Monday, December 20, 2010

Fwd: Unethical conduct Allegations

From: Charlessands 
Date: December 20, 2010 12:53:19 PM PST
Subject: Uethical conduct Allegations 

Bcc: Madrone Park Circle, HVCC, SaveEvergreen. Hearus groups and HV Beat.
 
Dear Mr. Lai,
 
In reply to your below email and Mr. Tejerian's 14 December 2010 letter. 
 
Mr. Tejerian's  letter is self serving and uniformed. On 29 October 2010 Marin Horizon School celebrated Halloween. No vehicles parked on the surreptitiously installed astro turf. See Photos a astro turf and MHS vehicles parked on Melrose Ave. in violation of Title 24's mandated requirement to park on site. Note vehicles parked in front of the astro turf block any vehicle from parking on the astro turf. Resolution 2005-105 does not exempt Marin Horizon School related vehicles from having to park on site.
 
MHS vehicles do not enter the neighborhood on Montford and leave on Evergreen and Lavern as required by MHS' original 2005-104 and 2005- 105 approved Transportation Management Plan. MHS vehicles also enter on Evergreen Ave. See Fig, 3 & 4.
 
MHS' vehicles do not have required "cling" stickers required by its original Transportation Management Plan approved by 2005-104 and 2005-105. Nor are the correct number of MHS monitors present during arrival and departure of its students.
 
MHS  revised MHS' original Transportation Management Plan in March 2010 deleting the above approved benefiting MHS
 
We find it extremely unfortunate and objectionable that the County refuse to ensure that MHS strictly complies with approved environmental negative impact mitigating measures.
 
We have no problem with the Board's decision and accept it. And as was said at the Board of Supervisors meeting we will have to live with it.
 
We do have a  problem with the Community Development Agency's either incompetent or unethical staff who refuse to ensure that MHS complies with its Use Permit's 2005-105 Conditions of Approval, MHS original Transportation Management Plan and  who deliberately committed documented massive errors and omissions to justify the Agency recommending to the Board of Supervisors that they approve imposing Marin Horizon School proposed expansion plan on Homestead Valley.
 
Since 1992 we have been living with an arrogant, devious and deceptive commercial educational incorporation every day. Many will have to deal with it for 70 years more.
  
Our objection is not to resolution 2005-104 and 2005-105 its to the fact that certain members of the Community Development Agency and DPW Land Use and Water Resource department deliberately misinformed and mislead the Board of Supervisors into understanding that Marin Horizon School's proposed expansion plan was consistent with the County Wide Plan, Tamalpais Area Community Plan, and applicable County ordinances.
 
Homestead Valley will have to live with Marin Horizon School but it and the County do not have to live with unethical Community Development Agency and DPW Land Use and Water Resource department management and staff. T
 
The following facts support our allegation of unethical conduct.
 
A. The following recent "Facts" below show that the County will permit MHS to do anything it wants.
Fact 1: 59 % of the weekly average of all east/west bound vehicles on Evergreen Ave. in the morning when MHS students are walking to school are MHS vehicles. A significant negative traffic  impact not included in MHS' Environmental Initial Study (EIS) used to gain Board of Supervisors approval. See Fig. 1 and 3.
Fact 2: It is very probable that the blue Prius that Hanne Barnes described in her below email was in fact a Marin Horizon School parent's vehicle that had just dropped a K-8 student off at school. 
Fact 3.  Marin Horizon Vehicles are required to have an identifying "cling sticker" on its windshield. Ref. 2005-104 and 2005-105 is not enforced by the County.
Fact 4. 58 % of the weekly average of all east/west bound vehicles on Evergreen Ave. in the afternoon when MHS students are walking from school are MHS vehicles . A significant negative traffic impact not included in MHS' Environmental Initial Study (EIS) used to gain Board of Supervisors approval. Ref.  Fig. 2 and 4.
Fact 5.  During MHS' April 24, 2010 Earth Day special event approximately 120 MHS vehicles parked on street severely congesting the MHS neighborhood. Ref. Dowling & Associates exam April 24, 2010. A significant negative parking impact not included in MHS' Environmental Initial Study (EIS) used to gain Board of Supervisors approval. Ref.  
 
B. The following historical 2005 "Facts" below illustrate the fact that the County used every unlawful/unethical means possible to ensure that Marin Horizon School's expansion plan was approved unchanged by any and all mitigating action necessary to mitigate any and all significant negative impacts resulting from approving the renewal MHS' Use Permit and construction of MHS' new building.
Every following inexplicable County error and omission described benefited MHS by ensuring Board of Supervisor approval of MHS' proposed expansion plan without any mitigation action revisions that would ensure that MHS' expansion plan would not have a significant negative impact on its community.
Fact 1. It is inexplicable why MHS was not required to enhance the Reed Creek Stream Conservation Area by planting native trees and plants as a mitigating action to continue to park in the area, ld build a new driveway and demolish and rebuild the existing school building. Ref. EQ-2.4 & Consultant's E.I.S, Biological Resource Assessment
Fact 2. It is inexplicable why the person (s) that drafted Resolution 2005-105 Condition of Approval (COA) # 50 omitted to include the following (5) MHS' E.I.S. Special Event parking recommended mitigating actions.
Fact 3. It is inexplicable why the mitigating MHS' parking requirements described in E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation actions on page 28, were omitted to be included in 2005-105 COA # 50 including
·         Temporary on-site parking for day time events;
 
Fact 4. It is inexplicable that the out of date Marin County Code (MCC) Title 22 Zoning Ordinance is listed in MHS' E.I.S. Appendix A but not the then current June 24, 2003 Title 22 Development Code.
 
Fact 5.It is inexplicable that Title 24 Development Standards which contain the County's road, parking and loading mandatory requirements were not used in the County's E.I.S. evaluation.
 
Fact 6.  It is inexplicable that MHS' E.I.S found that "adequate parking is proposed for the project". See MHS' E.I.S. d) page 28.  MHS' proposed parking for visiting parents, visitors and vendors is proposed to be on-street in total non-conformance with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Sections 24.04.330 , 24.04.335 and 24.04.340 (p)  and 24.04.340  (p) all mandatory requirements that requires that all MHS' project's  parking be on-site.
 
Fact 7  It is inexplicable that the Community Development Agency (CDA) would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15063 7 (d) (6) which requires that an initial study shall contain the name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the initial study 
 
Fact 8. It is inexplicable that  Marin County's Community Development Agency's (CDA) recommended that the Marin County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approve  the imposition of  Marin Horizon School's  (MHS) commercial,  corporate, not for profit, private, educational facility that primarily serves students living out side of Homestead Valley and the TCAP area, in the commercial business of providing pre-school, kindergarten and elementary school (K-6) and junior high school  (7-8) educational services for tuition on a Department of Education, State of California substandard sized Homestead Valley kindergarten and elementary school site. A site that is owned by Marin County that can not and does not  conform to or achieve  the goals, objectives and policies of the  Tamalpais Community Area Plan (TACP) nor accommodate mandated on-site passenger loading and all project related parking . See above Fact 6 ordinance requirement. See TACP  Goal # 7 and policy LU1.3.
 
Fact 9. It is inexplicable that during MHS' projects' Design Review CDA staff reviewers failed to review MHS proposed expansion plan for conformance to TACP Goal # 7. "Limit commercial development or redevelopment to uses that primarily serve the Planning Area residents at a scale compatible with the semi-rural environment."
 
Fact 10  It is inexplicable why the CDA staff (s) who prepared the MHS' E.I.S. reworded  TACP policy LU1.3.to illegaly delete the following words in bold italics  "New development shall be comparable and compatible with the scale (bulk, mass, and height) and appearance (colors, materials and design) of  the particular neighborhood  and integrated with and subordinate to the area's natural setting."  Except the MHS proposed design was is not in compliance with LU1.3 design requirements as the design is not comparable with the design of any building in Homestead Valley including the original three story Homestead Valley Elementary School on Jane St.
 
Fact 11. Homestead Valley residents in writing called the attention  of  MHS' E.I.S. consultant, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on 16 August 2005 to the above  illegal deletion and rewording of  ordinance TACP policy LU1.3 to benefit MHS, and submitted to the BOS evidence documenting this illegal rewording. The Homestead Valleys residents were ignored in order to approve MHS' Use Permit and proposed expansion plan.
 
Fact 12. It is inexplicable why the BOS took no known action to reprimand the staff person (s) responsible for recommending that BOS approve Resolution 2005-105 denying the Homestead Valley Concerned Citizen's appeal for the reasons cited on Resolution 2005-105 page 11 section VIII C. and D. "the design of the new classroom building is compatible with the character of the surrounding community and that the proposed project would be consistent with the Community Plan (TAC).
 
Fact 13.  It is inexplicable that MHS' E.I.S. evaluated Marin Horizon School's (MHS) proposed expansion program and plans for conflicts with applicable Marin County Code (MCC) policies contained in Title 22 Development Code  but failed to evaluate MHS' proposed expansion program and plans for conflict with the applicable MCC parking policies contained in  Title 24 Development Standards Sections. 24.04.330 (a); 24.04.330 (b); 24.04.335 (p); 24.04.340; 24.04.370; 24.04.380; 24.04.390 and;  24.04.490 (b).  See MHS Environmental Initial Study (E.I.S) page 13.
 
Fact 13.  It is inexplicable why DPW's Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic reviewers made  no preliminary merit comment requiring MHS' expansion program and plans to conform to the above Title 24 mandated parking requirements. See CDA Notice of Project Status dated 9 December 2003. Only a Special Investigation can answer.
 
Fact 14. It is inexplicable, why DPW's  Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic staff failed to require MHS to conform to Title 24 Development Standards Sections. 24.04.330 (a); 24.04.330 (b); 24.04.335 (p); 24.04.340; 24.04.370; 24.04.380; 24.04.390 and;  24.04.490 (b) mandatory on-site parking requirements requiring 273 on site parking spaces.
 
Fact 14. It is inexplicable, why DPW's  Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic staff in compliance with 24.04.330 (b)failed to  provide an  explanation for why they exempted MHS from conforming to the above mandated Title 24 requirements.
 
Fact 15.  It is inexplicable why DPW' s  Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic staff person (s) responsible for preparing and reviewing MHS' E.I.S.  Section  6.  Traffic/Circulation paraphrased the wording of Section 24.04.340 (p) to eliminate mandatory on-site passenger drop off loading zone requirements and  that MHS' actual  parking demand be determined to establish th e number of required on-site parking spaces.
 
Fact 16. It is inexplicable why DPW land Use, Water Resources and Traffic staff  person (s) failed to require MHS expansion program and plans to conform to all of the above Title 24 mandatory parking requirements. DPW land Use, Water Resources and Traffic staff  person (s) regularly requires  Homestead Valley residents to strictly conform to the letter to Title 24 requirements.
 
Fact 17. It is inexplicable why a Community Development Agency staff member  knowingly recommended  on August 16, 2005 to the Board of  Supervisors that the BOS approve  MHS' expansion program and plan that did not provide  mandatory 24.04.340  (p) on site passenger loading zone and parking spaces for all project related spaces
 
Fact 18. It is inexplicable that MHS' traffic consultant "Dowling Associates Inc. (DAI) was only retained to provide a peer review of various traffic studies conducted by (MHS') Robert L. Harrison Transportation Planning for the Marin Horizon School (MHS) at 305 Montford Avenue, Mill Valley, California and not evaluate the impact of MHS's traffic impact on the existing traffic volume of  neighborhood streets and pedestrian safety, as these streets do not have sidewalks, in strict accordance with all CEQA traffic and parking impact requirements and check lists..
 
Fact 18.  It is inexplicable that DAI was not retained to provide a traffic and parking environmental impact assessment of MHS expansion program and plan:
·         On the capacity of: Montford, Melrose and Evergreen  Ave's  existing street width to capacity to safely absorb MHS' projected daily traffic;
·         The impact of MHS' vehicles usurping on-street parking space intended for residential use and;
·         the impact of MHS non-conforming on-street passenger drop-off and loading area's reduction of Melrose Ave.'s right of way width from 50 feet to 35.5 feet which is less than the required width (36 feet) by DPW's residential street classification and eliminates approximately 10 on-street parking spaces.
 
Fact 18.  It is inexplicable why DAI's Traffic Study and  MHS' E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation  impact assessment statement question F.1 and  6 a) which reads "Substantial increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion such that existing levels of service on effected road ways will deteriorate below acceptable County standards" was paraphrased to reword the below CEQA Transportation/Traffic impact assessment requirement which reads.
"TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 
As a result MHS' substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips and the volume to capacity ratio on roads was never evaluated.
 
Fact 19  It is inexplicable and DPW's Land Use, Water Resources staff person (s) preparing / reviewing MHS' E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation did not:
·      Appropriately mechanically meter the existing 24 hour traffic volume (ADT) on Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Ave,s inaccordance with Caltrans standarrds.;
·      Provide MHS' school day and Special Event daily traffic volume projected by an MHS enrollment of 300 +/- commuting students;
·      Provide Montford, Melrose, and Evergreen Title 24 Section 24.04.030 Road classifications and 24/04/110 minimum width  requirements;
·      Provide a table showing existing and projected Montford, Melrose, and Evergreen  Aves.'  ADTs and required road widths with and without MHS' projected traffic volumes.  
 
Fact 20.  It is inexplicable why and DPW's Land Use, Water Resources person (s) preparing / reviewing MHS' E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation did not assess the impact significance of the percentage of MHS' existing generated traffic volume on Montford, Melrose, and Evergreen  Aves. Such an impact assessment would have revealed that, complying with MHS' proposed traffic plan for 300 students, MHS' existing 2004 generated traffic volume between 8:00 AM and  6:00 PM accounted for approximately: 29 % of the  total traffic volume on  Montford Ave.; 48% of the totat raffic volume on Melrose Ave. and 42 % of the total  traffic volume on Evergreen Ave. 
 
Fact 21.  It is inexplicable why  DPW's Land Use, Water Resources staff person (s) preparing / reviewing MHS' E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation did not find that MHS's % of  total traffic was a significant negative impact total traffic and could be mitigated by providing vans for students commuting to school from outside Homestead Valley.
 
Fact 22.  It is inexplicable why DPW's Land Use, Water Resources staff erson (s) who prepared MHS' E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation did not cite the significant negative impact  of MHS' expansion plan increased enrollment to 300 students (a 20% increase) and  corresponding MHS' increase in generated traffic volume between 08:00  and  18:00 hours which increased from MHS 382 vehicles in 2004 to MHS 485 vehicles. MHS school day time 485 trips account for approximately: 37 % of the total traffic volume on  Montford Ave.; 55 of the total traffic volume on Melrose Ave. and  53  % of the traffic total volume on Evergreen Ave.
 
Fact 23  It is inexplicable why DPW's Land Use, Water Resources staff person (s) preparing / reviewing MHS E.I.S Section 6 Transportation/Circulation did not:
·      Mechanically meter the existing average daily trips (ADT) on Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Aves.;
·      Project MHS' future school day daily traffic volume
·      Provide existing ADTs or project  future ADTs for Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Aves;
Require  more than a one day hand traffic count on 16 September as a one day of hand traffic counts is not sufficient to establish base line traffic data .
 
Fact 24. It is inexplicable why DAI DPW's Land Use, Water Resources staff person (s)  preparing / reviewing MHS E.I.S Section 6 Transportation/Circulation did not r require MHS to reimburse the County for any County street improvements required by MHS significant negative impact on the capacity of the width of the existing street system to absorb MHS existing and projected traffic volume. Such as street widening or construction of new sidewalks.
 
Fact 24 It is inexplicable that MHS' Special Event schedule for MHS' 2004-2005 school year was in violation of MHS' 1993 Use Permit which permits 7 day events not MHS' 2004-2005 scheduled 13 day events. And a CDA staff reviewer permitted MHS to schedule 6 more Special Events in 2004-2005 than permitted in MHS' 1993 Use Permit
 
Fact 25  It is inexplicable how a BOS internal working document revising Board of Supervisors resolution 2005-105 found its way into the hands of Christina Oldenberg, Chairperson of  the Homestead Valley Concerned Citizen's committee.
 
Fact 26. It is inexplicable that MHS E.I.S. front, back and side yard setback requirements of :19.5' front; 15' west; 170 east and; 170' south described on Marin County Planning Commission PC May 23, 2005 page 1 and on resolution 2005-104 Negative Declaration Marin Horizon School Environmental Initial Study Project Description pg 2 are deleted on: Resolution 2005-104 pg 1 "A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT" dated 8/30/2005 and Resolution 2005-105 "A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT/MARIN HORIZON SCHOOL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW.
 
 
Of course it's explainable. Certain members of the Community Development Agency and DPW Land Use and Water Resource department commited the massive number of above inexplicable errors and omissions in order to manipulate all County requirements to suit Marin Horizon Schools proposed expansion plan in lieu of requiring Marin Horion School to revise its  proposed expansion plan to all meet County requirements requirements.
 
 
I had hope over the past 5 years to arrive at a resolution that would ensure  the tranquility of Homestead Valley.
 
It is now painfully clear that the County has no intention of enforcing resolutions 2005-104 and 2005- 105.
 
Your decision not to mutually work toward a resolution to the Marin Horizon School's traffic and parking massive impact on its neighborhood streets includinf requiring MHS vehicles to have an identifying "cling" sticer on their windshield leaves us no option except to proceed to seek relief.
 
Therefore our first action is to respectively  request that the County bring  alleged unethical conduct charges against those certain members of the Community Development Agency and DPW Land Use and Water Resource department responsible for the massive number of above factua inexplicable errors and omissions in order to manipulate all County requirements to suit Marin Horizon Schools proposed expansion plan in lieu of requiring Marin Horion School.
 
Certain members of the Community Development Agency and DPW Land Use and Water Resource department, consulants and others include but are not limited to: Alex Hinds, Brian Crawford, Tim Haddad, Ben Berto, Jeremy Tejirian, Neil Osborne, Jason Nutt, Eric Steger and Mitra Moheb.
 
 
Charles D. Sands, Architect
Sandsconsult Architect
12 Madrone Park Circle
Mill Valley, Ca, 94941
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Lai, Thomas <TLai@co.marin.ca.us>
To: Charlessands <charlessands@aol.com>
Cc: Lai, Thomas <TLai@co.marin.ca.us>
Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 10:34 am
Subject: RE: Deletion of MHS Project Description pg 2 set back descriptions
Hi Charles,
 
In the event you did not receive CDA's response to your complaints concerning Marin Horizon School, I'm attaching another copy of the letter dated December 14th to this email.  The following request to meet with staff to revisit aspects of a decision that was made over 5 years ago is not a good use of time and resources.  As indicated in our response to you, we believe we have responded to all of your complaints in a fair manner, yet you continue to dwell into details that we believe have been addressed. While I respect that you do not agree with the County's decision to approve the permits for Marin Horizon School or how we handled the traffic monitoring program, I am not willing to commit additional staff time to continue to respond to the same complaints against the school.
 
With Regards,
-Tom Lai
(415) 499-6292
From: Charlessands [mailto:charlessands@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 1:00 PM
To: Lai, Thomas
Subject: Deletion of MHS Project Description pg 2 set back descriptions
 
Tom
 
When ever conveinent, I'd like to meet with you and the staff member (s) who responsble for drafting the County's MHS EIS MHS Project Description pg 2 set back descriptions. Commisions meeting minutes, 2005-104, draft findings for 2005-105 after 16 August hearings and final draft of 2005-105.
 
Best regards,
 
Charles


 
Email Disclaimer: http://www.co.marin.ca.us/nav/misc/EmailDisclaimer.cfm
 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)