Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, August 15, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

SDBL physically possible. The first waiver is from the minimum unit size requirements in GMC

30.11.050, because seven of the eleven proposed units do not meet the minimum unit size. The second waiver is from the maximum floor area ratio of 1.20 because that ratio would limit the project to 8,904 square feet while the proposed project is 9,760 square feet. Although the difference of 856 square feet may seem insignificant, the reality is that the additional square feet allows the project to provide an additional affordable housing unit with common space amenities and a project that adheres to the City’s Development Standards and Design Guidelines.

Any objections by the Appellant to the documentation supporting the requested waivers is rebutted by the May 4, 2023 letter addressing the necessity for the waivers submitted by a licensed architect discussing the merits of the project and illustrating that the project will be physically precluded from being built as envisioned and at the density and with the requested concessions, if the waivers are not granted. Without the requested waivers the project cannot be physically built as proposed, nor can it comply with the City’s Development Standards and Design Guidelines. Such an outcome is inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the SDBL as explained under the case-law and statutes cited below.

As the Staff Report for the Planning Commission’s November 2, 2022 hearing concluded, these two concessions and two waivers are needed to “facilitate the proposed design and ensure architectural character that meets the City's Design Guidelines, including three distinct and separate common open spaces with amenities on the building's ground level and on the third floor deck”; and the additional height and stories are needed for the construction of the three units on the third-floor because of the narrow width of the lot (lots less than 90 feet in width are limited to two story / 26 feet in height).

Staff’s conclusion and the Planning Commission’s approval were thus consistent with California law. As the Court explained in Wollmer v City of Berkeley (2011), 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346 -1347, “nothing in the statute requires the applicant to strip the project of amenities, such as an interior courtyard, that would require a waiver of development standards. Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. (§65915, subd. (e)(1).) The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed. Wollmer's argument goes nowhere. Had the City failed to grant the waiver and variances, such action would have had “the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development” meeting the criteria of the density bonus law. (Ibid.; see Wollmer I, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 947, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 19.) If the project were not built, it goes without saying that housing units for lower-income households would not be built and the purpose of the density bonus law to encourage such development would not be achieved. The trial court properly interpreted the statute, and the City proceeded in the manner required by law in granting the waivers.”
Here, as in Wollmer, supra, if the Applicant cannot create a larger building via the concessions and waivers requested, the proposed project is reduced from 11 units with one affordable unit to 6 units with no affordable units, which is contrary to the spirit and intent of the 619 of 1003

Page 3 ends

SDBL. 1
Eleven units, however, are also only possible if the minimum size of some of the units are reduced slightly so that the project can comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and Design Guidelines. In particular, and as described by license architect in the May 4, 2023 letter, the site is fully built out under the proposed design and there is no room to push the building boundary any further than what is being proposed with the concessions for setbacks and for height/stories.

There also is no extra space on the site for larger units because the common open space ratio and the landscape ratio already are at the code minimums. Similarly, the interior circulation elements such as the corridors, staircases and elevator shafts are at the code minimums. As such, if the Applicant must comply with the minimum unit size requirements, the project will lose one, probably 2 units, one of which will be the on-site affordable unit. The project also will lose its distinct common open spaces and amenities on the ground level, and on the 3rd floor deck. At that point, it makes no sense to build a density bonus project. Instead, the Applicant would be the by-right 6-unit project, which is contrary to the purposes of the SDBL.

As the Court explained in Wollmer, supra, the SDBL “does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.” Id. Applying the same logic negates Appellant’s arguments regarding the validity of the waivers, since a waiver for minimum unit size shall not require a project to give up portions of its common open space amenities or portions of its landscape area amenities, in order to create additional living area to avoid a waiver. As the Court explained in Wollmer, supra, granting of a waiver shall not take away from the project’s amenities.

The necessity for the second waiver from the maximum floor area ratio of 1.20 is the same. As described in the license architect’s May 4, 2023 letter, the proposed project has a floor area ratio of 1.32 so that it can construct the 9,760 square feet needed for all eleven units.

Without it, the maximum floor area ratio is 1.20, and the project could be no larger than 8,904 square feet, which results in the loss of one, probably two units, including the on-site affordable unit. The requested deviation is thus minor and consists of only 856 square feet of additional floor area over the allowable limit so that the project can provide all eleven units with the one on-site affordable unit and the amenities and open-space shown on the plans. Without the additional 856 square feet, the units size also shrinks even further thus exacerbating the minimum unit size problem.

Simply put, the two waivers will provide the necessary building square footage and unit count to allow for the desired project size, the desired project unit-mix, and the desired project amenities to bring this project to fruition as envisioned as explained I the architect’s letter, with the density and requested concessions allowed under the SDBL.

To state the converse, denying the requested waivers from the floor area ratio and minimum unit size requirements will physically preclude the project from being built per the desired unit mix, per the desired number of bedrooms, per the desired net livable area and per the

1. The 11 unit calculation is consistent with the City’s recently adopted Housing Element that shows the property listed on the site inventory in Appendix A. 620 of 1003

Page 4 ends

desired net average unit size, and with the density permitted under the SDBL.

The two concessions and waivers thus are not contrary to state or federal law. Rather, they are in keeping with the SDBL, which rewards a “developer who agrees to build a certain percentage of low-income housing with the opportunity to build more residences than would otherwise be permitted by the applicable local regulations.” Friends of Lagoon Valley, 154 Cal.

App. 4th at 824 (citing to Shea Homes Ltd. P’ship v. Cnty. of Alameda, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1246, 1263 (2003)); Latinos Unidos, 217 Cal. App. 4th at 1164. “In its specifics, section 65915 establishes a progressive scale in which the density bonus percentage available to an applicant increases based on the nature of the applicant’s offer of below market-rate housing.” Wollmer, 193 Cal. App. 4th at 1339-40. To achieve its goals, the SDBL also “shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 65915(r).

For this project, separate from the economics of the project, without the concessions and waivers, the Applicant cannot construct the third floor, nor the third-floor units and open-space amenities in the project. Rather, adhering to the City of Glendale’s height and story limits would result in a 2-story project consisting of 6 units. Further, adhering to the City of Glendale setback and minimum units size requirements, would force the proposed project to pull the building back in 3 of its 4 directions, thus resulting in a much narrower and small building and the loss of five units.

In sum, not obtaining the approval of the requested concessions and waivers would result in a smaller building with less units and amenities and fewer affordable bedrooms. The project would transform from a housing development project consisting of one- and two-bedroom units for families, including low-income families, into a project of studio and one-bedroom units not conducive to family living or the neighborhood.

As to the Appellant’s inaccurate claim regarding the invalid calculation of base density and density bonus units, seems to be an objection to the termination of the 1972 Easement for and condition of approval #4 required by the Department of Public Works Department that the applicant dedicate a portion of the property at the southeast corner of California Avenue and Jackson Street for an ADA-compliant handicamp ramp. The 1972 Easement is for a public right of way.

However, the public right of way at issue is for sidewalk purposes only and the 1972 Easement does not create a uniform width for the sidewalk along both California Avenue and Jackson Street. Further, as the Applicant has previously explained, the existing Easement results in a measurement of 9 feet from the face curb to the existing property line, which is 3 feet less than what is required under the City’s standards for an ADA-compliant handicap ramp. In other words, absent a new dedication or easement, it is impossible to construct an ADA-complaint handicap ramp as required by the city, between the existing face of curb and the existing property line. Hence, the reason Public Works has imposed condition #4.

The Appellant concedes in its appeal papers that there is no practical difference between an easement and a dedication. As such, the only question is what is the best way to make the new 621 of 1003

Page 5 ends

required 3-foot dedication. The first option is to overlay the required dedication on top of the 1972 easement. The problem in doing so is that the purpose of the 1972 easement is not the same as the purpose of the dedication. As such, the legal description for the old easement would have to be amended and modified to eliminate that part of the area that will be used for the ADA ramp dedication, so that the legal description for the area that is to be used for the ADA ramp does not conflict with an existing encumbrance. As such, the first option requires the preparation and recording of an amended easement agreement with new legal descriptions between the applicant and the City, and also the preparation and recording of the new dedication for the handicap ramp, with the requisite legal descriptions, and any adjustments of the legal descriptions for the lots line impacted by them.

The second, far simpler option is to simply terminate the existing easement and record a new dedication with the appropriate legal descriptions that provides for the necessary dimensions between the existing face of curb and the property line in order to accommodate an ADAcompliant handicap ramp. Option number 2 is far simpler, is much more direct and is far more efficient.

Although the Appellant also seems to be arguing that the City is required to keep the 1972 easement, cities terminate old easements all the time; particularly, in order to comply with new State and Federal laws. Here, the City is complying with the SDBL by facilitating a project with more housing units, as well as complying with the Federal American with Disabilities Act. Cal.

Gov’t Code § 65915(r) states that to achieve its goals, the SDBL “shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units”, which is what the City is doing.

Further, although the Appellant seems to be arguing that the second option provides the applicant with 21 sq. ft. more than the first option, the Appellant’s objection fails to address the required findings to deny the project and are more form over substance. Cal. Gov’t Code § 65915(r) states that to achieve its goals, the SDBL “shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.” Appellant’s arguments are thus contrary to the intent and spirit of the SDBL, since excluding the 21 sq. ft. of lot area from the density bonus density calculation, will results in a 9-unit project versus a 11-unit project and the loss of 2-units.

The same can be said of the Appellant’s claim that one of the three units being demolished was not “owner occupied” and, therefore, that the City miscalculated the number of replacement units required under the SDBL. As the Housing Department and Planning Commission concluded, the IRS Tax Form 593 used by the Seller, plus the Grant Deed that shows “Letticia Banaag” as the previous owner and the seller of the property, are consistent with the name of the landlord on the two August 2020 Tenant Estoppel Certificates for the two-upperlevel units occupied by tenants, as well as the name of the landlord on the Mutual Termination of Rental Agreements that were signed before Applicant closed escrow. All of these tenant documents are limited to only two of the units being tenant occupied, because Ms. Banaag was occupying one of the 3 units; specifically, the lower-level unit was occupied by Ms. Banaag and the two upper level units were tenant occupied.
622 of 1003

Page 6 ends

To add to that evidence, enclosed is a letter from Mr. Paul Sarkissian dated February 16, 2023, who co-represented buyer during the acquisition of the property, stating that he directly communicated with Ms. Banaag at her unit on the property, and that he saw Ms. Banaag packing her belongings before vacating her unit. Further, the Applicant will testify at the City Council hearing that he too witnessed the seller, Ms. Banaag, packing her belongings before vacating her lower level unit. This direct evidence should put to rest any objection to the fact that one of the units was owner occupied.

As such, the City’s calculation of the number of required replacement units and density bonus in the Housing Department’s February 2022 Memo and the November 2022 Staff Report are valid.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything further.

Sincerely,
Artshar LLC
Art Simonian – Manager
Attachments:

Letter from Mr. Sarkissian dated February 16, 2023 - Exhibit A Letter addressing the necessity for the waivers dated May 4, 2023 623 of 1003
624 of 1003
246 N Jackson Street Project May 4, 2023
Revised Density Bonus Application Findings
1 The applicant is requesting the following Two (2) Concessions/ Incentives necessary in order to make the project affordable pursuant to GMC Section 30.36.070 A. 1) An increase the maximum height and stories to 36'-11" and 3-stories (measured from Average Grade to top of the elevator shaft).
2) A reduction of the minimum setbacks at the front and street side setbacks of the subterranean garage.

Also, a reduction of the building’s minimum setbacks at the front setback, interior south setback and also at the north street-side setback.

The project also qualifies for parking concessions under GMC 30.36.090 (B) and California Government Code Section 65915. Specifically, under GMC 30.36.090 (B), housing developments that include at least twenty (20) percent low-income units, or eleven (11) percent very-low income units, and are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop with unobstructed access, upon the request of the applicant, the required vehicle parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, is not to exceed one-half (0.5) space per bedroom. As such, only 9 parking spots are required for the 17 bedrooms in the proposed project and the applicant is providing 15 parking spaces, which is 6-more parking spaces than required.

INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS:

A Density Bonus for the allowable incentives or concessions shall be granted unless, based on substantial evidence, any one or more of the following findings can be made (GMC 30.36.080.A):

A. The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents; The evidence submitted by the Applicant with this application and incorporated herein by reference shows that the incentives/concessions do result in identifiable and actual cost reductions and are required in order to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents. As explained below, the requested concessions are required to allow for additional buildable area to provide more units at market rates that would reduce the cost of subsidizing the affordable units on-site as allowed under the State Density Bonus Law. Further, both concessions are needed to facilitate the proposed design and ensure architectural character that meets the City's Design Guidelines, including three distinct and separate common open spaces with amenities on the building's ground level and on the 3rd floor deck. Further, the additional height/stories is necessary for the construction of the 3rd floor that otherwise could not be achieved. Without the construction of the 3rd floor, the additional market rate units that offset the overall costs per unit for the project that enable the construction of a subsidized very low-income affordable unit, cannot be achieved. In particular, the applicant is requesting two concessions:
1) to increase the maximum height and stories to 36-feet, 11-inches and three (3) stories (where 26 feet is the height limit in the R-1250 zone for lots less than 90 feet in width), and 2) to reduce the minimum required setbacks at the front and at the street side setbacks of the subterranean garage, and to reduce the building’s required setbacks at the front setback on the second and third floors, at the interior-south setback on the second and third floors, on the interior-north setbacks on the first, second and third floors.

The Applicant is requesting these concessions because the proposed project is located on a property in the R-1250 (High Density Residential) Zone where lots having a width of 90 feet or less are only allowed a maximum of 2-stories and a maximum of 26 feet height limit (plus an additional 5 feet of height for roofed areas having a minimum pitch of 3:12), which is more restrictive than the R-1250 height standard for lots having a lot width of 90 feet or more. Therefore, without the height concession, the proposed 625 of 1003 246 N Jackson Street Project May 4, 2023
Revised Density Bonus Application Findings
2 project is subject to a 26-foot and 2-story height limit and cannot be built as a three-story building with 11 units. Instead, it would only be six (6) units on 2-sories without any affordable units. The additional floor area and building height/stories thus will enable the construction of additional buildable area on the third floor to provide more units on-site thereby increasing the total number of units so that one very-low income affordable unit can be built on-site.

In addition, the proposed design ensures an architectural style and character that complies with the City's Design Guidelines, including three distinct and separate common open spaces with amenities on the building's ground level and on the 3rd floor deck. To achieve that design, the Applicant is proposing a 36- foot, 11-inch high building, thereby exceeding the maximum allowed height limit of 26 feet, measured from Average Grade to the top of the elevator shaft (Average Grade means the average of the highest and lowest top of curb elevations of the curb adjacent to the property). The additional height in not only necessary for the construction of the 3rd floor but it is also necessary for and elevator shaft to be built to provide access to the 3rd floor units. Without the construction of the 3rd floor, the additional market rate units that offset the overall costs per unit for the project that enable the construction of a subsidized very low-income affordable unit, cannot be achieved.

Further, the property is a corner lot and it is located at the southeast corner of Jackson Street and California Avenue with an abutting alley along its eastern property line. The majority of the properties located on the east side of Jackson Street, between California Avenue and Wilson Avenue, have a front setback of approximately 15 feet or less. The project meets the minimum and average setback requirements for the 1st building floor. However, t the 2nd and 3rd floors do not meet the minimum (have 20’ versus 23’ minimum), but otherwise do meet the average requirements. The concession from the front setback code requirement thus allows a more contextual project by allowing the proposed project to conform to the existing surrounding neighborhood since at a minimum the project will maintain a 20 feet front setback. The corner location of the property also minimizes any impacts from the north street-side setback reduction, especially since California Avenue and the alley further separate the property from the adjacent properties. Last, the Applicant has placed the common area that is accessible by the project’s residents at the center of the 3rd floor, pulled back from the perimeters of the project, and abundantly setback from the property to the south thereby avoiding any impacts on it and ensuring adequate sun and air onto the property south of the project.

As for the second concession, the Applicant is requesting, a reduction of the minimum setbacks as follows:
• To reduce the subterranean front setback to 4’-4” from the minimum 20’ and 7’-5” from the 23’ average. • To reduce the subterranean north street-side setback to 4 inches from the minimum 5 feet and 8 feet average.
• To reduce the building front setback on the 2nd and 3rd floors to 20’-0” from the minimum 23’. • To reduce the interior-south setback on the 2nd floor to a minimum of 5’-0” and an average of 11’-10” from the minimum 8’ and 11’ average. Note, the average setback of the 2nd floor, on the interior-south side, does meet code.
• To reduce the north street-side setback on the 1st floor to a minimum of 4’-0” and an average of 7’-11” from the minimum 5’ and 8’ average.
• To reduce the north street-side setback on the 2nd floor to a minimum of 4’-0” and an average of 8’-7” from the minimum 8’ and 11’ average.
• To reduce the north street-side setback on the 3rd floor to a minimum of 4’-0” and an average of 7’-7” from the minimum 11’ and 14’ average.

The reduction in setbacks will enable the construction of the necessary additional buildable area that is needed to construct the 11 units on-site with one (1) very-low income affordable unit. Absent the 626 of 1003
246 N Jackson Street Project May 4, 2023
Revised Density Bonus Application Findings
3 reductions in the setback, the proposed project would have to pull the building back in all directions.

Adhering to the City of Glendale setback requirements, will result in much narrower and small building and the loss of five (5) units. These additional five (5) market rate units are necessary to offset the overall costs per unit for the project that enable the construction of a subsidized very low-income affordable unit. In sum, absent concessions for height/stories and for setbacks, to comply with the City of Glendale Development Standards means building a smaller 2-story building with less units and amenities, which would be more like a project consisting of studios and 1-bedrooms rather than a housing development project for families, including a very-low income family.

B. The incentive or concession will have a “specific adverse impact upon public health and safety”, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. As used herein, “specific adverse impact upon public health or safety” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, basedon objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the land use designation in the general plan shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.

The two concessions / incentives do not have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Rather, the applicant is seeking approval of two concessions pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and GMC Chapter 30.36 (Density Bonus Incentives) in order to provide one (1) unit affordable to very-low income households. No specific adverse impacts upon public health or safety or on the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources would occur by granting the requested incentives or concessions. While taller than surrounding buildings, the project will meet building and safety codes and there are similarly sized residential buildings elsewhere in the City. Further, the project falls within the definition of a transit priority project and is categorically exempt under CEQA because of the lack of any specific adverse environmental impact.

C. The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law.

The two incentives/concessions that are requested will not be contrary to state or federal law and do not require any other discretionary entitlement. The applicant is requesting to use the parking concession under GMC 30.36.090 (B). Pursuant to this section, upon request of the Developer, the City may not require a vehicle parking ratio greater than one-half space (0.5) per unit, inclusive of guest and handicap parking for a density bonus project. As such, only 9-parking spots are required for the 17-bedrooms in the proposed project and the applicant is providing 15-parking spaces, which is six (6) more than required. 627 of 1003
246 N Jackson Street Project May 4, 2023
Revised Density Bonus Application Findings
4 WAIVERS OR REDUCTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

The applicant is requesting the following two (2) waivers. 1) A waiver from the minimum unit size requirements in GMC 30.11.050, whereby the units listed below do not meet the minimum unit size and are slightly shy of the minimum unit size requirements. • Unit 102 is 574 square feet and slightly shy of the minimum 600 square feet requirement. • Unit 103 is 574 square feet and slightly shy of the minimum 600 square feet requirement. • Unit 202 is 574 square feet and slightly shy of the minimum 600 square feet requirement. • Unit 203 is 574 square feet and slightly shy of the minimum 600 square feet requirement. • Unit 204 is 768 square feet and slightly shy of the minimum 800 square feet requirement. • Unit 302 is 574 square feet and slightly shy of the minimum 600 square feet requirement. • Unit 303 is 768 square feet and slightly shy of the minimum 800 square feet requirement. 2) A Waiver to allow an increase in FAR to 1.32 (9,760 SF) were a maximum FAR of 1.20 (8,904 SF) is permitted. The requested deviation is minor and consists of only 856 SF of additional floor area over the allowable limit.

Besides the requested waiver, the project does not include any additional waivers of any Building and Safety, Fire Department, Engineering or other requirements pertaining to health or safety.

A Density Bonus for the following waivers or reductions in development standards shall be granted only all of following findings can be made (GMC 30.36.080.B):

A. The application of said development standard(s) will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted pursuant to this chapter;
The California density bonus laws dictate a density calculation methodology that results in a maximum number of units for a given project site, which for the subject property equates to a maximum allowable density of 11-units. It is the applicant’s intent is to optimize the project’s density with a balanced unit mix consisting of 1-bedrooms and 2-bedrooms within this allowable 11-unit density. The requested waiver is required to allow relief to provide for a more balanced unit mix that will meet the desired 11-unit program of the proposed development project and the minimum unit size requirements in GMC 30.11.050 would physically preclude the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted pursuant to this chapter.

Similarly, the waiver to allow for a minor increase in the allowable floor area of 0.12% is minuscule. The proposed project floor area ratio is 1.32 above the allowable floor area ratio of 1.20, but the increase provides the necessary building area to allow for the desired project size, project unit-mix and project amenities to bring this project to fruition. As such, the proposed project includes appropriately sized apartment units, an appropriate number of bedrooms and unit-mix, to attract families to the project and to provide a high-quality living experience to its residents.

Please refer to the May 4, 2023 letter by a licensed architect to Ms. Pruett, discusses the merits of this density bonus application by addressing the necessity for the waivers and illustrates how the project will be physically precluded from being built as envisioned and at the density and with the above requested concessions, if the waivers are not granted. 628 of 1003 246 N Jackson Street Project May 4, 2023
Revised Density Bonus Application Findings
5 B. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact;
There is no evidence that the waivers will have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment. The applicant is seeking approval of waivers pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 and GMC Chapter 30.36 (Density Bonus Incentives) in order to provide one (1) unit affordable to very-low income households. No specific adverse impacts upon public health or safety or on the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources would occur by granting the requested waiver.

Further while the units listed above are smaller than the minimum requirements of GMC Section 30.36.080 (B), the project will meet building and safety codes and there are similarly sized residential units elsewhere in the City. The current trend of urban infill multifamily unit sized is smaller in footprint compared to traditional units built during the latter part of the 20th century. Similarly, while the floor area of the proposed project is slightly greater than the maximum requirements of GMC Section 30.11.030, the project will meet building and safety codes and there are multiple examples affordable projects with similar FAR deviations elsewhere in the City. There are no requested waivers of any other Building and Safety, Fire Department, Engineering or other requirements pertaining to health or safety.

C. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; There is no evidence that the waivers will have a specific adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. There is no real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources within the vicinity of the proposed project, nor any environmental impacts, cumulative or otherwise, that would occur by granting the requested waiver.

D. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law; The waivers will not be contrary to state or federal law and do not require any other discretionary entitlement. There is no evidence the waivers will be contrary to state or federal law and in fact are requested under the State Density Bonus Law.
629 of 1003
Simonian & Associates | 501 W. Glenoaks Blvd. #556, Glendale, CA 91202 | 818.246.0092 May 4, 2023
Ms. Cassandra Pruett
Planner – City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Suite 103
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: Density Bonus Review Case No. PDBP2120753 at 246 N. Jackson Street, Glendale, CA Letter Addressing the Necessity for the Waivers
Dear Ms. Pruett:

The above case was heard by the planning hearing officer (“PHO”) on June 1, 2022, and the PHO decision was issued on July 7, 2022. The PHO approved the density bonus application request, and the case was then appealed to the Planning Commission (“P.C.”) on July 21, 2022. The P.C. heard the case on November 2, 2022, and the P.C. decision was issued on November 2, 2022. The P.C. denied the appeal and sustained the PHO decision with a 5-0 vote, and the case was again appealed to City Council.

This letter is to further discuss the merits of the application by addressing the necessity for the waivers and will illustrate that the project will be physically precluded from being built as envisioned and at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted, if the waivers are not granted.

Background on the requested Two (2) concessions and Two (2) waivers:

As a project background, the applicant is requesting the following Two (2) Concessions necessary in order to make the project affordable pursuant to GMC Section 30.36.070 A:

1. A concession to increase the maximum height and stories to 36'-11" and 3-stories; and

2. A concession to reduce the minimum setbacks at the front and street side setbacks of the subterranean garage. Also, a reduction of the building’s minimum setbacks at the front setback, at interior south setback and also at the north street-side setback.

The applicant is requesting the following Two (2) waivers since without the waivers the project would be physically precluded from being built as envisioned, and with the density and with the above requested concessions:

1. A waiver from the minimum unit size requirements in GMC 30.11.050, whereby 7-units do not meet the minimum unit size and are slightly shy of the city of Glendale minimum unit size requirements; and

2. A waiver to allow an increase in FAR to 1.32 (9,760 SF) were a maximum FAR of 1.20 (8,904 SF) is permitted. The requested deviation is minor and consists of only 856 SF of additional floor area over the allowable limit.
630 of 1003
Simonian & Associates | 501 W. Glenoaks Blvd. #556, Glendale, CA 91202 | 818.246.0092 Justification for approval of the minimum unit size waiver:

Applicant is requesting a waiver from the minimum unit size requirements in GMC 30.11.050, because 7-units do not meet the minimum unit size. In particular:
• The state density bonus calculations and methodology for the project results in an 11-unit project, with one of the 11-units designated as a very low-income unit as computed and verified by the City of Glendale Housing Department 1
;
• The 11-unit density has been configured into the project by creating Six (6) two-bedroom units and Five (5) one-bedroom units. In order to adhering to the minimum unit size requirements of GMC 30.11.050, therefore, the project would have to at a minimum provide the following unit sizes:
o Six (6) 800 SF 2-bedroom units (6 x 800 SF) = 4,800 SF of livable area o Five (5) 600 SF 1-bedroom units (5 x 800 SF) = 3,000 SF of livable area o At a minimum the project would have to consist of = 7,800 SF of livable area The proposed project’s livable area, however, is 194 square feet short of this required minimum.

Specifically, some units are larger to be able to provide two-bedroom units; but, seven of them are not and do not meet the minimum size requirements. Since the project complies with the various City of Glendale’s Development Standards that preclude the project from adding any additional livable area to meet the City’s minimum unit size requirements, a waiver is thus necessary. In particular:
• The maximum allowable lot coverage for the project site is a 50% ratio, and the applicant has proposed a lot coverage of 49.75% ratio, just shy of it. It is physically impossible to push beyond the current footprint of the proposed project without going over the 50% floor area ratio and therefore additional area cannot be borrowed from the landscape and common open space portions of the project, in order to increase the livable areas of the project to meet the minimum unit size requirements of the Code;
• The minimum required landscape area is a 25% ratio, and the applicant has provided a 25 % ratio. There is no additional livable area available there to meet the minimum unit area requirements of the Code;
• The applicant also is providing the minimum required open space areas. There is thus no additional livable area there to be used either. In fact, the lot coverage ratio is the governing factor in determining the outline of the ground level floor plan which in turn determines the boundary of the area that can be utilized for the common open space. Since the project is unable to push beyond its current footprint without going over the 50% floor area ratio, it is physically impossible to look for additional livable area within the proposed ground level common open space area;
1 The 11 unit calculation is consistent with the City’s recently adopted Housing Element that shows the property listed on the site inventory in Appendix A. 631 of 1003 Simonian & Associates | 501 W. Glenoaks Blvd. #556, Glendale, CA 91202 | 818.246.0092 • The project’s setbacks are already at or just below the City’s minimum setback requirements, hence the necessity for the requested Concession for the project’s setbacks (1 of 2 of the requested concessions is for setbacks). Therefore, additional livable area cannot be attained by encroaching onto the setbacks.

Although, the East setback is greater than the minimum, the East setback area has been utilized in its entirety to satisfy the landscape requirements, the common open space requirements and necessary circulation elements that dictate a second form of exit from the subterranean parking garage. These factors, in addition to the limitations pertaining to the enlargement of the project’s footprint illustrated above, preclude additional livable area to be gained by encroaching onto the common open space portions, the landscape portions or the circulation portions of the project in order to meet the minimum unit size requirements of GMC 30.11.050. • Additional Development Standards relating to the height and number of stories further preclude the project from meeting the minimum unit size requirements under the Code. One of the two requested concessions of the project is for height / stories in order to increase the maximum height and stories to 36’’-11” and three (3) stories (where 26’ is the height limit in the R-1250 zone for lots less than 90 feet in width). The 36’-11” height of the project further defines and sets the vertical boundaries of the building envelope and precluded additional livable area to be gained by expanding beyond the boundaries of the Budling Envelop in order to meet the minimum unit size requirements of GMC 30.11.050.
• Last but not least, additional factors pertaining to the uniform building code dictate minimum widths and clearances necessary to meet building code. The interior corridor clearances have been reduced to the bare minimum in order to meet basic ADA clearances, along with other circulation factors necessary in order for the fire department to be able to navigate a gurney through the project. These uniform building code requirements, in addition to the limitations illustrated above, prevent additional livable from encroaching into the circulation elements in order to meet the minimum unit size requirements.

In conclusion, the project’s compliance with the City’s other development standards leaves no room to spare on the site since the proposed project is already at the bare minimum in meeting the various components of the City’s Development Standards, the City’s Design Guidelines, and basic building codes. Adhering to the City’s minimum unit size requirements, therefore, will physically preclude the project from being built as envisioned at the density allowed under the SDBL with the requested concessions.

Justification for approval of the increased FAR waiver:

Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow an increase in floor area ratio (“FAR”) to 1.32 (9,760 SF) where a maximum FAR of 1.20 (8,904 SF) is permitted. The requested deviation is minor and consists of only 856 SF of additional floor area over the allowable limit. In particular, without the requested waiver for FAR, the project floor area will have to be reduced by 856 SF, which reduces the number of units from 11-units down to 10, probably 9-units. Further, the loss of two units means the loss of the affordable unit; and, by reducing the project by 856 SF, the minimum unit size problem gets worse because the unit size shrinks even further. Last, the increase in FAR to 1.32 from the allowable floor area of 1.20, will provide the necessary building square footage to allow for the desired project size, for 632 of 1003
Simonian & Associates | 501 W. Glenoaks Blvd. #556, Glendale, CA 91202 | 818.246.0092 the desired project unit-mix, and for the desired project amenities to bring this project to fruition as envisioned, all while complying with the City’s open – space, landscaping, and building and safety codes.

In sum, as the Staff Report concludes, these two concessions and two waivers are needed to “facilitate the proposed design and ensure architectural character that meets the City's Design Guidelines, including three distinct and separate common open spaces with amenities on the building's ground level and on the third floor deck”; and the additional height and stories are needed for the construction of the three units on the third-floor because of the narrow width of the lot (lots less than 90 feet in width are limited to two story / 26 feet in height).

Staff’s conclusion and the Planning Commission’s approval are thus consistent with California law. As the Court explained in Wollmer v City of Berkeley (2011), 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346 -1347, “nothing in the statute requires the applicant to strip the project of amenities, such as an interior courtyard, that would require a waiver of development standards. Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period. (§65915, subd. (e)(1).) The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed. Wollmer's argument goes nowhere. Had the City failed to grant the waiver and variances, such action would have had “the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development” meeting the criteria of the density bonus law. (Ibid.; see Wollmer I, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 947, 102 Cal.Rptr.3d 19.) If the project were not built, it goes without saying that housing units for lower-income households would not be built and the purpose of the density bonus law to encourage such development would not be achieved. The trial court properly interpreted the statute, and the City proceeded in the manner required by law in granting the waivers.” Here, as in Wollmer, supra, if the Applicant cannot create a larger building via the concessions and waivers requested, the proposed project is reduced from 11 units with one affordable unit to 6 units with no affordable units, which is contrary to the spirit and intent of the SDBL.

We, therefore, respectfully ask that you deny the appeal and approve the project accordingly.

Sincerely,
Artin Simonian
Simonian & Associates
Licensed Architect – License # C 27485
633 of 1003
634 of 1003
635 of 1003
Owner occupied seller was Leticia B.

Banaag (Letty)
636 of 1003
637 of 1003
638 of 1003
Evidence proving Seller
(Leticia B. Banaag) was
owner occupied
639 of 1003

ţɶ̲Ơȳ̲Y̲

Ņôʘɍ̲Ƀɜ̲õ/
̲Ŵ̲Ƨȋ̲ƙ̲ȹʩ
.̲ŻƴöĦ̲÷ø̲

ʴȒ̪ɺȑȌÐȍùȎ˘ȏȐ˂ȓʫ̫̲ ˣ̲Ȕ̲ƓÑ̬̭̲ u̮ǐpʕɳƚ

ÓƨƝ̲ ŃňƢɼ̲ ńǳĺ̲µ¶̲
Ň]t̲ħ̲Ũ̲Ǿ̲ȶȮǂ̲ÎÅ̲
Vǧʧ̲łʇɎ̲ƅ̲ɌȰ̲ì[ĩ̲ ̯v Ȗ̲Ƙȗ
5̲əŒȇ̲ũ̲ʮɢ̲I̲ƹ=̲Ǜ̲Ǣ̲"ʶ̲ʢ̲ʑwɮ̲ƭ̲7̲Ƈ̲ŤȘșǸ̲ű̲̲ž̲ſ̲ŋ̲
ò̲ʦ̲ɝF̲ú̲ʵ̲š̲ÔÒƎ̲\
Ɵ̲
ć̲˅̲˧˨̲"ʻ̲ʖ̲Ĉ̲ľżƄ̲ƺ?ȅ=ȧB̲ŉûġɻ̲˩̲ěȷ̲Ƌƈ̲ȺȻʬ̲
ǜ̲řʁx Ʈ̲œ̲ƾʃ̲ Ǔ̲ă
̲ʤ̲ʡ̲ʒɞ̲Õ̲Ʒ̲˪yŚ̲3̲ˎF̲¼̲ʣ̲
Ƽɫr̲ċ̲ˠ̲
ʞ̲Ţ̲Ǘ̲ɯ̲ƫ̲
Ƭ̲
Ĥ̲ê2ĉ̲Ǟ̲Dǵ̲Ɂ̲ˌ̲Ċ̲ŘɄ̲ȱ̲4ʍʰ̲ǚɷȁ̲˝̲ŝ̲
ƥǟ
ʄ̲ƿ#Ǖ̲ǺG̲ę̲ñ̲
ǘ̲ŏƖ̲˫Ų̲Ǩ̲ś̲Ļ̲Ů̲

-
íqʿÇ̲Ö̲˛-̲ˬ̲ɛ̲ƻ̲Ǒ̲7̲Č̲şɤ̲
Ʊ̲Ĩ̲
ʝǖ̲Ū̲˚ȡ̲
ɱ̲č̲Ƃ̲˭̲Ǡ̲Ɖ̲ɵ̲Ȁ×̲ˁ
̲ʀ̲ǩȸ̲ȩǿʅ̲Ʃɨ̲ť̲ˇ̲ˑ̲ʏ̲Ā
̲ɩɪØʆ̲ɗ̲ʥ̲ʂ̲ʗ̲
"ʹʨ̲ɭɏ̲Ƕ̲X̲4ʓ̲ū̲ɚˋɀȨ̲Š̲Ʋ̲ɥ̲ƀ̲
!ʎ˒ǹ̲ů̲½È̲˞ʈ>A9̲ʔEɋ̲Ŭ̲ź̲#AǯȪ̲Ĭ̲6̲ƃǡ̲8̲ˡˆɽ̲s̲ 5̲Ǳ̲Ě̲ƽȃōȴ̲ʉɸ̲Ď̲ʠʷ̲ ʐ̲Ĝ̲ɿʽ̲ƪɬ̲Ǯ̲ų̲Ɋ!̲ ̲˜̲ɦ;̲Ƹ̲Ŝ̲ˮ̲J ̲Ǽȯ̲W̲ɡ̲ˏ ̲Ąï
̲z ʋʪ̲Ɔ̲ŭ̲
D̲ǒ̲ƞ̲
ģ̲Ǵ̲Ş̲3̲˃̲ď̲ɟʸ̲ƌ̲ī̲
ā̲ǰ̲

ƤʙɐǙ̲¾̲Ȣȣ̲ȼƍ̲ɑȲȚɒ˓ɅȽȾ̲ĐÙ̲ɆȫțȜ^̲˯ŵ̨̲ɇ˰̲ÚÛĠ̲˱ɂȿ̲̩Üđ.̲

Ý̲˲̲Ï̲Ì̲
G +G G G G G G G G G GG G G G ,G G G G G G 'G G GG) G G -G G *G G
G BG .G 2G G /G G G
G GG G !G "G #G 0G $G FG

ĵĢÍ_

4 ! CG " # $% & ' + ` + ( ) *
+ + ^ a b c s|de f},g - . 4 h /s 0 ,>1 2s 3 4 i 4 5 j ] 6 $+ k !$+ 7 $+ 8lm 4m , C /ĳ̲ǃǄǅ̲ǆ̲

Ə̲¿É̲ĝ̲ɲ̲ɾ̲1Ĵ̲ː̲Þßà̲
mno 8 9 : !m 5 p}ssqor ; $ |stuv} < wx = = yxsz nsx XYZ[
áƐ̲ŕGɈ̲Eʲ̲ˢK̲ʜǪ̲Ă̲ʚ˖ʺ̲Ē̲ʟ̲ĭ̲ŧ̲ˍ̲Ŗ̲ǀ̲ğ̲$Q̲`̲̲
â̲Ǉǈ̲
Ƿ >>? !_ $+ , $s 4 $+ 4 @ A\| $
|B C D} E{} + F E|
Ķ̲ǉǊ̲ǋ̲
ë0 Őʱɉ̲˳˴˵˶˷PM˸N˹̲a̲M˺˻˼̲̲˽$(˾̲̲̲̲˿̲̲̲ 0̲{|}~

Ƒ̲ƣ
I̲Ǥ̲
̲b̲
̲c̲À

̲̲̲
ã̲ǌ̲
ü̲Ƴ
·JǦŀ
̲ǣķˊȄ1ä̲

, ̲ǁ̲Ǎǎ̲Ǐ̲
ýd̲Ȥ˗ő̲ē̲Ɓ̲ǻɴ̲Ĕ2å̲$
$G Hs|I J K||L M $}|~ ~ n| 5 N H+ } $| O DG EG + $% P + I O Q| + $+RE8æç̲
Ÿņǔ̲ȵ
ɣ@ǭ̲̰e G %12G G G &G 'G G3G 4G S̀ G5G 6G 7G G8G 9G (G G :G ;<=
ˤ̲́ơ̲Ī̲Â̲f̲̲̂Z̲̲̃S = T +xx $U |s s| + , 8 + m|s1 V
W }

Ɣ¡̲Ğ
¸¹ºǥƗ!ɓȬɔɖİ̲¢£¤¥ )¦§¨©Ã

)ª*«̲̲++
¬Ä̲Ƶ̲

̱ŽƒŁɰȝą:Ŏƕȭ̲®̄̅̆N%̇̈̉̊*%̲̋ ǧ̲R̲

G >?@G AG ¯Ŋ

Ŕǝþɧ̲Ʀɠȕʾĕˉʛ̲̍&
& ̎'̏(̲̐˄̲
T˥̲Ŀǫ̲Ɗ̲Ź̲@
̲ðĘ̲Ŷ̲̲h̲%̲̑i̲̒̓O̔̕&$̖̗̲j °̲ ̲̘P'̙±Q̛̜̲̚k̲̲̝̲̲ ²̲̞̟'̲l̲̠(̡̲ ³U̲ƛ̲ mÆ̢̲̲Ẹ̲̇Ê´̲ļîÿıǽėèéĆ ̲ËˈɘȥȦɹ̲ŦLK̲<̲˦ ʌHʼ»̲
ǲʳ̲ƯȈǬȉ̲Ĳ̲Ɯʊ̲˟C>ȞB̲ŷ̲ʯ˔ȟʭ:,̲6ˀ̲L#̲<̲̤̲Ȃn̲9C̲8̲įĥ̲Ĺ̲Ű̲Ō˕ɕ̲H̲˙Ƞ?Ȇ;̲̥Ŗ̦̲o̲O̲ ŗ̲ƶĸ̲ óĽ̲ ưȊ̲Į

640 of 1003
641 of 1003

642 of 1003
643 of 1003
52 Buyer's Signature

644 of 1003
52 Buyer's Signature

645 of 1003
646 of 1003
647 of 1003
648 of 1003
649 of 1003
650 of 1003
651 of 1003
652 of 1003
653 of 1003
654 of 1003
655 of 1003
656 of 1003
657 of 1003
658 of 1003
659 of 1003
660 of 1003
EXHIBIT 16
661 of 1003
662 of 1003
663 of 1003
LEE W. SMITH
page 1 of 6
August 14, 2023
Mayor Dan Brotman at [email protected]
Councilperson Paula Devine, [email protected]
Councilperson Ardashes Kassakhian at [email protected] Councilperson Elen Asatryan at [email protected] Councilperson Ara Najarian at [email protected]
City of Glendale City Hall
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, California 91206-4386
Sent via-mail
RE: City Council Meeting, Item 9A, Appeal of Planning Commission’s Approval of Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753 for 246 North Jackson Street, August 15, 2023
Dear Honorable Mayor Brotman and esteemed council persons:

In tomorrow’s meeting, I ask that each of you vote to continue the above-referenced matter and kindly direct the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753 for 246 North Jackson Street.

I was born in Glendale at Physicians & Surgeons Hospital (now Glendale Memorial), my late parents lived on North Jackson Street in Glendale in an apartment until just before I my birth and I am a long-time Glendale resident.

The case has a number of important requests by the appellants, with whom I strongly agree. Most importantly, I humbly ask that you allow the proposed project appeal and refuse the density bonus application. The City of Glendale must ensure that, like so many other cities in California, as much affordable housing as is allowed be approved to end the housing shortage. You all should commence a formal review as soon as possible and revise the Planning Officer Review process which is currently overly permissive and provincial. Most importantly, with my friends and neighbors, I 664 of 1003
LEE W. SMITH
page 2 of 6
urgently ask that the City of Glendale immediately halt the lenient treatment afforded to real estate developers for which our community is now known.

The most egregious issues that are related to this appeal are:
• The Municipal Code of the City of Glendale (Muni Code) was not followed in the equations used in the density calculations that favor the developer. • For this property, too few affordable units are being proposed than would be allowed under current state law.
• Likewise, the property’s incentives and waivers were not calculated properly. • The developer was asked, long after close of the Planning Hearing Officer hearing for additional findings of fact by staff, making the Findings of Fact inadequate and tainted (Cassandra Pruett, City of Glendale Planner, E-mail to Art Simonian re 246 N Jackson, June 15, 2002: 3:04 PM).

The Staff Report for this project states on page 3 under Description of Existing Properties and Uses: “The site is located on the southeast corner of North Jackson Street and East California Avenue, on a relatively flat lot 7,512 [square feet] SF in size.” Unfortunately, the property is 50 by 150 feet, which would make it 7,500 SF, except for permament easement that was recorded June 9, 1972. That easement “for valuable consideration” (meaning the owners were paid) was made and recorded between the then-owners and the City of Glendale. Those 51 SF at the northeast corner formed a raduis curve that is not longer part of that privatelyowned land (Easement Deed between Richard B. and Gertrude T. Weir and the City of Glendale, recorded July 6, 1972.

The Tax Assessor of the County of Los Angeles “Propert Portal” also demontrates that the subject property is 7,449 SF (see Figure 1 on page 3). 665 of 1003
LEE W. SMITH
page 3 of 6
Figure 1: Image of subject property records, Assessor ID Number 5642-018-039 (246 and 246 ½ N. Jackson Street, Glendale) on Los Angeles County Tax Assessor Property Portal. Note the “Usable Sq Ft” circled in red above. Source:
https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/parceldetail/5642018039.

Figure 1 demonstrates that the subject property parcel is considered to be 7,449 square feet (SF). See usable Sq Ft or lot size above circled in red above on Los Angeles County Assessor’s website. The lot is not and never was 7,512 SF as described in the Staff Report in Exhibit 2 on page 9 (under “Maximum Number of Units Permitted per GMC”).

Exhibit 2 states “By right, applicant has a base density of 7 units (7,512 / 1,250 = 6.01 rounded up).” Part of the essential problem is that 6.01 does not round up to 7, unless .99 , which would be nearly an entire additional unit, and would not be considered merely rounding up. 6.01 rounded to the nearest whole or tenth is still 6 not 7. Because the correct square footage is 7,449, the equation should have been 7,449/1,250 = 5.9592. 5.9592 would equal six units, not seven.

Under “Amount of Density Bonus Requested” Exhibit 7 of the Staff Report claims:
“Applicant is entitled to a forty-six point twenty-five percent (46.25%) density bonus by providing one (1) very low income unit (14 percent of the base density of 7 = .98 666 of 1003
LEE W. SMITH
page 4 of 6
(rounded up to 1)).” If the arithmetic were correct, 14 percent of six would be .84 not .98.

Exhibit 2 to the Staff Report further states “This request complies with State Density Bonus Law, which allows up to a forty-six point twenty-five percent (46.25%) density bonus, as well as two (2) incentives in exchange for the provision of a fourteen percent (14%) affordability level of very low income units.” It continues, “By providing one (1) very low income unit, applicant also meets the replacement unit obligation under State Density Bonus Law. With a forty-six point twenty-five percent (46.25%) density bonus, the Project is permitted eleven (11) units (7 rounded up from

6.01) x 1.4625 = 10.24 (rounded up to 11)).” That equation should have been:
• 6 units x 1.4265 (46.75%)= 2.77 (rounded up to 3), so 6 units + 3 units are 9, not 11 in total.
• 14 percent of 9 is 1.26, which rounds to 1. Using the City’s logic, it would round “up” to two units
So of the nine units, not 11 units, that may be allowable under the Muni Code, one of those units must be set aside for “very low income” tenants.

Exhibit 5 of the Staff Report on sheet 2 contains the below, seriously flawed and incorrect equations: 150 x 50= 7,500 SF, not 7,512 (Figure 2 of page 5). The corner easement made in 1972 permanently took 51 SF, so the parcel is currently 7,449 SF, it was never 7,512 SF.

Figure 2: Highlighted image of subject property proposed plans, Jackson Apartments at 246 N. Jackson Street, Glendale. The Base Density Lot Area is listed erroneously as 7,512 SF. Source: Maly Architects Inc. Jackson Apartments” sheet A-0.1, April 22, 2022- revision 1 (no revision date). 667 of 1003
LEE W. SMITH
page 5 of 6
The rear alley should not be a source of surprise or “found land” either. It is depicted on The Sanborn Fire Insurance Co map of Glendale, CA dated 1912 (Figure 3, page 5). That Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Maps of Glendale, CA, depict a residence at 202 Jackson Street (the subject property) with an extant 2-foot-wide alley and a square northeast corner.

Figure 3: Annotated excerpt from Sanborn Fire Insurance Company “Maps of Glendale, CA” Nov 1912, sheet 3. The subject property in black dashed line, was occupied by a residence and a shed, addressed as 202 Jackson Street as of 1912.

Source: Sanborn Fire Insurance Company. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps of Glendale, CA” Nov 1912, sheet 3.

If the licensed surveyor for the developer re-measured the subject property and found it to be larger than previously believed, they would have been required to file a “Record of Survey” with the County of Los Angeles. No surch record of survey was found at the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works at https://pw.lacounty.gov/smpm/landrecords/RecordsSurvey.aspx. If I am correct, the most recent record of a survey filed with the County of Los Angeles for the subject property was the Thompson & Ross Tract on March 13, 1894 (Record of Survey Book 002-003).

Not all, but much of this evidence was presented in the Planning Hearing Officer meeting and in the Appeal presented to the Planning Commission. Surprisingly 668 of 1003
LEE W. SMITH
page 6 of 6
neither had an issue with the property developer exaggerating the size of the property, despite clear evidence provided that proved the calculation to be wrong.

Based on this information and the even more detailed facts presents by the Northeast Homeowners’ Association, I ask that each of you vote to continue the above-referenced matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753 for 246 North Jackson Street. The City of Glendale’s excessively permissive stance toward developers must be reined in. City Council is the highest body in Glendale entrusted with that responsibility.

Please ensure that this letter and any others regarding this appeal case are entered into the Administrative Record for the proposed project.

Sincerely,
Lee W. Smith
Lee W. Smith
cc: Suzie Abadjian, Glendale City Clerk at [email protected] 669 of 1003
LEE W. SMITH
page 7 of 6
670 of 1003
August 14, 2023
The Honorable Mayor Brotman and Members of the Glendale City Council via email
Re: Agenda Item 9b, GHCC Appeal of Density Bonus Review of 246 N. Jackson St.

Dear Mayor Brotman and Council:

Please grant the appeal of the density bonus review. The evidence of faulty procedure and poor outcomes for residents who depend upon staff (and Council) to preserve and increase affordable housing is overwhelming and damning. This project—like so many that involve density bonus review—has implications for residents throughout Glendale.

Older housing is affordable housing. So true in this case, as we know exactly how much the units rented for: $1,500 a month. And yet the city plans to let the developer demolish them and replace them with a single affordable unit, when it can and must ask for more. You claim to care about increasing affordable housing; in this case you would be signing off on a significant decrease.

Staff are denying there was any special treatment of the developer. Don’t you think it’s actually much worse that staff think of this as just business as usual in the City of Glendale? Are you going to tell the public that:
--it’s fine that developers write their own Findings of Fact for official city determinations?
--it’s fine when a staff member reopens a public hearing without telling the public, in order to allow developers to submit additional evidence into the record? --it’s fine for staff to strike back-room deals over projects and not disclose them to the public?
We don’t believe that.

Apart from sending this back to ensure Glendale gets the affordable units to which is entitled, we beg you to reform the Planning Hearing Officer process. The big reveal of the California Public Records Act request is that this so-called independent and objective review is a joke.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Loretta De Lange, Secretary
Verdugo Woodlands West Neighborhood Association
671 of 1003
Largest Homeowner Association in Glendale
August 11, 2023
Re: Appeal of Density Bonus Application at 246 N. Jackson St.

Case No. PDBP2120753, November 16, 2022 Northwest Glendale Homeowners Association Honorable Mayor Brotman and Members of the Glendale City Council:
1436 W. Glenoaks Bl. #190
Glendale, CA 91201
(818) 754-8274
nwglendaleha.org
[email protected]
We are writing in support of the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council’s (GHCC) appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain Planning Hearing Officer approval of a Density Bonus Application at 246 N. Jackson St.

The issues at stake in this appeal deal with grave procedural and legal issues as well as Officers and Directors questions of basic fairness and transparency that concern all residents in all areas of Glendale.

Peter Fuad, President,
Editor of The Guardian
The Supplemental Information filed as part of GHCC’s appeal clearly and amply sets forth the many errors committed by the City and the Commission in approving this density bonus.

Without repeating those points, we want to emphasize the special and possibly unlawful treatment given the applicant for the project:

Lawrence Kalfayan,
Vice President
Sam Engel, Treasurer •
•
•
•
The Commission granted Applicant many more variances than he is entitled to under the state density bonus law, while at the same time not requiring as many affordable units as the city is entitled to.

Holly Keenan, Webmaster,
Membership Chair
A full two weeks after the close of the public PHO hearing, Staff asked applicant for additional information and evidence to support his application. Absent evidence to make the required Findings of Fact, the application had to be denied.

Philip Keller, DRB
Representative
Carol Brusha, Recording
Secretary, Publicity Chair,
Associate Editor of The
Guardian
GHCC was initially denied access to the full, unredacted documents containing evidence of ex parte communications with applicant and his submittal of new evidence, obviously hindering GHCC’s appeal and in violation of open records laws.

Pam Ellis, Director Staff secretly credited applicant with land he does not own to allow an increase in density from 6 to 7 units (9 to 11 units with the density bonus). Applicant is then supposed to donate such land to the City as part of a new easement. Margi Simpkins, Director •
•
The special treatment accorded this applicant, and City’s disregard of state laws and city ordinances are an alarming precedent threatening all neighborhoods.

Aside from these legal and procedural errors, the entire project is massive and out of scale with surrounding properties. Approval of a density bonus precludes any subsequent design review actions to remediate deficiencies.

For these reasons and the many more outlined in GHCC’s Supplemental Information, we request Council to overturn this ill-considered decision of the Commission.

Very truly yours,
Peter Fuad
President
Northwest Glendale Homeowners Association 672 of 1003
From: Cortes, Karen
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: 8/16 Council Item - 246 N. Jackson St Glendale
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:21:51 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image009.png
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:04 AM
To: Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 8/16 Council Item - 246 N. Jackson St Glendale From: Abajian, Suzie
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:58 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>
Cc: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 8/16 Council Item - 246 N. Jackson St Glendale Dear Mayor Brotman and Councilmembers,
Please see below an email from Artak Dovlatyan.

Best,
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Artak Dovlatian <[email protected]>
673 of 1003
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 6:30 PM
To: Pruett, Cassandra <[email protected]>
Subject: 246 N. Jackson St Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City of Glendale Council members,
As a long time Glendale resident, I support the development of multifamily residential projects and affordable housing projects in and around the downtown Glendale neighborhoods and I support the project at 246 N. Jackson Street.

I am also a local business owner and I believe our city needs to provide housing for all economic groups to ensure Glendale remains competitive in retaining employees that can afford to live within our great city. Although Glendale has a large selection of single-family homes, they tend to cost well over $1 million to purchase which my and many other employees cannot afford. In order for the city to maintain its competitive edge, we need to provide rental housing options to our residents in addition to single family homes. I believe this is necessary in order to sustain the businesses within our city by providing their employees with the necessary housing.

In reviewing the staff report, I noticed the appeal was filed by a resident outside the area and actually from Montrose. I am perplexed as to why someone would bother to appeal a project that is 20 minutes away from their residence, especially a project that is well thought out, centrally located and one that will provide much-needed affordable housing. I suspect the appeal is politically motivated and I hope the City Council will see through the smoke and support this well thought out project that will provide much needed apartment housing to the employees of the city’s businesses.

Best Regards,
Artak Dovlatyan
Specialized Realty
213 N. Orange St. Suite A, Glendale, CA 91203
O 818.546.1212 | D 747.286.6289
E [email protected]
DRE: 01250473 | www.specializedrealty.com
674 of 1003
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE and DISCLAIMER: This email message, including all attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any use, unauthorized review, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please do advise the sender immediately. Nothing in this communication should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document. The recipients are advised that the sender and Specialized Realty, Inc. are not qualified to provide, and have not been contracted to provide, legal, financial, or tax advice, and that any such advice regarding any investment by the recipients must be obtained from the recipients’ attorney, accountant, or tax professional. 675 of 1003
From: Cortes, Karen
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: 9a: Grant Appeal of 246 N. Jackson
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:23:10 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image007.png
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:04 AM
To: Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 9a: Grant Appeal of 246 N. Jackson
From: Abajian, Suzie
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Cc: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]> Subject: FW: 9a: Grant Appeal of 246 N. Jackson
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Joanna Pringle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 8:43 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: 9a: Grant Appeal of 246 N. Jackson
676 of 1003
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Brotman and Council Members Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, RE: 246 N. Jackson
Please grant the appeal and deny the density bonus as proposed. Obviously development of the site is in order, but it should occur in compliance with the municipal code and state law and give the city as many affordable units as it can get.

My main concern here is that you will think: oh, who cares? It’s only eleven units. What’s an easement anyway?
I care. This entire process reflects so poorly on our city, and it’s up to you to make things right.

Glendale has development standards, and its municipal code and general plan for a reason. How dare staff, with the City Attorney’s blessing, ask the developer--two weeks after the close of a public hearing--to add evidence so the waivers can be approved? I hope you will look into how and why City staff felt they had the authority to give away property deeded to the City to allow the developer to build more units, and then shrank from asking for more affordable units.

I also hope you will investigate how City staff allowed the owner-occupancy exception when there was no evidence of owner occupancy.

Council always laments the lack of affordable housing. Here is your chance. Tell the public you mean what you say.

Thank you. With great appreciation,
Joanna
Joanna Pringle
1555 Hillside Drive
Glendale, CA 91208
Mobile 213-509-0005
677 of 1003
From:

To:

Cortes, Karen
Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: 246 N. Jackson - agenda item 8/15/2023
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:21:09 AM
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:05 AM
To: Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 246 N. Jackson - agenda item 8/15/2023
From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 9:23 AM
To: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Cc: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: 246 N. Jackson - agenda item 8/15/2023
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Marcia Hanford <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2023 8:30:47 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: 246 N. Jackson - agenda item 8/15/2023
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Councilmembers:
678 of 1003
I was among those who encouraged the GHCC to appeal the project at 246 N. Jackson. I don’t live in the immediate area but I care about all of Glendale. Precedents impact all neighborhoods.

Parts of staff's paper trail are concerning, and the Planning Commissioners did not express the need for future projects to be more buttoned up to avoid the appearance of slippery dealings. Will these unprofessional practices continue?
During my time in corporate America, questionable and ambiguous actions (such as asking the applicant to write the language justifying his own requested variances) would have had consequences, requiring me to complete a “re-do” without any murky content.

Nobody I know is arguing against adding housing, especially on appropriate sites and at the appropriate scale. But as a Council you should demand above-board, unambiguous work in everything that is undertaken by the City. The process must be clean. Please deny this density bonus request and require procedures to be above board, which should include more affordable units.

By the way, it’s been 2 years since Council requested staff to return with a revised density bonus plan. Implementation of a clear and fair policy would avoid some of the questionable calculations in this and other projects.

Thank you.

Marcia Hanford
679 of 1003
From:

To:

Cortes, Karen
Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:21:30 AM
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:05 AM
To: Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 12:21 PM
To: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Cc: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Get Outlook for iOS
From: MrGraemeww . <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:40:55 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
680 of 1003
Chevy Chase Estates Association
-via email -
August 14, 2023
Glendale City Council
Glendale, CA
re: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:

Send it back for fixing. There are just too many problems with the Density Bonus Review Case Number
PDBP2120753 for 246 North Jackson Street.

The Chevy Chase Estates Association urges the City Council to grant the appeal and continue the matter under the guidance of the City Attorney.

The public as well as Councilmembers must have confidence that all decisions rendered by commissions and officers of the city follow the letter of the law.

When comes to serious matters of property and law, close is not good enough.
681 of 1003
Cordially,
Graeme Whifler
President of the CCEA
682 of 1003
From:

To:

Cortes, Karen
Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: In Support of the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Appeal of Density Bonus Approval at 246 N.

Jackson
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:23:43 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image007.png
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:03 AM
To: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Cc: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]>; Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: In Support of the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Appeal of Density Bonus Approval at 246 N. Jackson
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Zuzka Eggena <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 9:56 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Gloria Sander <[email protected]>; Jerome Sander <[email protected]>; Susan Dasso <[email protected]> Subject: In Support of the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Appeal of Density Bonus Approval at 246 N. Jackson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender. 683 of 1003
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I was outraged to learn about the irresponsible behavior of city staff in granting more units but fewer that are affordable as required by the state at the subject address.

Who allowed city staff to violate the Municipal Code and state law by privately agreeing to give the developer land he does not and has never owned?
Who allowed city staff to illegally reach out to the developer TWO WEEKS AFTER the close of the Public Hearing to add evidence into the record so that the Planning Hearing Officer could make the required Findings of Fact to grant the density bonus? Do they consider this to be legal? Please:
1) Deny the density bonus request
2) Insure that the maximum number of affordable units be provided for ANY new development 3) Reform the density bonus review and the Planning Hearing Officer process 4) Assure close supervision of staff so that they act in accordance with laws and regulations and refrain from making off-the-record deals with developers I want this city to be known for transparency, openness and for following the rule of law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zuzka P. Eggena, MD, MPH
1724 Cleveland Rd.
684 of 1003
From: Cortes, Karen
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: Support Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Redevelopment
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:23:30 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image007.png
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I’m very disturbed to hear of the illegal special treatment Glendale is offering to developers specifically Art 685 of 1003 Simionian and ask you to support appeal of 246 N. Jackson redevelopment.

Art Simionian, part of Metro Investments, should know to abide by city rules and should not get FREE land nor preferential treatment. This is
another example of Glendale allowing developers to break the rules, turning a blind eye to when it happens and not enforcing them, not providing transparent, equitable process, ALL without abiding by their oaths and keeping the city and it's residents as their main focus.

I am extremely disappointed in the review board and how they are willing to update 1972 rulings, allowing an increase in density falsely, lack of affordable housing, and allowing new facts to be added AFTER the deadline.

I request Council take the following action:

Reject the redevelopment plans for 246 N Jackson
Initiate plans to review and reform the broken Planning Hearing Officer review process Direct staff to follow letter and spirit of the Code regarding variances under density bonus law Ensure a uniform and transparent process for handling property transactions and vacations of easements is followed
Please rebuild residents’ trust in an equitable and transparent public process.

Please appeal the 246 N Jackson redevelopment!!!!!
Respectfully,
William Vasquez
34 Year Rossmoyne Resident
Bill Vásquez
(C) 818-421-3243
[email protected]
686 of 1003
From: Adjemian, Aram
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

Fwd: 8/16 Council Item - 246 N. Jackson St Glendale
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 8:06:09 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image009.png
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Adjemian, Aram
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:38:18 PM
To: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 8/16 Council Item - 246 N. Jackson St Glendale Hi Suzie,
This is it.

Thanks,
Aram
Aram Adjemian, CMC.

Assistant City Clerk ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Elections Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2090 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Pruett, Cassandra <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:13 PM
To: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: 8/16 Council Item - 246 N. Jackson St Glendale Hi Aram. I received below email from member of the public for Council. Can you please forward to them?
Thanks,
Cassandra Pruett, AICP | Senior Planner | City of Glendale 633 East Broadway, Room 103 | Glendale, CA | 818-937-8186 [email protected]| www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Artak Dovlatian <[email protected]> 687 of 1003 Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 6:30 PM
To: Pruett, Cassandra <[email protected]>
Subject: 246 N. Jackson St Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Best Regards,
Artak Dovlatyan
Specialized Realty
213 N. Orange St. Suite A, Glendale, CA 91203
O 818.546.1212 | D 747.286.6289
E [email protected]
DRE: 01250473 | www.specializedrealty.com
688 of 1003
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE and DISCLAIMER: This email message, including all attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any use, unauthorized review, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please do advise the sender immediately. Nothing in this communication should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document. The recipients are advised that the sender and Specialized Realty, Inc. are not qualified to provide, and have not been contracted to provide, legal, financial, or tax advice, and that any such advice regarding any investment by the recipients must be obtained from the recipients’ attorney, accountant, or tax professional. 689 of 1003
From: Garcia, Michael
To:

Subject:

Date:

Abajian, Suzie; Adjemian, Aram; Cortes, Karen; Shahnazarian, Renia RE: Support Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Redevelopment
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:04:42 AM
Attachments: image007.png
image001.png
Thank you Suzie. These emails going to Council on this project have to be made available in the Clerk’s office and post as additional correspondence on the agenda webpage. Thank you.

Mike
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney ● City of Glendale ● Office of the City Attorney 613 East Broadway, Room 220 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2080 ● Fax (818) 547-3402 ● [email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL
THIS E-MAIL, ITS CONTENTS, AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) ARE CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEYCLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED, AND ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON, ENTITY, OR ADDRESSEE NAMED ABOVE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE,

DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL, OR THE ATTACHMENT(S), OR BOTH, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL.

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER

IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL, AND DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ATTACHMENT(S) FROM YOUR SYSTEM.

DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.

Honorable Mayor and City Council,
I’m very disturbed to hear of the illegal special treatment Glendale is offering to developers specifically Art Simionian and ask you to support appeal of 246 N. Jackson redevelopment.

I request Council take the following action:

Please appeal the 246 N Jackson redevelopment!!!!!
Respectfully,
William Vasquez
34 Year Rossmoyne Resident
Bill Vásquez
(C) 818-421-3243
[email protected]
691 of 1003
From:

To:

Cortes, Karen
Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: I support 246 N. Jackson Project
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:34:51 PM
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Cc: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]>; Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: I support 246 N. Jackson Project
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Erik Yesayan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:31:15 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]> Cc: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]>; Krause, Erik <[email protected]>; Pruett, Cassandra <[email protected]>
Subject: I support 246 N. Jackson Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor & Council members,
I'm writing in support of the proposed project at 246 N. Jackson for the reasons below.

I lived on Louise and California, just a couple blocks from 246 Jackson St, for over 5 years.

I love that neighborhood. It's very walkable and feels very urban. 692 of 1003
Because I specifically lived there I gave up my car for a couple years. I would walk by 246 Jackson St everyday to Glendale / California, pick up Starbucks, and take the 90 bus to my work in Downtown/Chinatown. It was fantastic. Many people in that neighborhood live like this. They walk daily to the Americana or Central Library, get groceries from Ralphs or Whole Foods, and use transit, walk, or bike to get around.

I always felt that the Downtown Specific Plan should expand to include this neighborhood. It feels part of Downtown Glendale. And 246 Jackson St was one of those properties that I always noticed and felt that it was very underutilized for the neighborhood it was in. Unfortunately, Glendale's codes have not kept up to reflect the current realities of how people live South of the 134 and the severe lack of housing we have. Therefore, I believe waivers and exceptions have to be made for projects at times.

Many people my age or younger also cannot afford current housing prices. We need more housing as a result. Regulated affordable housing sounds great, but the general supply of housing needs to increase substantially for prices to fall. When many immigrant families moved to Glendale in the 1980s, there were barely any regulated "affordable housing" units, but market rents were "affordable" because of so many housing units built at the time. Unfortunately, we down zoned many neighborhoods and made it harder to continue building housing. The harder we make housing development through appeals, lawsuits, and regulation, the less incentivized developers are to build more housing and that will mean less actual affordable housing.

I noticed this project has been going for 2.5 years now. I can't believe 2.5 years for 11 units! And in a very urban area of town. Even if all goes well and the project is approved by Council, they still need another 6 months at least to get Building permits, so that makes it almost 3 years! Pasadena approved a 180 unit project in less than 6 months (Building permits included). It's near completion now. Glendale can't keep up if it makes it this hard for new housing to occur.

I am really sad to see the Homeowner's Coordinating Council is trying to fight against medium size housing projects like this. The City has given so much to giant box-like developments with zero character along Central and Brand built by national companies with foreign investors and we've asked very little back from these developers. And here we are making it nearly impossible for a local developer to build a project that totally fits the scale of the neighborhood.

I think the project design goes with the varied architectural styles of the neighborhood. I also love all the setbacks and open space that surrounds the project. This is nothing like the ugly box-like projects approved in Downtown Glendale. I voted against the Doran / Central projects while I was on the Planning Commission and I'm sad those buildings got built the way they did.

If Glendale hasn't updated its codes to meet the realities of today, then I fully support giving waivers to the project. The easement issue is over 12 square feet. I can't believe anyone is wasting time on that!
Finally, the City adopted the Housing Element, which identified this property having a capacity of 11 units. The Housing Element is part of the General Plan and therefore is the ultimate guide for land 693 of 1003 use and housing decisions. You will be abiding with the Housing Element that you adopted if you approve this project.

I trust that you will do the right thing in rejecting the appeal! SIncerely,
Erik Yesayan
694 of 1003
From:

To:

Abajian, Suzie
Golanian, Roubik
Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Cortes, Karen
Fwd: 246 N. Jackson
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:44:48 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Rebecca Goodman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 11:41:59 AM
To: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]> Subject: 246 N. Jackson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Mr. Najarian,
Please consider the effects of developing the land at the above address. Every time old buildings are replaced with multiple housing structures our city becomes more crowded, adding more cars, and using more water and electricity. Parking problems and traffic become worse. Driving through Glendale is already difficult; it has become a bit suffocating when you look around and are surrounded by vertical structures that block out the sky. Please reconsider your plans for this property and let us keep what remains of the "small town" feeling Glendale once had.

Richard and Rebecca Goodman
695 of 1003
From:

To:

Abajian, Suzie
Golanian, Roubik
Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Cortes, Karen
Fwd: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:45:25 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Joemy Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:08:21 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Brotman and Honorable Councilmembers:

I am writing to respectfully request that when you consider the 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval this evening, that you grant the appeal and reject the density bonus application. The violation regarding affordable units is especially egregious.

Thank you,
Joemy Wilson
696 of 1003
From:

To:

Abajian, Suzie
Golanian, Roubik
Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Cortes, Karen
Fwd: GHCC appeal of 246 N. Jackson
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:48:15 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:29:32 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]> Subject: GHCC appeal of 246 N. Jackson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I urge you to uphold this appeal. Certainly you have before you the GHCC document which details the very good reasons the project as it stands should be rejected. That the developer could write and submit his own findings to circumvent existing conditions (the easement granted in 1972), correspond off the record with City Planning Office and generally guide the process to his benefit, really stinks. One wonders why the Planning staff is so eager to comply with developers at the expense of the public interest for more affordable housing units. The GHCC Appeal has much more detail than needs to be addressed here, but in considering it, the Council should understand very clearly the the flaws in the project as it currently exists, and the process by which it got there.

Please not only uphold the appeal but look into why this kind of unsavory dealing is being conducted in Glendale.

Thank you
Jerome Sander
909 Matilija Road, Glendale 91202
697 of 1003
From:

To:

Abajian, Suzie
Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Cortes, Karen
Subject: Fwd: Support the Appeal of the Density Bonus Approval at 246 N. Jackson by the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Appeal
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:45:57 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Susan Dasso <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:18:35 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]> Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Support the Appeal of the Density Bonus Approval at 246 N. Jackson by the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Appeal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

True to form, the City Staff bends the rules and regulations in favor of the Developer as opposed to ordinary citizens. How many times must we as residents write about these violations which we only learn about from vigilant friends and neighbors? This one in particular is very disturbing: again minimal affordable housing units and backroom deals by staff and the City Attorney with the architect after the close of a public hearing.

I support the recommendations of the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council, and I want to stress the importance of maximizing affordable housing units in new or expanded buildings. The City must take a stand on the affordable housing issue and educate staff to enforce the maximum allowable units. No more fines or variances should be allowed. The City must also clean up its processes so that staff clearly understands that transparency to residents is key if the City is to earn their trust. They must also follow the rule of law with no exceptions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Susan Dasso
923 Cumberland Road, Glendale
698 of 1003
From:

To:

Cortes, Karen
Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: 246 N. Jackson
Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:52:29 PM
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:22 PM
To: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Cc: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]>; Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: 246 N. Jackson
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Susan Mondt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:06:27 PM
To: Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: 246 N. Jackson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello Councilman Najarian,
I am writing to encourage you to grant the appeal for 246 N. Jackson.

Since my encounter with the DRB I've felt the city inconsistently and unfairly applies the rules and ordinances as they see fit.

This project, and the process by which it was approved, plays into every stereotype that skeptical residents have about Glendale—that developers in Glendale not only break the rules but the city looks the other way when they do, or just doesn’t care enough about the rules to enforce them, or that it even helps developers break them.
699 of 1003
Even if (and I don't think it is) this is just a perception, it should be acknowledged and corrected. All of Glendale's residents deserve equal treatment and protection from out city leadership.

Thanks so much,
Sue Mondt
700 of 1003
From:

To:

Cortes, Karen
Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject:

Date:

FW: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:50:03 PM
Karen Cortes ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Election Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 550-4352 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:46 PM
To: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>
Cc: Garcia, Michael <[email protected]>; Calvert, Bradley <[email protected]>; Cortes, Karen <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval Get Outlook for iOS
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:44:54 PM
To: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Clerk,
I am writing to request that you vote to approve the Appeal of 246 N. Jackson Density Bonus Review Approval.

The need for this appeal is a well documented example of the continued and blatant dereliction of duty by the Planning Department staff and Commission.

The numerous violations of Glendale Municipal Codes is completely unacceptable.This isn’t 701 of 1003 bending the law, it’s breaking it.Which supports the negative reputation ofthe City of Glendale in these matters.

To avoid providing affordable housing in an effort to ensure the “viability and financial pro forma of the project” is beyond reprehensible.The current affordable housing housing shortage is a reality.

Clearly GMC and process was not followed in this case.It actually was purposefully circumvented.

Which is a huge disservice to the residents of Glendale.

The Planning Commission and the Planning Department staff should be held up for review.Both the Hearing process and staff’s reporting/handling of approved projects should be fully audited and reformed. Unified and consistent procedure should be adhered to and upheld.

The GMC should be followed as written.The fact that it is circumvented so routinely is of great concern.This example is just one of many.

The private emails show a immense lack of transparency which is a systemic problem.

I would like to point out that Art Simian is a former Planning Commissioner, who more often than not sided with developers, and should not be granted any favorable treatment because of his familiarity with City Staff.

It is time to get moving on reform and send a message of trust to the residents of our Jewel City.

Again I ask you to please vote to approve this Appeal.

Sincerely,
Ingrid Wilcox
702 of 1003
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Cortes, Karen Fwd: Agenda Item 9b - August 15, 2023 City Council Meeting Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:48:13 PM
Attachments: Objection Letter to 246 N. Jackson St. - Council Agenda Item 9b August 15, 2023_compressed.pdf Get Outlook for iOS
From: Naira Soghbatyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:44:29 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Pruett, Cassandra <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 9b - August 15, 2023 City Council Meeting CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Please see attached.

Please confirm receipt of this email and its attachment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Naira Soghbatyan, Esq.

PS: resending the objection due to a microsoft message of potential non-delivery of the prior email re same.
703 of 1003
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Cortes, Karen Fwd: Objection to Project 246 N. Jackson Project - Item 9b on Council Agenda August 15, 2023 Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:47:01 PM
Attachments: Objection Letter to 246 N. Jackson St. - Council Agenda Item 9b August 15, 2023_compressed.pdf Get Outlook for iOS
From: Naira Soghbatyan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:38:20 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>
Cc: Pruett, Cassandra <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to Project 246 N. Jackson Project - Item 9b on Council Agenda August 15, 2023 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear All:

I represent a group of concerned Glendale residents and taxpayers who will be adversely and prejudicially affected by the afore-mentioned project and its administrative process.

For all reasons stated in the attached objection letter and all the evidence provided therein, we respectfully urge you to sustain the GHCC's appeal and to deny the 246 N. Jackson Project and its environmental findings of a Class 32 CEQA exemption since the Project and its entitlement process violates numerous state laws, Glendale Municipal Code, as well as California Constitution.

We would also respectfully request that the site be purchased by the City from the Project Applicant and turned into a pocket park for the public benefit of the surrounding disadvantaged low-income people of the multi-unit buildings in the Project's surrounding area.

Sincerely,
Naira Soghbatyan
704 of 1003
NAIRA SOGHBATYAN, ESQ.
215 N. KENWOOD ST. # 210
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91206
Attorney at Law PHONE: (818) 450-6552 FAX: (818) 956-9797 [email protected]
August 15, 2023

VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Cassandra Pruett, Planner
Community Development Department
633 E. Broadway St., Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206
Hon. Mayor Dan Brotman and
Glendale City Council Members
City of Glendale
[email protected]
Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway St.

City Hall - Room 200
613 E. Broadway St.

City Hall
Glendale, California 91206 Glendale, California 91206
Re: Agenda Item 9b - Support of Glendale Homeowner’s Coordinating Council; and Objections to Approval of the 246 N. Jackson Ave. Project (PDBP2120753) and Findings of Class 32 CEQA Exemption.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

I. INTRODUCTION.

This firm represents a number of Glendale residents,1 who will be adversely affected by the proposed 11-unit project at 246 N. Jackson Street, Glendale, CA 1 This firm represents Glendale residents and taxpayers who advocate for residential quality of life, public health and safety in Glendale and who would be negatively affected by the Project. For various considerations, including constitutional right to privacy and association and avoiding potential harassment and retaliation by the City of Glendale and its various departments for presenting their objections, the Glendale residents I represent choose to remain anonymous. Representing Glendale residents’ Group in the South Glendale Community Plan litigation and, after filing the First Amended Verified Petition, I myself was subjected to one such retaliatory act and harassment when a group of police officers stopped me and claimed I ran a red light on September 3, 2019. The City of Glendale later produced a questionable video purporting to be showing the time and place 705 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 2 ends

(“Project” and “Project Site”) and its invoked CEQA Class 32 exemption under CEQA Guidelines § 15332.

For the reasons detailed below and for reasons previously presented to the City and City Councilmembers on June 1, 2022 by this Office along with other reasons noted in the appeal and others’ objection letters related to this case, I strongly urge you to:
1) Sustain the Appeal by Glendale Homeowners Neighborhood Coordinating Council (also, “GHNCC”) and Reverse the Approval of the Planning Commission;
2) Deny the 246 N. Jackson Street Project;
3) Deny its Class 32 CEQA Exemption findings;
4) Require compliance with all applicable zoning requirements and state laws from the Project and City staff; and
5) Require proper CEQA review for the development.

This objection letter supplements this office’s prior June 1, 2022 objection letter and incorporates by reference the prior letter in full.

The Project and its CEQA review violate the City of Glendale’s (“City”) applicable zoning regulations. Further, the Project does not lawfully qualify for the density bonus and numerous concessions and waivers it seeks, and in fact violates the state Density Bonus Law under Govt. Code § 65915. It also violates the Streets and Highways Code, California Public Records Request Act, Brown Act, and the California Constitution, as it provides the Project Applicant a special privilege to subvert state laws.

As the Staff Report concedes, this appeal requires the City Council’s de novo review and independent consideration of all the required findings, including CEQA; and the City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission’s determinations. of my violation but bearing a date and time different from that claimed on my citation.

Tellingly, neither of the two police officers showed up for the traffic hearing and my citation was dismissed for police “no show.” The residents I represent have been subjected to similar cases of citations by City employees, including City inspectors and therefore it is in their best interest to stay anonymous when voicing their concerns. 706 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 3 ends

A. City Violated the California Public Records Act
As a preliminary matter, based on the Staff Report, the City violated California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) as it improperly withheld the requested information claiming relevance and confidentiality. The City’s claimed exemption of relevance and confidentiality of the Applicant is not supported by law. Staff Report for August 15, 2023 (“Staff Report”) provides:
“As for item no. 2 above (LLC operating agreement), that document was determined by the City Attorney’s Office to be exempt from disclosure because it was not relevant or related to the Project decision and the public interest served by not disclosing it (privacy and confidentiality concerns of the Owner) outweighed the public interest served by disclosure (little to no interest since it lacks relevance to the decision and was only used to verify which members of the LLC (natural persons) are authorized to sign the development application on behalf of the LLC). (See Exhibit 15, pg. 7).” (Staff Report, p. 20.)
Yet, as detailed below, the City’s claimed CPRA exemptions are not supported by law.

Notably, CPRA or Gov. Code § 7922.000 provides:
“An agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this division, or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” (Emph. added.)
CPRA provides no express exemption for relevance. Stated otherwise, CPRA does not inquire into the subjective or objective intent of the person seeking public records. If the person requests public records – they must be relevant or important to that person, and the agency has no right to withhold information claiming the documents are not relevant.

Further, here, the City’s relevance claim appears to conflate standards that may apply as to whether a document is relevant for the Project approval or its CEQA review as required under Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e) to identify which are the mandatory records to be included in the CEQA’s administrative record. Yet, CEQA’s 707 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 4 ends

administrative record or the City’s relevance claims are inapposite to the CPRA at issue.

As such, the City’s relevance exemption misstates the law and is erroneous.

Further, the City claims that the public interest in not disclosing chunks of emails between the Applicant/Owner of the Project or Project Site and City staff is outweighed by the public interest in disclosing those based on “privacy and confidentiality concerns of the Owner.” (Staff Report, p. 20.) It is unclear which privacy and confidentiality concerns are at issue here. The Owner has not hidden its identity in this whole process.

Based on the title information, the sale of 246 N. Jackson St. was to Artshar, LLC. (Exhibit A [Title Info and Grant Deeds and Quitclaim Deeds on 246 N. Jackson St. in June-August 2020].) The Owner on the Staff Report is listed as Artshar, LLC. Also, while the Project Applicant is noted as “Farzin Maly,” most if not all the Project-related correspondence with the City is done through Art Simonian – a former City Commissioner sitting on the Design Review Board beyond the allowed term.2 It is unclear whose confidentiality is the City trying to protect here.

Moreover, case law that has ever allowed a CPRA exemption based on weighing of public interest involved privacy rights of third parties in primarily criminal proceedings. Here, no third party interests are at issue and there is no criminal proceedings. Moreover, the City is arguably trying to protect solely the Project Owner’s and Applicant’s information – both of whom are indispensable parties for this case and they themselves put their identities in issue by seeking Project entitlements and approvals. Moreover, if the City truly intended to protect the identities of people, it could have simply redacted the personal identifiers and otherwise disclosed the information.

In the words of the courts:
“The court distinguished the Interstate Organized Crime Index printouts which could be revealed. They presented much less of a burden because the information they contained was derived from public records and was not confidential. Thus the task of segregating exempt material was simply to excise personal identifiers, the burden of which did not clearly outweigh the benefit of disclosure. (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 454, 186 Cal.Rptr. 235, 651 P.2d 822.)
2 See, 2022 Article re Art Simonian overstaying his term as the City’s Design Review Board member, titled “And Then There Were Three…”, available at https://glendalecitygovernmentwatch.org/2022/08/14/and-then-there-were-three/ 708 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 5 ends

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation does not compel nondisclosure in this case. The Supreme Court was careful to observe: “Section 6255 requires the courts to look to ‘the facts of the particular case’ in balancing the benefits and burdens of disclosure under the [Public Records] Act. Thus our decision against requiring disclosure [of the LEIU cards] is necessarily limited to the facts of this particular case; in another case, with different facts, the balance might tip in favor of disclosure of nonexempt information....” (32 Cal.3d at p. 454, fn. 14, 186 Cal.Rptr. 235, 651 P.2d 822.)
Here, the public interest in disclosure is substantial, the manifest public interest in the avoidance of secret law and a correlative interest in the disclosure of an agency's working law. On the other side of the equation, the Board overstates the burden of segregating the exempt from the nonexempt material. As noted, the record contains exemplars of similar documents the Board has disclosed in the past with confidential information excised. They show that the primary deletions were the names of the taxpayers. Unlike American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, segregation here would not impose a burden on the Board to inquire from numerous outside sources whether information contained on the documents is confidential.” State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1189–1190 (emph. added).

And again:
“The Board complains that although these factors may alleviate the burden, they will not eliminate it. There is nothing in the Public Records Act to suggest that a records request must impose no burden on the government agency. (See Northern Cal. Police Practices Project v. Craig, supra, 90 Cal.App.3d at p. 124, 153 Cal.Rptr. 173 [“Undoubtedly, the requirement of segregation casts a tangible burden on governmental agencies and the judiciary. Nothing less will suffice, however, if the underlying legislative policy of the [Public Records Act] favoring disclosure is to be implemented faithfully.”].) The Public Records Act contemplates there will be some burden in complying with a records request, the only question being (in the case of nonexempt material) whether the burden is so onerous as to clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure. State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1190 , fn 14 (emphasis in the original).

Lastly, case law shows that here the City has no common interest with the Applicant since the Project was not yet approved and the City’s and Applicant’s or Project Site 709 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 6 ends

Owner’s interests do not align. The City is to ensure the Applicant complies with the laws, whereas the Applicant solely tries to get its Project and sought entitlements approved at all costs and by all means. As stated by the Court in Citizens for Cerez:
“This, consequently, is the limited manner in which California has adopted a rule preserving privileges when parties with common interests disclose privileged communications to each other. The privilege survives disclosure to a party with a common interest only if it is necessary to accomplish the privilege holder's purpose in seeking legal advice. The doctrine extends no further than this because in California there is no independent statutory joint defense or common interest privilege, and California courts are not authorized to establish one. The “Federal Rules of Evidence provide that principles of common law govern rules of privilege” and, consequently, the Ninth Circuit, for example, “has recognized a ‘joint defense privilege’ as an ‘extension of the attorney-client privilege’ since at least 1964. [Citation.]” (OXY Resources, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 888, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 621.) We, by contrast, are “not free to create new privileges as a matter of judicial policy and must apply only those which have been created by statute.” (Dickerson v. Superior Court, supra, 135 Cal.App.3d at p. 99, 185 Cal.Rptr. 97.)” Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 916–917.

And again:
“With this background in mind, we turn to whether a lead agency can share with the project applicant a preapproval interest in the creation of a legally defensible EIR that supports the applicant's proposal. It is important to be clear at the outset that the common interest, if there is any, is in the creation of a legally defensible environmental document that supports the applicant's proposal. There is no point in asking, as the city and developer in this case would have it, whether the applicant and agency have a common interest simply in the development of a legally defensible environmental document. This is because the developer has no interest in the development of an environmental document that does not support the developer's proposal.

Before completion of environmental review and project approval, the law presumes the lead agency is neutral and objective and that its interest is in compliance with CEQA. It is this neutral role which could cause it to reject the project or certify an EIR supporting one of the project alternatives or calling for mitigation measures to which the applicant is opposed. The agency's unbiased 710 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 7 ends

evaluation of the environmental impacts of the applicant's proposal is the bedrock on which the rest of the CEQA process is based. In Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 614, 194 P.3d 344 (Save Tara ), for example, our Supreme Court held that a city could not define “approval” of a project in such a way that its actual commitment to the project was already made before environmental review had been completed and the project formally approved. (Id. at p. 132, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 614, 194 P.3d 344.)” Citizens for Ceres v.

Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 917.

As such, the City’s attempt to shield the Project Applicant or Owner from public scrutiny has no support in law and, in fact, conflicts with the statutory requirements and under applicable case law. By invoking frivolous exemptions from CPRA in this case, the City violated the law and subverted the public review process, governmental transparency and accountability, warranted by CPRA, as well as California Constitution that CPRA is modeled after. As stated by our Supreme Court:
“CPRA establishes a basic rule requiring disclosure of public records upon request. (§ 6253.)3 In general, it creates “a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency.” (Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, 323, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 314 P.3d 488, italics added.) Every such record “must be disclosed unless a statutory exception is shown.” (Ibid.) Section 6254 sets out a variety of exemptions, “many of which are designed to protect individual privacy.” (International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 329, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 165 P.3d 488.) The Act also includes a catchall provision exempting disclosure if “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.” (§ 6255, subd. (a).) City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 616.

And again:
“In CPRA cases, this standard approach to statutory interpretation is augmented by a constitutional imperative. (See Sierra Club v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 166, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 639, 302 P.3d 1026.) Proposition 59 amended the Constitution to provide: “A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2), italics added.) “ ‘Given the 711 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 8 ends

strong public policy of the people's right to information concerning the people's business (Gov. Code, § 6250), and the constitutional mandate to construe statutes limiting the right of access narrowly (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), “all public records are subject to disclosure unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary.” ’ ” (Sierra Club, at p. 166, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 639, 302 P.3d 1026.)” City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 617.

Because the City violated CPRA, it also prejudicially precluded public access to information and precluded meaningful scrutiny and review of the Project. See also, Ruling on Public Records Act, requiring that the agency support its privilege claims to exempt documents from CPRA. (Exhibit B [CPRA Ruling].) The City must cure its violations and produce all the withheld documents to the party requesting those.

To the extent the later produced documents disclose any new information, our Office reserves the right to move to augment the administrative record of this case with those records in court.

B. The City Violated the Brown Act By Failing to Agendize the Inherent Abandonment of the Permanent Easement on the Project Site to Include that Easement’s Size into the Calculation of the Base Density Units Count.

The Brown Act Cal. Govt. Code section 54954.2(a)(1) requires that an agenda containing a brief description of each item of business be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Govt. Code section 54954.2(a)(3), in turn, provides:
“(3) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.” As the Office of the Attorney General explained in 2003:
712 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 9 ends

“The Act makes it clear that discussion items must be placed on the agenda, as well as items which may be the subject of action by the body. The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body.3” (The Brown Act, Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies, Office of the Attorney General, 2003, at pp. 16-17.) In Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 199, the court interpreted the agenda requirements. That section required “. . . [a] list of items that will constitute the agenda for all regular meetings shall be posted. . . .” In interpreting this section, the court reasoned:
“In the instant case, the school board’s agenda contained as one item the language ‘Continuation school site change.’ This was entirely inadequate notice to a citizenry which may have been concerned over a school closure. “On this point alone, we think the trial court was correct because the agenda item, though not deceitful, was entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope of the board’s intended plans. It would have taken relatively little effort to add to the agenda that this ‘school site change’ also included the discontinuance of elementary education at Canyon View and the transfer of those students to Ponderosa School.” Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 200, original emphasis; see also 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 84, 87 (1984).)
As described by the Office of the Attorney General in 2003, the City Council’s Agenda of August 15, 2023, Item 9b here failed the purpose of the Brown Act’s “brief general description” under Govt. Code § 54954.2(a) “to inform interested members of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body.” Also, as described by Carlson v.

Paradise Unified School Dist., the August 15, 2023 agenda provided “inadequate notice” 3 The Brown Act, Open Meetings For Local Legislative Bodies, Office of the Attorney General, 2003, at pp. 16-17; See at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brownact.pdf 713 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 10 ends

to the citizenry and was “entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope” of the Project and the Planning Commission’s actions thereon.

Specifically, the Staff Report and the Appeal material manifestly show that the entire Project and its base density and density bonus calculations assume that the permanent easement next to the Project Site that was dedicated by the Project Site’s prior owner in 1972 to the City is now vacated or abandoned. Based on the Staff Report and Appeal Material, Art Simonian – who appears to be the present de facto Owner and Applicant of the Project Site – wrote to the City:
“By the way that itty-bitty little right of way results in the loss of two unis, crazy how the math works out. I have come up with a few ideas and strategies neither of them are clean or appealing but I would love to get your guidance at this point to try to get this project out of the mud and moving at least in some direction….” (Staff Report, Exhibit 12, p. 10.)
As the record shows, on September 8, 2021, Art Simonian followed up with Mr. Erik Krause, stating:
“Hi Erik: It was nice to catch up with you this afternoon. Attached is the surveys to the property with a diagram depicting what public works will most probably require in order to meet the new right-of-way handicap ramp standards.

For your reference also attached is the 1972 ROW easement that was recorded on the property. We have the opportunity to clean up this old 1972 ROW Easement which is not per current Public Works H/C ramp standards…. To clean all this up we can replace the old 1972 Easement with a new ROW dedication which will measure 12’-o” from the face of curb to the property line.” (Staff Report, Exhibit 12, p. 10.)
As such, there is no question or doubt that the whole count of the density bonus here – in its base calculation and in its subsequent density bonus – is based on the assumption that this “itty-bitty” Old 1972 Easement is abandoned and replaced with a New dedication and that – during that split-second of vacation and replacement concealed from the public eye and dealt with internally by the Applicant and the City staff over the phone or emails – the Project Applicant or Owner got to use that “ittybitty” easement in its calculations of the base density to get 6.001 units on site and then bump those up to 11 units through a density bonus of about 46%. 714 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 11 ends

In other words, prior to any density bonus approval of 11 units on the Project Site here, the City Council must also inherently assume that such Old 1972 permanent easement for street purposes was abandoned or vacated and essentially approve such vacation. Yet, such approval by the City Council was not agendized by the City for Item # 9b in the public hearing on August 15, 2023.

That the City Council must approve such abandonment of the Old 1972 permanent easement prior to the approval of the Density Bonus and Project here is undisputed: this approval is a requirement under both the Streets and Highways Code (“S&H”), as well as the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”). (See, Section C, infra.) Because the City failed to agendize the inherent approval of the City Council as an action in the Item 9B to approve this Project entitlements, its agenda prejudicially violated the Brown Act and misled the public by hiding a critical item requiring public comment and City Council review and approval of the abandonment of the said “ittybitty” and yet critical permanent easement next to the Project Site.

As such, any approval of the Project today will violate the Brown Act and cannot occur on August 15, 2023.

C. The City Violated the Streets and Highways Code and Glendale Municipal Code by Internally and Secretly Vacating the Permanent Easement Next to the Project Site Without Due Process and Required Findings.

The record shows that in 1972 and since then, all corner lots in Glendale were required to dedicate the corner tips of the lots as a “permanent easement” for “street purposes.” (Exhibit C [Easement Info.])
GMC 12.24.010 provides:
“12.24.010 Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Act of 1941 applicable.

The state Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law, Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 et seq., and as subsequently amended, provides the procedure followed by the city for the vacation of public streets, lanes, alleys, courts or other places. For better coordination of all departments of 715 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 12 ends

the city concerned with vacation proceedings, the regulations contained in this chapter are promulgated. (Prior code § 26-82).” (Emph. added.) GMC 12.24.030 further provides:
“12.24.030 Vacation application.

A person who petitions the council to vacate a street or highway, or close a street or highway to public use, or vacate a public service easement shall file a petition with the public works department. A petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee or fees designated in the city’s Citywide Fee Schedule currently in effect or as later amended, to defray all expenses of publication, notices and all engineering or related services connected with the proposed vacation. A petition will not be deemed complete until the fee or fees have been paid in full. (Ord. 5846 § 4, 2015; prior code § 76-84)”
Lastly, GMC 12.24.040 provides:
“12.24.040 Action by council—Bond and cash deposit.

A. The council may approve the report of the director of public works, adopt a plan for the vacation and then order the vacation in the manner provided in the Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law, Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 et seq., or any successor legislation, subject to conditions recommended in the report and further conditions that the council may impose. If the council imposes one (1) or more conditions that the applicant cannot comply with within a reasonable time, the vacation of the street, alley, walk or other public way may be ordered subject to full compliance with the conditions imposed. By permission of the council, performance of the conditions must be guaranteed by an adequate corporate surety or cash bond posted with the city.

B. A motion to set the date for the public hearing requires the city clerk to give notice of the public hearing to all owners of real property located within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed vacation. The notice must be sent by first class United States mail not less than ten (10) days prior to the date set for the hearing in the motion. (Ord. 5846 § 5, 2015; prior code § 26-88)” (Emph. added.) 716 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 13 ends

As such, GMC concedes that: (1) the abandonment or vacation of a street is subject to S&H; (2) the council is the body that approves such abandonment; (3) the abandonment requires a separate public hearing; (4) and such public hearing must be properly noticed to all residents within 300 feet radius at least 104 days prior to the hearing. The City, however, manifestly failed on all four points: the City never held, agendized or noticed any public hearing on the abandonment of the permanent dedication of the 1972 “itty-bitty” old right-of-way or permanent easement for street purposes.

While the GMC is silent on the applicable procedures for such vacation and merely references the S&H, the referenced S&H has its own procedural and substantive requirements that the City violated as well.

S&H Code Sec. 8313 requires the agency to consider the General Plan and obviously consistency therewith when planning to vacate the street. As such, the City surreptitiously, inconspicuously, and unlawfully plan to amend the General Plan to effectuate the vacation of the street. Yet, the old 1972 recorded easement is part of the public right-of-way and the City cannot secretly abandon it without reviewing whether such vacation is consistent with the Glendale General Plan or its Element, including but not limited to the Circulation and its correlated Land Use Elements.

Notably, the General Plan of Glendale and its Circulation Element have not yet been amended since 1998 and include Goal 4 as “Functional and safe streetscapes that are aesthetically pleasing for both pedestrians and vehicular travel” and Goal 5 “Land use which can be supported within the capacity constraints of existing and realistic future infrastructure.” Here, the Project is inconsistent with those two goals because it seeks to abandon the dedicated permanent easement for street purposes and use that to add two more units on the Project Site. Notably, the Project also seeks reductions of setbacks and open space and increase in the floor area ratio, as well as reduction of regular size of dwelling units, to further accommodate its “desired” unit-mix, “desired” size of units, “desired” number of bedrooms and bathrooms. The Project Applicant and the City ignore the fact that the Project Site is not as big to accommodate the “desired” features.

To further note, the Project with its proposed abandonment of the easement to accommodate the Applicant’s desires will have cumulative impacts and cause inconsistencies inside and with the General Plan in light of the City’s plans for a growthinducing South Glendale Community Plan (“SGCP”) which the City’s own EIR found to 4 S&H requires 15 days instead and supersedes this requirement. 717 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 14 ends

have seven adverse impacts, including in air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), traffic, open space/recreation, aesthetics, public services (fire, police, ambulance), population/housing. Similarly, the City just recently approved the Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan, now in litigation, which seeks to further enhance walking and contemplates an increase of pedestrians on the roads, including sidewalks next to the Project Site. The City’s adopted Downtown Pedestrian Plan (“DSP”) with its rigorous prior and potentially future developments will further increase traffic and, based on the City’s own findings and the Moratorium in 2018, the grown in the DSP area exceeds the density studied or contemplated in the DSP and poses health and safety hazards and concerns to the public. The Project Site is within the SGCP area; it is within a block from the DSP area.5 And it is subject to the Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan,6 which, inter alia, includes new unidentified street designations on Wilson Street (“Pedestrian Priority Street”) and Louise Street (“Greenway” or “Bicycle Way”) – both in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Finally, the Project will cause inconsistencies in the General Plan along with other similar related projects. Thus, for example, the Project is located next door to the Glendale Unified School District’s site at 223-241 North Jackson site and 206-212 N.

Kenwood site, where in 2017-2019, GUSD engaged in infamous land dealings with Developer Carmel Partners (later charged for corruption in the pay-to-play scheme in Los Angeles)7 and sought to sell an enormous public school land, with several buildings and 5 We hereby incorporate by reference the City’s SGCP, all related litigation material to date (briefing of all parties and the SGCP administrative record), as well as the Draft and Final EIR certified for the same. We further request that the City place the noted records into the administrative record for this case and submit those before the Council for the Council to consider it along with the objections and oppositions to this Project. 6 We hereby incorporate by reference the City’s Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan, all related litigation material to date (briefing of all parties and the Pedestrian Plan’s administrative record), as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the same. We further request that the City place the noted records into the administrative record for this case and submit those before the Council for the Council to consider it along with the objections and oppositions to this Project. 7 See, https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/developer-agrees-pay-12-million-resolvecriminal-probe-executive-s-relationship-ex-la 718 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 15 ends

improvements, to Carmel and also pay $7 million dollars from taxpayer funds in return for only one building at 425 E. Colorado Ave., Glendale, CA. While in 2019, GUSD announced that the deal with Carmel was over, since then GUSD has been actively and continuously engaged in removing and killing trees on site under various questionable pretexts (e.g., trees impede security camera view and safety of students; a tree branch fell on a student). Further, in 2022, the City’s Housing Element update included about 103 units on GUSD site, apparently contemplating a development project on the site reasonably foreseeable in the next 5 years or so. And reportedly, GUSD is in fact bringing its infamous development project and sale back in the very near future. As such, the Project, which is next door to the GUSD site, must also account for the reasonably foreseeable development at the GUSD site next door, which will cause havoc in the community and further cause inconsistencies in the Glendale General Plan.8 For all these reasons, because the easement vacation will bring inconsistencies in the General Plan, it cannot be approved by the City Council, even if it had been properly noticed (which it was not).

Next, S&H Code defines “vacation” as “the complete or partial abandonment or termination of the public right to use a street, highway, or public service easement.” (S&H Code § 8309.) The code defines a “street” and “highway” as “all or part of, or any right in, a state highway or other public highway, road, street, avenue, alley, lane, driveway, place, court, trail, or other public right-of-way or easement, or purported public street or highway, and rights connected therewith, including, but not limited to, restrictions of access or abutters’ rights, sloping easements, or other incidents to a street or highway.” (S&H Code § 8308, emph. added.)
S&H also provides that “[t]his part shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.” (Id. § 8310, emph. added.) Thus, the vacation or abandonment 8 We hereby incorporate by reference all the objection letters to the GUSD/Carmel’s development project in 2017-2020, as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the SCEA, all objections that referred or related to the GUSD site’s inclusion in the City’s newly updated Housing Element in 2020-2022, the updated Housing Element itself, as well as comments and objections by the Housing Community Development (“HCD”) sent to the City as to GUSD site in light of its infeasibility of development given the presence of the Allan Daily High School. We further request that the City place the noted records into the administrative record for this case and submit those before the Council for the Council to consider it along with the objections and oppositions to this Project. 719 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 16 ends

of the 1972 permanent easement for street purposes squarely fits in S&H definition and related requirements.
“The authority to vacate a street rests with the city legislative body and may occur only after a hearing is held and evidence presented to the city council and a resolution of vacation adopted. S&H §§ 8312, 8320–8325; City of Los Angeles v. Fiske (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 167, 172 [“The act of vacating can be done only upon a finding that the property in question is unnecessary for present or future uses as a street”].)” County of Amador v. City of Plymouth (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1106–1107.

Stated otherwise, before the City vacates a street or easement in this case, it must engage in prescribed procedures, such as noticing and holding an evidentiary public hearing after which the legislative body may find “from all the evidence submitted, that the street, highway, or public service easement described in the notice of hearing or petition is unnecessary for present or prospective public use,” and thereafter vacate the street. (S&H Code §§ 8320, 8324, emph added.)
The City’s failure to properly notice the street vacation particularly violates S&H Code § 8320, which requires a separate pubic notice and provides:
(b) The notices required by this chapter shall contain both of the following:
(1) A description of the street, highway, or public service easement proposed to be vacated and a reference to a map or plan, that shows the portion or area to be vacated and includes a statement that the vacation proceeding is conducted under this chapter. In the case of a street or highway, the description shall include its general location, its lawful or official name or the name by which it is commonly known, and the extent to which it is to be vacated. In the case of a public service easement, the description shall identify it with common certainty. The map or plan showing the location of the street, highway, or public easement proposed to be vacated is sufficient compliance with this paragraph.
(2) The date, hour, and place for hearing all persons interested in the proposed vacation. The date shall not be less than 15 days after the initiation of proceedings. (S&H § 8320(b), emph. added.)
The City’s hiding of the vacation of abandonment of the permanent easement next to the Project Site dedicated to the City in 1972 for “street purposes” and utter failure to agendize or disclose the issue in the August 15, 2023 Staff Report and all previous staff 720 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 17 ends

reports on the Project fail the S&H’s required due process, including but not limited to the 15-day separate public notice requirement, which the City failed here.

Also, in view of all the General Plan inconsistencies noted above and not disclosed by the City, the City Council has no substantial evidence to approve the Project and, inherently therein, the easement dedication as conforming and consistent with the General Plan.

Further, it is well-settled that a street may not be vacated for exclusive private use.

Citizens Against Gated Enclaves v. Whitley Heights Civic Assn. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 812, 820, citing Constantine v. City of Sunnyvale (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 278, 282. Yet, here that is exactly what is happening: the easement is requested for exclusively private use – so the Project Applicant can use it to add two extra units on site.

Last but not least, S&H requires certain findings that the Council – the elected decisionmaking body – must make at the evidentiary separate duly noticed hearing for the street vacation, which cannot be made in this case had the City even complied with the due process. In the words of the court, “To abandon a public road, the legislative body must find, after a hearing, that the road is 'unnecessary for present or prospective public use.' (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 8324, subd. (b).) In addition, the abandonment must be 'in the public interest.' (Heist v. County of Colusa (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 841, 849 (Heist).)” Martis Camp Community Assn. v. County of Placer (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 569, 592-593.

There is no evidence that the abandonment of the permanent easement and dedication for street purpose in 1972 is proper since the City Council cannot – in light of the growth that occurred since 1972 and the growth-inducing changes contemplated by the City in the Project’s vicinity (SGCP, DSP, GUSD project, Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan, Bicycle Plan and bicycle routes on the two-lane California and Jackson streets next to the Project) – reasonably find that the permanent easement that was used by the public for decades and is absolutely critical for the current and prospective intended density growth and vehicular, pedestrian and bike circulation to provide proper visibility at the California/Jackson intersection is unnecessary.

Similarly, there is no evidence to support a finding that the abandonment of the permanent easement to accommodate two more luxury units for the Project – where the Project will demolish and eliminate three affordable units on the Project Site and provide only one unit – is in public interest. As for the Staff Report’s comment about the fact 721 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 18 ends

that the Applicant will provide wider easements, those do not need to come after vacation and do not need vacation at all. The City can mandate such additional easement as a condition of approval of any development here. Plus, as the City and Applicant seem to concede that wider easements on corner lots are in fact required by law.

As such, the City has blatantly violated the process by first hiding the issue with abandonment from the public (the public could gauge into these illegalities only due to the appeal by GNHCC), by keeping the issue hidden even before the ultimate decisionmaker City Council, and also by failing to meet the procedural and substantive requirements of the S&H and GMC.

For these reasons too, the Project and its density bonus, concessions or waivers cannot be approved as they rely on an unlawful easement vacation and violations of state laws.

D. City Violates the Density Bonus Law and Fails to Qualify for the Density Bonus, Concessions and Waivers It Seeks.

In addition to all prior objections and reasoning provided in our June 1, 2022 comment letter and all other reasons noted above, the Project fails to qualify for the density bonus and its concessions and waivers as it violated several state laws, including the Density Bonus Law itself.

Specifically, Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1)(C) and (e)(1) provide that density bonus concessions or waivers cannot be granted if they would violate state or federal laws.

Further, those provisions provide that density bonus concessions or waivers cannot be granted if granting those would result in specific adverse impacts on public health and safety. Id. The Project here both violates state laws, including S&H and California Constitution; it will also have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety.

First of all, the Project violates S&H, as detailed above. As related, abandonment of the public right of way will result in specific adverse impacts on public health and safety, since the easement was put in place for “street purposes” in 1972 to ensure adequate public health and safety next to the Project Site and the corner lot.

Second, the Project misreads the Density Bonus Law and relies on inaccurate, unsupported and unlawful measurements and assumptions about the size of the Property Site to achieve a much larger base density. That is not the intent or purpose of the law. 722 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 19 ends

Specifically – based on the Applicant’s representations in the Staff Report Exhibit 13 and the City attorneys’ interpretations at the challenged Planning Commission hearing – the Project must be approved and that the “itty-bitty” 1972 permanent easement must be counted towards the Project to allow the Applicant to build two units in light of Gov.

Code § 65915(r), which provides: “This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units.”
Yet, Gov. Code § 65915(r) is inapposite here as it only allows interpretations of the law – not extensions or rewrites of the law. Stated simply, there is no need or room for interpretation where, as here, there is no ambiguity about the Project Site’s size.

There is no ambiguity – and the Project Applicant or Owner himself conceded - that the “itty-bitty” 1972 easement reduces the size of the buildable area for the Project below the now-claimed 7,512 sf. and thereby deprives the Project Applicant from the right to build two extra units. The Project size is factually small and Density Bonus Law cannot be interpreted to allow to artificially rewrite/increase the Site’s size to get more units.

Further, what the City did here far transcended the bounds of interpretation.

Rather, the City engaged in acrobatics to secretly and unlawfully abandon the permanent easement to the Applicant – without any notice to the public or to the decisionmaker City Council who by law should make any such determinations – so the Project Applicant could count that easement area towards the buildable area for the Project.

Also, had such acrobatics been contemplated by Gov. Code § 65915(r), then the City could potentially count the neighboring property and the street itself into the Project Site’s size to achieve even more units.

In fact, the City – either knowingly or unknowingly – in fact appears to ignore or count part of the actual neighboring property at 240 N. Jackson as if within the subject 246 N Jackson Project Site and thus improperly also includes that portion improved by the next door building at 240 N. Jackson and its easement and right-of-way for residents of that building into the Project’s Site. The City perhaps assumes that – since all the neighboring sites measure 50ft wide and 150 ft. long, then the Project Site should necessarily measure the same, plus or minus 12 ft. Yet, the Site or its buildable area here is far smaller than even 7,500 sf. in light of the manifest use, encroachment, and hence easement of the next door building at 240 N. Jackson St. to accommodate the latter’s use of that easement and the public right-of-way. (See Exhibit E, pp. 1-12 [Site Pictures].) 723 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 20 ends

And indeed, based on the personal information provided by neighbors of 246 N.

Jackson St. at 240 N. Jackson St., the Property Site was recently land-surveyed and the surveyors placed the markings for the Property Site about two-three feet into the neighboring property at 240 N. Jackson St. (See Exhibit E, p. 12.) Doing so, the land surveyors disregarded the actual fence on the Project Site placed far from the neighboring 240 N. Jackson St. building. Stated differently, had the Project Site’s property line indeed reached the place where the land surveyors placed the markings, the Project would demolish and deprive of the next-door building and its residents of their right of way and access into their units.

Also, based on the public records, 240 N. Jackson St. multi-family property was built in 1948, whereas the Project Site was developed in 1946. As such, the Project Site owner must have been on actual notice that the building next-door was encroaching into the property line of the Project Site and must have knowingly allowed it to occur and the property lines to shift to allow for their residents’ access and the building’s encroachment into the 246 N. Jackson Site. It follows that the 246 N. Jackson Site’s property lines considered in the Project Applicant’s land-survey are not accurately drawn and far increase the actual property lines of the Property Site and the Property Site is, in fact, much smaller than 50 feet in width.

Moreover, even if the predecessors and prior owners of 246 and 240 N. Jackson St. properties had not shifted the property lines based on the apparent encroachment of the building of 240 N. Jackson into what the Project Applicant is claiming is its property lines based on the land-survey, the Project Site still cannot count a two-three-foot strip along the southern border of the Project Site in light of the prescriptive and equitable easements that have been created on the site. Thus, under California law, if a part of the property is openly, continuously, notoriously used by others for five years, such use creates a prescriptive and even equitable easement. The residents of the property at 240 N. Jackson St. openly, notoriously, continuously and for decades have been using and improving at a minimum a two-feet strip outside of the Project Site’s fenced area on the Project’s eastern border. As such, there is now a prescriptive and equitable easement that further precludes the Project’s Applicant from counting that excess and unclaimed land for years into its Project size or reducing setbacks, as the Applicant has done here. To allow the Applicant to count the portion that has been continuously used and encroached upon by the residents and owner of 240 N. Jackson St. will violate the property rights of nearby residents and the property law in California. (See Exhibit E, pp. 1-12 [Photos of the Neighboring Property at 240 N. Jackson St., Easement and Public Right of Way therein, as well as the Fence of the 246 N. Jackson St.].) 724 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 21 ends

For these reasons too, the Project cannot be approved as it relies on erroneous interpretations of the Density Bonus Law and assumes a larger buildable area than it has.

Yet, another reason the Project fails to qualify for density bonus, concessions and waivers is because it fails to replace the three affordable units on site, as required by Gov. Code § 65916(c)(3). Instead, the Project relies on misrepresentations by the Project Site’s real estate agent that the Property – at the time of its sale and prior to that – was always owner-occupied by a single woman Leticia Banaag. It was not.

Thus, based on the personal knowledge of the neighbors, including residents at 240 N. Jackson St. building, the Project Site’s top two units were always rented to different people at various times. As for the ground floor unit, prior to the sale of the Project Site, it was occupied by elderly missionary Ray Puen and his wife Evangeline Banaag. (Exhibit F [Letter of Neighbors]9.) Further, based on the personal knowledge of neighbors, the single woman Leticia Banaag has never lived at the Property site. (Ibid.)
This is further confirmed by the quitclaim deeds and title information, which shows that – just before the grant deed of the Project Site to the current owner Artshar LLC in August-September of 2020 – the Project Site changed hands and title. (Exhibit G [Owners and Residents of 246 N. Jackson St.] and Exhibit D [Title Info].) Thus, Ray Puen, a married man and spouse of grantee, quitclaimed the property at 246 N. Jackson St. to his wife Evangeline Banaag, a married woman, in or about August of 2020.

Concurrently or sometime before that Evangeline Banaag, as a married woman, and Leticia Banaag, as a single woman, quitclaimed their property rights in 246 N. Jackson into solely Leticia Banaag as a single woman in June-July of 2020. And only after the noted two almost concurrent quitclaimed deeds, Leticia Banaag, a single woman, deeded the subject property at 246 N. Jackson St. to the current owner Artshar, LLC.

Further, according to the personal information provided by the residents at 240 N.

Jackson St., the single woman Leticia Banaag was the sister of Evangeline Banaag and lived not too far from the Project Site. This is further confirmed by the public records 9 The document is redacted to remove confidential information and to ensure the safety of signatories, in light of the controversial issues and the possibility for retaliation, including by the Project Applicant. Yet, I have personally witnessed the residents at 240 N.

Jackson sign the attached document and redacted it for their privacy and safety. 725 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 22 ends

information showing that Leticia Banaag also owned a unit at 212 N. Jackson St. #2, Glendale, CA. (Exhibit G.)
As for income-levels, based on the information and public records, Ray Puen and his wife Evangeline Banaag – residents at the first floor of the 246 N. Jackson St. for years – had applied for bankruptcy in or around 2002. They were elderly people, where Ray Puen did missionary (church) work and his wife Evangeline Banaag was a nurse but, due to medical conditions and age, was not working. Thus, there is substantial evidence that the Project site’s first floor unit was occupied at all relevant times by a married couple Ray Puen and Evangeline Banaag and not by a single woman Leticia Banaag and that the actual occupants of the first floor unit were low-income.

Also, as shown in the Staff Report and related exhibits, the Project’s two top floor units were each rented at $1,500/month. Arguably, because of the rent size, they were also occupied by low-income people and were affordable.

Thus, the Project’s failure to replace and provide three affordable units that it will demolish violates the Density Bonus Law and further precludes the approval of the Project and its density bonus and concessions/waivers.10, 11 (See also, below.)
10 In light of the information provided here, including the fact that the Project relies on incorrect and unlawful measurements increasing the Project’s buildable area and thereby affecting public right-of-way at the corner of Jackson St./California St. and also along the Project Site’s southern side neighboring with the property at 240 N. Jackson st. and the fact that the Project is simply attempting to fit more units on a site that does not belong to the Applicant as a matter of law and fact, the Project Applicant’s claim for waivers or infeasibility is completely unsupported. Stated otherwise, there is no physical hardship to build a lawful project here – the physical hardship is only caused by the Project Applicant’s own “desire” to count more area into its Project Site and to accommodate its “desired” Project size – i.e., bedrooms, bathrooms, unit-mix and count, etc. That desire is irrelevant for physical feasibility inquiry here. Also, the purpose of the Density Bonus Law is to incentivize the production of affordable units – here, the Project provides only one affordable unit and in fact reduces the net affordable housing stock in the City of Glendale by demolishing three affordable and rent-controlled units. For these reasons too the Project’s incentives and waivers cannot be granted. 11 The Staff Report’s claim that the Project’s numerous concessions and waivers must be counted as one simply because the Project Applicant submitted a preliminary application 726 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 23 ends

E. The Project Is Not a Builder’s Remedy Project under SB 330.

Seeking to justify the Applicant’s desires and failure to comply with the policy of how density bonus incentives are counted, the City claims the Appellant submitted a preliminary application in February 2021 – much ahead of the City Council’s motion to count each incentive separately. The City’s interpretation is incorrect in many regards.

First, when the City Council made the motion requesting that incentives be counted separately and not wholesale sometime in November of 2021, this was not a change in a City policy. There was no set policy before that and, because of that omission, the City maximized the profits of developers and maxed out all possible incentives by counting those as one incentive only. This was incorrect from the beginning and needed correction. That was what the Council’s Motion was about. It was not about a change in a lawful policy – rather, it was an acknowledgement of the errors in the City’s dealings and correction of abuse of process committed by the City staff.

Second, the City improperly presumes and assumes that the California Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) Government Code Section 65589.5 under SB 330 provides a “builder’s remedy” and allows for incorrect and abusive process to continue. It does not. HAA or SB 330 simply allows development proponents of affordable housing projects to lock in their project “voted” approvals and project entitlements where the project is otherwise consistent with the applicable zoning and general plan designation that existed at the time the preliminary application was – or was deemed – complete, unless it makes specific findings as to the “specific, adverse impacts”.12 Thus, according to California Government Code section 65589.5(j):
under SB330 in or about February of 2021 and hence months before the City Council’s adopted motion and policy to not count all concessions or waivers as one but to count those separately (which policy and motion adopted by the City Council the Staff Report concedes) is unsupported to allow incentives and concessions the Project seeks and to count those as one. To the extent the Project Applicant wants to rely on its February 2021 preliminary application, it was continuously superseded by the subsequent and repetitive preliminary applications by the Project Applicant. Moreover, SB 330 requires that – within 180 days of submitting the preliminary application – the Project Applicant must submit the full application. The Project Applicant failed to do that either. 12 Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5
727 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 24 ends

“(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.” (Emph. added.)
This is also in line with California Government Code section 65589.5(d), providing:
local agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, . . . for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, or condition of approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, including through the use of design review standards,” unless it makes certain written findings as to only “one” ground.

HAA defines the term “disapprove” under Govt. Code section 65589.5(j)(6) narrowly to mean either when an agency “votes on a proposed housing development project application” or fails to meet the timing requirements to determine that the application is complete.
728 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 25 ends

Critically, the written findings required for the City to disapprove a project must be made only “by preponderance” of evidence (i.e., more likely than not).

Per California Government Code section 65589.5(d)(1)-(5), following are exceptions that would render the builder’s remedy inapplicable, if the agency “makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following” (all emphasis added):
(1) The city has a substantially compliant housing
element and has “met or exceeded” its share of regional housing need for the types of housing the project would provide. Cal. Gov. Code section 65589.5(d)(1).
(2) The project would have “a specific, adverse impact
upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development
unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or
rendering the development of the emergency shelter
financially infeasible.” Cal. Gov. Code section 65589.5(d)(2). (3) The project’s “denial . . . or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without
rendering the development unaffordable . . . or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.” Cal. Gov. Code section 65589.5(d)(3).
(4) The project site is zoned for agriculture or resource preservation or lacks adequate water or wastewater
facilities to serve the project. Cal. Gov. Code section 65589.5(d)(4).
(5) The project is inconsistent with the city’s zoning and land-use designation of its general plan (as of the date the application was deemed complete), and the city “has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article.” Cal. Gov.

Code section 65589.5(d)(5).
729 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 26 ends

Also, critically, HAA does not relieve the agency from the duty to comply with the air quality congestion requirements, Coastal Act, or CEQA:
“(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).” Govt. Code § 65589.5(e). (Emph. added.) Similarly, HAA does not prohibit an agency from disapproving the project that is inconsistent with the allowable density on the site or applicable objective zoning regulations:
“(f) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.

However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development.
(2) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project.
(3) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions 730 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 27 ends

otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter. (4) For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” Govt. Code § 65589.5(f). (Emph. added.)
Finally and critically, Govt. Code § 65598.5(o) provides additional exceptions and requirements to qualify for HAA protections, such as providing all the required information, and re-affirms that HAA entitlements apply only to projects that otherwise conform to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time of submitting the preliminary application and that HAA does not override CEQA:
(o) (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances:
(A) In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction.
(B) A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. 731 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 28 ends

(C) Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
….
(3) This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted.
(4) For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. (5) This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section.
(6) This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).” (Emph. added.)
Here, although the Project Applicant may have submitted an SB 330 application in February of 2021 and the City apparently presumes that its SB 330 Preliminary Application vested entitlements or that none of the exceptions to the builder’s remedy apply to the Site or Project, the Applicant or the City fails to provide any factual support for such claims.

First, as required by Govt. Code § 65589.5(o)(1), there is no evidence that the Applicant had submitted all the required information under Govt. Code § 65941.1(a) – also referred to as SB 8 – which provides:
732 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 29 ends

“(a) An applicant for a housing development project, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5, shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information about the proposed project to the city, county, or city and county from which approval for the project is being sought and upon payment of the permit processing fee:
….” (Emph. added.)
SB 8 lists numerous items, including but not limited to the hazards and various conditions on the Project site, specific unit count, density bonus, incentives, etc. (Id.) Here, the Applicant not only failed to provide all the required evidence but manifestly – and in fact, in concert with the City staff – skillfully concealed from the public the fact that it improperly counted the 1972 easement towards its base density calculations knowing that the easement was permanent and for street purpose. Moreover, the Applicant concealed and still misrepresents the information about the income-levels of the tenants on the Project Site.

Moreover, after submitting its preliminary application in February of 2021, the Applicant kept resubmitting it over and over again, to make it work. As such, each subsequent submission superseded the prior one and the City’s reliance on the February 2021 preliminary application is misplaced.

Second, the City ignores this fact and the Applicant’s Preliminary Application fails to state with any specificity why none of the exceptions under HAA apply here.

Furthermore, for purposes of California Government Code section 65589.5, an application is “deemed complete” when the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Code section 65941.1, or, if a preliminary application has not been submitted, they have submitted a complete application pursuant to section 65943.

Cal. Gov. Code section 65589.5(h)(5).

In this case, because the Project Applicant submitted a preliminary application, it should have been complete and should have also met each of the requirements of California Government Code Section 65941.1 to qualify for a builder’s remedy it asserts.

It did not. For reasons mentioned above, the Applicant’s application was not complete and was not supported with the required evidence and facts. As such, the builder’s remedy rights, even if they attached – which they did not – did not vest at the time the Preliminary Application was filed, and the City is not bound to deny the Project here that 733 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 30 ends

manifestly violates numerous laws and is also inconsistent with the City’s zoning regulations and standards.

For the same reasons, the Project cannot count numerous concessions/waivers and deviations from development standards as one and cannot approve those since they far exceed the legal cap of incentives it may qualify for its single affordable unit it provides.

F. The Project Is Not Exempt from CEQA and Requires an EIR.

The Applicant and City invoked a categorical Class 32 CEQA exemption for the Project Site and yet it fails to qualify for it.

CEQA exemptions must be construed narrowly. See County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 966.

Regarding Class 32 exemptions for in-fill development projects, the project must meet all of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15332, as follows:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

In addition, Guidelines § 15300.2(b), (c), and (f), respectively, exclude categorical exemptions, where the project may have “cumulative impacts”, significant effect due to “unusual circumstances”, and impacts to “historical resources.” California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 185 [“The lead agency has the burden to demonstrate such substantial evidence.”]. Arguments or speculation is not substantial evidence. Guidelines § 15384. 734 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 31 ends

Further, Guidelines § 15300.2(a), (d), and (e), respectively, disqualify categorical exemptions for location (Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, if the project may “impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies”), impacts on scenic highways, and if the project is proposed on a hazardous waste site (“included in any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code”).

Finally, as our Supreme Court held, “an activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt.” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 124.

Here, the Project fails to meet the required conditions for a Class 32 exemption as a matter of law, as explained below. Further, the exceptions to the exemption apply.

A. The Project Is Not Consistent with the Applicable Zoning Designation and Regulation
The Project fails to meet the first prong of the Class 32 requirement that the Project be consistent with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, as well as the General Plan, Community Plan, and all other plans and regulations.

Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.

General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213. It is well established that development projects may not be approved if they interfere with, or frustrate, the general plan’s policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544.
735 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 32 ends

Here, the Project violates the applicable General Plan’s “moderate growth” policy in the multi-family zones, such as R-1250 here,13 by seeking to unlawfully add extra units in the multi-family zone in the densely developed South Glendale area. As the City’s General Plan provides:
“The Moderate Growth Plan reflects a concern over the ability of municipal service systems to adequately handle the loads which would be imposed if substantial development at R4 density occurred. Minor streets, sewer systems, etc., are already feeling the strain of existing development and may become seriously deficient as development continues. In order to avoid reaching load levels which overtax the service systems and require a crisis type response, the Moderate Growth Plan limits high density development in critical areas and encourages it in more appropriate locations.” (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 34/pdf p. 43].) As yet another inconsistency with the General Plan, the Project here seeks to count the existing “permanent” easement dedicated to the City in 1972 for “street purposes” and on the narrow sidewalk, at the intersection of two two-lane (one lane each direction) streets on California and Jackson. And by so unlawfully counting that easement towards its base density, the Project improperly obtains two more units. For reasons stated above, the Project’s reliance on the easement is unlawful. Such reliance and attempt to put two more units where the General Plan’s moderate growth policy recognizes the limitations on the site, including the need to have adequate street and sidewalk infrastructure, further violates the General Plan.

As the General Plan further provides:
“In contrast to the high growth plan which is designed to provide for 48 percent of the population to reside in the high and very high density categories, this plan advocates only 19 percent in these categories. A substantial amount of residential land use is allocated in the medium and moderate density categories in order to provide for densities which are commensurate with existing land use and service system capabilities. These categories also reflect recent development trends of multiple family housing.” (General Plan, Land Use Element, p. 48/ pdf. p. 57.) 13 See, Glendale General Plan, Land Use element, available here https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/27328/635863847242330000 736 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 33 ends

In addition, the Project seeks to reduce open space and setbacks on the Project Site. Notably, for years, due to its lavish green space, the Project Site has provided the public and children the opportunity to walk around and enjoy the Project Site and its wildlife, including extraordinary birds. (See, Exhibit E, pp. 13-20.) Living in the area, I have personally visited the Project Site and observed children playing at the Project Site. Yet, just after obtaining the Project Site, the Applicant swiftly removed numerous mature trees on site, as well as numerous plants. (See, Exhibit E, p. 10.) It must be also noted that in 2018-2019, GUSD or its Carmel developer was proposing to build a park at the Project Site to benefit the community. As such, the Project removed the existing and potential rare green open space for the community and now also seeks to reduce open space and setbacks it must provide as a matter of law under the City’s zoning regulations claiming a density bonus incentive or waiver. As such, the Project also violates the General Plan’s Open Space goals and policies, including Goals 1 and 7, to enhance open space and preserve open space.14 Similarly, the Project violates the General Plan’s Recreation Element, and particularly Goals 4 and 6, seeking to preserve the natural, including “management of aesthetic resources, both natural and man-made, for a visually pleasing city.”
15 Similarly, the Project – and its attempt to vacate the permanent easement dedication to the City – violates the General Plan Circulation Element policies.16 For example, in light of the added unlawful density on the site as well as the vacation of the easement, the Project violates the Circulation Element goals, such as Goal 1 [Preservation and enhancement of the quality of life in Glendale’s unique communities], Goal 2 [minimization of congestion, air pollution, and noise associated with motor vehicles], Goal 4 [functional and safe streetscapes that are aesthetically pleasing for both pedestrians and vehicular travel], Goal 5 [land use which can be supported within the capacity constraints of existing and realistic future infrastructure].

Further, the Project – with its proposed extra density and attempt to override the applicable zoning to provide two additional units –violates the Planning and Zoning Law 14 See, General Plan Open Space Element,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4563/635242151377000000 15 See, General Plan Recreation Element, available at
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/37401/636312436409300000 16 See, General Plan Circulation Element, available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4497/635242143425530000 737 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 34 ends

and equitable justice principles applicable to all general plans and land use developments since 2018. Cal. Gov. Code § 65302(h) [environmental justice]. The Project seeks to unlawfully build more units on site, reduce setbacks, remove the dedicated easement and public right of way, remove rare green space in the City and further reduce open space on the very site, and thereby adversely affect the surrounding densely built community, including the building next door within 3 feet away and occupied by low-income households. Doing so, the Project will reasonably foreseeably displace low-income households next door, deprive the units in the next door 2-story building from adequate setbacks, light, and air, and increase traffic, air quality, GHG, noise and other impacts for the disadvantaged community in the area.

Notably, GMC 30.10.070(M) provides the purpose of setbacks:
“Setbacks, Open Space and Landscaping Requirements.

The purpose of setbacks, open space and landscaping requirements is to assure that an effective separation is provided between properties and uses to foster compatibility, identity, privacy, light, air and ventilation and provide for landscaped areas in the living and working environments for visual relief and recreation. Setbacks and required landscaping shall be calculated from the property lines or area of the lot after any public right-of-way dedications are made.” (Emph. added.) Under GMC definitions: “Privacy” means the protection for an unreasonable level of visual intrusion into a residential building or property. Privacy shall be judged by the view from the living room, den, study, family room, great room, library dining room or balconies (greater than 25 square feet) of the new development into the buildings and backyard outdoor space of existing buildings.” (GMC 30.70, emph. added.) And under GMC 30.03.010 (Rules of interpretation):
“When interpreting and applying the provisions in this part, they shall be held to be the minimum requirement for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any portion of this title imposes a greater restriction or regulation upon buildings, structures and/or uses than are imposed or required by other ordinances, rules, regulations or by easements, covenants or agreements, the most restrictive provisions of this title shall apply. (Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004).” (Emphasis added) Further, under state law: “[E]nvironmental justice” means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, 738 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 35 ends

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” (Gov. Code, § 65040.12, subd. (e).) Fairness in this context means that the benefits of a healthy environment should be available to everyone, and the burdens of pollution or other physical impacts should not be focused on sensitive populations or on communities that already are experiencing its adverse effects.”
Critically, based on CalEPA’s map, the Project Site is fully encompassed within the disadvantaged community area mapped by CalEPA, as shown below:

Next and critically, the Project is inconsistent with the zoning regulations since its base density and derivatively density bonus and 11 units proposed on the site unlawfully assume that the City has already dedicated the permanent easement for street purposes to the Developer. The Staff Report erroneously provides:
“The Applicant has proposed, and the City has agreed to allow (as a condition of approval), the requirement that the Applicant apply for a vacation of the easement to restore the lot size to the full amount of 7,512 SF, and subsequently record a 739 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 36 ends

new easement to restore and expand the existing easement, which is required in order for the public street easement to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements. This would provide a benefit to the City through a new code-compliant easement.” (Staff Report, p. 20, emph. added.) As discussed above, the “City” could not have agreed to provide the easement on condition or otherwise since a vacation of an easement requires a separate noticed public hearing where people living in the area will come and provide their evidence and where – in light of the whole record and evidence – the City Council may make a determination, if at all, that: (1) the easement is no longer necessary; and (2) the vacation of the easement is for public interest.

Here, no such hearing occurred. City staff unlawfully vested itself with the legislative power to internally deal with the Developer and agreed to vacate the easement.

Based on the fact that the Project is now proposed for approval of 11 units which already presumes the easement was vacated, the Staff Report’s “condition” of approval is merely a post-hoc rationalization condemned by courts and in fact an unlawful precommitment to the Project.

Stated differently, what the Staff Report provides is the process backwards. The City Council – not the City – must have first heard evidence about the vacation of the easement at a separate public hearing in compliance with S&H, the public must have been first provided the opportunity to comment and present evidence of whether the current easement is necessary, and only then if the easement were vacated with proper findings made on the evidence that the easement is no longer necessary, the City Council would have been allowed to vacate the easement. Ironically, based on the Staff Report, the easement was never – and can never be – deemed unnecessary: the Developer will not actually vacate it but instead will be providing an additional space because the current laws require an even wider easement. But critically, before doing so, the Developer will count the easement space to add two more units where it cannot do that by law. In sum, the City’s and Project Applicant’s scheme is a means to subvert and bypass due process, prejudicially deprive the public and decisionmakers of fair hearing rights, as well as circumvent the requirements of the S&H as to both notice, public hearing, and the substantive findings that must be made.

Lastly, as noted above, the Project is inconsistent with the applicable regulations that the density bonus incentives be counted separately, including as to each setback reduction. For reasons stated earlier, the Applicant’s SB330 preliminary application is 740 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 37 ends

irrelevant and did not excuse the Applicant from complying with the law and proper procedures of Density Bonus Law, since the application was superseded by numerous further applications, and since it was also incomplete and unsupported with evidence. In fact, as it appears, the Applicant continued to provide more evidence solely as a result of the appeals and challenges it faced later in the administrative process.

In sum, the Project is inconsistent with the applicable plans and zoning regulations and thereby fails the very first prong to qualify for the CEQA Class 32 exemption.

B. The Project May Have Significant Environmental Effects In addition to being inconsistent with the applicable zoning regulations, the Project is also not eligible for the Class 32 CEQA exemption since it fails to meet the other prongs of the exemption and may have significant environmental effects, including but not limited to traffic, air, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and water. CEQA Guidelines § 15332(d). CEQA exemptions are reserved for projects without potential to have significant environmental effects. See Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v.

County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107 [“If a project may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA review must occur”]. The Project at hand has the potential to cause a number of significant environmental effects, as follows.

1. The Project May Cause Significant Noise Impacts
The Project may have a significant noise impact as it is located too close to the property line of the next-door building. In fact, the next door two-story building’s balconies and open space protrude into or even encroach upon the Project lines as identified by the land surveyors. (See, Exhibit E, p. 12.) Yet, the Project proposes a three-story building with two extra units next to the neighboring two-story building and, in addition, seeks to reduce setbacks and open space.

The Project – in light of its extra unpermitted density, close proximity to the next door building at 240 N. Jackson St., its height and sought reduced open space and setbacks – will have significant noise impacts, including traffic-related noise, on the nextdoor building at 240 N. Jackson St., its residents, and the surrounding community. This noise will occur both during the construction, as well as the ultimate long-term operation of the Project.
741 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 38 ends

To the extent the Project relies on regulatory compliance measures to mitigate those noise impacts, such reliance is misplaced here. The issue is regulatory compliance by itself is insufficient to show the Project will have no noise impacts. In the words of the Court, as applicable here,
“Although the Building Code applies to all nonresidential buildings, it does not extend beyond the buildings themselves. It addresses the building's envelope, exterior lighting, and signage. (Building Code, § 100.0, subd. (b) & table 100–.0- A [Application of Standards].) Thus, the Building Code sets forth minimum efficiency requirements for air-conditioning, heating, windows, roofs, and insulation. (Building Code, §§ 110.2, 110.6, 110.8, 120.3.) Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. Here, a requirement that Gateway II comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project.” California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 211 (Emph. added.)
In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks to the environment and human health from the proposed program but simply presumed that no adverse impacts would occur from use of pesticides in accordance with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project).

In sum, the Project, in light of its location in a dense South Glendale area and densely built environment, its mass/scale, its sought reduced setbacks and proximity to 742 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 39 ends

the next-door building, as well as its height far overpowering the next-door building, will have significant noise impacts on the next-door building’s sensitive receptors within feet away, as well as sensitive receptors in the multi-family buildings around the Project site, sensitive receptors at two churches within a block from the Project Site, and sensitive receptors at GUSD high school across the street. The regulatory compliance measures cannot ensure and fully mitigate such noise impacts created or exacerbated by the Project.

Because the Project may have a significant noise impact, it does not qualify for the CEQA exemption and the City must prepare an EIR pursuant to CEQA that adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potential noise impacts, including by choosing an alternate site or an alternative for a much reduced size for the project.

2. The Project May Cause Significant Traffic Impacts
The Project may also have significant traffic impacts as it will add more traffic to the area and will further build a taller 3-story building on the corner of Jackson/California, thereby blocking visibility for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation on a narrow sidewalk and along two narrow two-lane (one lane each direction) Jackson Street and California Street.

These significant traffic impacts would be also more severe since the Project is next to GUSD High School to which some students walk or bike.

The Project may also have traffic impacts, in combination with other related and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area, including but not limited to the City’s proposed growth-inducing South Glendale Community Plan, which found significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, numerous related impacts that will be enabled by the SGCP should it be adopted, as well as the reasonably foreseeable and yet objectionable GUSD development across the street.

In addition, the Project will exacerbate and thus have traffic impacts on the neighboring Wilson street, which – based on the recently adopted Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan – was reportedly one of the streets with a higher number of traffic accidents and collisions and was designated as a Pedestrian Priority Street for that reason. 743 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 40 ends

As such, the Project – individually as a result of its location and site-specifics and cumulatively as a result of various related projects – will have reasonably foreseeable significant traffic and circulation impacts that require an EIR to fully account for and mitigate. For this reason as well, the Class 32 CEQA exemption is improper here.

3. The Project May Cause Significant Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emission, Water, Noise, Human Health, and Wildlife Impacts For reasons stated above, the Project’s traffic impacts are understated. This translates into understated traffic-related impacts, such as air quality GHG, noise, and others. There is an acknowledged direct correlation between the increase in traffic impacts and an increase in their associated air quality, GHG, and noise impacts. See e.g., City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, 413 (“it is reasonable to assume” that a project enabling physical residential development would have reasonably foreseeable indirect air and other impacts.) As stated in the Office of Planning Research’s (“OPR”) technical advisory in 2018:
“VMT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Senate Bill 32 (Pavley, 2016) requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order B-16-12 provides a target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the transportation sector by 2050. The transportation sector has three major means of reducing GHG emissions:
increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel.”17
Similarly, there is an acknowledged nexus between the increase of traffic and an increase in related air quality, GHG impacts, noise, water/flooding impacts and impacts on human health and natural environment, including wildlife and waterways. As described in the 2018 OPR Technical advisory:
“VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as “co-benefits” to GHG reduction) in both in the near-term and the long-term. Beyond GHG emissions, 17 Office of Planning and Research, 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Dec. 2018) at p. 2, available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 744 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 41 ends

increases in VMT also impact human health and the natural environment.

Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health. Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users. The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.”
18 As such, the Project does not qualify for the CEQA exemption since it may have traffic, air quality, GHG, energy, water quality, noise, and other impacts, including impacts on human beings and the natural environment.

These impacts are further exacerbated by the Project, its Site specifics and location in an overbuilt area in South Glendale, within two feet of a multifamily two-story building, in close proximity to a school, two churches, and numerous sensitive receptors of surrounding multi-family buildings, as well as the fact that the Project is proposed in the disadvantaged community area as mapped by CalEPA.

C. The Project is Not Exempt Since Exceptions to the Exemption Apply Unlike statutory exemptions, categorical exemptions are not absolute. When a project fits into a categorical exemption class, the agency must consider whether a codified exception applies. Guidelines § 15300.2. A project falling within a categorical exemption may require environmental review if the project is subject to exceptions-tothe-exemptions listed under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2, which include projects involving: (a) locations involving environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern; (b) significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place; (c) reasonable possibility of significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances; (d) damage to scenic resources on State scenic highways; (e) locations listed as a hazardous waste site; or (f) substantial adverse changes to a historical resource. 18 Id. at p. 3.
745 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 42 ends

Even if an exemption applies, the Project would nevertheless fall under several exceptions requiring it to undergo environmental review under CEQA.

1. The Project Will Have Cumulative Impacts
As noted above, the Project has numerous reasonably foreseeable sibling projects and may cumulatively result in impacts. Among such projects is the reasonably foreseeable GUSD development, in light of various manifest changes occurring on the GUSD lots since 2017, including removal or harming of trees, green areas, bushes, etc. (See, Exhibit E, pp. 21-31.)
In addition, the South Glendale Community Plan which the City pursues, if adopted, will be a catalyst for numerous similar projects in the Project area.

For these reasons too, the Project does not qualify for the Class 32 exemption.

2. The Project Will Have Impacts Due to Unusual Circumstances The Project is unusual given its features: it is proposed within feet of a two-story building, seeks reduced setbacks, reduced open space, seeks two more units than the Site size allows, and further seeks to unlawfully vacate a permanent easement dedicated to the City in 1972 for street purposes and public right of way and use that square footage of the vacated easement to obtain two more units.

In addition, the Project and its mass/scale proposed on a small corner will impede traffic and pedestrian circulation and block visibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles on the corner of Jackson and California along narrow two-lane (one lane each direction) streets and reasonably foreseeably cause more traffic/circulation problems and collisions.

The Project is further oversized for its Site and is proposed in the environmentally challenged SGCP area, where the SGCP EIR (encompassing the Project Site) found seven adverse significant and unavoidable impacts, including in traffic, air quality, GHG, population/housing, open space, public services, and aesthetics. The Project is proposed next to the DSP area, for which the City had adopted a Moratorium in 2018, in light of the growth in the DSP area exceeding the growth contemplated by the DSP and the fact that such growth and its impacts were not duly reviewed and mitigated under CEQA. 746 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 43 ends

The Project is proposed next to the GUSD High School, two churches, and numerous multi-family buildings, and may have significant adverse impacts on human beings, including more vulnerable children and elderly people, both during the construction and operation of the Project.

The Project is proposed in an unusually densely built area of South Glendale and in the disadvantaged community area with existing environmental challenges.

There is a fair argument that the above-noted unusual features of the Project and its location may cause and/or exacerbate significant traffic, noise, open space, land use, air quality, GHG, energy and other impacts. For this reason too, the Project does not qualify for the Class 32 exemption as it will have significant impacts due to unusual circumstances.

G. Incorporation by Reference.

As previously noted, the Project is related to the SGCP, GCPP, as well as the Downtown Specific Plan (“DSP”) and Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (“IZO”), since those are projects that are presently pursued by the City of Glendale and may result in cumulative impacts along with the Project.

In view of the cumulative impacts of these related projects with the Project and their inadequate CEQA reviews, we incorporate by reference the certified administrative record for the SGCP, the augmented administrative record including DSP/IZO and related records (including GUSD’s projects), as well as the certified record for GCPP.19 We also incorporate by reference all public objections to the Project. 19 SGCP Certified record
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xkamylvwyb1oxnm/AABEcI2CwBfucpp3At_DFdUSa?dl= 0 (accessed 3/19/2022.); Augmented Record AUGMENTED Administrative Record_Volumes A-1 through E-1_incl. Index, GCPP Certified record https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2pb45mchikah649/AABWDwFaA5m1oFUD936dKBRea? dl=0
747 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 44 ends

H. The Project Violates Planning and Zoning Law.

Planning and Zoning Law requires internal and vertical General Plan consistency.

Gov. Code §§ 65860 [any zoning ordinance]; 65867.5 [development agreement and subdivision]) vertical consistency; Gov. Code § 65300.5 [horizontal consistency].

Further, it requires that the Project consider the environmental justice and be fair to disadvantaged population.

For reasons noted above, the Project violates the environmental justice principles and thus the Planning and Zoning Law.

Further, for reasons noted above, the Project is vertically inconsistent with the Glendale General Plan and Elements’ goals and policies, including but not limited to the moderate growth policy for the Project area of multi-family zoning.

Similarly – by causing an inconsistency in the General Plan and some of its elements (e.g., Circulation Element) and by seeking a Project that adds two units more than can be lawfully allowed here and assuming that the permanent easement dedicated for street purposes and public right of way on the corner lot is vacated and unnecessary – the Project also creates an internal inconsistency between the General Plan’s other elements, such as Land Use, Open Space, Safety, Recreation, and Noise Elements.

Stated differently, the Project proposes density and changes in the circulation patterns which all other General Elements cannot support or provide adequate infrastructure for.

As such, the Project violates the Planning Zoning Law’s requirements for both internal and vertical General Plan consistency and cannot be approved. For these reasons, too, the Project should not be approved.

I. The Project Should Not Be Approved Because It Violates California Constitution and Applicable Equitable Principles
Cal. Const. art. I § 7, subdivision (b) mandates: “(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.” The Project, however, violates this constitutional prohibition by providing the Project Applicant or Owner – out of all other applicants and in detriment to the neighboring residents and community – numerous privileges and immunities, such as: (1) allowing to provide less affordable housing than required by Density Bonus Law and not 748 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 45 ends

comply with the Density Bonus Law’s replacement requirement, (2) counting an existing permanent easement and right of way towards the Project’s own Site size before such easement is duly vacated through public hearing, evidence, and required findings as required by State and Highway Law, and (3) allowing the Project Applicant to blatantly disregard the City’s applicable density bonus incentives policies and subvert numerous other laws.

Instead of enforcing the requirements of the Glendale General Plan and applicable zoning regulations, the City staff attempted to secretly deed the permanent easement and public right-of-way back to the Project Applicant, violating numerous laws, including S&H. Needless to say that the City – including City attorneys – played along to bring this unlawful scheme into fruition and offered various frivolous interpretations of Density Bonus Law and options to help the Project Applicant get the two extra units it desired.

Ultimately, in the Staff Report, the City misleadingly claimed that it already agreed to allow the Applicant first use and approve its entitlements for 11 units by counting the easement towards the Project Site and tried to cure this lawlessness and manifest violation of the process under S&H and GMC for vacation of easements by claiming that the Project can be now approved on the condition that it later obtains the approval of the vacation of the easement. This, as mentioned above, is the improper process backwards. In the words of the Court in an analogous case with potential adverse impacts to human beings:
“We also find unpersuasive the Port's argument that the absence of a health risk assessment can be excused because the Port Commissioners, in approving the EIR, found that the effect of TAC's would be significant but that overriding considerations warranted proceeding with the project anyway. This approach has the process exactly backward and allows the lead agency to travel the legally impermissible easy road to CEQA compliance. Before one brings about a potentially significant and irreversible change to the environment, an EIR must be prepared that sufficiently explores the significant environmental effects created by the project. The EIR's approach of simply labeling the effect “significant” without accompanying analysis of the project's impact on the health of the Airport's employees and nearby residents is inadequate to meet the environmental assessment requirements of CEQA.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Com'rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1371 (Emph. orig.) ”
749 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 46 ends

The City’s approvals of the Project, its process of hiding all the problems and issues related to the Project Site and all the deviations and variances that the Project Applicant unlawfully seeks, as well as concealing and distorting the truth and critical facts (re easement and affordable units on site) during two appeals and even before the City Council, undoubtedly provide special privileges and immunities to the Project Applicant that substantially differ from the privileges other applicants may enjoy. And, for all reasons noted earlier and in the prior objection letters related to this Project, the City concealed the full scope of such privileges from the public or decisionmakers. As such, the Project violates the California Constitution’s prohibition and cannot be approved.

As related, the Project also violates the state and federal provisions re environmental justice and equity. As noted and shown above, the Project is proposed in the CalEPA mapped disadvantaged community area. The Project will also significantly reduce the open space in the area and will potentially displace low-income residents at the neighboring building at 240 N. Jackson St. in light of its proximity within feet of that building and the Project’s mass and scale that will block all sunlight, remove the currently enjoyed open space, and cause various other impacts, including noise and air pollution. Needless to say that it already displaced low-income tenants at the Project Site and will not be providing the legally required replacement of 3 low-income units it will demolish on site.

Critically, the Project will reduce the affordable housing stock in Glendale as it will demolish three affordable units subject to rent-control ordinance in Glendale, and instead will provide only 1 affordable units of reduced size.

As such, the Project approvals will allow the Project Applicant to disproportionately affect the disadvantaged community in the area and to thereby plainly violate the environmental justice and equity principles required by state law and public policy. Further yet, the Project seeks to implement such changes and affect the disadvantaged population nearby without even conducting CEQA review and mitigating the Project’s impacts on human beings.

As noted in the analogous recently adopted CEQA Guidelines for BAAQMD:
“For context, under CEQA, a substantial adverse impact on human beings, whether direct or indirect, holds special legal status. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance). A disparate or discriminatory 750 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 47 ends

environmental impact is one such potential impact on human beings. Whether viewed from a civil rights disparate impact lens or from a conventional cumulative impact lens, lead agencies that receive state or federal funding should include a disparate impact analysis in their CEQA analysis under both state and federal law (Cal. Gov. Code § 11135; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and further include less discriminatory options in any alternatives analysis.” (BAAQMD Guidelines, Chapter 2, p. 2-2.)20
As the BAAQMD Guidelines note (id. at pp. 2-2—2-20), there are numerous additional adverse impacts in disadvantaged communities and hence requirements to mitigate such impacts, which reflect the statutory provisions and public policy against such gentrification and discrimination, including:
• AB 6172 Community – An Assembly Bill (AB) 617 community is affected by a high cumulative exposure burden for toxic air contaminants and criteria air pollutants, selected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) governing board, that works with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) to develop and implement community air monitoring plans and emission reduction programs to reduce air pollution and the associated health impacts within the community.
• Amendment XIV to the U.S. Constitution4 – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
• Antiracist Policy – An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups.
20 Chapter 2 – BEST PRACTICES FOR CENTERING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, HEALTH, AND EQUITY, available at Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (baaqmd.gov) 751 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 48 ends

• Environmental Justice – This term refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Gov. Code, § 65040.12(e)(1) o “Environmental justice” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A) The availability of a healthy environment for all people. (B) The deterrence, reduction, and elimination of pollution burdens for populations and communities experiencing the adverse effects of that pollution, so that the effects of the pollution are not disproportionately borne by those populations and communities.
(C) Governmental entities engaging and providing technical assistance to populations and communities most impacted by pollution to promote their meaningful participation in all phases of the environmental and land use decision making process. (D) At a minimum, the meaningful consideration of recommendations from populations and communities most impacted by pollution into environmental and land use decisions.
• Equity – “Equity” means “increasing access to power, redistributing and providing additional resources, and eliminating barriers to opportunity, in order to empower low-income communities of color to thrive and reach full potential.” • Overburdened Community – This term refers to an area located within a census tract identified by the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0, as having an overall CalEnviroScreen score at or above the 70th percentile, or located within 1,000 feet of any such census tract.
• Procedural Equity – As stated in Environmental Justice Principle 7, “Environmental justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of decision-making including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement and evaluation.”
• Racial Equity – This term refers to “two or more racial groups standing on relatively equal footing.”
• Racist Policy – A racist policy is “any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups.” Racist policies produce inequities “through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power.” • Redlining – “Redlining” refers to the racist policies and practices that financing entities and government deployed to segregate communities of color in “declining” neighborhoods while reserving the “best” and most “desirable” neighborhoods for whites.11
752 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 49 ends

• Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.21 21 • The 17 Principles of Environmental Justice were drafted and adopted in 1991 by the Delegates at the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit and serve as a defining document for the growing grassroots movement for environmental justice.
• AB 617, Cristina Garcia, Nonvehicular air pollution: criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB 617, Accessed June 13, 2023.
• California Air Resources Board, Community Air Protection Program, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
05/Community%20Air%20Protection%20Program%20-%20Overview%20- %20English.pdf, Accessed June 13, 2023.
• U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship, Equal Protection, and Other Rights of Citizens, https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment14/section-1/, Accessed June 13, 2023. • Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist. New York: One World, 2019. • Greenlining Institute, Making Equity Real in Mobility Pilots, http://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Toolkit_Making-Equity-Realin-Mobility-Pilot-Projects_Final-1.pdf, Accessed June 13, 2023. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Regulation 2, Permits Rule 1, Section 2-1-243, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021- amendments/documents/20211215_rg0201-
pdf.pdf?la=en&rev=103cc60e706947d3ad1e4f5a090483c1, Accessed June 13, 2023.
• Principles of Environmental Justice were developed by the Delegates to the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit convened by the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice in 1991. • Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist. New York: One World, 2019. • California Environmental Protection Agency, Pollution and Prejudice: Redlining and Environmental Injustice in California,
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f167b251809c43778a2f9f040f43d2f5, Accessed June 13, 2023.
753 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 50 ends

Further, equal protection of the law held in the Amendment XIV to the U.S.

Constitution is the foundation of environmental justice. EJ and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are both rooted in the same basic principle—that no person should bear an unfair share of harm on account of their race, color, or national origin.12 The EJ movement was galvanized in 1987, when the United Church of Christ Commission released a study demonstrating that across the country, toxic facilities were consistently located in Black and Brown communities.13 In 1991, delegates to the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit drafted and adopted The Principles of Environmental Justice, and it has served as a defining document for the growing EJ movement.14
Besides violating the aforementioned equity principles, the Project will adversely affect the nearby disadvantaged communities by allowing the Project Applicant to subvert and circumvent various state laws, including S&H, Brown Act, Density Bonus Law and its replacement requirements, Planning and Zoning Law, and CEQA.

In light of the known evidentiary basis as to the disadvantages, including GHG and health and safety impacts of the projects proposed in disadvantaged communities here, and in light of the City’s own findings in the SGCP EIR as well as the DSP Moratorium that the Project area is environmentally challenged and poses risks to human health and safety due to exceeding growth, there is sufficient evidence that the Project will have significant impacts on human beings and especially on the disadvantaged population, which requires mitigation, even if it complies with other equity principles.

As such, the Project cannot be approved as it provides special rights to the Applicant in violation of California Constitution and it also violates important constitutional, equitable and environmental justice principles that will be harmful and detrimental to the neighboring disadvantaged community and low-income households.

II. CONCLUSION.

As the City’s Staff Report conceded, the City Council as a decisionmaking body must make de novo and independent findings that the Project will not have a significant impact on the environment:
“Moreover, the EIR must be presented to the decisionmaking body of the agency.

In Kleist v. City of Glendale (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 770, 779 [128 Cal.Rptr. 781], the court held that the city council cannot delegate responsibility for considering the EIR to a planning board. By necessary inference, the board of supervisors 754 of 1003
Hon. Mayor and Council Members
City of Glendale
August 15, 2023

Page 51 ends

cannot delegate the responsibility to the staff of the planning commission.” Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 For all the noted reasons, those findings of no significant impacts cannot be made.

In addition, the Project and its requested density bonus, incentives, waivers, and variances cannot be approved as they violate State Density Bonus law, State Zoning and Planning Law, Glendale General Plan, Glendale Municipal Code, Streets and Highways Code, Brown Act, and even California Constitution and applicable equitable principles.

The email communications between the City and the Project Applicant show that the Project Applicant in this case made a poor business judgment by acquiring a site that it cannot possibly develop as “desired” and to provide only one affordable unit where it demolishes three. However, this poor business judgment and sympathy to the Project Applicant Art Simonian – once a City Commissioner and a colleague to City staff and representatives – is not an excuse for the City to grant the Applicant special privileges and options to circumvent various critical state laws and even California Constitution.

Alternatively, the City could – and can now – propose to repurchase that Project Site from the Project Applicant, make the latter whole, and turn the Project Site into a small pocket park – an idea the City embraced when GUSD’s Developer was proposing its monstrosity in 2018-2019. A pocket park at 246 N. Jackson will meet the community needs, will not conflict with all applicable zoning regulations, will be equitable and most needed in the densely built area of South Glendale, and will provide more community benefits to the disadvantaged population nearby, without causing the Project’s adverse impacts, health and safety hazards, and circulation blockage.

Regardless of the choice the City would want to make, I respectfully urge you to deny the Project and its CEQA exemption and to require that the Project comply with all applicable rules, laws and regulations, to protect the disadvantaged community of Glendale, as well as the vulnerable school children next door attending the school or GUSD headquarters, as well as various sensitive receptors in the area, including multifamily apartment buildings and two churches within a block from the Project Site.

Very truly yours,
Naira Soghbatyan, Esq.

Enclosures: See Exhibits A-H
755 of 1003
Exhibit A
756 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Date: 08/12/2023
Property: 246 1/2 N JACKSON ST,
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
APN: 5642-018-039
County: LOS ANGELES
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 1/14 757 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Subject Property Location Report Date: 08/12/2023
Property Address Order ID: R123549166
City, State & Zip
246 1/2 N JACKSON ST
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Triplex (3 units, any
combination) County Property Use
Mailing Address
Census Tract
501 W GLENOAKS BLVD # 556, GLENDALE, CA 91202-2896 Parcel Number Latitude
5642-018-039
3020.02
564-4F

34.149818
Thomas Bros Pg-Grid Longitude -118.249783
Legal Description Details Lot Number: 2 Block: 6 Brief Description: GLENDALE (EX OF ST) LOT 2 BLK 6 Current Ownership Information *Source of Ownership data: Assessment Data Primary Owner
Name(s) ARTSHAR LLC
Vesting Company
Latest Full Sale Information
Sale Price $1,105,000
08/19/2020
09/02/2020
20-1046026
Primary Owner Name(s) ARTSHAR LLC, Sale Date
Recording Date
Recorder Doc #
Book/Page
Vesting
Financing Details at Time of Purchase
No financing details available
Property Characteristics
Bedrooms 3
3 Year Built 1946
3 Living Area (SF) 1,708
Bathrooms/Partial
Total Rooms
Garage/No. of Cars
Stories/Floors
No. of Units
Price ($/SF)
Lot Size (SF/AC)
Fireplace
Pool
$647/SF
7,638/.18
Construction Type
Exterior Walls
Wood
No. of Buildings
Basement Type/Area
Style
Roof Material/Type
Foundation Type
Heat Type
A/C
Multi-Family
(Residential) Property Type
Land Use
View Elevator
Triplex (3 units, any combination) Zoning GLR4YY
Assessment & Taxes
Assessment Year
Total Assessed Value
Land Value
2022 Tax Year 2022 Tax Exemption
$1,127,380 Tax Rate Area
$678,300
$449,080

39.83%
Tax Amount $12,470.61 4-045
Tax Account ID
Improvement Value Tax Status
Improvement Ratio
No Delinquency Found
Delinquent Tax Year
Total Value Market Improvement Value
Market Land Value Market Value Year
Lien History
Trans. ID Recording Date Lender Amount Purchase Money
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 2/14 758 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
No details available
Loan Officer Insights
No details available
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 3/14 759 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Subject Property Location Report Date: 08/12/2023
Order ID: R123549167
County: LOS ANGELES
Property Address
City, State & Zip
246 1/2 N JACKSON ST
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
Comparable Sales 3 Comps
Sale
Type
Living
SF
Pin Address Record Date Sale Price S/SF Rm Bd Ba Year Lot SF Pool Dist

SUBJECT PROPERTY
527 N ISABEL ST # B
324 W ELK AVE
09/02/2020
04/20/2023
07/07/2023
03/08/2023
$1,105,011
$1,300,000
$1,286,000
$1,350,000
$647
$495
$610
$792
1,708
2,624
0 0
0 0
3 5
4 3
3 4
3 3
1946
1927
1921
1952
7,638/.18
7,464/.17
6,381/.15
7,057/.16
1 2
3 0.29

0.79 0.9
2,109
520 W CALIFORNIA AVE 1,705
Subject Standard Sale Distressed Sale Active Listings
Area Sales Analysis
Total Area Sales/ Count $3,936,000/ 3 Median # of Baths Median # of Bedrooms
3 4
Median Lot Size (SF/AC) 7,057 /.16
Price Range - 2 years
Age Range
$1,286,000 - $1,350,000 Median Year Built
Median Value
1927
71 - 102
96 Median Living Area (SF) 2,109
Median Price ($/SF) $610/SF
$1,300,000
Median Age
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 4/14 760 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Subject Property Location Report Date: 08/12/2023
Property Address Order ID: R123549168
City, State & Zip
246 1/2 N JACKSON ST
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Triplex (3 units, any
combination) County Property Use
Mailing Address 501 W GLENOAKS BLVD # 556, GLENDALE, CA 91202-2896 Parcel Number 5642-018-039 Transaction Summary
Trans Recording Document Document Sale Price / Document Number
Buyer / Seller
ID Date Type Description Loan Amount Borrower
1 09/02/2020 Deed Grant Deed $1,105,000 20-1046026 ARTSHAR LLC BANAAG, LETICIA B Intra-family Transfer or
Dissolution
BANAAG, LETICIA B;
BANAAG, EVANGELINE B 2 09/02/2020 Deed 20-1046025 BANAAG, LETICIA B Intra-family Transfer or
Dissolution 3
4 09/02/2020 Deed
11/13/1986 Deed
20-1046024 BANAAG, EVANGELINE B PUEN, RAY
Transaction History Legend
Transfer Mortgage Mortgage Assignment
Foreclosure Activity Mortgage Release
Transaction Details
Transfer
Recorder Doc
Number
Partial Interest
Transferred Transaction ID
Sale Date
1 20-1046026
Deed
Type of
08/19/2020
$1,105,000
Document Type Arms-Length Transfer Transaction
Document
Description
Multiple APNs
on Deed Sale Price Grant Deed
Recorder
Book/Page
Triplex (3 units, any
combination) Recording Date
Buyer 1 Entity
09/02/2020 Property Use
Buyer 1 ARTSHAR LLC Limited Liability Company Buyer Vesting 501 W GLENOAKS BLVD
# 556, GLENDALE, CA
91202-2896
Buyer Mailing
Address Buyer 2 Buyer 2 Entity
Seller Mailing
Address Seller 1 BANAAG, LETICIA B Seller 1 Entity
Seller 2 Entity
Single woman
Legal City/
Muni/ Township Seller 2
Legal

GLENDALE
Legal Section/
Twn/ Rng/ Mer Recorder's Map MB 14 PG 95&96
Ref
Legal Subdivision
Legal Brief Description/ Unit/ Phase/
Tract
Title Company
Name

ORANGE COAST TITLE

COMPANY
Transfer
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 5/14 761 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM
Transaction ID
View Order
Recorder Doc
Number
Partial Interest
Transferred 2 20-1046025
Type of
Transaction
Non Arms-Length
Transfer Transfer Date
Sale Price
06/25/2020 Document Type Deed
Document
Description
Intra-family Transfer or
Dissolution
Multiple APNs
on Deed
Recorder
Book/Page Recording Date
Buyer 1 Entity
09/02/2020 Property Use
Buyer 1 BANAAG, LETICIA B Buyer Vesting

BANAAG, LETICIA B
Single woman
212 N JACKSON ST APT
2, GLENDALE, CA 91206-
4335
Buyer Mailing
Address Buyer 2 Buyer 2 Entity
Seller 1 Entity Seller Mailing
Address Seller 1 Single woman
Legal City/
Muni/ Township Seller 2
Legal
BANAAG, EVANGELINE B Seller 2 Entity Married Woman GLENDALE Legal Section/
Twn/ Rng/ Mer Recorder's Map MB 14 PG 95&96 Legal Subdivision TOWN OF GLENDALE Ref
Legal Brief Description/ Unit/ Phase/
Tract
Title Company
Name

ORANGE COAST TITLE
Transfer
Recorder Doc
Number
Partial Interest
Transferred Transaction ID 3 20-1046024
Deed Type of
Transaction
Non Arms-Length
Transfer Transfer Date
Sale Price
08/03/2020 Document Type
Document
Description
Intra-family Transfer or
Dissolution
Multiple APNs
on Deed
Recorder
Book/Page Recording Date 09/02/2020 Property Use
Buyer Vesting
Married Woman as her
sole and separate
property
Buyer 1 BANAAG, EVANGELINE B Buyer 1 Entity Married Woman 212 N JACKSON ST APT
2, GLENDALE, CA 91206-
4335
Buyer Mailing
Address Buyer 2
Seller 1
Buyer 2 Entity
Seller Mailing
Address PUEN, RAY Seller 1 Entity
Seller 2 Entity
Married Man
Legal City/
Muni/ Township Seller 2
Legal

GLENDALE
Legal Section/
Twn/ Rng/ Mer Recorder's Map MB 14 PG 95&96
Ref
Legal Subdivision
Legal Brief Description/ Unit/ Phase/
Tract
Title Company
Name

ORANGE COAST TITLE

COMPANY
Transfer
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 6/14 762 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM
Transaction ID
View Order
Recorder Doc
Number
Partial Interest
Transferred 4
Type of
Transaction Transfer Date
Sale Price
Document Type Deed Per Assessor
Document
Description
Multiple APNs
on Deed
Recorder
Book/Page
Triplex (3 units, any
combination) Recording Date
Buyer 1 Entity
Buyer 2 Entity
11/13/1986 Property Use
Buyer 1 Buyer Vesting
Buyer 2 Buyer Mailing
Address
Seller Mailing
Address Seller 1
Seller 2
Seller 1 Entity
Seller 2 Entity Legal City/
Muni/ Township
Legal
Recorder's Map
Ref
Legal Section/
Twn/ Rng/ Mer Legal Subdivision
Legal Brief Description/ Unit/ Phase/
Tract
Title Company
Name
GLENDALE (EX OF ST) LOT 2 BLK 6/ / /
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 7/14 763 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Aerial Map Report
Subject Property Location Report Date: 08/12/2023
Property Address Order ID: R123549169
City, State & Zip
246 1/2 N JACKSON ST
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Triplex (3 units, any
combination) County Property Use
Mailing Address
Owner Name
501 W GLENOAKS BLVD # 556, GLENDALE, CA 91202-2896

ARTSHAR LLC
Parcel Number 5642-018-039
Subject
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 8/14 764 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Subject Property Location Report Date: 08/12/2023
Property Address Order ID: R123549170
City, State & Zip
246 1/2 N JACKSON ST
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Triplex (3 units, any
combination) County Property Use
Mailing Address 501 W GLENOAKS BLVD # 556, GLENDALE, CA 91202-2896 Parcel Number 5642-018-039 Subject Property
Address 246 1/2 N JACKSON ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206

ARTSHAR LLC
APN 5642-018-039
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC) 7,638/.18
Bedrooms 3 1,708
3 Year Built 1946
1940
1910
1920
Living Area (SF)
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars Phones
Nearby Neighbor #1
Address 501 E CALIFORNIA AVE, GLENDALE, CA 91206

AHMADI NASSER
APN 5643-015-171
7,228/.17
3,106
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 6
3 Year Built
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #2
Address 300 N KENWOOD ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206
YOUSEFIAN ALBERT; GALOUSHIAN VOLGA
APN 5643-017-012
7,352/.17
3,442
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 5
3 Year Built
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #3
Address 312 N KENWOOD ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206

VARTANIAN ARA R
APN 5643-017-009
7,573/.17
2,240
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 4
4 Year Built
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #4
Address 318 N ISABEL ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206
MAGGI VITANTONIO AND AURORA TRS; V AND A MAGGI TRUST
APN 5643-015-022
7,393/.17
2,650
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 7
6 Year Built 1987
1911
1968
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #5
Address 320 E CALIFORNIA AVE, GLENDALE, CA 91206

YASNY INVESTMENTS LLC
APN 5642-017-013
4,013/.09
1,472
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 2
3 Year Built
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #6
Address 237 N KENWOOD ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206
GABOR PAUL E; M AND M GABOR TRUST
APN 5642-017-020
7,492/.17
6,564
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 12
9 Year Built
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 9/14 765 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 10/14 766 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Nearby Neighbor #7
Address 321 N KENWOOD ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206 APN 5643-017-037 7,658/.18
2,711
Owner DERMENDJIAN, HAROUT; DERMENDJIAN, GAYANE Lot Size (SF/AC) Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 4
3 Year Built 1957
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #8
Address 701 E CALIFORNIA AVE, GLENDALE, CA 91206
AHARONIAN VARTAN AND EVIK TRS; AHARONIAN FAMILY TRUST
APN 5643-014-023
8,369/.19
2,088
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 3
3 Year Built 1941
1914
1923
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #9
Address 224 N LOUISE ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206
GABOR PAUL E; M AND M GABOR TRUST
APN 5642-017-029
7,702/.18
4,073
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 7
5 Year Built
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #10
Address 305 GENEVA ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206

LAFERLA HILDA
APN 5643-014-011
7,518/.17
2,791
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 7
3 Year Built
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #11
Address 317 N LOUISE ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206
SEFIAN ALEXANDER (CO-TR); ANNIE Y SARRAFIAN TRUST
APN 5643-019-008
7,336/.17
3,140
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 6
4 Year Built 1952
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #12
Address 339 N LOUISE ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206
KASPARIAN MOSES AND SHOGHER TRS; KASPARIAN TRUST
APN 5643-019-003
7,438/.17
3,303
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 4
3 Year Built 1923
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #13
Address 500 N KENWOOD ST # A, GLENDALE, CA 91206
LOSSONE GENE H AND ROSEMARIE TRS; LOSSONE FAMILY TRUST
APN 5643-007-012
7,407/.17
3,587
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 7
3 Year Built 1961
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
Nearby Neighbor #14
Address 507 N ISABEL ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206

KHNKOYAN SUREN
APN 5643-008-032
7,279/.17
3,365
Owner Lot Size (SF/AC)
Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 6
3 Year Built 1981
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 11/14 767 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Nearby Neighbor #15
Address 511 N ISABEL ST, GLENDALE, CA 91206 APN 5643-008-033 7,500/.17
2,322
Owner MANNING WILLIAM U TRS; MANNING KELLY Lot Size (SF/AC) Living Area (SF)
Phones
Bedrooms 3
3 Year Built 1921
Bathrooms/Partial Garage/No. of Cars
https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 12/14 768 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Subject Property Location Report Date: 08/12/2023
Property Address Order ID: R123549171
City, State & Zip
County
246 1/2 N JACKSON ST
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Parcel Number 5642-018-039
Download the map in PDF
Download the map in TIFF
Disclaimer
THIS REPORT IS INTENDED FOR USE BY YOU AS AN END USER SOLELY FOR YOUR INTERNAL BUSINESS PURPOSES. YOU SHALL NOT RESELL, RELICENSE OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS REPORT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART. THE USE OF THIS REPORT BY ANY PARTY OTHER THAN YOURSELF FOR ANY PURPOSE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED AS-IS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. BLACK KNIGHT SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY IN CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. BLACK KNIGHT DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE REPORT IS COMPLETE OR FREE FROM ERROR. YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE AVAILABILITY, COMPLETENESS AND FORMAT OF THE DATA ELEMENTS MAY VARY SUBSTANTIANLLY FROM AREA-TO-AREA. THE

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS DERIVED FROM PUBLICLY AVAILABLE SOURCES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR COMPARABLE PROPERTIES LISTED ABOVE AND HAS NOT BEEN INDEPENDENT VERIFIED BY BLACK KNIGHT THROUGH ANY FORM OF INSPECTION OR REVIEW. THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPRAISAL OF ANY KIND AND SHOULD NOT BE USED IN LIEU OF AN INSPECTION OF A SUBJECT PROPERTY BY A LICENSED OR CERTIFIED APPRAISER. THIS REPORT CONTAINS NO REPRESENTATIONS, OPINIONS OR WARRANTIES REGARDING THE SUBJECT

PROPERTY'S ACTUAL MARKETABILITY, CONDITION (STRUCTURAL OR OTHERWISE), ENVIRONMENTAL, HAZARD OR FLOOD ZONE STATUS, AND ANY REFERENCE TO ENVIRONMENTAL, HAZARD OR FLOOD ZONE STATUS IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND SHALL BE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED BY THE END USER. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED: (A) TO REVIEW OR ESTABLISH A CONSUMER'S CREDIT AND/OR INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE REPORT TO CONSTITUTE A "CONSUMER REPORT" UNDER THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 ET SEQ.; OR (B) IN CONNECTION WITH CERTIFICATION OR AUTHENTICATION OF REAL ESTATE OWNERSHIP AND/OR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.

ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY PURSUANT TO THE APPLICABLE AGREEMENT. https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 13/14 769 of 1003
8/12/23, 1:01 PM View Order
Copyright
CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY AND/OR TRADE SECRET. TM SM ® TRADEMARK(S) OF BLACK KNIGHT IP HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, OR AN AFFILIATE. © 2023 BLACK KNIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. https://www.titlepro247.com/Orders/Home/Html/U123549164 14/14 770 of 1003
771 of 1003
772 of 1003
773 of 1003
774 of 1003
775 of 1003
776 of 1003
777 of 1003
778 of 1003
779 of 1003
780 of 1003
781 of 1003
782 of 1003
783 of 1003
Exhibit B
784 of 1003
785 of 1003
786 of 1003
787 of 1003
788 of 1003
789 of 1003
790 of 1003
791 of 1003
Exhibit C
792 of 1003
From: A"Hearn, William
To: Pruett, Cassandra
Subject:

Date:
246 N Jackson Av Corner Dedication
Thursday, November 03, 2022 9:47:27 AM
Attachments: D1025.pdf
image001.jpg
image002.jpg
image003.jpg
image004.jpg
See attached
Take care and be safe,
Bill A’Hearn, LSIT, Sr GIS Proj Mgr ● City of Glendale ● Department of Public Works 633 E. Broadway Room 205 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 937-8243 ● [email protected] Latitude: 34º 8’ 48”N - Longitude: 118º 14’ 49”W - Elev: 565’ Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø
"A map is the greatest of all epic poems. Its lines and colors show the realization of great dreams." 793 of 1003
794 of 1003
795 of 1003
796 of 1003
Exhibit E
797 of 1003
798 of 1003
799 of 1003
800 of 1003
801 of 1003
802 of 1003
803 of 1003
804 of 1003
805 of 1003
806 of 1003
807 of 1003
808 of 1003
809 of 1003
810 of 1003
811 of 1003
812 of 1003
813 of 1003
814 of 1003
815 of 1003
816 of 1003
817 of 1003
818 of 1003
819 of 1003
820 of 1003
821 of 1003
822 of 1003
823 of 1003
824 of 1003
825 of 1003
Exhibit E
826 of 1003
Exhibit E
Pictures of the Subject Property at 246 N. Jackson St., Its Next Door Property At 240 N.

Jackson St., and its Neighborhood (Including GUSD Site and Tree Cutting) (Pictures taken in August 2023)
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St.

Open Space and Garden
of Residents next to
Project Site – at 240 N.

Jackson St.
1 827 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St. 2 828 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St .
3 829 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St. 4 830 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St. 5 831 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St. 6 832 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St. 7 833 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St. 8 834 of 1003
Open Space and Garden of Residents next to Project Site – at 240 N. Jackson St. 9 835 of 1003
Mature Trees Cut at the Project Site Upon Purchase in August 2020 – on the Southern Border 10 836 of 1003
240 N. Jackson Residents’ Cars Parked Next to the Project Site 11 837 of 1003
Circle on the 240 N. Jackson St., Marking where the Project Applicant’s Land Surveyor Marked the Property Line to Measure the Project Site in a Recent Survey 12 838 of 1003
Project Site – Green and Open Space at 246 N. Jackson St. 13 839 of 1003
Project Site – Green and Open Space at 246 N. Jackson St. 14 840 of 1003
City’s Notice of August 15, 2023 Hearing for the Appeal – Not Mentioning CEQA Exemption 15 841 of 1003
Project Site – Green Open Space
16 842 of 1003
Project Site – Green Open Space
17 843 of 1003
Project Site – Green Open Space and Neighboring Two-Story Building at 240 N. Jackson St. 18 844 of 1003
Project Site in Dark and Narrow Sidewalk Along California St. 19 845 of 1003
Project Site in Dark
20 846 of 1003
Unusually Dry Two Trees Next to GUSD Site at 223 N. Jackson St. (Along Jackson St.) 21 847 of 1003
Close Shot of the Unusually Dry Tree Along Jackson St. – GUSD Site 22 848 of 1003
Close Shot of the Unusually Dry Tree Along Jackson St. – GUSD Site 23 849 of 1003
Close Shot of the Unusually Dry Tree Along Jackson St. – GUSD Site 24 850 of 1003
Another Unusually Dry Tree at GUSD Site (Now Cut Down in August 2023) and GUSD Actively Chopping Off Trees Inside the School Ground
25 851 of 1003
Trees Chopped Off Inside the GUSD High School Area
26 852 of 1003
GUSD Public Works Cutting More Trees and Bushes
27 853 of 1003
Freshly cut bushes next to GUSD Site at 223 N. Jackson St. 28 854 of 1003
Freshly cut bushes next to GUSD Site at 223 N. Jackson St. 29 855 of 1003
Freshly cut bushes next to GUSD Site at 223 N. Jackson St. 30 856 of 1003
GUSD Site at 223 N. Jackson – Tree Heavily Pruned Underneath 31 857 of 1003
Exhibit F
858 of 1003
859 of 1003
Exhibit G
860 of 1003
Table of Contents
Subject Summary........................................................................................................................2 Others Using SSN - 0 records found.....................................................................................2 Address Summary - 25 records found..................................................................................2 Voter Registrations - 0 records found.................................................................................10 Driver Licenses - 0 records found........................................................................................10 Professional Licenses - 1 records found ...........................................................................10 Health Care Providers - 0 records found............................................................................11 Health Care Sanctions - 0 records found...........................................................................11 Pilot Licenses - 0 records found...........................................................................................11 Sport Licenses - 0 records found.........................................................................................11 Weapon Permits - 0 records found ......................................................................................11 Real Property - 12 records found .........................................................................................11 Motor Vehicle Registrations - 1 records found.................................................................15 Boats - 0 records found ..........................................................................................................15 Aircraft - 0 records found .......................................................................................................15 Bankruptcy Information - 0 records found ........................................................................15 Judgments/Liens - 0 records found.....................................................................................15 UCC Liens - 0 records found .................................................................................................15 Fictitious Businesses - 0 records found ............................................................................16 Notice Of Defaults - 0 records found...................................................................................16 Potential Relatives - 10 records found................................................................................16 Business Associates - 0 records found..............................................................................18 Person Associates - 16 records found................................................................................18 Neighbors - 9 records found..................................................................................................22 Employment Locator - 1 records found..............................................................................23 Criminal Filings - 0 records found........................................................................................23 Sexual Offenders - 0 records found.....................................................................................23 Cellular & Alternate Phones - 4 records found.................................................................23 Utility Information - 0 records found ...................................................................................24 Possible Education - 0 records found.................................................................................24 Sources - 249 records found .................................................................................................24 861 of 1003
862 of 1003

Page 3 of 25 ends

No. Address

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
3: 12450 CARSON CT
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-2212

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
4: 33514 LIBERTY RD
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
5: 2 2 N JACKSON ST APT
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
6: 2 2 N JACKSON ST APT
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
7: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2N
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
8: 246 1/2 N JACKSON ST
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
9: 246 N JACKSON ST APT 1
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
246 1 2 N N
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2 NBR
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2445 E BETHEL DR
ANAHEIM, CA 92806-4705

ORANGE COUNTY
212 N JACKSON ST APT M
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2121 N JACKSON ST 2
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

N JACKSON
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
246 00001 2 ST N
GLENDALE, CA 91206
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 863 of 1003

Page 4 of 25 ends

No. Address
17: 206 000001 2 ST N
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
18:
19:
20:
21:
22:
23:
24:
25:
246 000001 2 ST N
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2 N JACKSON ST APT 212
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1326 STANLEY AVE APT 212
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4621

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
264 SINCLAIR AVE APT E
GLENDALE, CA 91206-3922

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
11925 HERCULES ST
NORWALK, CA 90650-2457

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
264 SINCLAIR AVE APT 2
GLENDALE, CA 91206-3922

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2 N JACKSON 212
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
12973 DALE EVANS CT
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6431

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Address Details
1: 130 BEECHWOOD ST COHASSET, MA 02025-2108
Address Dates Phone
130 BEECHWOOD ST 6/2022 - 6/2022 (781) 383-0940
COHASSET, MA 02025-2108

NORFOLK COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 41
Median Income: $87,671
Median Home Value: $591,912
Median Education: 14 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
2: 129 N ST ANDREWS PL LOS ANGELES, CA 90004-4019
Address Dates Phone
129 N ST ANDREWS PL 6/2022 - 6/2022
LOS ANGELES, CA 90004-4019
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 864 of 1003

Page 5 of 25 ends

Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 38
Median Income: $53,938
Median Home Value: $848,291
Median Education: 14 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates

DIZON, AMELIA C
3: 12450 CARSON CT YUCAIPA, CA 92399-2212
Address Dates Phone
12450 CARSON CT 1/2018 - 9/2022
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-2212

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 27
Median Income: $38,621
Median Home Value: $170,313
Median Education: 12 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates

DIZON, AMELIA C
4: 33514 LIBERTY RD YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434
Address
33514 LIBERTY RD
Dates
2011 - 10/2022
Phone
Phone
Phone
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434

MUPAS, DONNA LYNNE
5: 2 2 N JACKSON ST APT GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address
2 2 N JACKSON ST APT
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 45
Median Income: $52,412
Median Home Value: $668,134
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
Dates
5/1999 - 5/1999
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
6: 2 2 N JACKSON ST APT GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates
2 2 N JACKSON ST APT 5/1999 - 5/1999
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region 865 of 1003

Page 6 of 25 ends

Median Head of Household Age: 45
Median Income: $52,412
Median Home Value: $668,134
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
7: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2N GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335
Address Dates Phone
212 N JACKSON ST APT 2N
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 40
Median Income: $42,132
Median Home Value: $357,962
Median Education: 14 years
Household Members
1/1983 - 3/2021 (818) 244-4033
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
8: 246 1/2 N JACKSON ST GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
Address Dates Phone
246 1/2 N JACKSON ST 11/1986 - 9/2020
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333

ALIMURUNG, RANDY
9: 246 N JACKSON ST APT 1 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
Address Dates Phone
246 N JACKSON ST APT 1
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 40
Median Income: $42,132
Median Home Value: $357,962
Median Education: 14 years
Household Members
1983 - 9/2020
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
10: 246 1 2 N N GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates Phone
246 1 2 N N 1/1995 - 1/1995
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 45 866 of 1003

Page 7 of 25 ends

Median Income: $52,412
Median Home Value: $668,134
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
11: 2 NBR GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates Phone
2 NBR 1/1988 - 1/1988
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 45
Median Income: $52,412
Median Home Value: $668,134
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
12: 2445 E BETHEL DR ANAHEIM, CA 92806-4705
Address Dates Phone
2445 E BETHEL DR 1/2007 - 12/2018 (714) 991-5921
ANAHEIM, CA 92806-4705

ORANGE COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 40
Median Income: $80,569
Median Home Value: $549,216
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
13: 212 N JACKSON ST APT M GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335
Address Dates Phone
212 N JACKSON ST APT M
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 40
Median Income: $42,132
Median Home Value: $357,962
Median Education: 14 years
Household Members
5/2004 - 5/2004
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
14: 2121 N JACKSON ST 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates Phone
2121 N JACKSON ST 2 10/2017 - 10/2017
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 43
Median Income: $125,203 867 of 1003

Page 8 of 25 ends

Median Home Value: $867,771
Median Education: 16 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
15: N JACKSON GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates Phone
N JACKSON 4/2006 - 7/2012
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
16: 246 00001 2 ST N GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address
246 00001 2 ST N
Dates
6/1974 - 2006
Phone
Phone
Phone
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 45
Median Income: $52,412
Median Home Value: $668,134
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
17: 206 000001 2 ST N GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address
206 000001 2 ST N
Dates
2001 - 2001
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 46
Median Income: $49,544
Median Home Value: $573,864
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
18: 246 000001 2 ST N GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates
246 000001 2 ST N 1999 - 1999
GLENDALE, CA 91206

Page 9 of 25 ends

19: 2 N JACKSON ST APT 212 GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates Phone
2 N JACKSON ST APT 212
GLENDALE, CA 91206
6/1993 - 6/1993

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 45
Median Income: $52,412
Median Home Value: $668,134
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
20: 1326 STANLEY AVE APT 212 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4621
Address Dates
10/1976 - 4/1990
Phone
Phone
Phone
1326 STANLEY AVE APT 212
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4621

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 37
Median Income: $40,685
Median Home Value: $379,167
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
21: 264 SINCLAIR AVE APT E GLENDALE, CA 91206-3922
Address Dates
264 SINCLAIR AVE APT E 12/1989 - 12/1989
GLENDALE, CA 91206-3922

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 46
Median Income: $66,818
Median Home Value: $460,526
Median Education: 14 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
22: 11925 HERCULES ST NORWALK, CA 90650-2457
Address Dates
11925 HERCULES ST 12/2011 - 12/2011
NORWALK, CA 90650-2457

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 38
Median Income: $67,733
Median Home Value: $404,040
Median Education: 11 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed 869 of 1003

Page 10 of 25 ends

23: 264 SINCLAIR AVE APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-3922
Address Dates Phone
264 SINCLAIR AVE APT 2
GLENDALE, CA 91206-3922

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 46
Median Income: $66,818
Median Home Value: $460,526
Median Education: 14 years
Household Members
10/1976 - 10/1976
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
24: 2 N JACKSON 212 GLENDALE, CA 91206
Address Dates Phone
2 N JACKSON 212
GLENDALE, CA 91206

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 45
Median Income: $52,412
Median Home Value: $668,134
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
25: 12973 DALE EVANS CT YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6431
Address Dates Phone
12973 DALE EVANS CT
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6431

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Census Data for Geographical Region
Median Head of Household Age: 42
Median Income: $64,823
Median Home Value: $328,099
Median Education: 13 years
Household Members
5/2012 - 5/2012
None Listed
Other Associates
None Listed
Voter Registrations - 0 records found
Driver Licenses - 0 records found
Professional Licenses - 1 records found
1: Professional License
Licensee Information
Name: BANAAG, LETICIA BELMONTE
SSN: 548-82-XXXX
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County: LOS ANGELES
License Information
License Type: INSURANCE AGENT
License Number: 1752911
Issue Date: 2012
Expiration Date: 01/30/2018
Status: EXPIRED IN LAST YEAR
870 of 1003

Page 11 of 25 ends

1: Professional License
State: Texas
Health Care Providers - 0 records found
Health Care Sanctions - 0 records found
Pilot Licenses - 0 records found
Sport Licenses - 0 records found
Weapon Permits - 0 records found
Real Property - 12 records found
1: Deed Record for LOS ANGELES County
Buyer Information
Name: SCHRAGER , SUSAN
Name: BANAAG , LETICIA
Address: 130 BEECHWOOD ST COHASSET, MA 02025-2108
County/FIPS: NORFOLK
Seller Information
Name: PARKS , DANA LOU
Address:

Property Information
Address: 129 N ST ANDREWS PL LOS ANGELES, CA 90004-4019 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Data Source: B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 5516-021-003
Contract Date: 05/11/2022
Recording Date: 06/01/2022
Document Number: 22-0582190
Document Type: AFFIDAVIT DEATH OF TRUSTEE/SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE (LOS ANGELES

COUNTY ONLY)
Mortgage Information
Title Company: ACCOMMODATION
2: Assessment Record for SAN BERNARDINO County, CA
Owner Information
Name: BANAAG LETICIA B
Name: DIZON AMELIA C
Address: 12450 CARSON CT YUCAIPA, CA 92399
County/FIPS: SAN BERNARDINO
Property Information
Address: 12450 CARSON CT YUCAIPA, CA 92399
County/FIPS: SAN BERNARDINO
Data Source: B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 0318-641-11-0000
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $518946
3: Assessment Record for SAN BERNARDINO County, CA
Owner Information
Name: BANAAG LETICIA
Address: 33514 LIBERTY RD YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434
County/FIPS: SAN BERNARDINO
871 of 1003 Property Information

Page 12 of 25 ends

Address: 33514 LIBERTY RD YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434
County/FIPS: SAN BERNARDINO
Data Source: B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 0318-581-25-0000
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $348122
4: Deed Record for SAN BERNARDINO County
Buyer Information
Name: BANAAG, LETICIA
Address: 33514 LIBERTY RD YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434
County/FIPS: SAN BERNARDINO
Property Information
Address: 33514 LIBERTY RD YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434
County/FIPS: SAN BERNARDINO
Data Source: A
Lender Information
Name: SECRETARY/HSNG & URBAN DEV SECRETARY/HSN
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 0318-581-25
Contract Date: 11/22/2021
Recording Date: 12/27/2021
Document Number: 573352
Document Type: DEED OF TRUST
Mortgage Information
Loan Amount: $46130
Loan Type: FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
Title Company: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
Transaction Type: REFINANCE
Description: MORTGAGE
5: Assessment Record for LOS ANGELES County, CA
Owner Information
Name: BANAAG LETICIA
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Property Information
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Data Source: B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 5642-018-062
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $264594
6: Deed Record for LOS ANGELES County
Buyer Information
Name: BANAAG, LETICIA
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
872 of 1003 Seller Information

Page 13 of 25 ends

Name: BANAAG LETICIA B & EVANGELINE B
Address:

Property Information
Address: 246 1/2 N JACKSON ST GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Data Source: A
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 5642-018-039
Contract Date: 06/25/2020
Recording Date: 09/02/2020
Document Number: 1046025
Document Type: QUIT CLAIM
Mortgage Information
Title Company: ORANGE COAST TITLE CO
Transaction Type: NOMINAL
7: Assessment Record for LOS ANGELES County, CA
Owner Information
Name: BANAAG LETICIA B & EVANGELINE B
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Property Information
Address: 246 1/2 N JACKSON ST GLENDALE, CA 91206-4333
County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Data Source: B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 5642-018-039
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $195925
8: Deed Record for ORANGE County
Buyer Information
Name: BANAAG, LENTICIA
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Seller Information
Name: DIZON ARTEMIO C 2015 TRUST
Address:

Property Information
Address: 2445 E BETHEL DR ANAHEIM, CA 92806-4705
County/FIPS: ORANGE
Data Source: A
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 253-491-05
Contract Date: 06/13/2018
Recording Date: 06/15/2018
Document Number: 219702
Document Type: DEED
Sale Information
Sale Price: $300000
Mortgage Information
Title Company: PRIORITY TITLE-RIVERSIDE 873 of 1003

Page 14 of 25 ends

Transaction Type: RESALE
9: Deed Record for SAN BERNARDINO County
Buyer Information
Name: BANAAG, LETICIA
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Seller Information
Name: PACIFIC HORIZON BUILDERS
Address:

Property Information
Address: 12450 CARSON CT YUCAIPA, CA 92399
County/FIPS: SAN BERNARDINO
Data Source: A
Lender Information
Name: STEARNS LNDG STEARNS LNDG
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 0318-641-11
Contract Date: 01/26/2018
Recording Date: 01/31/2018
Document Number: 36753
Document Type: DEED
Sale Information
Sale Price: $484000
Mortgage Information
Loan Amount: $387000
Loan Type: CONVENTIONAL
Title Company: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE HSD
Transaction Type: SUBDIVISION/NEW CONSTRUCTION
Description: DEED OF TRUST
10: Assessment Record for ORANGE County, CA
Owner Information
Name: BANAAG LENTICIA
Address:

Property Information
Address: 2445 E BETHEL DR ANAHEIM, CA 92806-4705
County/FIPS: ORANGE
Data Source: A
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 253-491-05
Recording Date: 06/15/2018
Sale Information
Sale Date: 06/13/2018
Sale Price: $300000
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $158825
11: Deed Record for LOS ANGELES County
Buyer Information
Name: BANAAG, LETICIA
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 874 of 1003

Page 15 of 25 ends

County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Property Information
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Data Source: A
Lender Information
Name: QUICKEN LNS
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 5642-018-062
Contract Date: 04/29/2011
Recording Date: 05/09/2011
Document Number: 655102
Document Type: DEED OF TRUST
Mortgage Information
Loan Amount: $275500
Loan Type: CONVENTIONAL
Transaction Type: REFINANCE
Description: DEED OF TRUST
12: Assessment Record for ORANGE County, CA
Owner Information
Name: BANAAG LETICIA B
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2 GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335 County/FIPS: LOS ANGELES
Property Information
Data Source: B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel Number: 898-141-83
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $11144
Motor Vehicle Registrations - 1 records found
1: Non-Governmental Vehicle Record
Vehicle Information
VIN: 5J6RE38739L015965
Class: PASSENGER CAR/LIGHT TRUCK
Model Year: 2009
Make: Honda
Model: CR-V
Body Style: Utility
Owner Information
Name: BANAAG, LETICIA
DOB: 1/1940
Address: 212 N JACKSON ST APT 2
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Source Date First Seen: 11/29/2010
Source Date Last Seen: 11/29/2010
Source Information
Data Source: NON-GOVERNMENTAL
Boats - 0 records found
Aircraft - 0 records found
Bankruptcy Information - 0 records found
Judgments/Liens - 0 records found
UCC Liens - 0 records found
875 of 1003

Page 16 of 25 ends

Fictitious Businesses - 0 records found
Notice Of Defaults - 0 records found
Potential Relatives - 10 records found
1st Degree: 5, 2nd Degree: 5
No. Full Name Address/Phone

1. BANAAG, LAURA A 137 GINGER ROOT CT
LAS VEGAS, NV 89110-5265
• AKA BANAAC, LAURA A
• AKA BANAGG, LAURA A
• AKA BANAAG, L
318 SYCAMORE PL
SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024-1347
• AKA BANAAG, LAURA G
• AKA BANAG, LAURA A
• AKA BANNAAG, LAURA A
257 GREENBRIAR TOWNHOUSE WAY
LAS VEGAS, NV 89121-2468
(702) 458-7898
SSN:586-62-XXXX
DOB:7/1947
(Age: 75)
1483 E CALIFORNIA AVE
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4002
2776 W MADISON CIR
ANAHEIM, CA 92801-4997

1.A. BANAAG, ALFREDO G 318 SYCAMORE PL
SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024-1347
• AKA BANAAG, FRED GATCHALIAN
• AKA BANAAG, ALFREDO G
• AKA BANGAY, ALFREDO
257 GREENBRIAR TOWNHOUSE WAY
LAS VEGAS, NV 89121-2468
• AKA BANAAG, A (702) 458-7898
• AKA BANAAG, ALFRED
• AKA BANAAG, ALFREDO GATCHALIAN 1483 E CALIFORNIA AVE
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4002
SSN:586-07-XXXX
DOB:9/1938
(Age: 84)
257 GREEN BYER
LAS VEGAS, NV 89121
1477 E CALIFORNIA AVE
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4002
(818) 244-4534

1.B. BANAAG, HEIDI RUTH 318 SYCAMORE PL
SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024-1347
• AKA ONO, HEIDI BANAAG
• AKA BANANG, HEIDI
• AKA ONO, HEIDI R
1483 E CALIFORNIA AVE 9
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4002
SSN:562-73-XXXX
DOB:1976
1118 E LEXINGTON DR APT C
GLENDALE, CA 91206-5036
(Age: 46)
2900 FAIRWAY AVE APT 501
LA CRESCENTA, CA 91214-4302
1477 E CALIFORNIA AVE
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4002

2. BANAAG, OSIAS NATIVIDAD 1460 YOSEMITE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-2809
Deceased (323) 255-7956
• AKA BANAAG, OSIAS CHUA
876 of 1003

Page 17 of 25 ends

No. Full Name Address/Phone
• AKA OSIAS, BANAAG
• AKA DANAAG, OSIAS SR
• AKA OSIAS, N SR
3022 VALLE VISTA DR APT 4
LOS ANGELES, CA 90065-4438
• AKA BANAAG, OSLAS N
• AKA BANAAG, OSEAS N
• AKA BANNAG, OSIAS C
SSN:565-04-XXXX
DOB:3/1926
(Age: 96)

3. DACANAY, EMELITA B 2320 LANGDALE AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-2912
(323) 474-6448 • AKA BANAAG, EMELITA R
• AKA DACANAY, EMILITA
• AKA BANAAG, EMELITA R
• AKA DACANAY, EMELITA B
• AKA DACWAY, EMELITA
• AKA DACWAY, EMELITA
• AKA DACANAY, EMILITA
• AKA DACANAY, EMELITA R
• AKA BANAAG, E
3022 VALLE VISTA DR APT 4
LOS ANGELES, CA 90065-4438
(562) 739-7864
310 S ST ANDREWS PL APT 207
LOS ANGELES, CA 90020-4355
(562) 739-7864
• AKA DACANAY, EMELITA BANAAG
• AKA DACWAY, EMELITA B 1818 MICHIGAN AVE APT
LOS ANGELES, CA 90033-2452
SSN:605-20-XXXX
DOB:6/1960
(Age: 62) 1920 E CHEVY CHASE DR
GLENDALE, CA 91206-2816

3.A. DACANAY, RANOLD T 2320 LANGDALE AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-2912
• AKA DACANAY, HANOLD
• AKA DACANAY, RONALD T
• AKA DACANAY, HANOLD
• AKA DACANAY, RANOLD T
• AKA RANOLD, T DACANAY
• AKA DACANAY, RONNIE
3022 VALLE VISTA DR APT 4
LOS ANGELES, CA 90065-4438
(323) 550-8768
310 S ST ANDREWS PL APT 207
LOS ANGELES, CA 90020-4355
SSN:616-98-XXXX (323) 550-8768
310 S ARDEN BLVD APT
LOS ANGELES, CA 90020-4734
127 W CHESTNUT ST APT 1A
GLENDALE, CA 91204-1759

3.B. DACANAY, RAPHAEL B 2320 LANGDALE AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-2912
SSN:608-72-XXXX
DOB:3/1994
(Age: 28)

4. LUCERO, MARIETA BANAAG 4547 EAGLE ROCK BLVD APT 1
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-3482
• AKA BANAAG, MARIETA R
• AKA BANAAG, MARY R
• AKA MENDIOLA, MARIETA BANAAG
4547 EAGLE ROCK BLVD APT 12 877 of 1003 LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-3482

Page 18 of 25 ends

No. Full Name Address/Phone
• AKA LUCERO, ARIETA B
• AKA LUCERO, MARIETTA
• AKA LUCERO, MARIETA R
• AKA LUCERO, MARITZA
• AKA LUCERO, MARITA
• AKA LUCERO, NARIETA
• AKA MARIETA, BANAAG LUCERO
• AKA LUCERO, MARIETA C
1460 YOSEMITE DR APT 103
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-2809
7800 WOODMAN AVE APT 105
PANORAMA CITY, CA 91402-6254
11505 WELEBIR ST
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354-3631 SSN:619-09-XXXX
DOB:3/1967
(Age: 55)

4.A. LUCERO, GEORGE LAGOY 4547 EAGLE ROCK BLVD APT 12
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-3482
• AKA LUCERO, GEORGE B
• AKA LUCERO, GEORGE L
• AKA LUCERO, GEROGE LAGOY
• AKA LUCERO, GEORGE L
• AKA LUCER, GEORGE L
4403 CALEDONIA WAY
LOS ANGELES, CA 90065-4815
1460 YOSEMITE DR APT 103
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-2809
SSN:564-91-XXXX (323) 255-7956
DOB:2/1965
(Age: 57) 53 DIXIE SPRINGS CT
LAS VEGAS, NV 89148-4462
611 WING ST APT 103
GLENDALE, CA 91205-1988

5. BANAAG, VICENTA RIOFRIR 1460 YOSEMITE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-2809
Deceased (323) 255-7956
SSN:608-34-XXXX
DOB:9/1928
(Age: 94)
623 1/2 N CORONADO ST
LOS ANGELES, CA 90026-6660
11505 WELEBIR ST
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354-3631
1920 E CHEVY CHASE DR
GLENDALE, CA 91206-2816
Business Associates - 0 records found
Person Associates - 16 records found
No. Full Name Address SSN Phone DOB
1: ALIMURUNG, LOLITA B

BANAAG, L R

ALIMURONG, LOLITA B

BANAAG, LOLITA
915 HIGHLAND AVE APT H10 618-10-XXXX
0 DUARTE, CA 91010-1941
(323) 255-7956 8/1954
8/1954
2/1954
1954

ALIMONG, LOLITA

ALIMURNG, LOLITA

ALIMUIUNG, LOLITA B

ALIMUVUNG, LOLITA B

ALIMRUNG, LOLITA

ALIMURINY, LOLITA

ALIMURUN, LOLITA
1969 NORWALK AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-
2738
11755 MALAGA DR UNIT 108
3 RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CA 91730-
8125
878 of 1003

Page 19 of 25 ends

No. Full Name Address SSN Phone DOB
1460 YOSEMITE DR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-
2809
2515 YORK CT
SAN
BERNARDINO, CA 92408-
4129
2: VELASQUEZ, LORA LIEN

ALIMURUNG, LORA LIEN

ALIMURUNG, LORA L B

VELASQUEZ, LORA A

VELAZQUEZ,
7007 DREW CT
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CA 91701-
7505
619-15-XXXX 11/1979

LORALIEN ALIMURUNG

VELASQUEZ, LORA N

LORALIEN, ALIMURUNG

ALIMURUNG, LORALIEN V

BANAAG ALIMURUNG,

LORA LIEN

BANAAG, LORA LIEN

ALIMURUNG, LAURA LIEN

ALIMURUNG, LORALIEN B
2040 FAIR
PARK AVE APT 401
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-
1992
15215 S BUDLONG AVE APT
9 GARDENA, CA 90247-3518
4023 EAGLE
ROCK BLVD APT 5
LOS ANGELES, CA 90065-
3653
911 LA LOMA RD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90041-
2507
3: DIZON, AMELIA C

DICON, AMELIA C

DIZON, AMALIA C

BIZON, AMELIA

BANAAG, A

BANAAG, AMELIA C

DIVON, AMELIA C

RIZON, AMELIA C
12450 CARSON CT
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-2212
548-82-XXXX (559) 582-7285
(818) 244-4033
11/1944
11/1943
11/1942
212 N JACKSON ST APT 2
GLENDALE, CA 91206-4335
129 N ST ANDREWS PL
LOS ANGELES, CA 90004-
4019
PO BOX 834
CORCORAN, CA 93212-0834
2206 INDEPENDENCE PL
HANFORD, CA 93230-7391
4: KHOEMUPAS, TAYLOR A
CATALON, TAYLOR KHOEMUPAS
6001 SUN VISTA DR
AUSTIN, TX 78749-1335
611-36-XXXX 2/1990
2/1989

MUPAS, TAYLOR K

KHOE-MUPAS, TAYLOR A

KHOE, TAYLOR A
6620 HART LN APT B
AUSTIN, TX 78731-4125

CATALON, TAYLOR A

MUPAS, TAYLOR A

KHUEMUPAS, TAYLOR
6620B HART LN
AUSTIN, TX 78731-4125 879 of 1003

Page 20 of 25 ends

No. Full Name Address SSN Phone DOB

KHOE, MUPAS TAYLOR

MUPAS TAYLOR, K

TAYLOR, KHOE-MUPAS

MUPAS CATALON,

TAYLOR KHOE
26258 NEWPORT AVE
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354-4120
25177 STARR ST
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354-2921 KHOE MUPAS,

CATALON TAYLOR

TAYLOR, MUPAS

KHOE MUPAS, TAYLOR A

MUPAS, TAYLOR
5: MUPAS, GARRY MARK

MUPAS, GARRY A

MUPAS, GARY M

MUPAS, G
33514 LIBERTY RD
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434
563-37-XXXX (317) 943-0091
(323) 722-1625
(775) 237-2884
(775) 571-8883
(909) 810-1228
6/1963
1255 E CITRUS AVE APT 82
MUPAS, GARRY M REDLANDS, CA 92374-5360
10425 LA DONIA LN
MENTONE, CA 92359-1530
215 E LOS AMIGOS AVE
MONTEBELLO, CA 90640-
2767
3225 MCLEOD DR STE 100
LAS VEGAS, NV 89121-2257
6: MUPAS, ZENAIDA BANAAGE 33514 LIBERTY RD 545-56-XXXX (909) 810-1228 10/1933 ZENAIDA, MUPAS YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434

MUPAS, ZANAIDA B

BANAAG, ZENAIDA

MUPAS, ZENAIDA BUNAAG

MUPAS, ZENAIDA E

NUPAS, ZENAIDA B
10425 LA DONIA LN
MENTONE, CA 92359-1530
35005 LANGER CV
BEAUMONT, CA 92223-6262
35909 RENOIR PL
PALM DESERT, CA 92211-
4549
7: MUPAS, DONNA LYNNE

MUPAF, DONNA
56254 29 PALMS HWY SPC 5 563-37-XXXX
YUCCA VALLEY, CA 92284-
5202
11/1961
1962
33514 LIBERTY RD
YUCAIPA, CA 92399-6434
10600 SEPULVEDA BLVD ST
E 200D
MISSION HILLS, CA 91345-
1900
4000 THAMES CT
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93313-
4254
880 of 1003

Page 21 of 25 ends

Glendale City CouncilAugust 15, 2023

Glendale City Council
August 15, 2023