City ofGlendale CommunityDevelopmentDepartment., PlanningDivision 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page1of2
Case No. ________________ Date ____________________
Submit this form on the Glendale Permits site at www.glendaleca.gov/permits (Click “Apply,” “Skip…” and then search for “Appeal of Planning Decision”). For more information about this form and related fees, please call the Planning Division at (818) 548‐2115. Please complete (PRINT or TYPE) the following information:
PART 1 – NOTICE TO APPELLANT (please read carefully)
A. This form must be prepared and filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed. Sub-division applications must be appealed within 10 days of the date of decision.
B. Every question must be answered.
C. If a question does not apply, you must answer “does not apply” or words to that effect.
D. Failure to properly fill out this notice or failure to make a sufficient statement of a case in this notice, even if in fact you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith.
E. Attach additional pages for long answers.
F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal Procedure on the City’s webpage at https://library.qcode.us/lib/glendale_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_2‐chapter_2_88 PART 2 – APPELLANT INFORMATION
A._______________________________________________________________________________________________________ First Name Last Name Email Address
B._______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Street Address City State Zip Code (Area Code) Phone Number PART 3 – APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. State the name or title of the board, commission, or officer from which this appeal is taken ____________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Were you given written notice of the action, ruling or determination? Yes No If “Yes,” attach a copy of the written notice and write the date you received it here _____________________________________ If “No,” give the following information concerning your receipt of notice of the action, ruling or determination.
Date ___________________ Time ___________________ Location ____________________ Manner ______________________ C. State generally what kind of permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action was the basis for the decision from which the appeal is taken ____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. State the specific permission or relief that was originally sought from the board, commission, or officer __________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes No If “No,” how are you involved with the permit, variance, ruling, determination, or other action referred to above? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Does this matter involve real property? Yes No
If “Yes,” give the address, or describe the real property affected _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Hearing Officer,
3/25/2026
3411-3437 Foothill Blvd., Glendale, CA 91214
4/9/2026 4/9/2026 ✔
3 concessions/incentives and 3 waivers
Density Bonus application to construct 87 apartments, 5 stories The CHNA represents residents of the neighborhood in which the project is located. ✔
✔
Aileen Babakhani/Interim CDD Director, Rubik Golanian
Crescenta Highlands Neigh Assn GHCC [email protected] P.O. Box 8098, La Crescenta, CA 91224 626-372-7646
Exhibit 13 - Appeal Application
City ofGlendale CommunityDevelopmentDepartment., PlanningDivision 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206 818.548.2140 www.glendaleca.gov/CDD 09/2023 Page2of2
Statement of additional facts related to the appeal: ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The foregoing statements, contained in PARTS 2, 3 and 4 above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. __________________________________________________
Appellant’s Name – Please Print
__________________________________________ _______________________________ Appellant’s Signature Date Signed
PART 4 – STATEMENT OF ERROR
A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal? Yes No If “Yes”, state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated: ____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ B. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in answer “A”? Yes No If “Yes”, state which provisions, and state specifically each act that was in excess of authority:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ C. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer “A”? Yes No If “Yes”, state which provision, and the specific duty that it failed to exercise:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ D. Do you contend that the board, commission, or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes No If “Yes”, state each such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have changed the act, determination, or ruling: ____________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof? Yes No If “Yes”, state what evidence was necessary, but lacking: ______________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or ruling? Yes No If “Yes”, state each new material fact not previously presented to the board, commission, or officer. For each fact, state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the appellant: _______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
FOR STAFF USE ONLY Date Stamp
Date received in Permit Services Center _________________ Received by ___________________ Fee paid ________________________________________ Receipt No. _____________________________________ See Attachment 4A
N/A, as above.
Mary-Lynne Fisher, Pres. CHNA, Susan Bolan, Sec'y GHCC
4/9/2026
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
See Attachment 4F
See Attachment 4B
See Attachment 4C
See Attachment 4D
See Attachment 4E
Mary-Lynne Fisher, Susan L Bolan
Case No. PDBP-005269-2025
Date: April 9, 2026
Appellants: Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association and Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council
Appeal of Density Bonus Application at 3411-3437 Foothill Blvd. (City uses 3411-3427)
Supplemental Information
Part 4. Statement of Error
A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal? Yes. The Hearing Officer’s finding that the project does not present a specific adverse threat to public health or safety is erroneous. It relies on the staff report, but fails to consider the public comments of several community members who noted as follows:
1. The city has failed to comply with AB 747
(Government Code section 8593.3) which requires the
preparation of a comprehensive evacuation capacity plan.
2. Had the city complied with AB 747, it would have
realized that in the event of a wildfire in Angeles National 1 Forest or Deukmejian Wilderness Park New York Ave. is the ONLY evacuation route for approximately 80 residences both on New York Ave. north of Foothill Blvd., and on the six cul de sacs off New York Ave. in the 3300 and 3400 blocks as well as the 3400 block of El Caminito where the only ways out are New York Ave. or going NORTH on Cloudsdale. Similarly any
adequate evacuation analysis would have noted that New York Ave. is a narrow two-lane street and that the closest Fire Station is on New York Ave. south of Foothill Blvd., meaning fire trucks would be driving north on New York Ave. as residents are driving south.
Further in the event of a daytime wildfire Clark
Magnet High School on New York Ave. has more than 1400
students, teachers and staff, some of whom drive, adding cars to the street, but most of whom arrive by bus. As a community member pointed out at the hearing, these buses are contracted for by the city for specific schedules and should not be assumed to be available on short notice during the school day.
The Hearing Officer accepted the applicant’s
statement that the proposed project is not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, but failed to consider that it is immediately adjacent to such zone or how fast embers can fly.
Further the Hearing Officer accepted the Applicant’s statement that the proposed project is not on an earthquake fault but failed to consider that considerable ground shaking could occur during an earthquake on nearby faults potentially damaging the New York Reservoir and the apartment complex.
2 3. The construction of 87 apartments with at least 151 vehicle spaces (and likely overflow due to inadequate parking allotment) would vastly increase the number of people who would need to traverse the intersection of Foothill Blvd., and New York Avenue. This would substantially delay those
residents by increasing the clearing time for evacuation from a wildfire such as the Eaton Fire that raged through Altadena, thus exacerbating the danger they would face.
4. The failures listed above resulted in the Hearing
Officer failing to find that an exception to the Density Bonus Law (Government Code sections 65915-65918, specifically section 65915(d)(1)(B)) exists in the project presents a specific adverse threat to public health or safety.
5. The Hearing Officer’s implied finding that the
project does not present a specific adverse threat to public health and safety is erroneous for a second reason: As many
community members noted at the hearing, the staff report totally failed to consider the risk posed by constructing residences on the site of a former gas station, a dry cleaners and a current auto dealership.
6. The Hearing Officer failed to question the staff
report, erroneously assuming that AB 130's (Public Resources Code section 21080.66) provision that CEQA does not apply to this project means that it has no authority or responsibility to require soil and water testing for contaminants and to require the developer to remediate them prior to breaking ground. Had the 3 staff report considered this threat, it would have found that among other actions the California Water Resources Control Board considers the Hi Star Auto Sales location at 3411 Foothill Blvd., (the site of the former gas station) to be “Open-Inactive” as of 10/30/14 and would have investigated the meaning of this.
B. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in answer “A”?
Yes. The Hearing Officer failed to consider substantial evidence of the staff report and the Applicant’s failure to address the specific adverse threats to public health or safety.
The Hearing Officer made no findings regarding the risks the project presents to neighborhood residents and/or residents of the potential project in the event of wildfire, earthquake, breach of reservoir or contamination of soil or water.
C. Do you contend that the board, commission or office failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer to “A”?
Yes. The Hearing Officer failed to consider substantial evidence presented by several community members both orally at the hearing and in writing by emails. Although the Hearing Officer stated that she would consider such evidence, and the decision so states, nowhere in the 92-page decision is there any reference to any such evidence or the Hearing Officer’s consideration of it. A bare statement that public comments were 4 considered without any reference to how they were considered is insufficient.
Further the Hearing Officer failed to impose a condition of the approval of the project requiring the owner to conduct sampling of soil and water on the site and to remediate same prior to commencing construction.
D. Do you contend that the board, commission or office refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes. Although the Hearing Officer “heard” the comments
of several community members, there is substantial evidence that she failed to consider it: she did not pose any questions to staff or the Applicant about the concerns raised by community members. The decision does not reflect any consideration of numerous facts raised by community members.
Those facts include the threat such a large project would pose to residents living north on or off New York Ave. in the event of a wildfire. Nor did she consider the threat to residents south of Foothill Blvd. in the event the New York Reservoir is breached during excavations for the subterranean parking. Nor did she consider the threat to occupants posed by contaminated water or soil from the gas station, dry cleaners or auto dealership. Construction over contaminated soil, adjacent to a water supply reservoir in a seismically active area next to a fire zone is not a “standard” housing project. This unusual
circumstance is enough to override the broad exemption from 5 CEQA.
E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board,
commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling on any specific finding in support?
Yes. The Hearing Officer failed to note the omissions and failures in both the staff report and the Applicant’s presentation to address evacuation and hazardous waste risks posed by the project.
AB 130's exemption does not apply to sites listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (aka the Cortese List) which identifies sites with known releases of hazardous substances. Even for sites not on the Cortese List AB 130 requires developers to complete a Phase I environmental assessment and, if necessary, a Phase II environmental assessment. Nothing in the Staff Report, the Applicant’s presentation or the Hearing Officer’s decision touches this issue.
Appellants note that in prior proceedings or discussions the developer said that his lender would require any necessary decontamination as a condition of the loan. Yet, the application failed to mention this, leaving Appellants to wonder why this assurance was not part of the Applicant’s presentation.
F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts 6 not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or ruling?
Yes. Appellants are using software modeling that will
demonstrate the longer time needed for residents north of the project to evacuate and will present it at the hearing on this appeal. This software was available to the city for free, but was not used. Similarly city records either do or should include environmental assessments from collecting all site history including any chemicals used on the site. (See Attachment 6.) The Hearing Officer failed to note that when a site use change is proposed, especially one involving excavation, the developer is responsible for notifying the state Water Resources Control Board or the Department of Toxic Substance Control and having a plan in place to deal with the contamination.
On April 8, 2026, Appellant spoke to a supervisor in the Water Resources Control Board’s Site Cleanup Program who said that in an attempt to move the case to the non-case category, in 2024 the program sent the owner a questionnaire about chemicals used on the property, but the questionnaire was not returned. (See Attachments 3, 4, and 5.)
In summary, the Appellants have identified two
independent reasons why the Hearing Officer should not have approved this project–the risk to community residents in the event an emergency forces them to evacuate and the risk to project residents in the event contamination levels are too high 7 for residential use. Either one of these reasons would be sufficient to deny the application and return it to the Planning Department staff and the developer for further investigation and the presentation of evidence that the threats to public health or safety can be remediated by action on the part of the city or the developer.
8 Hello Ms. Harootun,
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles Water Board) has an open and inactive case for the Hi Star Auto Sales facility that is located at 3411 Foothill Blvd., Glendale, CA 91214 (APN No. 5602-007-021, GeoTracker global ID SL603799586.) The case can be found on the State of California’s public GeoTracker page at
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=SL603799586.
The Los Angeles Water Board considers issuing a “non-case” designation for this facility and plans to clear it out of our backlogged case list. In order to proceed with this action, Los Angeles Water Board staff needs to perform a site inspection at the facility to confirm that there are no environmental concerns. Please fill out the attached Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire (CUQ) and return it to me by March 31, 2024 and let me know when you or anyone are able to provide access to this facility and begin the non-case designation process.
Regards,
Atis Srihiran
Water Resource Control Engineer
Site Cleanup Unit VI
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 West 4th Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90013
(213) 576-6629 | [email protected]
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire
I. Facility Information
1. Facility/Site Name: ___________________________________________________
2. Address: ___________________________________________________________ II. Property Ownership Information
1. Name of Current Property Owner: _______________________________________
2. Mailing Address of Current Property Owner: _______________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
3. Telephone: ___________________ 4. E-Mail: _________________________
5. Prior Property Owner(s) (provide a separate sheet of paper, if necessary):
Property Owner
Name and Mailing Address
Dates of Ownership
From To
III. Current Tenant Information
1. Tenant Name: _______________________________________________________
2. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: ______________________________
3. Brief Description of Business: __________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 2 - SCP No. 116.0019
4. EPA/State Generator Number(s): ________________________________________
5. Years in business at this location: _______________________________________
6. Contact Name: ______________________________________________________
7. Telephone and E-mail: _________________________________________________ IV. Past Tenants
List any prior tenants. Provide a separate sheet of paper, if necessary.
Company Name and
Current Mailing Address Type of Business
Dates of
Operation at the
Site
From To
Do you contend that environmental liability has been transferred to another person or entity? □ Yes □ No
If so, provide a description of the relevant legal transcription(s) and any pertinent documents.
V. Operations
Answer the following questions about operations of both current and past operations. On a separate sheet of paper, provide additional details for any “Yes” responses, including the time period and the name of any past tenant for which the “Yes” response applies.
HAS THERE ever BEEN A WEED MANGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SITE
HAS THE SITE EVER USED OR STORED PESTICIDES OR HERBICIDES or fumigants
HAVE THE RAILROAD TRACKS BEEN USED TO TRANSPORT PESTICIDES OR
HERBICIDES
Have pesticides or herbicides ever been disposed of at the Site.
Has the site been used for agricultural purposes?
Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 3 - SCP No. 116.0019 Question
Current
Tenant
Past
Tenant(s)
Yes No Yes No
1. Has manufacturing or plating of circuit boards
occurred?
2. Have there been plating or anodizing tanks?
3. Has there been metal work performed?
4. Has there ever been a clarifier, sump, tank, or
other holding tank for wastewater?
5. Has there ever been an underground storage
tank installed?
6. Has there ever been an above-ground storage
tank (AST) installed?
7. Has there ever been an industrial waste permit
for sewer discharge?
8. Has there ever been a septic system in use?
9. Have chemicals ever been stored at this
location?
10. Have chlorinated solvents been used or stored at
this location?
11. Has there ever been a release of chemicals to
the ground surface or subsurface?
12. Use/disposal of solid propellants in rockets,
matches, explosives and fireworks
13. Use/disposal of air bag inflators
14. Use/disposal of electric tubes containing
perchlorate
15. Use/dispose of lubricating oils, fabrics, dyes,
rubber, paints and certain fertilizers (e.g. sodium
nitrate fertilizer)?
16. Perform leather tanning and finishing activities?
17. Preformed electroplating/ anodizing, aluminum
refining and chromium plating?
18. Hazardous waste sites?
19. Use or dispose of wood preservatives that
include chromium compounds (e.g. potassium
dichromate, chromic acid, and sodium
dichromate) and/or chlorinated volatile organic
compounds?
20. Performed pigment making, leather tanning,
welding?
Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 4 - SCP No. 116.0019 Question
Current
Tenant
Past
Tenant(s)
Yes No Yes No
21. Performed paint booth operations?
22. Use/dispose of solvents, including varnishes and
lacquers and laboratory cryoscopy solvents?
23. Use/dispose of chloramine with water?
VI. Chemicals of Concern
1. Provide a list of chemicals or substances that were used, stored, or disposed of at the Site including volatile organic compounds and halogenated or chlorinated hydrocarbons such as Trichloroethene (TCE), Tetrachloroethene (PCE), Vinyl Chloride, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (1,2 DCE), Ethene, etc. Identify the generated waste and its composition, with the approximate quantity disposed each month.
Organochlorine insecticides were commonly used in the past. Many, like DDT, have been removed from the market due to their health and environmental effects and their persistence (e.g., DDT and chlordane). Others, like dicofol, lindane, and endosulfan, are now only available in the U.S. for limited uses.
VII. Waste Management
1. What are the sources of industrial wastes from the site? Identify sources by process, composition of wastes generated, and approximate quantity disposed of monthly. ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ VIII. Sewer Information
1. Circle the type of sewer system currently in use:
Industrial Septic Tank Municipal Cesspool
2. Was a different sewer system used in the past? ___Yes ___ No If yes, specify type: ___________________________________________________ Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 5 - SCP No. 116.0019 X. General Questions
1. Has there ever been a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) performed for the property? ___Yes ____ No
If “Yes”, include a copy of each Phase I ESA report when submitting this questionnaire to the Los Angeles Water Board.
2. Has there ever been a soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or wastewater investigation conducted at the property? __Yes __No
If “Yes”, on a separate sheet of paper, list all reports or other documents that provide the results of these investigations. Indicate which government agencies, if any, were involved in the project(s). Provide copies of these reports or other documents to the Los Angeles Water Board when submitting this questionnaire.
Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 6 - SCP No. 116.0019 XI. Chemical Storage and Use
1. Were the following chemicals used onsite?
□ Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) □ Trichloroethylene (TCE) □1,4-Dioxane □ 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) □Title 22 metals □ Hexavalent Chromium □ N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) □1,2,3-Trichlorpropane (TCP) □Perchlorate
2. Using the attached Chemical Inventory Form (make additional copies, if necessary), list each chemical in current use or that has been used at the site in the past.
3. How many pages of Chemical Inventory Forms are attached? _________________ XII. Releases of Chemical Wastes
1. Does the site have documented releases of chemicals? □ Yes □ No If yes, describe the nature and extent of the releases (date, volume, cause, emergency response actions).
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
2. Have the source(s) of the release(s) been removed (yes/no)? □Yes □ No If no, what sources remain?
____________________________________________________________
3. Has the release been stopped? □ Yes □ No □ Not applicable Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 7 - SCP No. 116.0019 XIII.Site Characterization
1. Has the lateral and vertical extent of contamination at the site been completed? □ Yes □ No □ Not applicable
2. Describe the field activities completed as part of site characterization (by whom, when, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Describe any remaining data gaps in site characterization: _____________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
3. Has a Conceptual Site Model been developed?
□ Yes □ No
4. Was a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) completed? □ Yes □ No
If yes, describe conclusions of the HHRA:
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 8 - SCP No. 116.0019 XIV. Remedial Actions
1. Have remedial actions for soil, soil gas, or groundwater been performed for this site? □ Yes □ No
If yes, describe remedial actions performed:
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
2. Is groundwater monitoring being performed at the site? □ Yes □ No
If yes, list the contaminants monitored and concentration distribution:
___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
3. Were light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPL) or dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) present?
□ Yes □ No
4. If yes, specify which were present (check all that apply)? □ LNAPL □ DNAPL
5. If yes, were the LNAPL and or DNAPL removed to the extent practical? □ Yes □ No
6. What was the land use for the cleanup scenario?
□ Unrestricted
□ Residential
□ Commercial/Industrial
□ Other
Chemical Storage and Use Questionnaire - 9 - SCP No. 116.0019
7. Were any environmental regulatory letters or orders sent in association with the property? If yes, provide copies with this questionnaire. □ General Correspondence
□ California Water Code 13267 Order
□ Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO)
□ Notice of Violation (NOV)
□ Administrative Civil Liability (ACL)
□ No Further Requirements (NFR)
□ Others (Specify): _______________________________________________ □ No environmental regulatory letters or orders have been produced for the site.
8. Was site closure achieved and approved by the appropriate agency □ Yes □ No □ Not applicable
This questionnaire shall be signed below by a principal, an executive of the company, or other authorized representative of the company in accordance with the following statement:
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared by me, or under my direction or supervision, in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete.
I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Signature: ________________________ Date: ___________________________ Printed Name: _____________________ Title: ___________________________ Telephone: ________________________ E-Mail: _________________________ Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
Chemical Inventory Form
Site Address: ___________________________________________________________
1. Chemical Name: ___________________________________________________
2. Common/Trade Name: ______________________________________________
3. Quantity Stored: ___________________________________________________
4. Storage Method: ___Underground Tank __ Drums
___Aboveground Tank __ Other (specify)
5. Waste Disposal: ___Sewer __ Onsite recycling
___Hauled __ Offsite recycling
6. Is the waste treated prior to disposal? __ Yes ___ No
7. Is manifest documentation available for designated __ Yes ___ No waste streams? If yes, provide copies with this
questionnaire.
Evacuation Analysis: New York Avenue
ANALYSIS
A traffic-flow simulation using the
LWR (Lighthill-WhithamRichards) model was employed
to quantify the degree of
evacuation disruption that the
apartment complex will create.
RESULTS
Under present conditions, it
would take a car at the north end
of the evacuation zone 28
minutes to reach Foothill Blvd.
The presence of the apartment
complex would increase this
travel time by 50% (42min total).
PROJECT AREA
New York Avenue serves as the
immediate route of evacuation
for nearly 400 homes above
Foothill Blvd in La Crescenta.
CONCERN
The construction of an apartment
complex at the corner of New
York Ave & Foothill Blvd will
increase evacuation times,
possibly by an unsafe amount.
NOTE
The local HS was excluded from this analysis.
PRESENT CONDITIONS WITH APARTMENT
Min. Speed = 8mph Min. Speed = 5mph