AR 7 CORR PART 6 Email Submission March 4 2026 8 19 pm CORRESPONDENCE PART 6

Zoning Hearing Officer Addendum
Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 7318
202 N. Euclid Avenue
August 29, 2025
It is my understanding that members of the public have filed appeals of my decision to approve Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) No. 7318. This permit authorizes a Safe Parking use for up to 25 vehicles in conjunction with the religious facility located at 202 North Euclid Avenue.

Prior to the public hearing held on June 18, 2025, I carefully reviewed the staff report and all related exhibits, conducted a site visit of the subject property, and considered all written testimony submitted by members of the public. The concerns expressed during the process primarily related to the following: safety of the proposed operation; unpermitted land use; loitering; adequacy of public notice; and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

After a thorough review of the record, I concurred with staff’s recommendation that the required findings for approval could be made. I found staff’s analysis to be comprehensive and well- reasoned, providing a solid basis for approval. In addition, I was persuaded by the applicant’s presentation that community concerns could be reasonably addressed through the conditions of approval and by ongoing coordination with neighboring stakeholders. The following considerations were most significant in informing my determination:

Compliance with Zoning Code
I agree with staff’s assessment that the Safe Parking use is conditionally permitted in the PS zoning district subject to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. I further concur that the proposed use complies with the specific requirements of Zoning Code Section 17.50.265 (Safe Parking), including submittal of a management plan and compliance with applicable performance standards.

Based on the record, I also found sufficient evidence to support the determination that the site qualifies as a religious facility, thereby meeting eligibility requirements for operation of a Safe Parking program.

Safety Concerns
I determined that the Safe Parking program, as conditioned, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood. The operation incorporates multiple safeguards specifically intended to minimize potential adverse impacts, including discouraging loitering, littering, late-night disturbances, use of the public right- of-way, and noise.

Conditions of approval require: (1) the presence of a security guard during all hours of operation; (2) establishment of a hotline for community concerns; and (3) designation of a program representative who is available at all times during operation to respond promptly to issues.

To further address sanitary needs in a manner consistent with neighborhood compatibility, I imposed a condition requiring use of the indoor restroom facilities in lieu of the initially proposed portable toilet. My concern with reliance on a portable toilet is that it could attract unwanted activity from unhoused individuals outside of the Safe Parking program. However, I recognize that the use of a portable toilet may be appropriate if access is strictly controlled. Therefore, I would support the use of a portable toilet provided it is equipped with a key code mechanism available only to Safe Parking participants.

Collectively, these measures establish a robust framework of safeguards that adequately address neighborhood safety concerns while allowing the Safe Parking program to operate responsibly.

Public Noticing and CEQA Compliance
I found that all required noticing procedures were followed prior to scheduling the public hearing.

Proper notifications were mailed and posted in accordance with State and local requirements.

Regarding CEQA, I determined that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review and that no unusual circumstances distinguish it from other projects in the exempt class. The use of the religious facility site for Safe Parking constitutes a negligible expansion of the existing use.

Finally, I wish to clarify that my use of the term “mitigation measures” during the hearing was intended in a general sense to describe measures alleviating community concerns, and not in the technical CEQA context of environmental impact mitigation.

Conclusion
Based on these findings, and supported by the staff’s detailed evaluation, I determined that the proposed Safe Parking use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning Code and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In my judgment, the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties or the broader community.

Accordingly, I reaffirm my decision to approve Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 7318.

Res ectfull ,
Alex Garcia
Zoning Hearing Officer
py
Al G i
Tel. +1 (626) 375-5843 | www.voglerlawoffices.com
IN UNITED STATES: 5320 E. 2nd St., Suite 10, Long Beach, CA 90803 | IN BRAZIL: Carlos von Koseritz, 58/704, Porto Alegre, RS 90540-030 January 25, 2026
(Via E-Mail Only: [email protected])
City of Pasadena
Pasadena City Councilmembers
100 N. Garfield Ave.

Pasadena, CA 91101
Dear Councilmembers:

I represent a resident, property owner and registered voter in the City of Pasadena.

At the request of my client, I am furthering my correspondence to you dated January 22, 2026 regarding a requested investigation of the conduct of Councilmember Steven Madison.

On October 4, 2021 Councilmember Madison voted to approve a City of Pasadena contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) that called for payments to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department of $1,900,000 per year for a period of five years not-to-exceed $9,500,000.

Twenty-Five (25) days later on October 29, 2021, Mr. Madison's law firm acting as a claimant filed a "Demand for Arbitration" naming the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department as the Respondent in a civil action seeking payment of $1.7 million for legal work performed by Mr. Madison and his law firm.

This Arbitration Demand shows that Mr. Madison had a financial interest in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (an agency of the County of Los Angeles) by virtue of his financial claim, and as their former lawyer, Mr. Madison had a duty of loyalty to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (an agency of the County of Los Angeles).

In addition to the issues contained in my correspondence of January 22, 2026, I wish to note that when Mr. Madison voted to approve a $9.5 million contract between the City of Pasadena and the Sheriff's Department, a former client of Mr. Madison’s, not only was Mr.

Madison conflicted by the nature of his relationship with the Sheriff’s Department, but also by his financial claim (and his law firm’s claim) that the Sheriff’s Department owed his law firm $1.7 million.

On behalf of my client, I request that the Pasadena City Council investigate the conduct of Councilmember Steve Madison’s in this matter as well.

Pasadena, CA 91101
Dear Councilmembers:

I represent a resident, property owner and registered voter in the City of Pasadena.

On behalf of my client, I request that the Pasadena City Council investigate the conduct of Councilmember Steve Madison’s participation in the creation and negotiation of a City of Pasadena contract with the County of Los Angeles while he was simultaneously pursuing financial claims against the County of Los Angeles stemming from a fee dispute between Mr.

Madison’s and his client, the County of Los Angeles. Exhibit 1.

There can be little doubt that a conflict of interest arose when Mr. Madison, on the one hand, was suing his former client, The County of Los Angeles, for unpaid legal services by Mr.

Madison and his law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquahart & Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn Emanuel”), while on the other hand Mr. Madison was acting in an official capacity as a representative of the City of Pasadena in contract negotiations with the County of Los Angeles.

The County Charter makes clear that the Office of County Counsel exclusively represents the County and all County agencies and officials acting in the course and scope of their public duties which Mr. Madison was doing when representing the County of Los Angeles. Yet, Mr.

Madison was also representing the City of Pasadena in contract preparation with the County of Los Angeles. It is unethical that Mr. Madison would wear both hats at the same time.

Not only did Mr. Madison claim that he was providing legal services for the County of Los Angeles, but he also claimed a financial interest through his fee dispute litigation against the County of Los Angeles.

To support my client’s allegations, attached is proposed retainer agreement, dated March 29, 2019, between the L.A. County Counsel’s office and Mr. Madison at Quinn Emanuel; Tel. +1 (626) 375-5843 | www.voglerlawoffices.com
IN UNITED STATES: 5320 E. 2nd St., Suite 10, Long Beach, CA 90803 | IN BRAZIL: Carlos von Koseritz, 58/704, Porto Alegre, RS 90540-030 “As you know, you were retained under Government Code section 31000.6(a), which authorizes the Board of Supervisors to employ legal counsel to assist the Sheriff in any case where the County Counsel would have a conflict of interest.” Exhibit 2.
and a Quinn Emanuel engagement letter with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, dated October 29, 2021, where Mr. Madison wrote, “I will be primarily responsible for the Engagement and will be actively involved in the preparation of the case and any trial.” Exhibit 3.

Government Code Section 1090 prohibits an officer, employee, or agency from participating in making government contracts in which the official or employee within the agency has a financial interest. “Making” a contract includes final approval of the agreement, as well as involvement in preliminary discussion, planning, negotiation, and solicitation of bids.

Indeed, on October 23, 2025, the California Court of Appeal held that Quinn Emanuel acted in bad faith when suing the County of Los Angeles for unpaid legal fees of approximately $1.7 million for work performed in part by Mr. Madison himself (see, County of Los Angeles v.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, 115 Cal. App. 5 th 489) and demonstrates that
Councilmember Madison had long been pursuing a financial interest with the County of Los Angeles while at the same time serving and acting in an official capacity as a representative of the people of Pasadena.

The record shows that Mr. Madison not only participated in making a contract with the County of Los Angeles, but also voted on multiple Pasadena City Council matters involving the County of Los Angeles including but not limited to matters relating to a joint venture between the City of Pasadena and the County of Los Angeles to purchase and operate a mental health facility (aka “The Kaiser Project”), which has already costs the City in excess of $12 million.

Because Pasadena City Councilmember Steve Madison participated in the making of a contract with the County of Los Angeles, an entity that he provided legal services to and was suing for disputed legal fees of $1.7 million, Mr. Madison created a conflicted financial interest and prohibited conflict of interest from which Mr. Madison should have recused himself from involvement as a representative of the City of Pasadena when any discussions regarding the County of Los Angeles arose or occurred.

For the reasons discussed above, my client requests that the City Council of Pasadena:
1) Seek an opinion from the California Fair Political Practices Commission regarding whether Steven Madison had/has a conflict with matters relating to the County of Tel. +1 (626) 375-5843 | www.voglerlawoffices.com
IN UNITED STATES: 5320 E. 2nd St., Suite 10, Long Beach, CA 90803 | IN BRAZIL: Carlos von Koseritz, 58/704, Porto Alegre, RS 90540-030 Los Angeles because he had a financial interest in the County of Los Angeles as a result of his then pending lawsuit.
2) Retain outside counsel to investigate the conduct of Steven Madison in this matter to determine if Steven Madison’s conduct has tainted the Kaiser development process and what actions, if any, are necessary to remediate Madison’s conduct and eliminate the risk the project could be voided.
3) If appropriate, take action to prevent Steven Madison from further tainting the Kaiser project if Madison continues to refuse to recuse himself. 4) As a result of the substantial City funds at issue, consider exercising the Council’s subpoena powers to collect additional facts from Mr. Madison.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very Respectfully,
Michael J. Vog er, Esq.

Tel. +1 (626) 375-5843 | www.voglerlawoffices.com
IN UNITED STATES: 5320 E. 2nd St., Suite 10, Long Beach, CA 90803 | IN BRAZIL: Carlos von Koseritz, 58/704, Porto Alegre, RS 90540-030 EXHIBIT 1
Exhibit M - Page 78
Exhibit M - Page 79
Exhibit M - Page 80
Exhibit M - Page 81
Exhibit M - Page 82
Exhibit M - Page 83
Tel. +1 (626) 375-5843 | www.voglerlawoffices.com
IN UNITED STATES: 5320 E. 2nd St., Suite 10, Long Beach, CA 90803 | IN BRAZIL: Carlos von Koseritz, 58/704, Porto Alegre, RS 90540-030 EXHIBIT 2

Tel. +1 (626) 375-5843 | www.voglerlawoffices.com
IN UNITED STATES: 5320 E. 2nd St., Suite 10, Long Beach, CA 90803 | IN BRAZIL: Carlos von Koseritz, 58/704, Porto Alegre, RS 90540-030 EXHIBIT 3
Exhibit M - Page 99
Exhibit M - Page 100
Exhibit M - Page 101
Exhibit M - Page 102
Exhibit M - Page 103
Exhibit M - Page 104
Exhibit M - Page 105
Exhibit M - Page 106
Exhibit M - Page 107
Exhibit M - Page 108
Exhibit M - Page 109
Exhibit M - Page 110
Exhibit M - Page 111
Exhibit M - Page 112

1 of 5
a , c mb r , 25 a 1 3:47S turday, De em e 27 20 t 2:1S turday, De em e 27 20 t 2:1Saturday, December 27, 2025 at 12:13:47        A Pa i c S nd rd M c ﬁ Sta a TimeM c ﬁ Sta a TimeAM Paciﬁc Standard Time ub ct S jec : S jec : Subject:FW: MORE: Recall of Council Review of Safe Parking Program at All Saints Church a : D te D te Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 7:09:05 AM Paciﬁc Standard Time r F om: F om: From:julianna
To: To: To:[email protected], [email protected] C: C C CC:'julianna'
riority: P P Priority:High
N I EN IA PLEA E – NO OR ST I U O OR P B ICAT ON I A Y F RMCO F D T AL EAS N T F DISTR B TION OR UBLI TI N N ANY FO MCO F D T AL EAS N T F DISTR B TION OR UBLI TI N N ANY FO MCONFIDENTIAL PLEASE – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION IN ANY FORM Hi Jess,
I hope you were able to take a look at the memo I sent yesterday regarding recalling the Shared Parking program at All Saints. Please also see below the quesMon I posed to Jennifer Paige this morning--and am forwarding solely to you--regarding whether obtaining MCUP approval is even appropriate or required.

Regarding the acMon to take by the Council (to discuss ﬁrst perhaps with a good land use aSorney):

I would propose when Steve Madison is present (in addiMon to you, Rick, Jason, and Gene) a “moMon to reconsider the Shared Parking at All Saints at a quasi-judicial/de novo hearing at a date certain based on signiﬁcant and relevant informaMon omiSed in the Staﬀ Report of November 17, 2025, that the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA per Public Resources Code SecMon 21080.10 and ﬁnd it will not result in
any signiﬁcant or unusual environmental eﬀects.

Thanks for your leadership and supporMng a criMcal City service.

Julianna
ulianna lgado, M. r h, h.D, FAI PJ De ado M A c Ph. , ICJ De ado M A c Ph. , ICJulianna Delgado, M.Arch, Ph.D, FAICP President, Southern California Planning Congress
Planning Commissioner, City of Pasadena
Design Commissioner (Chair), City of Pasadena
Member, Mayor’s Housing Task Force, City of Pasadena
Professor Emerita, Department of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
der enlightenm nt, do the .A r nlig nme , he laundry.A r nlig nme , he laundry.Ader enlightenment, do the laundry. - - - Zen proverb
From: julianna
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 6:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 'julianna'; 'Mikaelian, Jason'
Subject: RE: ANOTHER RELATED QUESTION: Recall of Council Review of Safe Parking Program at All Saints Church
Importance: High
Jennifer,
I have another related quesMon about the Safe Parking project that you may be able to answer --- or to run by a good land use aSorney.
2 of 5
Given the intent of SB 1361/amendment to the Public Resources Codes to extend enjoyment of the same statutory CEQA exempMon for local government to their contractors operaMng services related to ending homelessness on the government’s behalf, can a land use enMtlement then be required of the contractor? In this case, a MCUP for a Shared Parking program operated by the Showers of Hope at All Saints on the City’s behalf and managed by the Housing Department? By the same token, was a land use or other permit required for Trinity Lutheran to operate contractually a Bad Weather Shelter on the City’s behalf? For Gruen, under City contract to restore the Central Library, to pull a building permit? For Dudek or other landscaping contractor to apply for a tree removal permit to remove trees on behalf of Public Works?
In all cases, I think the answer is ‘No.’ The City’s exempMon for permikng requirements is also extended to their service contractors operaMng on the City’s behalf. From an operaMonal standpoint, the contractor is the City.

The negoMated terms of the City’s contract with the Showers of Hope/All Saints can include locaMon (i.e. northern end of All Saints parking lot), hours of operaMon, number of cars/parMcipants, provision of restroom/handwashing staMon, installaMon of public signs, security guard, etc., which the City will ensure and manage.

The only real beneﬁt of requiring a MCUP is perhaps public noMcing and hearing. However, consideraMon of the Showers of Hope contract was placed on a duly noMced City Council Agenda, on the Consent Calendar. No leSers of opposiMon or request to pull the contract from the Calendar by the public or any City Council member was received. Thus, it was noMced and approved by Council unanimously.

So back to the quesMon: Why does All Saints/Showers of Hope even need a MCUP to operate a shared parking program? (Note: the Hearing Oﬃcer approval for Trinity was prior to SB 1361 – and not, at ﬁrst at least, under contact by the City.)
What is your thinking on this?
Thanks!
Julianna
Cellphone/text:
uJ J Julliia a anannna De a De a Dela Delggadadoo, , M , M., M.rA ArArchch, Ph P Ph, Ph...DD, F, , , FAIPIC IC AICP President, Southern California Planning Congress
Planning Commissioner, City of Pasadena
Design Commissioner (Chair), City of Pasadena
Member, Mayor’s Housing Task Force, City of Pasadena
Professor Emerita, Department of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Ad dAder r r er en nenlliighg g ghtten nen enm mnment , , t, ddooo t t ththe e lll ua auaunnddrrryyy.. - - - Zen proverb

4 of 5
outlines speciﬁc projects and acMons that are st tutorily ex mpttat or exe ptat or exe pstatutorily exempt from the requirements of the Act. It was designed and adopted explicitly to protect programs to end the homelessness crisis in California from being delayed or blocked by CEQA challenges.

As amended by SB 1361, the SecMon now includes speciﬁc statutory exempMons for services and shelters provided to people experiencing homelessness through co t ac s with ocal g r e tt oug ontr t it l a ove nmentst oug ontr t it l a ove nmentsthrough contracts with local governments . Per SecMon 21080.10, the amended Code exempts:
(c) (1) AcMons taken by a local agency to approve a contract for providing services for people experiencing homelessness.
(2) The services described in paragraph (1) may include, but are not limited to, case management, resource navigaMon, security services, residenMal services, and counseling services.

The determinaMon may depend on a local agency ﬁnding that no unusual circumstances exist that could lead to a niﬁc t signiﬁcant signiﬁcant signiﬁcant environmental eﬀect (i.e. impacts to rare or endangered species, harm to historic resources, signiﬁcantly higher levels of air polluMon, etc.) Based on Staﬀ’s argument provided for categorical exempMon, the “no unusual circumstances determinaMon” can be found to be true for the Safe Parking Program at All Saints Church just like the City found for its predecessor located at Trinity Lutheran Church.
he City Has a Clear Rec rd of AcM o Support a e P rk Pro r msT it as ar co d of c on t uppor S f Parking P ogramT it as ar co d of c on t uppor S f Parking P ogramThe City Has a Clear Record of AcMon to Support Safe Parking Programs Approving the Safe Parking Program is a speciﬁc acMon taken with urgency by a local government (Pasadena) to reduce the incidences of declining into chronic homelessness among people who own, operate, and maintain their own vehicles and elect to sleep in them because they cannot aﬀord permanent housing. The City’s Housing Department held discussions with All Saints Church who agreed to provide the use of its parking lot to implement a safe parking program. On April 15, 2024, the City Council—as a part of its Consent ndar a it no s parate uss na of it n Cale nd with e a e disc ioa of it n Cale nd with e a e disc ioas a part of its Consent Calendar and with no separate discussion --authorized entering into a contract with Shower of Hope to operate the program at All Saints on the City’s behalf, managed by the Housing Department.

The Council—without reservaMon---also took acMon to approve the General Plan Housing Element, which included in Program #19 the provision of Safe Parking that was cerMﬁed by the State Dept. of Housing and Community Development. The Council—without reservaMon or opposiMon—also took acMon to amend the Zoning Code to include “Safe Parking” as an accessory use at religious faciliMes located in the P/PS Zone, such as at All Saints. Similarly, the City’s Hearing Oﬃcer approved a safe parking program also categorically exempt from CEQA in February 2024, for Trinity Lutheran Church, without appeal or subsequent revocaMon. , t y’s g l Mve e ord c ar its ac onsThus, the City’s le isla rec d shows le ly it MonsThus, the City’s le isla rec d shows le ly it MonsThus, the City’s legislaMve record shows clearly its acMons to ente in o on r t to s t educing hom lessn ss on its half, including tand o n er t c trac s o upport r duc e s e on s be , inc theand o n er t c trac s o upport r duc e s e on s be , inc theand to enter into contracts to support reducing homelessness on its behalf, including the 5 of 5
ovision of sa e parking.pr o ision of f pa ingpro ision of f pa ingprovision of safe parking.

ulianna lgado, M. r h, h.D, FAI PJ De ado M A c Ph. , ICJ De ado M A c Ph. , ICJulianna Delgado, M.Arch, Ph.D, FAICP President, Southern California Planning Congress
Planning Commissioner, City of Pasadena
Design Commissioner (Chair), City of Pasadena
Member, Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Pasadena
Member, Mayor’s Housing Task Force, City of Pasadena

Professor Emerita, Department of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

der enlightenm nt, do the .A r nlig nme , he laundry.A r nlig nme , he laundry.Ader enlightenment, do the laundry. - - - Zen proverb

CAD Call Print Synopsis
Number of Records Returned: 53

PASADENA POLICE DEPT
Search Criteria: which_cad='P' and occ_date between '2023-01-01' and '2025-09-24' and address like '%997 E WALNUT%' and jurisdiction='PA' Call # Report # Call Date Time Initial Call Type Final Call Type Location Founded Cleared By Printed On: Fri Sep 26 2025
For User: 6076

Page 1 of 4 ends

PA 2023-
12222
2023-12222 Feb-15-2023 15:48:02 484A (PETTY THEFT) 484A (PETTY THEFT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
15433
2023-15433 Feb-27-2023 10:54:31
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
24476
2023-24476 Mar-28-2023 18:29:36
243A (BATTERY) 243A (BATTERY) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
38801
2023-38801 May-14-2023 11:49:41

PFDAST(FIRE DEPT

ASSIST)

PFDAST(FIRE DEPT

ASSIST)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
39362
2023-39362 May-16-2023 14:23:17
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
46283
2023-46283 Jun-08-2023 03:47:50
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
76165
2023-76165 Sep-12-2023 01:01:12
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
79922
2023-79922 Sep-24-2023 03:46:39
415MUS(415 MUSIC) 415MUS(415 MUSIC) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes INCIDENT

UNFOUNDED
PA 2023-
93583
2023-93583 Nov-08-2023 06:36:03
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
95809
2023-95809 Nov-16-2023 01:29:34
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes CANCEL (CAN) PA 2023-
96727
2023-96727 Nov-19-2023 00:33:15
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
96873
2023-96873 Nov-19-2023 16:17:31
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes GONE ON

ARRIVAL
PA 2023-
97085
2023-97085 Nov-20-2023 14:40:30
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes OUTSIDE

ASSIST/REFER
CAD Call Print Synopsis

PASADENA POLICE DEPT
Call # Report # Call Date Time Initial Call Type Final Call Type Location Founded Cleared By Printed On: Fri Sep 26 2025
For User: 6076

Page 2 of 4 ends

PA 2023-
97242
2023-97242 Nov-21-2023 08:24:01 TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
98748
2023-98748 Nov-27-2023 03:17:37
415BG (415

BOY/GIRL)
415BG (415

BOY/GIRL)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
100410
2023-100410 Dec-02-2023 14:44:33

PFDAST(FIRE DEPT

ASSIST)

PFDAST(FIRE DEPT

ASSIST)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2023-
100972
2023-100972 Dec-04-2023 19:14:27
415M (415 MISC) 415M (415 MISC) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-7535 2024-7535 Jan-28-2024 23:53:53

TRUNK (TROUBLE

UNKNOWN)

TRUNK (TROUBLE

UNKNOWN)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes UNABLE TO
LOCATE
PA 2024-9172 2024-9172 Feb-03-2024 19:28:22
415GRP(415 GROUP) 415GRP(415 GROUP) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA No CANCEL (CAN) PA 2024-9277 2024-9277 Feb-04-2024 03:58:57 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
13587
2024-13587 Feb-20-2024 21:39:13
243A (BATTERY) 415M (415 MISC) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
14858
2024-14858 Feb-24-2024 17:59:11
925A (SUSP

PERSON/VEH)
925A (SUSP

PERSON/VEH)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes GONE ON

ARRIVAL
PA 2024-
17267
2024-17267 Mar-03-2024 18:31:33
415M (415 MISC) 415M (415 MISC) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes CANCEL (CAN) PA 2024-
18090
2024-18090 Mar-06-2024 17:54:45

PUBAST(PUBLIC

ASSIST)

PUBAST(PUBLIC

ASSIST)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
18709
2024-18709 Mar-08-2024 23:18:12
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes GONE ON

ARRIVAL
PA 2024-
18967
2024-18967 Mar-10-2024 01:20:13
594A (MAL MIS MISD) 594A (MAL MIS MISD) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA No CANCEL (CAN) PA 2024-
27474
2024-27474 Apr-09-2024 12:39:31 PUBAST(PUBLIC

ASSIST)

PUBAST(PUBLIC

ASSIST)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
31924
2024-31924 Apr-24-2024 22:15:15
925 (SUSP PERSON) 925 (SUSP PERSON) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes UNABLE TO LOCATE

REDACTED
CAD Call Print Synopsis

PASADENA POLICE DEPT
Call # Report # Call Date Time Initial Call Type Final Call Type Location Founded Cleared By Printed On: Fri Sep 26 2025
For User: 6076

Page 3 of 4 ends

PA 2024-
32611
2024-32611 Apr-26-2024 20:28:46 CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
34035
2024-34035 May-01-2024 18:37:29

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
43063
2024-43063 May-31-2024 22:55:46
925 (SUSP PERSON) 925 (SUSP PERSON) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes GONE ON

ARRIVAL
PA 2024-
47234
2024-47234 Jun-14-2024 23:27:06
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
47382
2024-47382 Jun-15-2024 16:06:53
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
53898
2024-53898 Jul-07-2024 17:58:59

PFDAST(FIRE DEPT

ASSIST)

PFDAST(FIRE DEPT

ASSIST)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes CANCEL (CAN)
PA 2024-
55145
2024-55145 Jul-12-2024 02:47:00
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
55564
2024-55564 Jul-13-2024 01:03:05
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
63022
2024-63022 Aug-07-2024 19:52:20

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
63355
2024-63355 Aug-08-2024 21:31:07
925 (SUSP PERSON) 925 (SUSP PERSON) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
77116
2024-77116 Sep-26-2024 04:34:40
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2024-
90417
2024-90417 Nov-14-2024 09:49:30
415M (415 MISC) 415M (415 MISC) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes GONE ON

ARRIVAL
PA 2024-
95290
2024-95290 Dec-02-2024 15:31:09
484A (PETTY THEFT) 484A (PETTY THEFT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
CAD Call Print Synopsis

PASADENA POLICE DEPT
Call # Report # Call Date Time Initial Call Type Final Call Type Location Founded Cleared By Printed On: Fri Sep 26 2025
For User: 6076

Page 4 of 4 ends

PA 2025-5964 2025-5964 Jan-21-2025 06:18:19 415M (415 MISC) 415M (415 MISC) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-7661 2025-7661 Jan-27-2025 11:54:26

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-
12118
2025-12118 Feb-13-2025 16:40:10
647F (PUBLIC INTOX) 647F (PUBLIC INTOX) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes REPORT PA 2025-
12184
2025-12184 Feb-13-2025 22:16:30
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-
12200
2025-12200 Feb-14-2025 00:17:40
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-
16764
2025-16764 Mar-01-2025 09:14:15
602 (TRESPASS) 602 (TRESPASS) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-
19335
2025-19335 Mar-11-2025 17:57:00

MEDIC (MEDICAL

ASSIST)

MEDIC (MEDICAL

ASSIST)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER
ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-
22361
2025-22361 Mar-22-2025 13:42:11
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-
22632
2025-22632 Mar-23-2025 12:00:40
TRST (TRANSIENT) TRST (TRANSIENT) 997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes NO FURTHER ACTION

NEEDED/RESOLV
ED
PA 2025-
37481
2025-37481 May-16-2025 08:01:16

EXSER (EXTRA

SERVICE)

EXSER (EXTRA

SERVICE)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes POLICE ADVISED
PA 2025-
52916
2025-52916 Jul-09-2025 12:23:07

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)

CHKWEL(CHECK

WELFARE)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes GONE ON

ARRIVAL
PA 2025-
72253
2025-72253 Sep-15-2025 10:31:18

SUSCIR(SUSPICIOUS
CIRC)

SUSCIR(SUSPICIOUS
CIRC)
997 E WALNUT ST, PASADENA Yes REPORT

REDACTED

Pasadena City CouncilMarch 9, 2026

Pasadena City Council
March 9, 2026