CC_1272026_Public Comment_17_10b — Glendale City Council, January 27, 2026

VIA EMAIL

October 15, 2025

Ara Najarian, Mayor Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
Ardy Kassakhian, Councilmember Community Development Department Dan Brotman, Councilmember City of Glendale
Elen Asatryan, Councilmember 633 E. Broadway, Room 103 Vartan Gharpetian, Councilmember Glendale, CA 91206
Glendale City Council [email protected]
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206 Bradley Calvert, Director
[email protected] Community Development Department [email protected] City of Glendale
[email protected] 633 E. Broadway, Room 103 [email protected] Glendale, CA 91206
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]

Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
Glendale City Clerk’s Office
613 E. Broadway, Unit 110
Glendale, CA 91206
[email protected]

Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 for the Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project (Stage II Design Review Case No. PDR 2212056)

Dear Mayor Najarian, Honorable Members of the Glendale City Council, Dr. Abajian, Mr. Joe, and Mr. Calvert:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in the City of Glendale (“City”) regarding the Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project (Case No. PDR-003195-2024) (“Project”), proposed by Anthony Ditteaux of Maple Multi-Family Land CA, LP (“Applicant”). The Project involves the construction of a new eight-story, 95-foot-tall, 655,418-square-foot, mixed-use development on a

4.57-acre site located at 236 North Central Avenue, 212 West California Avenue, and 201 West California Avenue, in downtown Glendale, California. The Project is scheduled to be heard at the City Council meeting on October 21, 2025 at 6pm.

Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project
October 15, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

Through the recently-enacted Assembly Bill 130 (“AB 130”), the Applicant has sought to exempt the Project from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). AB 130 establishes a new statutory exemption from CEQA for qualifying infill housing projects. (See AB 130 § 59; Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66 [“PRC”].) As discussed below, AB 130 specifies construction labor standards for certain types of projects, including buildings taller than 85 feet, such as the proposed Project here. Therefore, under AB 130, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council require the Applicant to: (1) employ a skilled and trained construction workforce; and (2) pay its construction workforce prevailing wages.

DISCUSSION

AB 130 states that the labor standards of Government Code § 65913.4(a)(8) [“Gov.

Code”] apply to buildings over 85 feet in height for any housing development project that otherwise qualifies for a CEQA exemption under AB 130. (PRC § 21080.66(d)(2); AB 130 § 59(d)(2).) Here, the Project will be 95 feet tall, thereby triggering the labor standards of Gov.

Code § 65913.4(a)(8).

I. The Applicant must employ a skilled and trained construction workforce to build the Project.

Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i) states, inter alia, that the developer for any project over 85 feet tall shall enter construction contracts with prime contractors only if the contract contains an enforceable commitment that the prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in Public Contract Code § 2601(d), to perform work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation, as defined in PCC § 2601(a), in the building and construction trades. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i)(I).)

Public Contract Code § 2601(d) [“PCC”] defines a “skilled and trained workforce” as a workforce that meets the following conditions, among others:

(1) All workers performing work in an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades are either skilled journeypersons or apprentices registered in an apprenticeship program approved by the chief.

(2)(A) For work performed on or after January 1, 2017, at least 30 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation. This requirement shall not apply to work performed in the occupation of teamster. . . .

(2)(D) For work performed on or after January 1, 2020, at least 60 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation, except that the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 Central Avenue Mixed-Use Project
October 15, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

continue to apply to work performed in the following occupations: acoustical installer, bricklayer, carpenter, cement mason, drywall installer or lather, marble mason, finisher, or setter, modular furniture or systems installer, operating engineer, pile driver, plasterer, roofer or waterproofer, stone mason, surveyor, teamster, terrazzo worker or finisher, and tile layer, setter, or finisher.

(PCC § § 2601(d).) PCC § 2601(a) defines an “apprenticeable occupation” as an occupation for which the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations had approved an apprenticeship program pursuant to California Labor Code § 3075 [“CLC”] before 2014.

Here, because the Project building will be over 85 feet tall, the Applicant must use a skilled and trained workforce at every tier to perform work on the Project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades.

II. The Applicant must pay its construction workforce prevailing wages for the Project.

For any development that is not entirely a public work, Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A) requires, inter alia, that all construction workers employed in the execution of the subject project be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations under CLC §§ 1733 and 1733.9.

However, apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (Gov.

Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(i).) Additionally, the development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work and shall also provide notice of all contracts for the performance of the work to the Department of Industrial Relations for the portions of the development that are not a public work. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(ii).)

Here, because the Project is not a wholly public work and will be over 85 feet tall, the Applicant must pay all its construction workers prevailing wages.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the City Council must require the Applicant to use a skilled and trained construction workforce and pay its construction workforce prevailing wages, in compliance with the labor standards set forth in AB 130. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Richard T. Drury

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
January 26, 2026
Orange Plaza Group LLC
213 N Orange St, Suite A
Glendale, CA 91203
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway,
Glendale, CA 91206

RE: 236 North Central Ave. (Includes 236 N. Central Ave, 201 W. California Ave & 212 W.

California Ave) – Case No. PDR 2212056 & 192V

Dear Dennis Joe, Suzie Abajian, and City Staff:

I am writing regarding Alley Vacation Case No. 192V, in accordance with Case No. PDR 2212056, for the project located at 236 North Central Avenue (including 236 N. Central Ave, 201 W. California Ave, and 212 W. California Ave). The project proposes the vacation of a portion of the public alley located easterly of North Central Avenue and southerly of West California Avenue.

As shown in the alley vacation notice and accompanying map, the proposed action would eliminate an existing north–south public access corridor. Based on the associated development plans, it appears that this access is intended to be replaced by an east–west paseo/drive aisle located along the eastern side of the project site, identified on the site plan as a paseo and driveway connection.

Ideally, this replacement access would be formally established and dedicated as a public alley, maintaining its status within the City’s public right-of-way system and ensuring long- term continuity of public circulation equivalent to the alley proposed for vacation.

However, because the alley is proposed to be vacated and conveyed into private ownership, there is concern that, absent explicit legal protections, the proposed replacement paseo/drive aisle could be gated, restricted, or otherwise closed to public use in the future.

Site plan labels alone do not establish permanent public access rights, particularly once ownership changes. Absent dedication of a replacement public alley or a permanent public access easement, approval of the alley vacation would create a net loss of public right-of-way and access, inconsistent with established planning and public circulation standards.

To ensure continuity of public access equivalent to the vacated alley, we respectfully request that the City require the following as conditions of approval for the alley vacation and related development:

1. Either the dedication of the replacement paseo/drive aisle as a public alley, or, at a minimum:

2. A recorded public access easement over the newly created paseo/drive aisle, connecting to the remainder of the existing public alley, providing unrestricted public pedestrian and vehicular access.

3. The easement to be perpetual, irrevocable, and running with the land, binding all future owners.

4. Explicit language prohibiting gates, bollards, access controls, or time-based closures that would limit public access.

5. Clear identification of the paseo/drive aisle as the replacement public access for the vacated alley.

These protections are necessary to ensure that the proposed alley vacation does not result in a net loss of public circulation and connectivity. Without such measures, the public access currently provided by the alley could be permanently lost.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We respectfully request confirmation that permanent public access rights will be secured as part of the alley vacation approval.

Sincerely,

Artak Dovlatyan
Managing Member

On behalf of:

Orange Plaza Group LLC
• 213 N Orange St, Glendale, CA 91203
• 211 W Wilson Ave, Glendale, CA 91203
• 213 W Wilson Ave, Glendale, CA 91203

Orange Wilson LLC
• 115–123 W Wilson Ave, Glendale, CA 91203
• 204 N Orange St, Glendale, CA 91203

Tataryan Family Holdings LLC
• 210 N Central Ave, Glendale, CA 91203

214 Central Ave LLC
• 214 N Central Ave, Glendale, CA 91203

1 of 6

FRANCESCA SMITH

September 11, 2025
Chair Joseph Kaskanian and members of the Design Review Board City of Glendale
Design Review Board
Via e-mail to [email protected]

RE: Design Review Board Agenda Item b. 236 North Central and 201-211 West California Avenues Design Review No. 003195-2024 (Advisory)

Dear Chair Kaskanian and Board Members:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Based on my expertise in environmental review, I believe that the City of Glendale is improperly planning to clear the Sears and Sears Automotive project at 236 North Central and 201-211 West California, and 309-315 North Orange Avenues (proposed project) using the wrong type of environmental clearance document. Based on the facts provided in this leĴer, I believe that the proposed project is not eligible for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for qualifying inﬁll housing.

As pronounced in the Design Review Staﬀ Report – Downtown Speciﬁc Plan Project Advisory Review By The Design Review Board (Staﬀ Report) Project Description:

The project location is a 4.57-acre site located at 236 North Central Avenue and 212 W. California Avenue, and 201 West California Avenue and consists of two sites:
(i) a 3.7-acre Mixed-Use Building Site and
(ii) a 0.87-acre Potential Public Park Site, both located withing the Downtown Speciﬁc Plan, Orange Central District (DSP/OC).

The Mixed-Use Building Site, located at 236 North Central Avenue and [201-]212 West California Avenue [and 309 North Orange Avenue], is bounded to the north by West California Avenue, to the west by North Central Avenue, and to the east by North Orange Street, includes four parcels (APNs: 5642-015-045, 5642-015-056, 5642- 015-057, and 5642-015-058) and is bisected by Alley 239, an 18[-]foot[-]wide public alley.

Project proposes the demolition of the 176,629 square-foot three-story retail building (former Sears Department Store), 164,308 square-foot three-level parking structure 2 of 6

and a small asphalt surface parking lot and to construct a new 8-story, 655,418 square-foot, Mixed-Use Building that includes 682 residential units… The Potential Public Park Site, located at 201[-211] West California [and 309-315 North Orange Avenues] on the northwest corner of North Orange Avenue and West California Avenue, includes three parcels (APNs 5643-020-038, 5643-020-039, and 5643-020-040). This Site, currently developed with two vehicle repair buildings totaling 15,933 square-feet and associated surface parking, is being made available for purchase by the City of Glendale for development of a public park.

The Staﬀ Report omits the fact that the “potential public park site” at 201-211 West California and 309-315 North Orange Avenues has a range of addresses, contains one parcel that has been delinquent in paying taxes since 2023 (see Los Angeles County Tax Assessor Property Portal website) and mor than likely contains hazardous materials that must be remediated at great cost to the city, in order to be used as a park. The project description does not even contain the full range of addresses for the proposed project. CEQA requires an accurate, stable and ﬁnite project description. The fact that the open space is merely potential also begs the question- what if the potential park does not work out? Are any alternatives oﬀered that would satisfy the already below- the-required-minimum open space?
In the “Environmental Review” section, the same Staﬀ Report states:

On June 30, 2025, budget trailer bills AB 130 and AB 131 were signed and took eﬀect immediately. AB 130 added Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 creating a new statutory CEQA exemption for certain qualifying inﬁll hosing (sic) project that meet following criteria:
• Project site is no more than 20 acres.
• Project site is within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, or "urban area" as deﬁned by the U.S. Census Bureau.
• Project site was previously developed with "urban uses" or is substantially surrounded by sites developed with urban uses.
• Project is consistent with local zoning standards, applicable general plan standards and any applicable local coastal program, subject to deviations allowed by the State Density Bonus Law.
• Project must be at least half the density deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income households in the State Housing Element Law, as set forth in Gov.

Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)
•Project will not require demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a historic register before the project's preliminary application was submiĴed. •For projects submiĴed after Jan. 1, 2025, no portion of the project will be used as a hotel, motel, or bed and breakfast.
3 of 6

•All project sites must satisfy SB 35's site eligibility criteria (farmland, wetlands and conservation/species habitat areas are excluded, and coastal sites, ﬁre hazard zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones and ﬂood areas are subject to speciﬁed restrictions) (emphasis added pages 2 and 3).

The Staﬀ Report further states that “Staﬀ has reviewed the project and has determined that it meets the criteria and is statutorily exempt from CEQA review per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.” CEQA review must address the “whole of an action” subject to a public agency’s discretionary approval, meaning the proposed residential project as well as the proposed public park at the former Sears Automotive property at 201-211 West California Avenue, which the project is reliant on to provide required open space. Page 5 of the Staﬀ Report states “The design for the public park has not been developed by the City at this time.” The whole of the action in not being reviewed.

You are being asked, through no fault of your own, to review a very large, proposed residential project that does not contain adequate or even usable open space within its boundaries. Comprehensive review of the whole of this project would ensure that the overall potential environmental consequences of the proposed undertaking are analyzed and addressed. Without knowing the consequences of the entire project decision-makers like your do not have a complete picture of a project's eﬀects, allowing agencies to make well-informed decisions about project alternatives (what if the “proposed park” does not pan out?) and mitigation, such as hazardous materials remediation.

California Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 directs in Section (c)(1) (A) The local government shall, as a condition of approval for the development, require the development proponent to complete a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) If a recognized environmental condition is found, the development proponent shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity.
(C) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy.
(D) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory 4 of 6

standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy (emphasis added).

Unfortunately, staﬀ seems to have overlooked Senate Bill 35’s site eligibility criteria which states “A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses.” Data sources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identiﬁed as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements are:
 List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database 1
 List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database 2
 List of solid waste disposal sites identiﬁed by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit3
 List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board.4
 List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identiﬁed by the Department of Toxic Substances.5
It is extremely likely that former Sears Automotive property at 201-211 West California Avenue contain unremediated hazardous materials (hazmat). The extent of these liabilities is unclear, but Sears and Sears Automotive’s steep and sudden ﬁnancial decline with its strategy of selling properties, sometimes to ﬁrms with ties to former its Chief Executive Oﬃcer E. Lampert, have complicated the issue. After decades of

1 hĴps://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?PAGE=3&CMD=search&ocieerp=&business_name=& main_street_number=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&branch=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&site_type=CSITES%2 CFUDS&cleanup_type=&npl=&funding=&reporĴype=CORTESE&reporĴitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+L IST+%28CORTESE%29&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=& non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&cvci=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&congress= &assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&display_results=&school_district=&pub=&hwmp=False&permiĴed=&pc_p ermiĴed=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract=&cesdecile=&ORDERBY=city&next=Next+50 2 hĴps://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?page=220&cmd=search&business_name =&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&status=&branch=&site_type=LUFT&npl=&funding=&reporĴitle=PROJECT+SEARCH +RESULTS&reporĴype=&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&permiĴed=&corrective_act ion=&spec_prog=&national_priority_list=&senate=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_sit e_type=&facility_type=&watershed=&gwbasin=&excludenc=False&orderby=city 3 hĴps://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf 4 SiteCleanupCorteseList.xls This list contains numerous Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders that do not concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. Many of the listed orders concern, as examples, discharges of domestic sewage, food processing wastes, or sediment that do not contain hazardous materials, but the Water Boards’ database does not distinguish between these types of orders. If there is a question about whether a speciﬁc order concerns the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials, please contact the applicable Regional Water Board. 5 hĴps://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/ 5 of 6

performing automobile service at these locations, it is known that Sears Automotive centers handled vehicle maintenance for extended periods, involving the use and storage of materials such as oil, antifreeze and numerous other automotive chemicals.

This historical use increases the potential for soil and groundwater contamination from spills or leaks of substances, including petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals.

The decline of Sears and its bankruptcy proceedings have resulted in complex asset sales. In a 2015 spinoﬀ, many Sears other stores were transferred to Seritage Growth Properties, which began the process to redevelop those properties. After its 2019 bankruptcy, the remaining assets were sold to Transform Holdco. The shifting ownership adds an additional layer of complexity to tracking environmental responsibilities and cleanup eﬀorts.

The practice of "spinning oﬀ" environmental liabilities into separate, undercapitalized companies to avoid cleanup costs is a known tactic and a common way to defer the liabilities for distressed corporations. It was previously noted that the Sears Automotive property has been delinquent in its property tax bill being paid for the past two years.

There is evidence of past hazmat violations at Sear Automotive properties. Sears has a history of environmental-related issues. In 2008, it paid a $600,000 seĴlement to the California Air Resources Board for violations related to the sale of non-compliant automotive products.6
Environmental cleanup responsibilities for former Sears auto properties are often determined by the speciﬁc transaction under which the property was sold. A common transaction for distressed companies are the creation of Environmental Liability Transfers (ELTs) that involve selling properties to buyers who assume all environmental liabilities in exchange for a lower price. Should this project be dependent on an ELT that would leave the City of Glendale ﬁnancially responsible for its clean-up? How “potential” is this project’s proposed park, which leaves the numerous future residents without the required open space, even considering the proposed, future park that is not even owned by the city?
Lampert's hedge fund, ESL Investments, and its successor, Transformco, have been central to the corporate maneuvering that involve Sears Automotive properties.

Transformco publicly states its commitment to environmental stewardship, but the lawsuits and asset sales surrounding the bankruptcy raise questions about the handling of environmental liabilities.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state-level agencies, such as the California State Water Resources Control Board, oversee the investigation and

6 See hĴps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sears-holdings-corp-seĴlement-2008 6 of 6

cleanup of contaminated sites. When contamination is severe and responsible parties are unclear or unable to pay, the federal Superfund program may be used for cleanup.

The upshot is, the City of Glendale would be responsible for performing hazmat remediation at the “proposed public park” property that would enable the larger Sears parcel to be developed. Does that park sound like an appropriate gift to you? Does it even sound like a gift when both remediation is expected to be required and delinquent taxes are overdue? Should a park even be built where hazardous materials are present? That what this enormous project relies on: a “gift” from the city to make it work.

Please take these important factors into consideration in performing your review.

Would this project actually beneﬁt Glendale or are we enabling an inappropriately large project, using the wrong type of CEQA review, to cram too many units into a sizable central property that cannot even support itself without relying on the potential gift of an assemblage of dirty, former auto repair parcels reincarnated as a park? “Kids, get your coats! Let’s go play on the remediated ‘potential park!’ ” Please do not recommend approval of this design to City Council. It is too early to make an important decision that would cause demolition of what is probably a historic building beneath the door and window covers, and to allow a private developer to proﬁt from our mistakes.

Thanks for your service. Please ensure that this leĴer is included in the Administrative Record for this project.

Sincerely,
F. Smith
F. Smith
Glendale Resident and former DRB member

Cc: Dennis Joe, case planner
Suzie Abajian, PhD, City Clerk
Glendale City Council members
Craig Scholer, Chief Deputy Director, DTSC

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
In the Matter of: Doc ket HWCA:

HWCA20157178;
HWCA20157180;
HWCA20157203;
HWCA20157181;
HWCA20157183;
HWCA20157182;
HWCA20157185;
HWCA20157186;
HWCA20157188;
HWCA20157189;
HWCA20157191;
HWCA20157192;
HWCA20157193;
HWCA20157196;
HWCA20157194;
HWCA20157179;
HWCA20157200;
HWCA20157195;
HWCA20157199;
HWCA20157201;
HWCA20157190;
HWCA20157204;
HWCA20157205;
HWCA20157206;
HWCA20157207;
Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc.;
Burnham Holdings, Inc.;
Carrier Corporation;
Chromalox;
Crane;
Climate Master, Inc.;
Empire Comfort Systems;
General Electric Company;
Honeywell International Inc.;
Hunter Fan Company;
Invensys, Inc.;
ITT Corporation;
Johnson Controls;
Lear Siegler;
Lennox International Inc.;
Lux Products;
The Marley-Wylain Company;
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC;
Sears Holdings;
Thomas & Betts Corporation;
Trane Residential Systems;
Uponor, Inc.;
Vaillant Corporation;
W. W. Grainger;
and White-Rodgers

CONSENT ORDER
Health and Safety Code
Section 25187 and 25214.8.17
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Parties. The Parties to this Consent Order (“Order”) are the State Department of Toxic Substances Control (Department) and Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Burnham Holdings, Inc.; Carrier Corporation; Chromalox; Crane; Climate Master, Inc.; Empire Comfort Systems; General Electric Company; Honeywell International Inc.; Hunter Fan Company; Invensys, Inc.; ITT Corporation; Johnson Controls; Lear Siegler; Lennox International Inc.; Lux Products; The Marley - Wylain Company; Nortek Global HVAC, LLC; Sears Holdings; Thomas & Betts Corporation; Trane Residential Systems; Uponor, Inc.; Vaillant Corporation; W. W. Grainger; and White- Rodgers (collectively, Respondents).

1.2. Definition of Manufacturer. California Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.11, subdivision (a) defines a Manufacturer “as a business concern that owns or owned a name brand of mercury-added thermostats sold in this state before January 1, 2006.” Each Respondent has been identified by the Department as a Manufacturer.

1.3. Definition of Program. California Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.11, subdivision (a) defines a Program as “a system for the collection, transportation, recycling, and disposal of out-of-service mercury-added thermostats that is financed, as well as managed or provided, by a manufacturer or collectively with other manufacturers.”

1.4. Exhibits. All exhibits attached to this Order are incorporated herein by this reference.

1.5. Actions Challenging Order. In the event that a third party brings an action against the Department that challenges the legality of this Order, or that could result in the nullification or modification of this Order, the Department shall promptly notify the Respondents in accordance with the notice procedures herein.

VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

2.1. C
alifornia Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.12, subdivision (a), subparagraph (1) requires a Manufacturer to maintain a Program to collect out-of-service mercury-added thermostats. California Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.12, subdivision (a), subparagraph (2) allows a Manufacturer to establish a Program individually or collectively with other Manufacturers. To fulfill these obligations, each Respondent has chosen to utilize its membership 2 in the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC), a non-profit stewardship organization founded in 1998 that facilitates and manages the collection and disposal of out-of-service mercury-added thermostats.

2.2. Cal
ifornia Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.17, subdivision (b), subparagraph (1) required the Department to establish through regulation performance requirements that specify collection rates expressed as a percentage of out-of-service mercury-added thermostats becoming waste annually. The performance requirements are specified in California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 66274.5, subsection (a), which became effective on July 1, 2013. The Mercury Thermostat Collection Act of 2008 (MTCA), California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5, Article

10.2.2, does not mandate the removal of mercury-added thermostats from buildings, but rather focuses on the establishment and maintenance of a collection, transportation, recycling and disposal program of the maximum feasible number of out-of-service mercury-added thermostats.

2.3. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.13, subdivision (i) and the California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 66274.8, Respondents are required to submit an annual report to the Department that includes a description of how they have operated the Program, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Program, an accounting of the costs of the Program, and modifications the Manufacturers are proposing to make to the Program, if any. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 66274.8, subsection (a), the annual report is required to include a listing of all Manufacturers that are represented in the Program that historically produced mercury-added thermostats and sold them in California. To fulfill these obligations, TRC submitted (a) its 2013 Annual Program Report for California to the Department on or about March 28, 2014; and (b) its 2014 Annual Program Report for California on or about March 31, 2015.

2.4. After reviewing the 2013 Annual Program Report that was submitted by TRC on behalf of the Respondents, the Department issued a summary of violation (the 2013 SOV) on or about July 3, 2014, to each Respondent alleging, inter alia, that the Respondent had failed (a) to meet the performance requirement for 2013 and (b) to propose enhancements sufficient to meet the performance requirements for 2014.

2.5. Respondents have filed responses to the 2013 SOV contesting its allegations on a 3 number of factual and legal grounds.

2.6. After reviewing the 2014 Annual Program Report that was submitted by TRC on behalf of the Respondent, the Department issued a summary of violation (the 2014 SOV) on or about June 9, 2015 to each Respondent alleging, inter alia, that the Respondent had failed (a) to meet the performance requirement for 2014 and (b) to propose enhancements sufficient to meet the performance requirements for 2015.

2.7. Respondents have filed responses to the 2014 SOV contesting its allegations on a number of factual and legal grounds.

2.8. The Parties wish to avoid the uncertainty and expense of administrative and/or judicial proceedings that would be necessary to resolve the 2013 and 2014 SOVs. In addition, the pilot programs and program enhancements required by this Order will yield data over the next several years that will assist the Respondents in identifying means of increasing the number of out-of- service mercury-added thermostats collected.

2.9. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 25187 and 25214.8.17.

California Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.17, subdivision (a) authorizes the Department to order a Manufacturer, or a group of Manufacturers operating a Program, to revise its Program and to undertake actions to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5, Article 10.2.2, MTCA. California Health and Safety Code section 25187 authorizes the Department to order action necessary to correct violations and assess a penalty when the Department determines that any person has violated specified provisions of the Health and Safety Code or any permit, rule, regulation, standard, or requirement issued or adopted pursuant thereto.

2.10. Respondents waive any right to a hearing with respect to the violations alleged in the 2013 and 2014 SOVs.

2.11. This Order shall constitute full settlement of all violations alleged in the 2013 and 2014 SOVs.

2.12. This Order does not (a) limit the Department from taking appropriate enforcement action concerning any unrelated violations of the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5 or its implementing regulations; (b) limit the Department from taking appropriate enforcement action of 4 any future violations of the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5 or its implementing regulations; or (c) limit the Department’s ability to pursue any available remedy for breach of this Order. Respondents reserve the right to assert any and all statutory, regulatory and common law rights and defenses to any alleged breach of this Order. Nothing in this Order, including but not limited to, the penalty provisions contained or referenced herein, shall constitute an acknowledgment or admission of liability by any Respondent, and each Respondent expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing in connection with the allegations contained in the 2013 and 2014 SOVs.

PENALTY

3. Based on the foregoing DETERMINATION OF VIOLATIONS, the Department sets the Respondents’ penalty at $625,000. Payment is due within thirty (30) days from the effective d ate of the Order. Respondents’ checks shall be made payable to the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and shall identify each Respondent and Docket Number, as shown in Exhibit C.

Respondents shall deliver the penalty payment to:

Department of Toxic Substances Control
Ac
counting Office
1001 I Street, 21st Floor
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
A phot
ocopy of the check will be sent to the Department contact person identified in Paragraph 5.1.

RESPONDENTS’ PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE

4. Respondents shall conduct all of the actions detailed in Exhibit B in accordance with the schedule set forth therein.

SUBMITTALS

5.1. Notice. All submittals from Respondents pursuant to this Consent Order shall be sent to:

Mr. Donn Diebert, Chief
Im
plementation Unit
Policy and Program Support Division
Hazardous Waste Management Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
1001 I Street
P.O. Box 806
5 Sacramento, California 95812-0806
Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, each Respondent shall provide the Department with the name and address of a contact person to whom all notices pursuant to this Consent Order shall be sent.

5.2. Communications. All approvals by the Department of the Plans required by this Order and other decisions of the Department made regarding submittals shall be communicated to Respondents in writing by a Branch Chief, Hazardous Waste Management Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or his/her designee. Except as otherwise provided herein, no informal advice, guidance, suggestions, or comments by the Department regarding reports, work plans, schedules, or any other correspondence by Respondents shall be construed to relieve Respondents of their obligation to obtain such formal approvals as required by this Order.

5.3. Department Review of Submittals. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of any plan, report, data, request, or other item that is submitted or required to be submitted, or revised and resubmitted, to the Department for approval pursuant to this Order, the Department shall in writing:
(a) approve the submission; (b) approve the submission upon specified conditions; (c) approve part of the submission, which part may be implemented by Respondents, and disapprove the remainder; or (d) disapprove the complete submission. In the event of disapproval of any portion of the submission, the Department shall include a statement of the reasons for such disapproval in its response and provide an appropriate extension date for the Respondents to address such disapproval. Respondents may dispute the Department's disapproval by invoking the dispute resolution procedures described in Paragraph 16 herein.

OTHER PROVISIONS

6. Compliance with Applicable Laws. Respondents shall carry out this Order in compliance with all local, state, and federal requirements, including but not limited to requirements to assure worker safety and requirements related to hazardous waste management.

7. Data and Document Availability. Respondents shall permit the Department and its authorized representatives to inspect and copy all data generated by Respondents or on Respondents' behalf in any way pertaining to work undertaken pursuant to this Order. Respondents 6 shall maintain a central depository of the data, reports, and other documents prepared pursuant to this Order. All such data, reports, and other documents shall be preserved by Respondents for a minimum of six years after the conclusion of all activities under this Order. If the Department requests that some or all of these documents be preserved for a longer period of time, Respondents shall comply with that request, deliver the documents to the Department, or permit the Department to copy the documents prior to destruction. Respondents shall notify the Department in writing at least six (6) months prior to destroying any documents prepared pursuant to this Order.

8. Government Liabilities. The State of California shall not be liable for injuries or damages to persons or property resulting from acts or omissions by Respondents or related parties specified in Exhibit B, et seq., in carrying out activities pursuant to this Order, nor shall the State of California be held as a party to any contract entered into by Respondents or its agents in carrying out activities pursuant to this Order.

9. Incorporation of Plans and Reports. All plans, schedules, and reports that are submitted by Respondents and approved by the Department pursuant to this Order are incorporated in this Order.

10. Extension Requests. If Respondents are unable to perform any activity or submit any document within the time required pursuant to this Order, Respondents may, prior to expiration of the time, request an extension of time in writing. The extension request shall include a justification for the delay.

11. Extension Approvals. If the Department determines that good cause exists for an extension, it will grant the request and specify in writing a new compliance schedule. "Good cause" shall include delays by the Department in completing its review of and response to submittals by Respondents to the extent that future deadlines are impacted as specified in the schedule.

Respondents shall comply with the new schedule specified by the Department, which shall be incorporated by reference into this Order.

12. Additional Enforcement Actions. By agreeing to this Order, the Department does not waive the right to take further enforcement actions against the Respondents, except to the extent inconsistent with this Order. In addition to any other factor the Department may consider in 7 assessing penalties for noncompliance, in accordance with Section 66272.68, Title 22, California Code of Regulations, in considering penalties for failing to collect sufficient out-of-service mercury- added thermostats in any future year, the Department will consider the Manufacturers’ cooperation and efforts in achieving compliance and carrying out their responsibilities and obligations in accordance with this Order. Cooperation in achieving compliance is the standard and all necessary good faith efforts to collect the required number of out-of-service mercury-added thermostats must be made.

13. Penalties for Noncompliance. Respondents’ failure to comply with the terms of this Order may subject Respondents to civil penalties and liability for any costs incurred by the Department as a result of such failure. Following the Department’s determination that Respondents have failed to comply with a requirement of the Order, the Department shall give Respondents written notification of the violation and describe the factual and legal circumstances constituting noncompliance. The Department may send Respondents a written notice of noncompliance with an opportunity to cure by a date designated by the Department in lieu of a written demand for the payment of penalties. Respondents may dispute any finding of noncompliance by invoking the dispute resolution procedures described in Paragraph 16. Respondents reserve all of their rights and defenses with respect to any effort by the Department to impose penalties or seek reimbursement of costs for violations of this Order.

14. Parties Bound. This Order shall apply to and be binding upon the signing Respondents and its officers, directors, agents, receivers, trustees, employees, contractors, consultants, successors, and assignees, including but not limited to individuals, partners, and subsidiary and parent corporations, and upon the Department and any successor agency that may have responsibility for and jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Order.

15. Time Periods. "Days" for purposes of this Order means calendar days .

16. Dispute Resolution Procedure. The parties agree to use their best efforts to resolve all disputes on an informal basis. However, if any of the named Respondents disagree with any written decision or action by the Department pursuant to this Order, Respondents shall orally notify the 8 Department Project Coordinator(s) of the dispute. The Project Coordinator(s) shall attempt to resolve the dispute informally.

16.1. If the Project Coordinator(s) cannot resolve the dispute informally, Respondents may submit written objection to the Chief, Policy and Program Support Division, or his or her designee, with a copy to the Department’s Project Coordinator, within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Department’s written decision. The written objection must set forth the specific points of the dispute and the basis for Respondents’ position.

16.2. The Department and Respondents shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of Respondents’ written objection of the Department’s decision to resolve the dispute through formal discussions with the Department’s Deputy Director, Hazardous Waste Management Program. The Department may agree to extend this period in writing.

16.3. Upon the conclusion of the formal discussion period described in Paragraph 16.2 above, the Department shall provide Respondents with its written decision on the dispute, which shall constitute a final agency decision. The Department’s written decision shall reflect any agreements reached during the dispute resolution period and be signed by the Deputy Director or his or her designee.

16.4. During the pendency of any dispute resolution proceedings initiated under this Paragraph, set forth above, the time periods for completion of work to be performed under this Order that are affected by such dispute shall be extended for a period of time not to exceed the actual time taken to resolve the dispute. The existence of a dispute shall not excuse, toll, or suspend any other compliance obligation or deadline required pursuant to this Order except to the extent that such other compliance obligation or deadline is dependent upon the resolution of the matter which is the subject of Dispute Resolution under this Order, in which case the time periods for completion of such other compliance obligations or deadlines required pursuant to this Order that are affected by such Dispute Resolution shall be extended for a period of time not to exceed the actual time taken to resolve the dispute.

16.5. Penalties assessed by the Department against Respondents for noncompliance with this Order shall accrue but shall not become due and payable until the conclusion of the dispute 9 resolution.

17. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Order is the date it has been signed by the Department. This Order shall remain in effect until Respondents have complied with all parts of this Order.

18. Integration. This Order and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may not be amended, supplemented, or modified, except as provided in this Order.

19. This Order may be executed in counterparts.

20. Force Majeure. Any event that is beyond the reasonable control of Respondents and that prevents timely performance of any obligation under this Order, despite Respondents' best efforts to fulfill that obligation, is a force majeure event. In exercising its best efforts, Respondents must anticipate any potential force majeure event and address the effects of such event as it is occurring and, following such event, minimize any delay to the greatest feasible extent. Force majeure does not include financial inability to fund or complete the obligations required by this Order.

Dated: FzB ·3, 20 ti/:>
tx..;. (111,vf Vi Cf f/2-'i:S1 pt( N., P.11/l ·
Bard Manufacturing Company,--J.A&., Respondent
Dated: --------
Burnham Holdings, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Carrier Corporation, Respondent
Dated: --------
Chromalox, Respondent
10 original signed by Paul Mats

17. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Order is the date it has been signed by the Department. This Order shall remain in effect until Respondents have complied with all parts of this Order.

18. Integration. This Order and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may not be amended, supplemented, or modified, except as provided in this Order.

19. This Order may be executed in counterparts.

Dated: ---------
Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc., Respondent
Dated: J{1>( t<
Burnham Holdings, Inc., Respondent
Dated: ---------
Carrier Corporation, Respondent
Dated:

Chromalox, Respondent
10 original signed by John A. Roda -
resolution.

17. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Order is the date it has been signed by the Department. This Order shall remain in effect until Respondents have complied with all parts of this Order.

18. Integration. This Order and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may not be amended, supplemented, or modified, except as provided in this Order.

19. This Order may be executed in counterparts.

Dated: ---------
Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc., Respondent
Dated: ---------
Burnham Holdings, Inc., Respondent
C rier Corporation, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Chromalox, Respondent
10 original signed by Christopher Nelson
.

17. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Order is the date it has been signed by the Department. This Order shall remain in effect until Respondents have complied with all parts of this Order.

18. Integration. This Order and its Exhibits constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may not be amended, supplemented, or modified, except as provided in this Order.

19. This Order may be executed in counterparts.

Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: ___ zi._ . _,3_-_,_t.. _ __ _
Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc., Respondent
Burnham Holdings, Inc., Respondent
Carrier Corporation, Respondent
C.,-•)" .-4 ~f-_,...,. , C..rO
Chromalox, Respondent
10 original signed by Craig Creature
___,_Z I_...__~ f 1_{; _
Crane, Respondent
Dated:--------
Climate Master, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Empire Comfort Systems, Respondent
Dated:

General Electric Company, Respondent
Dated:--------
Honeywell International Inc., Respondent
Dated:

Hunter Fan Company, Respondent
Dated: --------
Invensys, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
ITT Corporation, Respondent
11 original signed by Anthony D'Lorio
Dated ;) b /;~ Tl Bi@tvi-'
Climate Master, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Empire Comfort Systems, Respondent
Dated: --------
General Electric Company, Respondent
Dated: --------
Honeywell International Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Hunter Fan Company, Respondent
Dated: --------
Invensys, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
ITT Corporation, Respondent
11 original signed by Rick Aldridge
: ---------
Crane, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Climate Master, Inc., Respondent
Dated: _ ____./_< _2-'9_._J.;._~-- t /(D1'/o7>1 J: f3no,.;'? Empire Comfort Systems, Respondent
Dated: ________ _
General Electric Company, Respondent
Dated : _______ _
Honeywell International Inc., Respondent
Dated: ---------
Hunter Fan Company, Respondent
Dated: ---------
Invensys, Inc., Respondent
Dated: ________ _
ITT Corporation, Respondent
11 original signed by Kenneth J. Belding
Dated: - --------
Crane , Respondent
Dated: ------- --
Climate Master , Inc., Respondent
Dated: ___ _____ _
Empire Comfort Systems , Respondent
Dated: F'C..b 3, ;;J. o tt:o
General Electric Company , Respondent
Dated:

Honeywell International Inc., Respondent
Dated:

Hunter Fan Company, Respondent
Dated: - ----- ---
Invensys, Inc., Respondent
Dated: -------- -
ITT Corporation, Respondent
11 original signed by Rob McKeel
--------
Crane, Respondent
Dated: --------
Climate Master, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Empire Comfort Systems, Respondent
Dated: --------
General Electric Company. Respondent
Dated: fe ~ ~ Zvll-
Honeywell lntemational Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Hunter Fan Company, Respondent
Dated: --------
Invensys, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
ITT Corporation, Respondent
11 original signed by Mark Winston
Dated : _____ __ _
Crane, Respondent
Dated : _______ _
Climate Master, Inc., Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Empire Comfort Systems, Respondent
Dated: --------
General Electric Company, Respondent
Dated : --------
Honeywell International Inc., RespoRdent
Dated : ?/ 5 /-a CJ I b
Hunter Fan Company, Respondent
Dated : --------
Invensys, Inc., Respondent
Dated : --------
ITT Corporation, Respondent
11 original signed by Tony Bacon -

Dated:-------
Crane, Respondent
Dated:

Climate Master, Inc .. RespQndent
Empire Comfort Systems, Respondent
Dated: -------
General Electric Company, Respondent
Dated: -------
Honeywell International Inc., Respondent
Invensys, Inc., Respondent
Dated: -------
ITT Corporation, Respondent·
11 r
I
I I
I
I
I
I!
ii
I
I
11 II
I
original signed by Peter Wexler
Dated: --------
Crane, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Climate Master, Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Empire Comfort Systems, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
General Electric Company, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Honeywell International Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Hunter Fan Company, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
hr C9rporation, Respondent
-/
11 original signed by Craig E. Johnson
Dated: ~1ja1111,
Dated: ______ _ _
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: _______ _
Dated:

Dated:
-~~~~~~-
Johnson Controls, Respondent
1,: ~I-ere,, IJ. fl-e11~-t
YP1--6t:. - ,E /f/,,P. ~~
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Lux Products, Respondent
The Marley-Wylain Company, Respondent
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Sears Holdings, Respondent
Thomas & Betts Corporation , Respondent
12 original signed by Steven W. Keane
--------
Dated: i-/ J ); i
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: ----- - --
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated:
-------~
Johnson Controls, Respondent
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Lux Products, Respondent
The Marley-Wyla in Company, Respondent
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Sears Holdings, Respondent
Thomas & Betts Corporation, Respondent
12 original signed by James F. Matthews
Dated:

Johnson Controls, Respondent
Dated:---------
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Dated: 0 4 r[D I/
Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Dated: ---------
Lux Products, Respondent
Dated:--------
The Marley-Wylain Company, Respondent
Dated:

Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Dated:

Sears Holdings, Respondent
Dated:

Thomas & Betts Corporation, Respondent
12 original signed by John Hurst
Dated: ------- -
Johnson Controls, Respondent
Dated: ---------
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Dated: --------
Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Dated: February 5, 2016
e Munin, President
Lux Products Corporation, Respondent
Dated: --------
The Marley-Wylain Company, Respondent
Dated: --------
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Dated: --------
Sears Holdings, Respondent
Dated: --------
Thomas & Betts Corporation, Respondent
12 original signed by Robert Munin
.

Dated: --------
Johnson Controls, Respondent
Dated:--------
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Dated: --------
Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Lux Products, Respondent
Dated: ~ Z~12olb
Th:Ma:Y -w:iain Company, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Sears Holdings, Respondent
Dated: --------
Thomas & Betts Corporation, Respondent
12 original signed by John Swann
Dated:

Johnson Controls, Respondent
Dated: --------
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Dated:

Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Lux Products, Respondent
Dated: ---------
The Marley-Wylain Company, Respondent
Dated:

Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Dated: ---------
Sears Holdings, Respondent
Dated:

Thomas & Betts Corporation , Respondent
12 original signed by Ron Hayer
--------
Johnson Controls, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Dated: --------
.. ·.,.~-_-,.

Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Lux Products, Respondent
Dated: _______ _
The Marley-Wylain Company, Respondent
Dated: --------
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Dated: _1_.l,_~_tf_.1_1 ~(p __ 1 VP, D.ef~~ l-r~I ~
Sears Holdings, Respondent
.5etV•s; t.f o id i~ MA"'"~+- Coir-
Dated: --------
Thomas & Betts Corporation, Respondent
12 original signed by Stuart Gray
Dated: --------
Johnson Controls, Respondent
Dated: --------
Lear Siegler, Respondent
Dated: --------
Lennox International Inc., Respondent
Dated: --------
Lux Products, Respondent
Dated: --------
The Marley-Wylain Company, Respondent
Dated: --------
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, Respondent
Dated: --------
Sears Holdings, Respondent
Dated: ot/~ 'l/16
12 original signed by Michael J. Gieger

Dated: ___________________ __
Trane Residential Systems, Respondent
2/5/2016
original signed by Heather Foran
Dated: ___________________ ______________________________ Uponor, Inc., Respondent
Dated: ___________________ ______________________________ Vaillant Corporation, Respondent
Dated: ___________________ ______________________________ W. W. Grainger, Respondent
Dated: ___________________ ______________________________ White-Rodgers, Respondent
Dated: ___________________ ______ ________________________ Rick Brausch
Division Chief
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Attac
hment
Exhibit A – List of Potential Program Participants
Exhibit B – Respondents’ Plan for Compliance
Exhibit C – Assigned Docket Numbers
13 Dated : --------
Dated: _______ _
Dated: _____ __ _
Dated: ____ _ __ _
Dated: _______ _
Attachment
Trane Residential Systems, Respondent
Vaillant Corporation, Respondent
W.W. Grainger, Respondent
White-Rodgers, Respondent
Pauline Batarseh
Branch Chief
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Exhibit A - List of Potential Program Participants
Exhibit B - Respondents ' Plan for Compliance
Exhibit C - Assigned Docket Numbers
13 original signed by Bradley J. Beckman
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Dated: --------
Attachment
Trane Residential Systems, Respondent
Uponor, Inc., Respondent
W. W. Grainger, Respond~nt
White-Rodgers, Respondent
Rick Brausch
Division Chief
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Exhibit A - List of Potential Program Participants
Exhibit B - Respondents' Plan for Compliance
Exhibit C - Assigned Docket Numbers
13 original signed by Klaus Jesse
Dated:---------
Dated: _______ _
Dated: ________ _
Dated: _/_-_;;_· _7_-_z_o_/_6_
Dated: ---------
Dated: --------
Attachment
Trane Residential Systems , Respondent
Uponor, Inc., Respondent
Vaillant Corporation, Respondent
W.W. Grainger, Respondent
White-Rodgers, Respondent
Pauline Batarseh
Branch Chief
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Exhibit A - List of Potential Program Participants
Exhibit B - Respondents' Plan for Compliance
Exhibit C - Assigned Docket Numbers
13 original signed by Richard Cole
Dated: _______ _
Dated: ------~-
Dated: _______ _
Dated: _______ _
Dated: lr1 JZ, rJo!I
(!
Dated: --------
Attachment
Trane Residential Systems, Respondent
Uponor, Inc., Respondent
Vaillant Corporation, Respondent
W.W. Grainger, Respondent
(/ White-Rodgers, Respondent
Pauline Batarseh
Branch Chief
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Exhibit A - List of Potential Program Participants
Exhibit B - Respondents' Plan for Compliance
Exhibit C -Assigned Docket Numbers
13 I
original signed by Jack Huether
Dated: _______ _
Trane Residential Systems , Respondent
Dated : --------
Uponor, Inc., Respondent
Dated : _______ _
Vaillant Corporation , Respondent
Dated: --------
W.W. Grainger , Respondent
Dated: _______ _
White-Rodgers, Respondent
Datedc ~
Attachment
Exhibit A - List of Potential Program Participants
Exhibit B - Respondents' Plan for Compliance
Exhibit C -Assigned Docket Numbers
13 original signed by Rick Brausch

EXHIBIT A
List of Potential Program Participants
List of potential program participants in California that may be generators or handlers of mercury - added thermostats.

1. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facilities

2. HVAC contractors

3. Demolition contractors

4. General contractors

5. Local building departments

6. Utility companies

7. School districts

8. Property management companies of multi-family housing developments

9. Property management companies of commercial/industrial properties

10. Hotel/motel managers and maintenance companies

11. Consumers

12. Retailers

13. Universities and Colleges

14. Any other group who may handle mercury-added thermostats 1 EXHIBIT B
Respondents’ Plan For Compliance
RESPONDENTS’ PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE
B-1. Respondents shall conduct each of the following actions in accordance with the schedule set forth in this Exhibit:

B-1.1. TRC staff designation.

B-1.1.1. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Order, Respondents shall designate and fill a position within TRC to oversee its California operations and Respondents’ compliance with this Order.

B-1.1.2. Within five (5) days after the position has been filled, Respondents shall provide the Department with the name and contact information for the individual hired by TRC to perform this function, in accordance with the Notice provisions in Paragraph 5.1.

B-1.2. Consultants.

B-1.2.1. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Order, Respondents shall secure consultative services to, at a minimum, develop the draft Outreach Plan defined in Paragraph B-1.3.1., the draft Pilot Project Plan described in Paragraph B-1.4.1., and the Program Modifications described in Paragraph B-1.5.1.

B-1.2.2. Within five (5) days of securing the consultant, Respondents shall provide the Department with the name of the consultant and contact information for the consultant, in accordance with the Notice provisions in Paragraph 5.1.

B-1.3. Outreach Plan.

B-1.3.1. Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Order, Respondents shall develop and submit to the Department for its review and approval a draft Outreach Plan. The goal of the plan is for the Respondents to make contact with persons, entities or businesses that may generate or collect mercury–added thermostats (at a minimum, the list in Exhibit A) for purposes of increasing Program participation so that the number of collected mercury-added thermostats increases. The activities in the Outreach Plan shall be designed to provide education about the Respondents’ collection program and to engage and secure the participation of additional Program participants from the potential Program participant groups listed in Exhibit A. The outreach 1 EXHIBIT B
Respondents’ Plan For Compliance
activities described in the Plan are to include provision of materials and program engagement tools developed for each potential Program participant and outreach timelines for each participant, and must seek the placement of additional bins to collect mercury-added thermostats from the identified Program participants. The draft Outreach Plan shall include a proposed implementation schedule which shall begin no later than sixty (60) days after submittal of the draft plan to the Department.

B-1.3.2. No later than sixty (60) days after submittal of the draft Outreach Plan to the Department, or upon approval of the plan by the Department, whichever occurs first, unless directed otherwise by the Department, the Respondents shall implement the plan in accordance with the provisions and schedule specified therein. The number and location (by street address) of any additional bins placed as a result of the Respondents’ outreach activities shall be reported as part of the Respondents’ monthly report on the progress of implementation of the Outreach Plan in accordance with Paragraph B-1.10. Respondents may terminate outreach efforts with any potential Program participant group identified in the approved Outreach Plan upon providing an explanation satisfactory to the Department for doing so. The Department’s decision approving or disapproving the requested termination of outreach efforts shall be communicated to Respondents in writing and shall set forth the reasons therefor. Any other proposed modifications to the approved Outreach Plan shall be submitted to the Department in writing for its consideration and approval.

B-1.4. Pilot Project Plan.

B-1.4.1. Within ninety (90) of the Effective Date of the Order, Respondents shall develop a Pilot Project Plan that includes a sufficient variety and number of pilot projects designed to assess the effectiveness of the use of monetary and other incentives to increase Program participation and the number of mercury-added thermostats collected. The Pilot Project Plan shall be informed by the results of Respondents’ implementation of its Outreach Plan to the extent practicable. The Plan shall include a reasonable assortment of pilot projects that assess the use of monetary and nonmonetary incentives of different values with different program participants, and may differentiate the timing of the receipt of the incentive (immediate versus delayed). Examples of possible pilot projects include: (a) a cash payment or purchase price discount for large HVAC 2 EXHIBIT B
Respondents’ Plan For Compliance
contractors eligible to receive a TRC collection box (those with seven or more technicians); (b) a cash payment or purchase price discount for consumers on any item purchased at the retail location for every mercury-added thermostat returned; or (c), a cash payment for each mercury-added thermostat submitted to household hazardous waste collection facilities. The Pilot Project Plan shall also include a proposed schedule for implementation of the pilot projects described therein which shall begin no later than sixty (60) days after submittal of the draft plan to the Department. The pilots specified in this subsection shall continue for a minimum of one year, to take into account any seasonal changes associated with mercury-added thermostat replacements.

B-1.4.2. No later than sixty (60) days after submittal of the draft Pilot Project Plan to the Department, or upon approval of the plan by the Department, whichever occurs first, unless directed otherwise by the Department, Respondents shall implement the Pilot Project Plan in accordance with its provisions and schedule. Within ninety (90) days of the completion of all activities described in the approved Pilot Project Plan, the Respondents shall submit a report describing the results of each of the pilot projects undertaken pursuant to the Pilot Project Plan and indicating which, if any, of the pilot projects will continue in conjunction with the Program Modifications implemented under Paragraph B-1.5.

B-1.5. Program Modifications
B-1.5.1. Within two hundred and forty (240) days of the Effective Date of the Order, Respondents shall develop and submit to the Department for its review and approval a draft Program Modification Plan that includes specific proposals to modify the Program, taking into consideration information and data gathered as a result of implementation of the Pilot Project Plan and the Outreach Plan, to the extent such data are available. For each proposed modification, the Respondents shall include in the draft Program Modification Plan the specific data or information the proposed modification is based on, as well as the anticipated impact on mercury-added thermostat collections. For any element of the Respondents’ existing Program that is proposed to remain unchanged, the Respondents shall include in the draft Program Modification Plan the specific data or information that supports the continuation of the Program element without change. The draft 3 EXHIBIT B
Respondents’ Plan For Compliance
Program Modification Plan shall also identify the data and information that the Respondents will collect to assess the effectiveness of each Program modification in yielding increased Program participation and mercury-added thermostat collections. The draft Program Modification Plan shall include a proposed schedule for the Respondents to implement the identified modifications which shall begin no later than sixty (60) days after submittal of the draft plan to the Department.

B-1.5.2. No later than sixty (60) days after submittal of the proposed Program Modifications to the Department, or upon approval of the plan by the Department, whichever occurs first, unless directed otherwise by the Department, Respondents shall commence implementation of the proposed Program Modifications in accordance with its provisions. Respondents shall ensure that adequate resources are available to implement the approved Plan. The Respondents shall submit quarterly reports detailing their progress in implementing the Plan.

B-1.5.3. Respondents shall amend its Program from time to time, or as directed by the Department, as necessary to incorporate program enhancements that are informed by data collected pursuant to this Order and any other pertinent data, including the results of the outreach efforts and the pilot projects that were determined to contribute to the increased collection of mercury-added thermostats in California.

B-1.5.4. Nothing in this Order prevents or precludes any or all of the Respondents from submitting data at any time, including any data collected in carrying out the requirements of this Order and any other pertinent data, to the Department pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 66274.4(b) requesting a modification of the performance requirements and/or the estimated number of mercury-added thermostats becoming waste annually, which request shall be timely considered by the Department.

B-1.6. Quarterly Reports. Respondents shall submit a report thirty (30) days after the end of every quarter on the number of mercury-added thermostats collected in the preceding quarter, the Program element or Program participant to which the collected thermostats are attributed, the Contractor State License number (if provided) for those bringing mercury-added thermostats to the collection bins, the number and location (by street address) of the collection bins (including the total 4 EXHIBIT B
Respondents’ Plan For Compliance
number of additional bins placed since the prior quarterly report), and progress in implementing the Program Modification Plan as required in Paragraph B-1.5.2.

B-1.7. Public Input. The Department shall make any draft Plans submitted by Respondents pursuant to this Order available to the public immediately upon receiving the Plans. Nothing in this Order prevents the Department from incorporating any comments or feedback it receives from the public regarding the draft Plans into its review and approval process for the Plans in accordance with Paragraph 5.3 of this Order. Nothing in this paragraph prevents or precludes Respondents from invoking the dispute resolution provisions in Paragraph 16 if the Department requires incorporation of any such comments over Respondents’ objection.

B-1.8. Non-Program Collections. For purposes of counting the mercury-added thermostats that are attributed to the Respondents towards the regulatory collection requirement, the Respondents may request the Department to allow inclusion of mercury-added thermostats that were that were not collected by TRC or other entities that are direct Program participants. Any such request by Respondents shall include the rationale for giving credit to Respondents for these mercury-added thermostats collected by third parties, and shall demonstrate that the thermostats would not have been collected but for the efforts of one or more of the Respondents. The Department shall evaluate any such request made by the Respondents and shall communicate its decision in writing to the Respondents within thirty (30) days of such request unless the Department notifies the Respondents that additional time is required for its response. The Department shall explain the basis for its decision in the written communication with the Respondents.

B-1.9. California Expenditures. In addition to expenditures reported to the Department in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 25214.8.13, subdivision (i), Respondents shall in the annual report account for and report on the total amount of expenditures that were made in connection with the Program in California for the year covered by the report, including those expenditures in developing and implementing the Outreach Plan, the Pilot Project Plan and the Program Modification Plan. The expenditures included in the annual report and attributed to California’s collection program may include a portion of the costs incurred by TRC on a 5 EXHIBIT B
Respondents’ Plan For Compliance
national basis so long as the amount is a reasonable estimate of the portion of the national costs that are attributable to implementation of the national collection program in California. The annual report may include expenditures by TRC as well as those made individually by the Respondents.

B1.10. Early Actions and Additional Activities. Upon the Effective Date of the Order and continuing at least through the date upon which implementation of the Program Modification Plan is scheduled to commence, the TRC Project Manager designated pursuant to Paragraph B-1.1, and/or the consultant retained in accordance with Paragraph B-1.2, shall meet with the Department at least once monthly, or such alternate period as the Department and the TRC Project Manager may agree, to report on the progress of implementation of the Outreach Plan and Pilot Project Plan, and to discuss information that Respondents have gathered in the course of implementation of these plans that would support potential modifications or enhancements to the collection program. The monthly meetings with the Department shall also include discussion of possible modifications to the program that could be implemented prior to the development of the Program Modification Plan required pursuant to Paragraph B-1.5. Respondents agree to implement at the earliest practicable time any such “early actions” that are determined by the Department, in consultation with Respondents and the TRC Project Manager, to be likely to result in increased collections. Any proposed modifications to the approved plans shall also be submitted to the Department in writing for its consideration and approval. Nothing herein shall preclude Responde nts from conducting additional activities not otherwise specified in the approved plans during the 2015 and 2016 calendar years or thereafter to contribute to achievement of the performance requirements identified in California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 66274.5.

B-1.11. The Department Cost Reimbursement. Within forty five (45) days of the Effective Date of the Order, Respondents shall enter into a Cost Reimbursement Agreement with the Department pursuant to which Respondents agree to reimburse the Department for its costs incurred in overseeing the implementation of this Order and for conducting certain activities on behalf of the Program that are conducted solely for the purpose of increasing Program participation and mercury-added thermostat collections, as specified in a Scope of Work that shall be included as 6 EXHIBIT B
Respondents’ Plan For Compliance
an exhibit to the Cost Reimbursement Agreement. The Department’s level of effort in performing this oversight function, and Respondent’s obligation to reimburse the Department, shall c orrespond to the cost of one full-time equivalent employee (1.0 FTE), at the Environmental Scientist level, annually for the duration of the period the Cost Reimbursement Agreement is in effect. At any time during the period the Cost Reimbursement Agreement is in effect, Respondents may request a review and modification of the Department’s level of effort and the identified Scope of Work in accordance with the provisions of the Cost Reimbursement Agreement. The types of costs that shall be reimbursable include, but are not limited to: (a) the cost of reviewing and approving the deliverables specified in this Order; (b) the Department’s costs (travel costs, per diem costs and time) in assisting the Respondents in interacting with Program participants and potential Program participants; (c) the Department’s costs (travel costs, per diem costs and time) in interacting directly with Program participants and potential Program participants; and (d) participating with and providing feedback to the Respondents in the meetings that are to be scheduled in accordance with the terms of this Order (“Department’s Oversight Costs”). The Department shall keep accurate books and accounts of the Department’s Oversight Costs, and such books and accounts may be audited by Respondents upon written request. The Department shall semi -annually submit to Respondents an invoice for the Department’s Oversight Costs, and only invoice Respondents for its actual costs. If Respondents disagree with an invoice, or a specific line item on an invoice, they may invoke the dispute resolution provisions in Paragraph 16 of the Order. Respondents shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of the invoice date, unless the Respondents have invoked Paragraph 16 (Dispute Resolution Procedure) before this thirty (30) day period has passed, remit a check for the full invoiced amount made payable to the Department of Toxics Substance Control.

The remitted check shall also reference the Docket Number of this Order. 7 EXHIBIT C
Assigned Docket Numbers
The table below shows the Respondent and the assigned Docket Number on the same line.

Payments from Respondents shall identify the Respondent and the assigned Docket Number.

Respondent Docket Number
Bard Manufacturing Company, Inc. HWCA20157178
Burnham Holdings, Inc. HWCA20157180
Carrier Corporation HWCA20157203
Chromalox HWCA20157181
Crane HWCA20157183
Climate Master, Inc. HWCA20157182
Empire Comfort Systems HWCA20157185
General Electric Company HWCA20157186
Honeywell International Inc. HWCA20157188
Hunter Fan Company HWCA20157189
Invensys, Inc. HWCA20157191
ITT Corporation HWCA20157192
Johnson Controls HWCA20157193
Lear Siegler HWCA20157196
Lennox International Inc. HWCA20157194
Lux Products HWCA20157179
The Marley-Wylain Company HWCA20157200
Nortek Global HVAC, LLC HWCA20157195
Sears Holdings HWCA20157199
Thomas & Betts Corporation HWCA20157201
Trane Residential Systems HWCA20157190
Uponor, Inc. HWCA20157204
Vaillant Corporation HWCA20157205
W. W. Grainger HWCA20157206
White-Rodgers HWCA20157207
1 of 9

FRANCESCA SMITH

October 20, 2025
Mayor Ara Najarian and City Council members
City of Glendale
via e-mail to [email protected]

RE: City Council Agenda Item 10 a. Community Development, 236 North Central Avenue – Stage II Design Review (Case No. PDR 2212056, Includes: 236 N.

Central Ave, 201 W. California Ave and 212 [sic] W. California Ave)

Dear Mayor Najarian and City Council members:

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on the replacement project for Sears referenced above. As an alumna of the Design Review Board and an experienced design reviewer for the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Monterey and Vallejo, I have previously commented on this project at nearly every phase of its review.

When City Council approved Stage I Preliminary Design Review on December 6, 2022, several “guiding comments” were made, including:

I. Include retail or commercial on the ground ﬂoor.

II. Provide additional open space and foliage in the plazas.

III. Public park should include playground equipment, ﬁtness equipment, public bathrooms, more foliage and less concrete.

IV. Provide additional height variations (especially on Central Avenue). It was suggested that taller buildings and reduced building footprint width would allow more open space.

V. Provide higher quality and more varied materials on the façade of the building (Glendale, City of. “Design Review Staﬀ Report – Downtown Speciﬁc Plan Project Advisory Review by the Design Review Board” September 11, 2025: 4).

In the September 11th Design Review Board (DRB) meeting, the applicant project team presented their responses to the speciﬁc recommended revisions:

Item I: The proposed project’s ground level plan was revised to include just over 1,500 square feet of retail/restaurant space fronting California Avenue to minimally comply with that comment. A 1,500 sq ft space can accommodate between 50-70 seats, depending on layout and furniture. That scarce change of proposed use would occupy no more than the rough dimensions of a mid-sized home.
2 of 9
To accommodate that minor change, the unit composition for Stage II design Review was altered, reducing the number of proposed live/work (studio) and two-bedroom units, but increasing the number of one-bedroom units. However, the proposed project overall unit count, which drives the project’s all-important future income stream was not altered by that minimal change in proposed use.

In its review, DRB concluded that “ Additional retail or commercial space supplemental to the [proposed]… 1,515 square-feet of ﬂoor area should be provided at the ground ﬂoor” in the September 11th meeting, because the proposed negligible retail/restaurant space fronting California Avenue was not suﬃcient to satisfy the original comment (Glendale City of. “Design Review Board Advisory Review and Comments” [Minutes]) September 11, 2025: 3). The applicant complied with the comment nominally but has not satisﬁed the requirement.

Item II: “The Project should be redesigned with a connection with the potential public park…The greenery at the Orange Street façade and on the sixth and eighth ﬂoor upper levels introduces natural elements and oﬀers visual relief, particularly within the open spaces at these levels. The integration of greenery at the upper ﬂoors should be thoughtfully incorporated into the building’s overall design, especially along California Avenue” (ibid: 3 and 4). The original guiding comment “Provide additional open space and foliage in the plazas” was not adequately addressed in the revised design presented. DRB concluded “The greenery at the Orange Street façade and on the sixth and eighth ﬂoor upper levels introduces natural elements and oﬀers [some] visual relief, particularly within the open spaces at these levels. The integration of greenery at the upper ﬂoors should be thoughtfully incorporated into the building’s overall design, especially along California Avenue” (emphasis added. ibid: 3). The applicant has not fulﬁlled their obligation to connect to the “potential public park” that was originally part of their pr and did not integrate additional upper ﬂoor planting which was directed to be woven into the total plan, including California Avenue.

Item III: Recommendations for the public park component were speciﬁc regarding the inclusion of playground and ﬁtness equipment, public bathrooms, more foliage and less concrete. Because the applicant will no longer be providing the promised public park in the original project description and currently on their website (Glendale, California CA - Available Retail Space & Restaurant Space for Lease Glendale Sears | Merlone Geier Partners and ﬂyer at Glendale Sears - Flyer (page 2) accessed on October 19, 2025), that recommendation, like their agreement to provide it, no longer applies.

The City of Glendale decision makers should think long and hard about whether or not to do business with the applicant. Not only has the applicant chosen not to make the design revisions recommended by DRB and City Council as demonstrated herein, but one of the Sears Automotive properties, at 201 W. California Ave. that the applicant is 3 of 9
planning to sell to the city to beneﬁt themselves is delinquent in its property taxes for the past two years. See Figure A.

Figure A: Annotated property tax summary for the 201 W. California Ave (Sears Automotive) property.

Oﬃce of the Los Angeles County Assessor. “ Assessor Portal” at hĴps://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/parceldetail/5643020038 accessed on October 20, 2025.

Despite the fact that the “potential future public park” is allegedly no longer part of the project, it remains part of the revised current plans. See AC Martin. “236 North Central Avenue.” “Stage II -Update” Revision 6- August 8, 2025: “Open Space Calculations.” sheet A0.14b and “Phase I Site Plan/Aerial” sheet A1.04 among others).

The DRB further commented on the revised plans in their Advisory Review That the paseo should incorporate connections with the connected streets (Orange Street and North Central) such as kiosks, game area (e.g. chess), and congregation areas to incentives outdoor activities (e.g. City sponsored concerts) to create opportunities that revitalize the [Downtown Speciﬁc Plan] DSP. The addition of a restaurant with an outdoor patio that adjoins the paseo to enhance activation and further revitalization goals.

Consider the addition of neighborhood market at the building’s ground ﬂoor to support residences and enhance symbiotic relationship with surrounding development (ibid: 4).

Those recommendations were not incorporated into the proposed project plans, strongly suggesting that the applicant has demonstrated liĴle to no intention of being a good corporate citizen or partner, or of building a project that would in any way enhance the community.

The DRB further stated that “The Project should be redesigned with a connection with the potential public park” (ibid: 3). No evidence was found to demonstrate compliance

4 of 9
with the prescribed redesign in the plans presented (AC Martin. “236 North Central Avenue.” “Stage II -Update” Revision 6- August 8, 2025: all sheets). As currently designed, no eﬀort was made to connect the proposed project with the speculative potential public park.

Item IV: The comment was, “Provide additional height variations (especially on Central Avenue).” The inference was that taller buildings would reduce the building footprint to enable more open space. Overall, extremely modest, minimal revisions were made to the plans presented for Stage II design review. The building’s site plan remained unchanged, with no additional open space added, however the overall height of the project was only slightly increased.

Speciﬁcally, the proposed corner tower element at the intersection of Central and California Avenues was extended by fewer than 10 feet (9’- 8”), from 85’-4” to 95 feet.

The proposed parapets facing Central Avenue were raised by less than ﬁve feet (4’-8”), from 85’-4” to 90 feet. The recommendation was scarcely addressed, moreover its hat will be objective was not achieved. The change was insigniﬁcant- the addition of about 15 feet in height, made in only two locations on what will be and enormous complex.

Despite the speciﬁc recommendations made by DRB, the project's overall site plan remains unchanged in terms of the proposed building footprint and open space area.

Again, the applicant did as liĴle as possible to “check the box” but again, did not accomplish the city’s clear objective.

Item V. Despite the fact that the DRB concisely recommended that the applicant “Provide higher quality and more varied materials on the façade of the building,” the applicant nevertheless proposes vinyl windows and white stucco exterior wall ﬁnish (See “Wall Sections,” sheet A3.9 specifying “white plaster”). In their review, DRB concluded that the “Color for vinyl windows throughout the building should avoid the color white and match the color scheme shown in the elevations and rendered perspectives, such as silver, espresso, or brown. As a consideration, in lieu of vinyl material, a higher-quality and durable material, such as ﬁberglass, should be considered” (ibid: 4). No change was made, establishing that the applicant has no intention to be a cooperative partner for solutions.

Vinyl windows are certainly inexpensive and can be expected to last between two and four decades (!), although a large number of dual-glazed units fail (fogging and or cracked lites) and the vinyl can sag within the ﬁrst few years. Vinyl windows’ “lifespans” are inﬂuenced by various factors including climate, sun exposure, the sizes of the openings and the quality of manufacturing and initial installation. Windows in harsh, sunny climates like that of Glendale may only last a few years at most, while those in shaded, moderate climates may survive longer. Glendale is known for its hot, dry summers, especially downtown where there are few tall street trees. The proposed 5 of 9
project is therefore not an ideal location for the use of inexpensive vinyl windows, particularly on a mid- to high-rise complex where exterior maintenance will be challenging. The applicant did not comply with the stated recommendation.

DRB further articulated “The Project should redesign each of its four corners with enhanced architectural components to create a signature gateway at each corner of the building” and speciﬁcally directed “Incorporate design elements of the Sears Tower façade along with Art Deco/Streamlined Moderne design language into the Project’s design at the corner of West California Avenue and North Central Avenue, creating a signature gateway that reﬂects the spirit of the former Sears Tower” (ibid: 3). Review of the 118 pages of plans submiĴed for Stage II review reveals that really no eﬀort was made for the recommended redesign.

Strangely, the submiĴal does include a sheet with a keyed diagram featuring Art Deco style buildings in Glendale, ironically including the former Sears subject property, with a narrative that implies that the proposed project will derive its inspiration from those designs. Astonishingly, it concludes with the peroration “We intend to celebrate these styles into the landscape as a simple nod to what historically was here” (emphasis added, EPT DESIGN for AC Martin. “Stage II SubmiĴal” Revision 5, June 13, 2025: 0.00).

The consecutive sheet creates classiﬁcations for the proposed landscape (only) as Classical Moderne and Jazz Moderne-inspired, including the proposed public park, which is nonetheless not part of the proposed project (EPT DESIGN for AC Martin. “Stage II SubmiĴal” Revision 5, June 13, 2025: 0.01). Landscape can represent certain styles in architecture, but normally does not. Despite that reality, the plan features paĴerns and photographs of unrelated landscape design features at other properties that, for the most part are not included in the proposed project. Consideration of the proposed project renderings or “Project Views” and “Project Views- Lighting Design” on sheets A7.0- A7.17 unfortunately exposes the fact that the proposed project landscaping contains none of the promised Classical Moderne or Jazz Moderne features, references, objects or paving paĴerns. Sheet A7.13 reveals a strange cluster of radiating pedestrian streetlights (with their luminaires and illumination centered in one place) that would create a considerable light pool at “Mid-Block Paseo.” The condition has not been satisﬁed.

DRB made another clear, prescriptive comment on September 11, “Provide a designated drop-oﬀ zone for ride share, loading for new residents, and/or loading area for delivery packages within proximity of residential mailboxes” (ibid: 4). Review of the proposed project plans entitled “Loading; Trash Service Action Plan” and “Tenant Loading Access Plan” demonstrates that the proposed four exceptionally small loading areas would be located on parking level one, at the base of the north and south parking ramps, behind the security gates, immediately adjacent to ramps to-and-from P1 and four trash rooms, 6 of 9
electrical rooms #2 and 3 and the Fire Pump Room (AC Martin. “236 North Central Avenue- Stage II -Update” Revision 6- August 8, 2025: A0.21 and A0.22). The two mail rooms would be located on the ground ﬂoor of the proposed project (see “Ground Level Plan” sheet A2. 10), which is at least a half a city block and a ﬂight of stairs (or an elevator ride) away from, and nowhere near the four proposed, precariously located and insuﬃciently sized trivial loading zones intended to serve 682 residential units in perpetuity. The applicant again, did not comply with the condition.

Of the ﬁve conditions imposed, none was satisﬁed by the applicant. In each case, their design capably presented the project to make it appear that the recommendations were addressed, however it is clear that the conditions were not in actuality, fulﬁlled.

In closing, please seriously consider whether the applicant has, thus far, acted in good faith. Behaving in good faith, as you well know means conducting business with honest intent, fairness and loyalty, upholding the spirit and purpose of a contract or an agreement rather than just its leĴer. It requires involves being truthful, not deceiving the other party (the City of Glendale and its residents), and not preventing them from receiving whatever the beneﬁts should be of whatever the agreement or contract was.

This legal standard applies to honest intent, faithfulness to one's duties, and an absence of intent to defraud or taking an unconscionable advantage.

Truthfully, can you say that the applicant and their team are following the direction of decision makers (City Council, Design Review Board) and staﬀ? If, as stated in the City-prepared “Report To The Planning Hearing Oﬃcer,” the project applicant is “Multi-Family Land CA, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership” but the owner is actually “MGP XII Glendale Central GL, LLC a California Limited-Liability Company” a signiﬁcant problem exists. Unfortunately, the ﬁling status for that limited liability company (LLC) is listed as “terminated” on the California Secretary of State’s website at Business Search (see hĴps://bizﬁleonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business). Details on the website describe the LLC’s “Standing-Agent” as “not good” and its inactive date as just over two years ago (October 2, 2024). The current plans under review and initial study list yet a third entity, MGP XII Glendale Central, LLC as the owner.

To compound the issue, the DRB minutes list a fourth entity, Maple Multi-Family Land CA, LP, a Delaware limited partnership as the applicant (Glendale, City of. “Design Review Board Advisory Review and Comments” September 11, 2025: 1).

You will be interested to know that in 2024, according to the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Board, for Agenda Hearing Date: April 22, 2024, the MGP XII Glendale Central, LLC entity requested for a reduction on property taxes for the “proposed potential park” properties (Assessor Identiﬁcation Numbers 5643-020-038, - 039 and -040, which include 201-211 West California Av., 309 and 315 North Orange St.) 7 of 9
based on “decline in value” (see hĴps://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/0234f496-d2b7- 00b6-17a4-b43e949b70a2/525f0c7a-c810-43c8-a70d-348b8cdb9862/4-22%20BD2V.pdf accessed on October 20, 2025). In any event, whatever entity the city is dealing with has not paid taxes on at least one of the parcels (201-211 West California Ave.), which does not seem to indicate good faith on the applicant’s part, whomever they may be.

The public is left wondering who it is, with whom “we” (the City of Glendale) are really doing business. That rhetorical question should be considered by each of you, and researched by staﬀ before the city agrees to move forward to approve a project that promises to make millions of dollars for the applicants but would leave our already ﬁnancially struggling city responsible for payment of back taxes on the Sears Automotive property, in addition to performing required costly hazardous materials remediation1 for a park that the community and prospective tenants were originally promised by the applicant.

The Initial Study prepared for this project in July 2024 states:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database and State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database identiﬁes sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be evidence to investigate further. Further analysis is required to evaluate if the Project site has been identiﬁed as containing a known contaminant. As such, the Project could result in potentially signiﬁcant impacts related to hazardous materials. This issue will be further evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Because of recent changes to The California Environmental Quality Act, no Draft Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for this project. That does not relieve the applicant or any new owners of the “proposed potential park” for the aﬃrmative responsibility to remediate the existence of hazardous materials.

Regarding the applicant’s experience, as described on their own website, Merlone Geier Partners is
Primarily focused on community and neighborhood shopping centers, Merlone Geier Partners and our predecessor, M&H Realty Partners, have been actively investing in West Coast retail properties since 1993. We have acquired, to date, 176 West

1 Hazardous materials remediation is the process of removing, containing, or neutralizing hazardous substances from a contaminated area to protect human health and the environment. It involves identifying the contaminants, developing a cleanup plan, and using various techniques like excavation, chemical treatment, or physical barriers to address the contamination in soil, groundwater, and other media. This process is overseen by regulatory agencies including the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Toxics Substances and can only be performed by trained professionals.

8 of 9
Coast properties representing in excess of 27.6 million square feet. Our ﬁrm… has raised more than $4.5 billion of discretionary institutional equity capital over the past 32 years. We provide our institutional investors the opportunity for aĴractive risk-adjusted returns through active real estate management, including leasing, redevelopment and densiﬁcation. We closed our thirteenth fund, Merlone Geier Partners XIII, L.P., in April 2022 (emphasis added, see merlonegeier.com “ About” at hĴps://www.merlonegeier.com/our-team accessed on September 23, 2025).

They certainly seem to be well-capitalized, for an entity that proposes vinyl windows and cannot manage to pay taxes on a small parcel in Glendale. Brief review of their own proﬁle reveals that their professed expertise and track record is not grounded in developing, holding or eﬀectively managing residential properties; their strength and specialty is retail. This is a highly leveraged and very proﬁtable, closely held organization who can’t seem to do what Glendale requests. Managing Partner, Bradley A Geier “held senior positions with Trammell Crow Company and The Taubman Company” (1983-1993). See company website “Our Team: Meet the Merlone Geier Team” and “Executive Team and Investment CommiĴee. Consider the late Trammell Crow and his son’s connections to Justice Clarence Thomas (see hĴps://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/us/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow.html , hĴps://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-supreme-court and hĴps://fortune.com/2023/04/24/clarence-thomas-billionaire-friend-harlan-crow- business-before-supreme-court/)
The last question is, does this project and its owner, who have consistently demonstrated bad faith throughout this process, deserve the gift of an alley that belongs to the City of Glendale in order to make their enormous, density bonus, primarily market rate, for-proﬁt project work? Their own representative called the subject property “an eyesore” in the last DRB meeting. He must not know that it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain and secure their property, whether it generates income or not.

Please consider all of these factors: their inability and unwillingness to follow through with concise Stage I design recommendations, the endless presentations made to cleverly circumvent making those revisions, shortchanging the community on required open space by an exponential amount, avoiding making connections between those open spaces, reducing private exterior areas, decreasing unit sizes beyond minimum square footage, limiting low-income units to the smallest apartment types, the list is nearly endless. Are they merely shrewd businesspeople, or are we being collectively hoodwinked? I believe, unfortunately it is the laĴer.
9 of 9
Because of these described factors, I ask that you vote to deny the design review application. The applicant has clearly not complied with the intent of the few simple conditions as demonstrated in this leĴer.

In addition, please vote to not vacate the alley (Item 10 b2) and do not accept elaborate shell game that would leave the city without the “potential proposed park” that would be our responsibility to fund. We cannot aﬀord to subsidize the proposed project, in terms of monetary cost, but also the physical, emotional and aesthetic eﬀects to the community.

I appreciate all of your time and your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
CC: Dennis Joe, case planner
Suzie Abajian, PhD, City Clerk
Craig Scholer, Chief Deputy Director, DTSC

2 Public Works, re: Conditional Vacation of a Portion of the First Alley Easterly of Central Avenue, Southerly of California Avenue, Westerly of Orange Street (Alley 239) for the proposed 236 N. Central Avenue Project, Vacation Case No. 192V.

Glendale City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Glendale City Council
January 27, 2026