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 _____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 06/3/2026 Crescenta Highlands Neigh Assn P.O. Box 8098, La Crescenta, CA 91224 Planning Commission US Mail and verbal 3411-3437 Foothill Blvd, La Crescenta, CA 91214 3 concessions, 3 waivers
Density Bonus application to construct 87 apartments CHNA represents residents of the neighborhood in which the property is located. ✔
[email protected] 06/3/2026 626-372-7646
Exhibit 3 - June 3, 2026 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. _____________________________________ As above. See Attachment 4A See Attachment F Mary-Lynne Fisher, Pres CHNA, Susan Bolan, Secy GHCC 06/18/2026 ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
See Attachment 4B See Attachment 4C See Attachment DSee Attachment E Mary-Lynne Fisher, Susan L Bolan Case No. PDBP-005269-2025
Date: June 18, 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 Foothill Blvd.)
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 Planning Commission’s findings that the project does not present a specific adverse threats to public health or safety are erroneous.
1. Hazardous Waste Site. The Commission relied on the Staff Report, but ignored a specific provision of the Staff Report namely where on page 88 it states
“The Applicant is correct in stating that the AB 130 statutory exemption does not apply to sites listed on the Cortese List . . .” Appellants produced expert opinion unequivocally stating that the site is on the Cortese List.
The site, specifically 3411 Foothill Blvd., the site of the former Texaco gas station is on the Cortese List. The site is identified as T0603773344 and appears to be a LUST/leaking underground storage tank GeoTracker record. CalEPA identifies the Water Board as a 1 Cortese List data source. Because AB 130 eligibility depends on satisfying the hazardous site restrictions incorporated from Gov’t. Code section 65913.4, the city may not simply disregard these listings.
The GeoTracker records for the Texaco Station are substantial evidence requiring the city to determine whether the project site is located on one or more Gov’t. Code section 65962.5 Cortese List sites.
Unless the City identifies the precise regulatory status of the GeoTracker listing and makes supported findings that the project is not disqualified, or that a statutory closure/residential-suitability exception applies, the city cannot lawfully rely on AB 130's CEQA exemption.
Instead the Commission ignored the evidence of Appellant’s expert that the project site in on the Cortese List by incorrectly claiming that GeoTracker is not a Cortese List.
Please see the letter dated June 18, 2026, from Atis Srihiran, Water Resources Control Engineer, at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board stating that the Texaco gas station site at 3411 Foothill Blvd. IS on the Cortese List. Mr. Srihiran’s letter is attached as Exhibit
5. The city further erred in postponing any significant hazardous material review until after approval. The statutory scheme is clear. If the site is on the Cortese List, which this site is, CEQA requires an Environmental Impact Report prior to approval.
The conclusion is clear. The city’s exemption analysis is legally inadequate, CEQA applies and an Environmental Impact Report is required.
2. Increased Wildfire Evacuation Risk. The Commission
2 accepted the city’s Safety Element* as compliance with AB 747 but failed to note that the Safety Element does not directly identify streets that Crescenta Highlands residents would need to use in an evacuation.
The major streets in Crescenta Highlands are described in the Safety Element as “over-capacity” at Appendix C, page 32 and map on page 33 of the Kittelson report. The pages are attached as Exhibit 6. This reference indicates a landslide event, not a wildfire because wildfire evacuation was not studied for the Crescenta Valley.
The Safety Element’s identification of streets but does not address the impact that construction of the proposed project would have on Crescenta Highlands residents.
Further the Commission rejected the evidence of the significantly longer evacuation times the proposed project would impose on Crescenta Highlands residents and Clark Magnet High School students, faculty and staff by claiming the evidence was not “quantifiable.” The clear fact is that such evidence is quantifiable. For example Appellant’s expert’s model for evacuation during a day when Clark Magnet High School is not in session shows the time for the last resident to travel from the top of New York Ave. to Foothill Blvd. is 30 minutes. During a school day and assuming only 90 vehicles would exit the proposed project onto New York Ave. (fewer than the actual number as described below) the trip would be 65 minutes, more than twice as long. By what definition of the word is this not quantifiable?
According to the city’s Traffic Study conducted by Jano, Baghdanian & Associates in 2024, 112 of the project’s 151 parking spaces would exit onto New York Ave. The Commission further ignored the fact that vehicles moving out of the Foothill Blvd. parking garage exit would be funneled directly into the New York and Foothill chokepoint.
3 The Commission ignored the fact that neither the staff nor the Applicant submitted any evidence that the Appellant’s expert’s evidence was incorrect. The only challenge to that evidence came from a member of Commission who pointed out that some vehicles from the proposed project will exit on Foothill Blvd and therefore 151 vehicles would not be exiting on New York Ave. But this fails to note the significantly increased times in three of Appellant’s expert’s models positing only 90 vehicles exiting from the project site. Graphs of Appellant’s traffic models are attached as Exhibit 7.
Had the city compiled evidence of the increased evacuation times the proposed project would impose on Crescenta Highlands residents, it would have realized that in the event of a wildfire in Angeles National Forest or Deukmejian Wilderness Park New York Ave. is the ONLY evacuation route for approximately 80 families 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.
In the event of a daytime school year 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 who identified herself as employee of GUSD pointed out at the hearing before the Hearing Officer on March 18, 2026, 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. Neither the Applicant nor the city ever disputed her statement.
4 The Commission’s findings that the increased evacuation dangers could be mitigated by measures such as making New York Avenue a one-way street, having police officers direct traffic and adjusting traffic signals are speculative and not supported by evidence.
An important issue in this case is who has the burden of proof in approving or denying a Density Bonus Law project. Gov’t. Code section 65915(d)(1) provides in relevant part
“ . . .The city . . . shall grant the concession or
incentive requested by the Applicant unless the city
. . . makes a written finding based upon substantial
evidence . . .”
The clear, common sense interpretation of such language is the city must investigate whether such substantial evidence exists. It is not a burden the city can shift to residents challenging the project.
Instead of returning to the expert consultants which developed the Safety Element in 2025, the Commission told the Appellant to hire a traffic engineer. This is an impermissible attempt to shift the city’s burden to members of the community.
At least one decision of the California Court of Appeal has found that a government entity violated state law by failing to thoroughly analyze and reduce wildfire risk before approving a residential project in a wildfire prone area. Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 112 Cal. App. 317
Given the number of wildfires that have threatened Crescenta Highlands in recent years, the city cannot reasonably contend that this is not a fire prone area. The Eaton fire of January 7, 2025, is a burning memory. Family members of a CHNA Board member were caught up in 5 the chaotic evacuation of the La Tuna Fire of September 1, 2017. In the city we have experienced the Station Fire of August 2009, the Mountain Fire of September 2002 and the College Hills Fire of June 1990. The question is not if but when a major wildfire will threaten Crescenta Highlands. Indeed, the draft Local Hazard Mitigation Plan shows the area with historic wildfire perimeter. See page 39 attached as Exhibit 8.
3. Reservoir Breach Risk. The Commission failed to recognize that the presence of the New York Reservoir adjacent to and uphill from the site constitutes an “Unusual Circumstances Exception” to AB 130 which can bring the proposed project under the jurisdiction of CEQA.
The extensive Flooding section of the city’s Safety Element fails to consider a breach in the New York Reservoir as a potential risk, apparently considering the reservoir too small to include. But the reservoir holds millions gallons of water!
The city has the burden of evaluating whether the proposed project could adversely affect reservoir integrity, slope stability, groundwater movement, subsurface conditions, drainage, erosion, seismic performance, or emergency response. For example, how are First Responders’ vehicles expected to drive up New York Ave. with hundreds of thousands if not millions of gallons of water pouring down the street? These risks exist not only during construction but during occupancy of the proposed project as vehicles constantly drive through the subterranean parking garage let alone during even a relatively minor earthquake.
The Commission’s only requirement related to a breach of the reservoir during excavation for the subterranean parking is to condition the approval of the project on the developer’s indemnifying the city, a condition buried in Condition 9 requiring compliance with the Glendale 6 Water & Power memo of August 29, 2025. And what of residents both in the proposed project and who live downslope from it? If the integrity of the reservoir walls are compromised, the result could be catastrophic. This project is on a hillside slope. The planned excavation could unsettle the ground. A five story residential building with 151 vehicles introduces significant structural and environmental burdens near the underground reservoir. Clearly before approving such a project any responsible city government would conduct an engineering study to determine the risk and whether it can be mitigated.
The city’s disregard of the risks listed above resulted in the Commission failing to find that an exception to the Density Bonus Law (Government Code sections 65915-65918, specifically section 65915(d)(1)(B)) exists in that the project presents a specific adverse threat to public health or safety.
Another California Court of Appeal decision Save Our Access v.
City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal. App. 388 found that the city’s EIR failed to meaningfully analyze the environmental impacts of allowing buildings above 30 feet including geological conditions. At five stories, the proposed project would be 74 feet. There is a reason the city zoning limits height on this site to 36, but both the Staff Report and the Commission failed to look into that reasoning.
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 Commission failed to consider the substantial evidence of the Staff Report and the Applicant’s failure to address the specific adverse threats to public health or safety. The Commission made no findings of fact regarding the risks the project presents to neighborhood residents and/or residents of the potential project in the event of wildfire, 7 earthquake, reservoir breach or contamination of soil or water. What they label “findings” are merely conclusions mimicking the statutory language.
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 Commission failed to consider substantial evidence presented by Appellants and several community members both orally at the hearing and in writing by emails. Nowhere in the Commission’s decision letter is there any reference to such evidence or any explanation as to why it was in adequate or not considered.
D. Do you contend that the board, commission or office refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes. In addition to the foregoing the Commission failed to adequately consider the compelling statements of Crescenta Highlands resident Jim Tsarofsky, a local firefighter, who fought the Palisades Fire in January 2025. Mr. Tsarofsky described the panicked evacuation of residents who abandoned cars on clogged streets requiring firefighters to call in bulldozers to remove them so that they could reach the fire.
In Mr. Tsarofsky’s chilling words, “People are going to die.” MyGlendale/You Tube 2:32
Yet the Commission was satisfied with the routine comment of the Fire Department that the project must comply with the city fire code.
Such compliance will be cold comfort to neighborhood residents trapped in congested traffic during a wildfire evacuation such as took place during the La Tuna Fire.
The facts that were not considered include the threat such a large 8 project would pose to residents living north on or off New York Ave. in the event of a wildfire. Nor did the Commission consider the threat to residents living south of Foothill Blvd. in the event the New York Reservoir is breached during excavations for the subterranean parking.
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 Commission failed to note the omissions and failures in both the Staff Report and the Applicant’s presentation to adequately address wildfire evacuation risks, reservoir breach risks and hazardous waste risks posed by the project.
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. Please see the letter dated June 18, 2026, from Atis Srihiran, Water Resources Control Engineer, at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board stating that the Texaco gas station site at 3411 Foothill Blvd. IS on the Cortese List. Mr. Srihiran’s letter is attached as Exhibit 5.
Conclusion Individually and in total, the Appellants have identified three risks to public health and safety which prohibit the city from approving this project without an Environmental Impact Report. *Appellant wishes to point out that public outreach on the Safety Element was minimal consisting of two outdoor events in the Spring of 9 2024, one on Earth Day and one on a Fire Service Day, each of which drew only a few dozen people.
10 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
June 18, 2026
Ms. Mary-Lynne Fisher
President
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association
Via Email Only
SUBJECT: CORTESE LIST CONFIRMATION
SITE: 3411-3437 FOOTHILL BLVD., LA CRESCENTA, CALIFORNIA 91214 Ms. Fisher,
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles Water Board) is the public agency with primary responsibility for the protection of ground and surface water quality for all beneficial uses within major portions of the Los Angeles and Ventura counties, including at the above-referenced site (Site).
On June 12, 2026, you contacted Los Angeles Water Board staff to inquire whether any of the Board’s environmental contamination cases located at the Site meet the provisions of Gov. Code section 65962.5, commonly known as the “Cortese List.” According to the State Water Resources Control Board’s public database, GeoTracker, the following cases under the Los Angeles Water Board’s oversight are located on the Site.
1. Hi Star Auto (Case No. 116.0019, GeoTracker), located at 3411 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, California. This case was opened under the former Well Investigation Program (WIP) in 1980’s, in response to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund investigation for groundwater contamination in some of the well fields in the area. This case is still open and currently under oversight of the Site Cleanup Program of the Los Angeles Water Board.
2. Texaco Station (Case No. 912140052, GeoTracker), located at 3411 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, California. This case was under oversight of the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program of the Los Angeles Water Board and received a regulatory case closure in 2014.
3. Palace Cleaners (Case No. 116.0013, GeoTracker), located at 3423 Foothill Blvd., La Crescenta, California. This case was under oversight of the Site Cleanup Program of the Los Angeles Water Board and received a regulatory case closure in 2009.
3411-3437 Foothill Blvd., - 2 - June 18, 2026
La Crescenta, California
Of the three cases identified above, Texaco Station (Case No. 912140052) is listed on the Cortese List per Gov. Code section 65962.5 (c)(1).
Comprehensive information regarding the Cortese List is available through the California Environmental Protection Agency’s website. Cortese List Data Resources | CalEPA, calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the undersigned at (213) 576-6629 or via email at [email protected] or contact Ms. Anita Fang, Site Cleanup Unit VI Supervisor, at (213) 576-6730 or via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
________________
Atis Srihiran
Water Resource Control Engineer
Site Cleanup Unit VI
cc: (via email only)
Dr. Arthur Heath, Los Angeles Water Board ([email protected]) Axel Jurgens, Office of Chief Counsel, State Water Resources Control Board ([email protected])
September 2024 Page 32
City of Glendale Safety Element Update - Evacuation Analysis Evacuation Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Future Year
With peak evacuation from a landslide in the San Gabriel Mountains in north Glendale in the future year, the analysis predicts over-capacity conditions on several roadways in the city as shown in Figure 10. Most congestion locations would be the same as those identified for the base year. In addition to the locations listed for the base year, the roadways where demand volumes are projected to be at or exceed road capacity within the City of Glendale include:
◼ Scattered segments, e.g. San Fernando Rd between S Pacific Ave and W Acacia Ave, E Garfield Ave and E Acacia Ave between S Adam St and S Chevy Chase Dr. ◼ N Glendale Ave (between SR-134 and E Doran St) connecting to SR-134 ◼ Santa Carlotta St/Orange Ave between Dunsmore Ave and Pennsylvania Ave in the east of Glendale Beyond the city limit, the future year scenario indicates congestion in the following locations:
◼ Glendale Blvd and Hyperion Ave to the southwest of Glendale, connecting to I-5 ◼ Yosemite Dr between Townsend Ave and N Figueroa St
◼ Additional length of segments north of SR-210, including Palm Dr, Ocean View Blvd, and Los Amigo St
Travel Times
Travel times between Glendale neighborhoods and various evacuation destinations are listed in Table 2 With base year traffic levels, an evacuation event would add up to 70 minutes to the time to reach the Glendale Civic Auditorium, up to 70 minutes to reach safety in Pasadena, and up to 79 minutes to Glendale High School. With future year traffic levels, an evacuation event would add up to 99 minutes to the time from north Glendale to the Glendale Civic Auditorium, up to 121 minutes to Pasadena, and up to 110 minutes to Glendale High School.
September 2024 Page 33
City of Glendale Safety Element Update - Evacuation Analysis Evacuation Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Figure 10: Congestion Locations, Scenario 2 Landslide in North Glendale, Future Year Source: Kittelson & Associates using Glendale travel model, 2024 Evacuation Modeling
CONDUCTED BY:
~ Tim Tierney, MA (Geology)
~ Experienced with software for spatial analysis
METHOD
~ LWR (Lighthill-Whitham-Richards) model
~ Executed through Google-AI.
ANALYSIS AREA:
~ New York Ave (above Foothill Blvd)
~ All houses within 1-block
Graph Explanation
CARS ON
THE ROAD AVG SPEED
Modeling Results
CARS ON ROAD
TIME
Total Vehicles on Corride
100
o
200
이
700
600
ahicles onCorridor (No Lights) 150
100
200
250
veficles o
450
400
350
300
250
NIGHT Evacuation: 400 Cars on New York Ave
Moutes Pont-A
DARK NIGHT Evacuation: No Streetlights (400 Cars)
d/Max Cer
Vehicles on Road
DAYTIME Full Evacuation: 400 Homes + 1400 School Population 30 School & Resident
Merge Conflict
Vehicles (650 Cars + 12 Buses)
Avg Speed
10 20 30
Minutes Post-Alert
40 50 60
40 5
+10
20 -25
verage Speed (MPH)
80 -
Average Sceed (MPH)
100
CARS ON ROAD
les on Corridor (Dark/No Signal)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Total Vehicles on Corridor
1000
800
600
400
200
300
200
100
200
100
TIME 2
500
10 20 50 60 70 80
Minutes Post-Alert
DARK NIGHT TOTAL FAILURE Br gnals
Way Stop Bottleneck
MIXED-MODE EVACUATION: 790 Cars + 600 Pedestrians
30 Friction Point
20 60
Minutes Post-Alert
ongestion
(851 Cars + Pedestrians)
20 40 60 80
Minutes Post-Alert
Cars
Pedestrian Wave (600 people)
vg Speed
80 Vehicles (851 Cars)
Pedestrian Wave (600 people)
Vehicle Avg Speed
100
w
-5
10 -25
20 verage
S e Speed (MP
10 -30
verageSpeed (MPH)
Simulation #6:
~ Timing = Night
~ 400 Homes
~ 90-Unit Apartmen
"No Electrity"
Duration = 75min
Simulation #7:
Timing = Day
400 Homes
~ CMHS
~ 90-Unit Apartmen
Duration = 75min
Simulation #8:
-25
-20
15 Average
Speed (MPH
Timing = Day
~ 400 Homes
~ CMHS
~ 90-Unit Apartmen
Duration = 95min
Hazard Identification
Public Review Draft 39
Figure 5 Historical Wildfire Events in Glendale