will coordinate closely with the CA Department of Housing and Community Development, Southern California Association of Governments and local jurisdictions.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ray Sosa
Chief Planning Officer
Cc: Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Ray Sosa
Digitally signed by Ray Sosa
Date: 2025.11.06 17:24:31
-08'00'
319 of 339
April 23, 2025
The Honorable Scott Wiener
Senator, California State Senate
1021 O St, Suite 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 79 (Wiener) Transit-oriented Development -- Notice of Opposition Dear Senator Wiener,
The City of Glendale writes to express our strong opposition to your SB 79 (Wiener), which would disregard state-certified housing elements and bestow land use authority to transit agencies without any requirement that developers build housing, let alone affordable housing.
SB 79 doubles down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing elements. This latest overreaching effort forces cities to approve transit-oriented development projects near specified transit stops — up to seven stories high and a density of 120 homes per acre — without regard to the community's needs, environmental review, or public input.
The City of Glendale legislative platform provides for balanced, quality housing, which provides a mix of housing opportunities as a primary goal for our community, coupled with infrastructure and sustainable mobility—all through and informed and engaged community.
SB 79 defies cities’ general plans and provides transit agencies unlimited land use authority on property they own or have a permanent easement. Transit agencies would have the power to determine all aspects of the development including height, density, and design, without any regard to local zoning or planning.
The City of Glendale appreciates and respects your desire to pursue a housing production proposal. However, as currently drafted, SB 79 will not spur much-needed housing construction in a manner that supports local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. State-driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the extensive public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements. For these reasons, the City of Glendale strongly opposes SB 79. If you have any questions regarding the City's position on this bill, please contact Domenica Megerdichian at (818) 550- 4314 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Ara Najarian, Mayor
City of Glendale, CA
cc: Senator Sasha Renee Perez
Assemblymember Nick Schultz
Assemblymember Jessica Caloza
Jennifer Quan, League of California Cities
Exhibit 4
320 of 339
9 (II I- Brc)adw Sulk ‘00
(* CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
1. - -,
- I (,lend1ile, (A )12(}h-4 ,08
Management Sen ke% H81%’548-4841 [ax ‘818)517-6710
glen dalecagi )
July 2, 2025
The Honorable Scott Wiener
Senator, California State Senate
1021 0 St1 Suite 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 79 IWiener) Transit-oriented Development
Notice of Opposition
Dear Senator Wiener,
The City of Glendale writes to express our strong opposition to your SB 79 (Wiener), which would disregard state-certified housing elements and bestow land use authority to transit agencies without any requirement that developers build affordable housing. Additionally, SB 79 continues to double down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing elements.
While we had initially opposed this bill and later removed our opposition in reflection of amendments to the bill that seemed to try to improve alignment with transit-oriented development, we recognize that with impending transit oriented projects being developed for our community, and the fact that SB 79 continues to defy cities’ local general plan and housing element processes, SB 79 does not serve our community. While the City of Glendale is supportive of housing and transportation projects, evidenced by our successful and ongoing investment in these efforts, we do so through intentional planning, community input and involvement, and local authority and oversight to ensure projects are right-sized and appropriate for our community.
The City has demonstrated its commitment to housing programming and development, including:
• Over a year-long process to create transit-oriented development standards for the Tropico TOD, that increased density and simplified development standards. • Housing Authority adoption of a robust Rental Rights Program to protect tenants, a successful Section 8 program, and a housing subsidy program that just recently ended after a three-year success.
• Over a year-long process to develop citywide standards for mixed-use and multi-family zones, which is aimed at simplifying requirements as well as ensuring maximum development potential can be achieved. These standards are set to be adopted next month. • The City has also been engaged in updating the Land Use Element over the course of the past year. This will include increases in density through the planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor, an extension of the Tropico TOD, and consideration of developing vacant city-owned properties.
Development standards will be created simultaneously, with adoption expected in early 2026. • We modified our Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance guidelines and requirements to produce four-times more than some of our peer cities.
• The City has acquired several properties in recent years, opening nearly 150 units of City- sponsored affordable housing this year alone, and will complete construction of the largest affordable housing development in the State, for an addition of 340 new and affordable units, in December of 2026.
321 of 339
On OF GLENDALE, CALIF0U’HA 6I3LBroadwaySuiteZOO
Glendale, (TA 91206-4308
Management Services Tel. (SIB) 548-4844 Fax (818) 547-6710 1 glendaleca.gov
• Furthermore, the City has streamlined its review processes, resulting in dramatic drops in review timelines, ranging from 27 to 57 percent for discretionary reviews, and 10 to 57 percent for administrative reviews, in just the past year.
• Looking to the future, the City is developing Requests for Proposal (REPs) to encourage development on City parking lots, set to be released in August of 2025.
These efforts included extensive public engagement while also delivering quality housing programs and units, all while adopting a certified Housing Element as well. Community engagement included hearings at City Council, Planning Commission and Sustainability commission, neighborhood and tenant union town halls, online engagements and surveys, open houses as major City and community events — while still achieving the mission of producing high-quality housing.
The City of Glendale appreciates and respects your desire to pursue a housing production proposal.
However, local oversight of all aspects of the development including height, density, and design, as well as local zoning and planning are critical to this continued success in our community. State-driven ministerial or by-right housing approval processes fail to recognize the importance of public engagement associated with developing and adopting zoning ordinances and housing elements, and does not serve our community.
For these reasons, the City of Glendale opposes SB 79. If you have any questions regarding the City’s position on this bill, please contact Domenica Megerdichian at (818) 550-4314 or dmegerdichiangIendaleca.gov.
man, City Manager
dor Sasha Renee Perez
Assemblymember Nick Schultz
Assemblymember Jessica Caloza
Jennifer Quan, League of California Cities
Roul
cc:
322 of 339
September 17, 2025
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Senate Bill 79 - Request for Veto
Dear Governor Newsom,
The City of Glendale continues to strongly oppose Senate Bill 79, and writes to request your veto this bill, which disregards state-certified housing elements, and bestows land use authority to transit agencies, requiring housing development projects proposed near a transit-oriented development stop to be an allowed use on any site zoned for residential, mixed, commercial, or light industrial development if the project complies with various requirements.
Glendale stands firmly against SB 79’s policy framework, which outlines a state-mandated, by-right approval process for housing development. SB 79 continues to double down on the recent trend of the state overriding its own mandated local housing elements. As a result, we feel it is critical that cities are empowered to play a lead role in the decision-making process for housing development projects in their communities. Ensuring that cities have a seat at the table is a matter of good governance.
We urge you to veto SB 79, a one-size-fits-all bill that will not spur much-needed housing, but instead strip away local discretion, impose an unfunded mandate, and hand down rigid land-use rules that ignore on-the-ground realities. We thank you in advance for your consideration of our opposition to SB 79 and request for your veto.
Sincerely,
Ara Najarian, Mayor
Vartan Gharpetian, Councilmember Ardashes Kassakhian, Councilmember
Elen Asatryan, Councilmember Dan Brotman, Councilmember cc: Assembly Member Schultz
Assembly Member Caloza
Senator Perez
League of California Cities
323 of 339
January 8, 2026
Sena
tor Maria Elena Durazo
Chair of Senate Local Government Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 7530
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: S
enate Bill 677 (Wiener) Transit-oriented Development – Notice of Opposition Dear
Chair Durazo,
The C
ity of Glendale continues to strongly oppose Senate Bill 79, as well as the amendments to Senate Bill 677, which seeks technical adjustments and clarifications to SB 79 all of which do not serve our communities. SB 79 and SB 677 bypass working with the local community context altogether and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all mandate. Glendale is supportive of denser housing and transportation projects as exampled by our successfully upzoned the Tropico neighborhood around the Glendale Transportation Center, and as accomplished through intentional planning, robust community involvement, and local authority and oversight, to ensure projects are right-sized and appropriate for our community. SB 79 disregards this process altogether.
St
aff across our region, including the Cities of Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena, have been meeting regularly and coordinating efforts to understand the new legislation and its implications for our communities, particularly in light of the significant Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project being planned for our region (Noho to Pasadena). We share the concerns of our neighboring cities regarding the application of SB 79 densities around Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops that are not yet constructed or operational. Our staff continues to review and assess potential and evolving implications of SB 79 to our community, including the recent SB 677 changes that upgrade the Glendale Transit Center a Tier I TOD stop.
Gl
endale respectfully urges the Legislature to provide additional time on the implementation of SB 79 and consideration of a potential local alternative plan. The Department of Housing and Community Development guidelines are not scheduled for release until SB 79’s effective date, giving jurisdictions no opportunity to consider legislation concurrently with the guidelines. In Glendale and our neighboring communities, this implementation timeline is even more alarming because the Noho to Pasadena BRT line is not estimated to be completed until summer 2028 (https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena- corridor/). Glendale suggests aligning the timeline with our next Housing Element cycle, to be implemented in 2029, but a suggested alternative could be to allow us an additional 12 months at a minimum (to June 2027).
We t
hank you in advance for your consideration of our requests for additional clarifications and a feasible timeline for implementation. Please direct any questions regarding the City's Exhibit 5
324 of 339
position on this bill to Domenica Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager, at (818) 550- 4314 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Ara Najarian, Mayor
cc: Senator Sasha Renee Perez
Assemblymember Nick Schultz
Assemblymember Jessica Caloza
Jennifer Quan, League of California Cities
325 of 339
CITY OF BURBANK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
150 North Third Street, P.O. Box 6459, Burbank, California 91510-6459 www.bu rba n kca.gov
January 30, 2026
Mr. Ray Sosa, Chief Planning Officer
Mr. Timothy Lindholm, Chief Program Management Officer
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Attn: North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: Senate Bill 79 Subsequent Environmental Review for the Metro North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project
Dear Mr. Sosa and Mr. Lindholm:
The City of Burbank (Burbank) is reviewing 100% plans for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project (BRT) and believes that Senate Bill 79's (SB 79) mandatory upzoning constitutes new information that changes the circumstances under which the BRT was proposed and renders its Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) legally inadequate.
Burbank respectfully requests Metro conduct subsequent environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to analyze, publicly disclose and mitigate potential significant environmental impacts of any BRT stations that qualify for SB 79 density increases.
Metro's Draft and Final El R's for BRT were considered by Burbank on December 8, 2020, and April 12, 2022, respectively. On March 26, 2024, Burbank's City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with Metro for Design and Construction of the BRT. The BRT EIR determined the Project would have a less than-significant Land Use and Planning Impact because it was limited to operating entirely within existing transportation corridors and would not impact land uses.1 In other words, the EIR assumed the BRT would not implicate or require increases in building height, density, and floor area ratios for future development that could conflict with a land use plan, policy or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the Project. SB 79 changed that fundamental assumption.
SB 79 was signed on October 10, 2025, and is generally effective July 1, 2026. The law requires housing development projects proposed within one-half mile of qualifying transit-oriented development stops 1 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Draft Environmental Impact Report: North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project (SCH# 2019060110), October 2020, Ch. 4, p. 4-14 AoMINlillATION BUILDING BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING SECTION 8 & CDBG ❖ ❖
818.238.5176 818.238.5220 818.238 5180 818.238.5250 818.238.5160
TRANSPORTATION
818.238.5290
Exhibit 6
326 of 339
be allowed at substantially higher densities than permitted under Burbank's General Plan (including the 2021-2029 Housing Element), zoning code and proposed specific plans, including in single-family residential zones. Burbank's permitted multifamily residential housing densities range from Oto 43 units per acre in residential zones and between 20 and 87 units per acre in commercial and other non residential zones. SB 79 would permit approximately 140 units per acre adjacent to qualifying transit stations and 80 to 100 units per acre in zones within one-half mile from those stations, which include single-family residential.
As Burbank evaluated Metro's BRT Draft and Final EIRs, it approved its 6th Cycle Housing Element, which demonstrated zoning capacity for more than 10,000 additional housing units, and commenced several specific plans to, among other things, identify appropriate zoning and development incentives to accommodate up to 26,836 additional housing units in the next 10 years. The CEQA analysis for the Housing Element and several specific plans conclude significant and unavoidable impacts to Burbank's sewage conveyance and treatment system and find electricity demand from future housing growth will similarly require a substantial increase in Burbank's power system interconnection capacity. Adding substantially more residential density around SB 79-qualifying transit-oriented development stops, not previously studied under CEQA, will exacerbate these impacts.
The BRT project description in the Draft and Final El Rs circulated and approved by the Metro Board of Directors on April 28, 2022, was limited to operating a bus rapid transit service and stations in existing transportation corridors and did not include any residential transit-oriented development. SB 79 and its imposition of higher residential densities around BRT stations presents substantial new information that could not have been known, which is of substantial importance to the project, and will have significant and unavoidable impacts to Burbank's infrastructure that have not been analyzed or considered.
Therefore, Burbank formally requests Metro, the lead agency for BRT, commence subsequent environmental review to determine potentially significant environmental impacts around any SB 79 "transit-oriented development stops" located within the City.
Sincerely,
C?�� Patrick Prescott
Community Development Director
Cc: Justin Hess, City Manager
Joseph McDougall, City Attorney
Burbank City Council
327 of 339
CEM
T
IND SR
IND
IND
IND
T
T
GTC Area Possible SB79 Exclusions for Delayed Effectuation 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Miles
Legend
GTC
GTC Area SB79 Excluded Parcels
Glendale Register Historic Parcels
GTC Stops 1/4 Mile Radius
GTC Stops 1/2 Mile Radius
Very High Fire Hazard Zone
Glendale Boundary
Zoning Excluded for SB79
CE - Comml. Equestrian
CEM - Cemetery
IND - Industrial
MS - Medical Services
SR - Special Recreation
T - Transportation
Disclaimer: SB 79 requires that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) create a map of the
City's transit-oriented development (TOD) stops and zones by tier, as designated by SB 79, and in accordance with any guidance prepared by the Department of Housing &
Community Development. Glendale has prepared this map
based on the City's initial analysis of the language contained in SB 79. The map is in draft format and is intended for exploratory purposes only. Updated SB 79 maps will be
released as new information becomes available and if any changes to potential TOD stops are identified. February 24, 2026.
Exhibit 7
328 of 339
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP
180 E MAIN STREET, SUITE 108 |TUSTIN, CA 92780
atropiano @denovoplanning.com | ( 714) 453- 7711
February 17, 2026
Vilia Zemaitaitis
Deputy Director of Long Range Planning, City of Glendale 613 E. Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206
Via email: [email protected]
SUB
JECT: Focused General Plan Update – Additional Work Request Related to SB 79/GTC Only De Novo Planning Group (De Novo) is contracted with the City of Glendale to prepare the City’s updated Land Use and Mobility Elements and new Environmental Justice Element and associated environmental review. Significant work effort has been completed resulting in the completion of the Draft General Plan Elements, technical studies (air quality, energy, and GHG, noise and vibration, and traffic), and the Administrative and Revised Drafts of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Senate Bill (SB) 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, was signed into law on October 10, 2025.
SB 79 requires cities and counties in counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations to permit taller, denser apartment buildings within a half -mile of major transit hubs. To address California's housing shortage, the law mandates that local jurisdictions allow residential developments of up to nine stories near train stations and high - frequency bus stops, effectively overriding local zoning. The law goes into effect July 1, 2026.
In response to SB 79’s passage, the City of Glendale has determined the need to modify the technical studies (air quality, energy, and GHG, noise and vibration, and traffic), and the Draft EIR to account for potential growth allowed under SB 79 as a cumulative related project . The scope of work and fee outlined below identifies necessary revisions to the various existing draft project components to account for potential growth within ½ -mile of the Glendale Transit Center (GTC).
If you have any questions on this assignment, please contact me to discuss our approach. I can be reached at (714) 453-7711 or [email protected].
A
manda Tropiano
Principal
Exhibit 8
329 of 339
De
Novo Planning Group – SB 79 GTC Proposal
2 SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT 7 SB 79 IMPLEMENTATION GTC AREA ONLY
TASK 7.1 G ROWTH POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
De Novo will analyze the parcels in the GTA area to determine the extent of application of SB 79 development standards and the growth potential associated with such standards. This effort will include the numerical analysis of potential sites at the parcel level, along with mapping studies to identify and evaluate implications.
Deliverables:
• Growth potential at parcel level of SB 79 implementation at GT C
TASK 7.2 T RAVEL DEMAND MODEL
The Glendale Citywide Travel Demand Model (Model) will be modified to account for the development potential around the GTC. Kittelson will review the SB 79-specific land use data provided by De Novo, on a parcel-level basis, and develop new model inputs to account for the SB 79 development potential in the future condition. Kittelson will then code the development potential surrounding the GTC into the Model and run the model for future 2045 baseline conditions. Kittelson will add the Project to the updated 2045 baseline model to develop new 2045 plus Project conditions. The results from the new model runs will be compared to the previous version to ensure that the outputs are correctly scaled.
Deliverables:
• Model runs
TASK 7.3 T RAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
The draft Glendale General Plan Update Traffic Operations Analysis (TOA) assessed operating conditions at 30 intersections and 32 roadway segments across the city, primarily focused in areas with high anticipated growth or other key locations as determined by the City. To ensure that the effects of SB 79 are captured, Kittelson assumes up to four additional analysis locations will need to be added – the number and location will be confirmed with City staff. For each location, Kittelson will obtain the existing volumes from the ongoing Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study (CTMS), extract future 2045 baseline and plus Project volumes from the Model, and calculate LOS conditions for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Kittelson will then update the TOA with the da ta and results from these additional locations. In addition, new ADT figures will be prepared and included in the document.
Deliverables:
• Draft and Final TOA (Microsoft Word and PDF)
330 of 339
De Novo Planning Group – SB 79 GTC Proposal
3 TASK 7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
7.4.1 TECHNICAL STUDIES
AIR QUALITY , ENERGY , AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The updated cumulative buildout scenario will require remodeling. De Novo will conduct updated air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions modeling and will incorporate the revisions into the EIR analysis. Stand -alone technical studies will not be prepared; modeling assumptions and output will be provided within the appendices.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
The updated cumulative buildout scenario will require preparation of updated noise modeling, including updated noise contours. MD Acoustics will prepare updated modeling to account for potential mobile -source operational impacts. The Noise technical study will be updated to reflect the revisions.
CEQA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Using the model new output (described above), Kittelson will extract the VMT-related data and recalculate the total citywide VMT for 20245 baseline and with Project conditions. Kittelson will update the draft Glendale General Plan Update Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) with the new VMT data and determine any changes to potential significant impacts that would occur with the Project.
Deliverables:
• Draft and Final Noise and Vibration Technical Study (Microsoft Word and PDF) • Draft and Final TIA (Microsoft Word and PDF)
7.4.2 PREPARATION OF REVISED DRAFT EIR
An Administrative Draft EIR was previously submitted and reviewed by the City. The comments have primarily been addressed and the Revised Draft EIR has been substantially completed. The De Novo team will further modify the Revised Draft EIR to include updates and revisions to all sections to account for the updated cumulative analysis associated with SB 79. The Revised Draft EIR will be provided to the City for review and comment.
Deliverables:
• Revised Draft EIR (Microsoft word with figures in PDF)
7.4.3 PREPARATION OF SECOND REVISED DRAFT EIR
Following the City’s review of the Revised Draft EIR, De Novo will prepare a Second Revised Draft EIR to address comments received from the City. Changes will be highlighted/provided in tracked changes to assist in the review.
The Second Revised Draft EIR will be provided to the City for review.
The next iteration of the EIR will be the Public Review Draft EIR, which is included within our current scope of work.
Deliverables:
• Second Revised Draft EIR (Microsoft word with figures in PDF)
331 of 339
De Novo Planning Group – SB 79 GTC Proposal
4 SCHEDULE
The timeline to modify the existing general plan and environmental documents is approximately four months beyond the existing contract term limit (Septmebre 2026). The revised project completion date is December 31, 2026.
COST ESTIMATE (GTC ONLY)
City of Glendale Focused GPU - SB 79 Update (GTC Only)
MD
Acoustics Kittelson Direct Costs
hours $150 hours $ 115 hours $100 hours $85 hours Fee
Fee
7.1 Growth Potential Analysis 80 $12,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 80 $12,000 $12,000
7.2 Travel Demand Model 14 $2,100 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 14 $2,100 $9,200 $11,300
7.3 Traffic Operations Analysis 14 $2,100 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 14 $2,100 $9,600 $11,700
7.4 Environmental Impact Report
7.4.1 Technical Studies 48 $7,200 80 $9,200 16 $1,600 40 $3,400 184 $21,400 $6,041 $7,400 $34,841
7.4.2 Preparation of Revised Draft EIR 80 $12,000 88 $10,120 60 $6,000 120 $10,200 348 $38,320 $38,320
7.4.3 Preparation of Second Revised Draft EIR 48 $7,200 48 $5,520 48 $4,800 80 $6,800 224 $24,320 $24,320 PROJECT 7 SUBTOTAL 284 $42,600 216 $24,840 124 $12,400 240 $20,400 864 $100,240 $6,041 $26,200 $0 $132,481 $132,481
Printing,
Postage,
Filing FeesTASK/ACTIVITY
Principal Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Noise
TOTAL FEE
Traffic
TOTALS
PROJECT 7 - SB 79 IMPLEMENTATION
De Novo Subtotal ACTIVITY
TOTALS
332 of 339
City of Glendale
Information Sheet- Campaign Finance Ordinance
Applicants Seeking Entitlement
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101. For more information call 818-548-3200.
In August 2011, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, which becomes effective on September 9, 2011 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits campaign contributions from “applicants seeking entitlement,” certain of their contractors and subcontractors (including their architects, engineers, and design professionals) while the application is “pending” and for 12 months thereafter. An application is deemed pending when: an application or letter is filed and the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority has original jurisdiction over approval of the entitlement, or when the application is formally appealed to the City Council.
The Ordinance also prohibits any member of the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, or Housing Authority from voting on any matter pertaining to an entitlement if that member has received a campaign contribution from the applicant seeking the entitlement, or certain contractors or subcontractors of the applicant, within the 12-month period preceding the consideration of the matter.
I. What acts does the Ordinance prohibit?
With respect
to an “applicant seeking entitlement” before the Glendale City Council (“Council”), the Glendale Redevelopment Agency (“GRA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”), the Ordinance does the following:
1. Prohibition
No. 1 – Ban on contributions while application is pending and for 12 months thereafter. The Ordinance prohibits (a)
an “applicant seeking entitlement”, (b)
a “contracto
r of an applicant seeking an entitlement,” or (c) a “subcontractor of an applicant
seeking an entitlement” from making a contribution to a member of City Council while an applica
tion is “pending” before the Council, GRA, or HA and for a period of 12
months after the last and final approval of the Council, GRA or HA.
2. Prohibition
No. 2 – Ban on voting if contribution received during 12-month period preceding consideration of the matter. Prohibits any Council Member, Redevelop
ment Agency Member, or Housing Authority Member who has received a contribution
from an applicant seeking entitlement, a contractor of an applicant seeking entitlement, or a subcont
ractor seeking entitlement within a period of 12 months prior to consideratio
n of an entitlement from voting on the matter.
II. Who is an applicant seeking entitlement?
• Person who files an app
lication or letter with the City, GRA, or HA, or
• Person who is an owner
or lessee of property on whose behalf an application or letter is filed
\\Planningsrvr\planningshare\Current Planning\CounterForms\Campaign Finance forms\Campaign Finance SummaryRevised.doc Exhibit 9
333 of 339
III. What is an entitlement?
An entitlement is any land use or similar entitlement including:
Permit License Conditional Use
Permit
Variance Architectural/Design
Review (any stage)
Franchise Administrative
Exception
Parking
Reduction
Permit
Review of Plans Development
Agreement
Disposition and
Development
Agreement
Exclusive
Negotiation
Agreement
Owner
Participation
Agreement
Affordable
Housing
Agreement
Financial
Assistance to a
Project
IV. When is an entitlement “pending?”
• For items that require approval of the Council, Redevelopment Agency or Housing Authority and thus must be set for review or hearing before that body, the application is deemed “pending” at the time the application or letter is filed. • For items where the Council, GRA, or HA is the appellate body, the application is “pending” when the notice of appeal has been filed.
• The three examples set forth below are intended to provide interpretive guidance:
(1) An application for a zone change is filed. Since a zone change can only be effectuated by the City Council, upon filing the application it would be pending before the City Council. (2) An application for a Conditional Use Permit is filed. Only at such time as the grant or denial of a Conditional Use Permit is appealed to the Council would it be pending before the City Council;
(3) An application for a variance in the Downtown Specific Plan (“DSP”) Area is filed. Since the Council has original jurisdiction over variances in the DSP, the variance application would be pending before the Council when filed.
V. Which contractors and subcontractors does the Ordinance apply to? • Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement – A person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contractor with an applicant seeking entitlement.
• Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement – A person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a contractor of applicant seeking entitlement. • For the contractors of applicant seeking entitlement and the subcontractors of applicant seeking entitlement, the prohibitions on campaign contributions and voting on matters related to contributors applies not only to the entity that is the contractor or subcontractor but also to the following individuals or entities of the contractor or subcontactors: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor or subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contractor or subcontractor.
\\Planningsrvr\planningshare\Current Planning\CounterForms\Campaign Finance forms\Campaign Finance SummaryRevised.doc 334 of 339
I I I I I I I
City of Glendale
Disclosure - Campaign Finance Ordinance
Applicants Seeking Entitlement
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101.
F
or more information, call 818-548-3200.
(To be Completed Prior to Preparation of Staff Reports for Consideration of Entitlement Matter by Council, Agency, or Authority, or at Time of Appeal to the City Council if the Applicant is also the Appellant) In August 2011, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, which becomes effective on September 9, 2011 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits campaign contributions from “applicants seeking entitlement,” their contractors and subcontractors (including their architects, engineers, and design professionals) while the application is “pending” and for 12 months thereafter. The Ordinance also prohibits Council Members from vo ting on any matter pertaining to an entitlement if the Council member has received a campaign contribution from the applicant seeking the entitlement, or certain contractors or subcontractors of the applicant, within the 12-month period preceding the vote.
The Applicant and the Owner/Lessor hereby discloses as follows. (If printing, please print legibly. Use additional sheets as necessary.) I. Name of Ap
plicant and Name of Owner/Lessor on whose behalf application is filed:
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) N/A
335 of 339
II. Officers or owners/investors of Applicant Entity. Please also disclose the following persons or entities related to the applicant entity: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign + Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
III. Contractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement*
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
* “Contractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract with an applicant seeking entitlement. “Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the contracting party but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contracting party.
Please list the names and addresses of all of these parties.
IV. Subcontractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement** Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
** “Subcontractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a ‘contractor an applicant seeking entitlement.”
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) Ben Ritchie CEO 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762 Steve McMurtry CFO 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762 Beth Thompson Secretary 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills CA 95762 Amanda Tropiano Principal 180 E Main Street, Suite 108 Tustin CA 92780 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. SEE ATTACHED
MD Acoustics SEE ATTACHED
N/A
336 of 339
“Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the subcontracting party, but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the subcontracting party. Please list the name and addresses of all of these parties.
V. Disclosure. The Applicant Seeking Entitlement has made campaign or officeholder contributions in the preceding 12 months to City
of Glendale elected officials as follows:
Elected Offi
cial Name of Individual or Entity Date of Contribution
I hereby certify, on behalf of the above-named applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s), that the applicant seeking entitlement has made the campaign contributions as set forth above. I also certify that the names of all contractors of applicant and all subcontractors of applicant, as of today’s date, are fully set forth above. I further acknowledge that the applicant has a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if the applicant selects additional or substitute architects, design professionals, contractors or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change. I hereby certify that I have been legally authorized by the applicant/owner/lessor to submit this disclosure form and certify to the content hereof.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on ___________________ at _____________________________, California Applicant’s Signature_____________________________, Print Applicant’s Full Name ___________________________________ Applicant’s Address _____________________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Contact Phone Number ________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Email Address _______________________________________________________________
City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) N/A
[email protected]
714-453-7711
180 E Main Street, Suite 108, Tustin, CA 92780
Amanda Tropiano, Principal
February 23, 2026 Tustin
337 of 339
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Brandon Nevers President, Chief Executive Officer 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 Lawrence Van Dyke Vice President, Chief Finanical Officer225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 Marc A. Butorac Vice President, Director 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 Karl A. Passetti Vice President, Director 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 Jane Lim-Yap Vice President 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 Bailey R. Lozner Vice President 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 David L. Mills Vice President 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 Anthony S. Yi Vice President 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 Bastiain J. Schroeder Vice President 225 East Robinson, Suite 355OrlandoFL 32801 10% Ownership N/A
338 of 339
MD Acoustics
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Michael L
Dickerson
Chairperson
More than 10%
Interest Owner
4960 S Gilbert Rd
Suite I-461
Chandler AZ 85249
339 of 339