raoardi to rotary
Tines b of Ore moria with regero to Mesa escrow hnottuctlons These irntnicttta may be executed in counterparts, each d W*rh 51110" be deemed an odohwl MM1111I416 Of itis data err Its 1990ttion and 405very Al ouch cousmerparts, together shall comWW o on and MO same darwnii t IT WN111110ne or this alnaW nava nal bean otunpYed with prior Io Ire espi eft of dme pmvrded for herein, or any nodemlon fhereoa. you ate nevertheless to 00MOMla Oise escrow as soon es Ifte eondgoft exoepl as to lima, have been mmpled wo unless wntlen dant 11+811nava trees Mede upon you not to complete iL FiAowhtg raospt ar such wirittm duroihd not to ebrniplaa the ascrow. You are to pre nes* mW a copy d said demand b the other parry. Unesa wtah obi K*m thzm from suds ether parry "I by rvice1M try you wI1tM 7 bu oh*- dsye ager iris NN. you are Manf eco b 0MVIe wldt ouch rwf ivi demand eco return all manus and dbWmanta, upon Payment Of your tancellgen fees, "a" and tapensea, to the PIM or Parties dept"Aft the sprits war you If vadtlen oblocOm is received within Rte fine slafedThe parties to Irese a9mm irstmrctkm rrthadas you to daahoy Mesa Inssrucuom aeltl aS other fnlanrcliirta and reoorth >n Mob esrsaw al airy Nara artier {}}yeas from Ins close h>♦ osuo4a 'Close of EOa*W' r6 the day Insbnments are recorded. +stn arimre riot the eservw agency ferrdrhatee upon the Asia of escrow. end Ivey be subpeet 50 earlier tornirnlfan upon rnAvaly executed c aradLahon ' I cli0ns, You shat hwte no furdwt obligatbns as Ewen Habdw -rapt b disburse hinds and doeuanonto punuant to wriflen escrow krishrmlion ESCROW COMPANIES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY BPJrORE WNWG
Ytffe agree to Pay FUNDS REQUIRED TO CLOSE ESCROW UPON DEMAND, IF ANY PURSUANT Tb AS.51Z, ,1ANUARY 1 i8g0_ ALL LENDER'S FUNDS fIF APPLICABLE) AND BORROWER'S FUNDS r0 BE DEPOSITED LUST BE CLEARED FUNDS PRIOR TO RECORDATION OP THIS TRANWT10N IF IT IS MUED NECESSARY TO WIRE Fl,NDB. TO EXPEDITE THE CLOSE OF ESCROW, ESCROW HOLDER 46 0 TRUCTED TO PROCEED ACCCROINOLY AND TO CHARGE BORROWWER AT THE CLOSE OF ESCROW Howww !the escrow holder villi oat wino funds to bw" of inshhmorls ouWde the Urdted 51eMs. (CONrtNueb)
t7e. 20erb4 i"Watt.

Escrow instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Date: January 16, 2020 Escrow No.. 011446 -EF
Page a of 9- Add Wrial instructions made a part of previous pages as fully incorporated therein Escrow holder may incur shipping & handling costs associated with dosing the escrow in a timely manner. The escrow holder may charge for this cost as servlcing/fulfillment cost or a pass-through directly to FEDEX I am hereby given notice that Lotus Escrow has a business relationship with e- Archiving Solutions Lotus Escrow inchreetty owns 100°6 of e -Archiving Solutions The buskins arrangement proves document archive solutions services Documents become a digital. searchable and viewable asset. Compliant with the DBO. Because of this relationship this referral may provide Lotus Escrow a financial or other benefit Set forth below is the estimated charge or range of charges for the electronic archiving & storage of the closed escrow (ile, which they, as escrow holder, will require to use as a condition of the escrow settlement, to represent interests in the transaction. e -Archiving Solutions $19-38 f am aware, Lotus Escrow may communicate via email for the purpose of providing announcements, promotional offers, alerts, confimriations, surreys, and/or other general communication. In order to improve their Services, they may receive a notification when we open an email from Lotus Escrow or click on a link therein. If I would like to stop receiving marketing or promotional convnunrce6ons via email from Lotus Escrow, I may opt out of such communications by CLICKING THE

UNSUBSCRIBE BUTTON
Mortgage lenders may request internal or external payoff demand statements for arty andlor all loansiliens of the subject property record. in addition to updating property Insurance policies such as, but not limited to mortgagee clause, loan number and effective data of new endorsement Escrow holder will not re -order said items It is acknowledged that the leader provided payoff and insurance documents are a condition of the loan and represent their interests in the transaction
Acknowledging Your access and consent to receive materials electronically jDocuSlgn) All notices but not necessarily limited to: disclosures, amendments and instructions will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made avadable to you during the course of our relationship with you If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below Please also see the paragraph Immediately below that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us.

Each DocuSign recipient must provide a separate email address Sharing one emall address for two or more recipients is not permitted Consequences of not using DocuSign If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and deliver€ng services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To Indicate to us that you are NOT using DocuSign, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of a DocuSign envelope instead of signing it. This will Indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us To confirm to us that you can access this Wormawn electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to email this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access.
• I can access and read DocuSign documents sent via email and I CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF

ELECTRONIC NOTICES, BUT NOT LIMITED TO DISCLOSURES, AUTHORIZATIONS, ESCROW AMENDMENTS AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS, and I can print on paper, or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access, and Until or unless 1 notify Lotus Escrow as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations acknawledgernents, and other documents that are required to be provided or made avallabia to me by Lotus Escrow during the course of my escrow transaction
Escrow holder herein may provide an escrow courtesy/professional discount in the form of an escrow fee reduction to one or both parties Parties herein acknowledge that the above provision will' amend/supersede the Purchase contract escrow fee paragraph, said courtesy will be applied to corresponding party fee at close of escrow Botts parties are hereby advised that a discount may be applied to on or both parties during the course of escrow Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Date: January 16, 2020 Escrow No 011446 -EF

You are hereby authorized to charge a cancellation fee rn the event this escrow does not close. This fee will include any messenger or delivery fees, demand fees, and other fees paid in advance by escrow to facilitate the processing and dosing of this escrow. The base canceilabon fee is $250.00, each Escrow Officer reserves the right to change said amount to be compensated for the work perfomred on the fife.

The foregoing "General Provisions" contained herrn aro hereby approved and accepted in their erdirety and concurred in by me I will hand you necessary documents called for on my part to cause title to be shown as above. I will hand you funds to pay your escrow charges, my recording fees, charges for evidence of tifie as called for, whether or not this escrow is consummated You are hereby authorized to pay bonds, assessments, taxes, and any liens of record to show tifte as called for

WE, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COMPLETE COPY OF THE WITHIN ESCROW

INSTRUCTIONS AND BY OUR SIGNATURES SET FORTH BELOW
SELLERS):

Careen St Pasadena, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company
By:

Group 25 Holdings LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company
Tony Huang, Its Manager
BUYERS):

Kosol Vipapan
Nukunttrom Daralrananda
Escrow Instructions —1136 E. Green Street

Eye Place Optometry
Kosol Vipapan, O.D.
230 S. Lake Ave.

Pasadena, CA 91101
Tel: 626-792-9979
January 25, 2020
Sir or Madam:

I am a Doctor of Optometry with 25 years of experience. I have owned my optometry practice for over 16 years, 13 of which have been at the same location in the City of Pasadena at 230 South Lake Avenue.

I have patients from all over Southern California and especially around Pasadena area.

I take great pride in my practice and caring for my patients, many of whom have been coming to see me for over a decade. My full time staff have also been with me for over 13 years. I truly enjoy helping my patients see better and making a difference in their lives.

I am looking to purchase the property at 1136 E. Green Street in order to continue my practice.

Sincerely yours,
Kosol Vipapan, O.D.

Letter from Dr. Vipapan

POST IN A City of Pasadena Certificate Number
CONSPICUOUS Business Tax Permit 1073
PLACE THIS LICENSE EXPIRES; OW3'11=0

BUSINESS OWNER(S)
Business Name: EYE PLACE OPTOMETRY Business Account ID: 11434507 Business Address: 230 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE 1
City, State, zip PASADENA CA 91101
The person, firm or corporation named below Is hereby granted this certificate for business Imense tax paid to that City of Pasadena for the business described below, for the period indicated Issuance of a business tax certificate or payment of Iloense tax does not authorize the conduct or continuance of any illegal business or the conduct or continuance of a legal business in an Illegal manner A business tax cerWicate Issued to an Illegal business or to any business that has not secured the proper permits to engage In said business Is void. THE CITY OF PASADENA DOES NOT

EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE HOLDER OF THIS
CERTIFICATE.

Classification: PROFESSIONAL
Description: OPTOMETRY
Expiration Dane: 03/31 12420
sy_,
C pe 1Oif(p

NOT TRANSFERABLE
License Copy

THE CITY OF PASADENA DOES NOT

EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE
HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE.

KEEP THIS COPY City of Pasadena
FOR YOUR Business Tax Permit
RECORDS THIS LICENSE EXPIRES: 03131/2020
i

BUSINESS OWNER(S)
Business Name: EYE PLACE OPTOMETRY
Mailing Address: 230 S. LAKE AV
PASADENA, CA 91101
j Classification: PROFESSIONAL
I.
rwsurar NOT
Certificate Number
10793
Business Account ID: 11434507
Current Business license — Eye Place Optometry

(*)001j
City of Pasadena
BUSINESS LICENSE SECTION_1OONGatfeld Ave #Nlob •P.U. Box 7ll5 * Pasadena California 91109 7215

BUSINESS LICENSE INQUIRY
We am pleased to provide you with the following mfonnetion you requested. @ug1nm Information
Firm EYE PLACE

OPTOMETRY
Street Address 230 S. LAKE AVE
UNLT1
City, State, Zip PASADENA CA 91101
Business Class 0052 — SERVICE
Business Description OPTOMETRY
Business Start Date OM0712006
License Issued 03/2812019
Location Inside City
Owner Information
Ownership yVe-
SOLE

PROPRIETOR
owner Name(5):

KOSOL VIPAPAN
Data; iiM020
Wense Type Business License
Bus. Phone (626) 792-9979
License Expires 03/31rM
License Status ACTIVE
Pasadena "Business License Inquiry**'— Eye Place Optometry

z O ;a
C)
D
r-nrnN
M0
(n >
nim
O:C
com
z
f
A
z"
r
EA
m
M
z
3 m
70 70
3 n
5 m
m
�`o
A
N
Z
m
3 m
m
>
m
K
M

nim
O:C
com
z
f
A
C!
M
c
s
s
�
no =
C
M
O
Z
r
n
A
A
m
I
1 0
O O
m
�
A
C
i m
m "
A
�{
G'o
a m
A
C
O
=
A z
A A
m m
�N
?O
N
ill N
s
IO
s
u+ m
CO)
t rOq�{i b
DYVi0 d
zM ' m
mym- w
N D GD
Co0 M IM
M �O
z
M
A
0 F
0 Z
a
M
w
0 a
�o
0 MR
0 0
3 M
�a
California State Board of Optometry — Licensure Documentation A
G
A m
m
a
Cin
z
i m
m "
A
�{
G'o
a m
A
C
O
=
A z
A A
m m
�N
?O
N
ill N
s
IO
s
u+ m
California State Board of Optometry — Licensure Documentation

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF OPTOMETRY
LICENSING DETAILS FOR: 10602
MAIIX: VIPAPAN, KOSOL
LICENSE TYPE: OPTOMETRIST
PRIMARY STATUSt CURRENT
fflW*W1&FT t@CORD
C 10 EYE PLACE OPTOMETRY
230 8 LAKE AVE #1
PASADENA CA 91101

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

LICENSE RELATIONSHIPS

FICTITIOUS NAME PERMIT TO OPTOMETRIST
LICIWSPUREfii;STRATION ROLE: OPTOMETRIST ADDRESS :

RCLAWD PARTY ROLE: FICTITIOUS NAME PERMIT 230 9 LAKE AVENUE NAME: EYE PLACE OP1a00itfTRY PASADM?NA CA 91101

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
LICHN32 RLBMSTRAWON TYPE, FICTITIOUS NAME MAP
PERMIT
LICENSE NUMBER 3246 PRWARY STATUS:

CvARENT

ISSUANCE DATE
SEPTEMBER 28, 1995

EXPIRATION DATE
SEPTEMBER 30. 2021

CURRENT DATE I TIME
JANUARY 29 2020
2:52_6f PIA
California State Board of Optometry — licensure Documentation