Instead of compliance and removal…

They’re back for more.  After being slammed in their variance appeal losing on all 4 necessary requirements, the owners of the walled compound at 3411 E. Chevy Chase are back appealing the decision.  Read their appeal here.  (Warning: It’s a ten-page self-serving word salad)

Nobody should be above the law.  Concerned neighbors and the CCEA have been fighting this one for years and now you can have your say.

Email mitoledo@glendaleca.gov or attend the hearing on Wednesday, April 15th, 5 pm Room 105 of the Municipal Services Building, 633 E. Broadway, Glendale.

The CCEA Says HELL NO!  Again!

Read our new response below.

March 10, 2026

To:  CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, PLANNING COMISSION

Case Number:  PVAR-004061-2024  –  Appeal of Variance Denial
Appellant:  Emmy Mnatsakanian
Location:  3411 E. Chevy Chase Drive, Glendale 91206
Hearing Date:  TBD

Dear Planning Commissioners:

Founded in 1937, Chevy Chase Homeowners Association (“CCEA”) is California’s oldest association of homeowners; its mission is to protect the quality of life of residents of Chevy Chase Canyon.

CCEA hereby urges you to deny the appeal filed in the above-referenced case.

Introduction

Appellant Emmy Mnatsakanian, who purchased the subject property in 2024, is appealing the denial of a variance which Appellant sought to retroactively “legalize” unpermitted street-facing walls and a driveway gate which constitute knowing, intentional and egregious violations of Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”), i.e.:

• • a street-facing, solid-masonry wall which is located within the applicable 15-foot setback requirement (in violation of GMC § 30.11.070) and is approximately 12 feet in height (in violation of GMC § 30.27.040), and
  • a driveway gate, also located within the 15-foot setback, which is approximately nine feet high (in violation of GMC § 30.27.040 A) and is of a “closed design” (in violation of GMC § 30.27.040 B)

The Hearing Officer
Correctly Denied the Variance Request

Appellant applied for a variance to retroactively “legalize” various violations following numerous complaints submitted to the City of Glendale (the “City”) by CCEA as well as many residents of Chevy Chase Canyon.

On July 9, 2025, the City’s Planning Hearing Officer conducted and closed a public hearing on the Appellant’s variance application.  By letter dated July 7, 2025, CCEA objected to the granting of the variance, explaining point by point how Appellant’s variance application fell far short of what is required by the GMC.  Rather than restate each and every element of CCEA’s objection, attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of CCEA’s July 7, 2025 letter, the entire contents of which is incorporated herein by reference.

The Hearing Officer determined that Appellant’s variance application failed to satisfy any of the four criteria set forth in GMC § 30.43.030 A through D.  Pursuant to GMC § 30.43.030, a negative finding on even one of the four criteria requires that a variance application be denied.

In reviewing the evidence, the Hearing Officer found, among other things, that:

1. 1. Appellant purchased the subject property with full knowledge of a pending code-compliance case regarding the existing, unpermitted and non-conforming wall which had been constructed in the 15-foot setback on the property;
   2. The current 12-foot-high wall, the retaining wall, and the 9-foot-high closed-design driveway gate violate the GMC;
   3. The walls existing on Appellant’s property are not justified by the unsupported argument that said walls are necessary to defend against and/or direct potential errant traffic;
   4. The City has no records of any traffic accidents at this site, a fact which contradicts Appellant’s claim that the wall is a necessary defense or barrier against traffic accidents;
   5. There is no credible evidence that restoring the site to its original condition (e., prior to the construction of the non-conforming wall, the installation of the non-conforming driveway gate, the unpermitted backfilling of the property, and the construction of a massive concrete patio encasing protected indigenous trees) – would create any traffic or other safety issues;
   6. The City Arborist has determined that the wall, fence, gate, and re-grading of the slope can be restored to their original condition without damaging or further endangering the protected indigenous trees; and
   7. The current 12-foot-high wall is detrimental to public welfare and injurious to the property and improvements of surrounding neighbors and is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

The Appellant’s Argument Is
Factually and Legally Deficient

In an undated letter submitted in support of her appeal, Appellant offers no relevant additional information or credible arguments which would permit the granting of a variance (retroactive or prospective) in this case.  Rather, Appellant simply requests that existing GMC requirements be waived for her, masking her lack of credible arguments in a veritable laundry list of demonstrably false and/or irrelevant claims relating to road safety, privacy, and indigenous tree protection.

Among her many unsupported claims, Appellant even claims that the Hearing Officer exceeded her authority under GMC § 30.43 by acting as “an all-or nothing gatekeeper” and argues that the Hearing Officer’s role under GMC § 30.43.030 “is remedial and flexible rather than punitive.”

Appellant now requests that she be permitted to “provide reasonable expert analyses and mitigation measures … as part of a conditioned or contingent approval of a modified variance.”  Given the clear facts and conclusive findings in this case, such “analyses and mitigation measures” are unnecessary; they simply constitute Appellant’s latest attempt to prevent, or at least delay, enforcement of the GMC’s provisions.

CCEA’s Response to Appellant’s Appeal

Respectfully, CCEA submits that Appellant’s undated, 10-page letter in support of her appeal is as disingenuous as it is legally deficient.

Firstly, Appellant cannot claim ignorance or inadvertence related to the egregious violations in this case.  To the contrary, Appellant has admitted being aware of existing violations (i.e., the existing solid-masonry wall and massive, solid-design gate prohibited by GMC §§ 30.11.070 and 30.27.040) at the time Appellant purchased the subject property; however, rather than attempt to cure or even address the existing violations of which Appellant was aware, Appellant simple ignored the violations until the barrage of repeated complaints by neighbors and CCEA prompted the City to escalate enforcement procedures.

Secondly, Appellant’s appeal letter is replete with demonstrable misstatements of fact, fanciful and unsupported claims, irrelevant information, and specious attacks on the factually supported statements and clearly correct conclusions contained in the Hearing Officer’s decision in this case.

Thirdly, Appellant’s outrageous claim that the Hearing Officer exceeded her authority under GMC § 30.43 by acting as “an all-or nothing gatekeeper” and that the Hearing Officer’s role under GMC § 30.43.030 “is remedial and flexible rather than punitive” is a gross misreading and misrepresentation of the GMC.  The Hearing Office is the gatekeeper; the essential function of that position is the enforcement of the requirements of the GMC – which is precisely what the Hearing Officer did in this case.  Contrary to Appellant’s claim, the Hearing Officer did not exceed her authority in this case; the Appellant simply does not like what the law requires and believes the Hearing Office should have “bent” it to suit Appellant’s personal desires.

Throughout the lengthy enforcement process in this case, Appellant apparently subscribed to the cynical adage that “it’s easier to ask for forgiveness after the fact than to follow the rules and ask for permission.”  Despite numerous complaints from neighbors and CCEA, and inquiries from the City, Appellant apparently hoped that the violations would be lost in bureaucratic limbo and simply “go away.”

Put plainly, Appellant does not come to this appeal with “clean hands;” she bought the subject property with full knowledge of existing code violations and now asks the Planning Commission to overturn the Hearing Officer’s clear, reasoned, definitive decision by ignoring the law – as Appellant has repeatedly done – rather than enforcing it.  Aside from being decidedly unneighborly, Appellant’s request is not only unsupported by law, it makes an utter mockery of enforcement actions which previously required other properties in the area to remove longstanding walls and fences at great expense.

CCEA has been inundated by complaints not only from many neighbors of the subject property, but also from the Canyon community at large, that Appellant’s property looks like a “fortress” or a “bullet-proof compound” which constitutes a visual blight in an otherwise picturesque, natural area.  No other home in the Canyon appears designed to withstand an armed siege and no other home in the Canyon has been permitted to maintain towering masonry walls to prevent “prying eyes” from seeing into their property.  Canyon residents expect Appellant’s property to comply with the GMC just as all other Canyon residents’ properties have been required to comply.

In short, Appellant’s arguments are legally insufficient to support the overturning of the Hearing Officer’s decision and/or the granting of a variance in this case.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to § 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code (the “GMC”), “a variance shall be granted only if” four enumerated criteria (i.e., GMC § 30.43.030 A through D) have been satisfied.  GMC § 30.43.030.  A negative finding on even one of the four criteria requires that a variance application be denied.

In the instant case, the Hearing Officer definitively found that not even one of the required findings could be satisfied (much less the required four) and denied the variance application, as required by the GMC.  Based on the GMC and the Hearing Officer’s findings, this case wasn’t even a close call.

Based on the foregoing, CCEA respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer’s denial of the variance application be upheld and that Appellant’s appeal be promptly and definitively denied.

Sincerely,

/Graeme Whifler/, President
Chevy Chase Homeowners Association

Exhibit A:
July 7, 2025 Letter from
Chevy Chase Estates Association

Have Your Say

Email mitoledo@glendaleca.gov or attend the hearing on Wednesday April 15th, 5 pm Room 105 of the Municipal Services Building, 633 E. Broadway, Glendale.

The Chevy Chase Country Club turned 100 this month!

It’s truly is the jewel at the heart of our Canyon just as the canyon’s founder Bert Farrar envisioned 100 years ago.  And now, it’s better than ever.  However, without the Chevy Chase Estates Association’s hard-fought battle, the golf course would have long ago disappeared.  Read the full story here.