Date: December 26, 2009 7:13:45 PM PST
To: fmansourian@co.marin.ca.us, pfaulkner@co.marin.ca.us, mperl@co.marin.ca.us, bbeaumont@co.marin.ca.us, cmcglashan@co.marin.ca.us, hbrown@co.marin.ca.us, cmurray@co.marin.ca.us, skinsey@co.marin.ca.us, sadams@co.marin.ca.us
Subject: County Counsel threaten Homestead Valley Resident
Mr. Perl,
I have received and read your letter of 23 December 2009.
It is replete with errors, misquotes, omisions, and basesless allegations.
I strongly recomend you and all recepients carefully re-read my below letter of 17 December 2009 in which you cite that I have made false statements.
As a retired internationaly known architect and urban designer with more than 45 years of experience I am not in the habit of making false statements and am insulted by your unfounded statements:
As you seem to be uniformed you are respectfuly requested to act on and initiae my below request for a County investigation into Ms Moheb's competency and ethics. This request is based on Ms. Moheb's massive unexplaiable errorrs and omisions in favor of only Marin Horizon School cited below.
In lieu of threating me I suggest that Ms Moheb be required to explain to to a County Competency/Etics Investigative Board why:
o She failed to state in her Marin Horizon School design review comments and conditons of approval that Marin Horizon School proposed expnsion plan does not conform to the following Title 24 sections nor did she explain why MHS was did not have to conforn to these sections as required by 24.04.330 (b)
o 24.04.030;
o 24.04.330 (a);
o 24.04.330 (b);
o 24.04335 (a);
o 24.04.340 (p);
o 24.04.340;
o 24.04.370;
o 24.04.380;
o 24.04.390 and;
o 24.04.440 (b) and .
o Why she failed to note that Marin Horizon School's E.I.S omitted to evaluate the significant negative impact of its failure to conforn to the Title 24 sections cited above.
If Ms Moheb was not the Land Management reviewing engineer as she has stated then she misinformed me. If so who is the reviewing engineer responsible for the above cited Title 24 errors and omissions ?
Cc: fmansourian@co.marin.ca.us; bbeaumont@co.marin.ca.us; BDavidson@co.marin.ca.us; cmcglashan@co.marin.ca.us; hbrown@co.marin.ca.us; cmurray@co.marin.ca.us; skinsey@co.marin.ca.us; sadams@co.marin.ca.us; kojitutui@gmail.com; others...
Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2009 2:42 pm
Subject: Request for Public Records to avoid unlawful Marin County denial of property rights and seizure of private property
Ms Moheb,
I regret that you are persisting in your unfounded and baseless decisions:
1. To not allow the owner of parcel 048-023-26 to temporarily access North Ferndale Ave. from his abutting parcel;
2. To construct two (2) on street parking spaces on N. Ferndale Ave. and:
3. To not establish appropriate, reasonable, and practical design review conditions of approval required to conform to Title 24 Development Standards.
As I repeatedly explained to you the County does not own the easement shown on # 8 Madrone Park Circle’s Site Topography survey by L.L. Stevens Associates Inc.
I live at # 12 Madrone Park Circle. Which is a through lot with frontage on N. Ferndale Ave.
#12’s title cites the Map of Madron Map of Madron Park, Volume 4, Page 8 of Marin County Records.
A signed note on Map of Madron Park, Volume 4, Page 8 of Marin County Records states that "Conveyance of any lot shown on this map shall be held to include and covey the fee to that portion of the streets and alleys adjacent to such lot which portion is included within the sidelines of the lot projected to the center of such streets and alleys. Rawlston White"
Historical lots # 9, # 10, # 11, # 14, # 16 and # 17 shown on the Map of Madron in fee to the center line of North Ferndale Ave.
AP Parcel 048-023-25 (lots # 9 and #10) and 048-023-26 (Lot # 11) in accordance with the signed note on "Map of Madron Park, Volume 4, Page 8 of Marin County Records own in fee to the center line of North Ferndale Ave.
As you persist in insisting that N. Ferndale Ave. is a County owned right of way and any structure encroaching into or built within this easement must have an approved encroachment permit and must be maintained by the County, You are respectfully requested to provide In accordance with the California Public Records Act of Government Code 6250-6270.48 a copy of the Marin County documents substantiating your allegation that North Ferndale Ave. above Melrose Ave. is a county owned right of way .
Documents requested to substantiate your allegation include but are not limited to:
1. Offer by the owner's of the historical lots # 9, # 10, # 11, # 14, # 16 and # 17 to transfer title to the County that the portion of North Ferndale Ave. that they own in fee.
2. Marin County acceptance of the above offer.
3. Marin County dedication document that the 50 feet easement shown on Map of Madron as an easement is now owned by the county.
4 Your current California Civil Engineer registration number
5. Cite and provide copy of Title 19 and Title 24 Section and Sub-Section codes numbers regulating property owners accessing an abutting county owned or privately owned street.
6. Cite and provide copy of Title 19 and Title 24 Section and Sub-Section codes numbers prohibiting a property owner from accessing an abutting county owned or privately owned street.
6. Cite and provide copy of Marin County DPW Land Management and California Department of Transportation design standards for prohibiting property owner from accessing an abutting county owned or privately owned street.
In the absence of any evidence to substantiate your claim I believe the County will concur that our titles showing we own in fee the N. Ferndale Ave. easement prevail.
I am not happy that you seem to feel that you can freely beat up on individual property owners by requiring them to conform to your personal interpretation of Marin County codes while failing to require Marin Horizon School to conform to the below listed Marin County Title 24 codes..
You told me recently that you were DPW’s Land Management engineering staff member who reviewed MHS’ proposed design for conformance with Title 24’s Road and Parking Requirements. You did not impose your personal opinion on MHS. Indeed you omitted to require MHS to conform to 11 Title 24 requirements thereby assuring:
A MHS negative environmental impact declaration would be found;
MHS’ Design Review would be approved and;
Guaranteed that MHS traffic and parking impacts would not be mitigated and;
Condemned Homestead Valley residents to permanently have to support the negative impacts of MHS traffic and usurpation of resident use of their on-street parking.
Your omissions in favor of MHS and against Homestead Valley residents are a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act
As DPW’s Land Management staff member responsible for reviewing MHS’ proposed design for conformance to Title 24 requirements your massive omissions of Title 24’s Road and Parking Requirements failed to require MHS to conform to Title 24 requirements thereby benefiting Marin Horizon School (MHS).
Your omissions misinformed and mislead the Board of Supervisors into approving MHS’ negative environmental impact declaration and MHS’ erroneous design review.
Your unethical actions in favor of MHS deprived Homestead Valley residents of the protection of and Title 24 parking requirements.
You did not require the MHS proposed design to conform to the following Title 24 nor did you explain in your design review condition of approval or in MHS’ E.I.S. why you omitted to require MHS to fully and completely conform with the below cited Title 24 requirements.
1) Negative impact on Road Classification width (24.04.030) by MHS’ cumulative generated traffic volume. 2003 MHS’ traffic consultant study shows that MHS daily traffic represents approximately 50% of all traffic on Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Avenues.
a) Clearly an omitted significant impact unless mitigated. MHS benefited by not being required to maintain the minimum Melrose Ave. travel width required by existing and projected traffic volume
2) Negative impact of reducing Melrose Ave.’s travel width (24.04.110) to +/- 21 feet as result of MHS’ encroachment of +/- 15’-6” into Melrose Ave.’s right-of-way including the red traffic cone barriers which are not described in the E.I.S. or permitted by MHS’ encroachment permit. See Melrose Ave. Pedestrian and Student Loading Study dated September 23, 2003.
a) A +/- 30% reduction to Melrose Ave. 50 feet easement is a significant permanent negative impact to the ability of Melrose Ave. to serve as a Collector Road in the future or to currently safely server as a Residential Road and permanently impedes and endangers driver and vehicle use of this portion of Melrose Ave.
b)MHS benefited by not having to locate the MHS’ on street passenger loading area on-site as mandated by 24.04.340 (p) to be on site.
3) MHS non-conformance with 24.04.330 (a). “Every main building shall be provided with minimum off-street parking and loading”.
a) MHS benefited by not having to locate all minimum required parking on-site. See the Dowling study minimum MHS parking demand projection of 132 spaces.
4) MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.330 (b). Exceptions shall include a finding citing the reason for the exceptions.
a) You cited no reasons for the massive exceptions granted MHS (special privileges not enjoyed by Homestead Valley residents) from Title 24 parking requirements
b) You benefited MHS by not having its massive non-conformance to Title 24 codes evaluated in the E.I.S thereby avoiding a negative declaration.
5) MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.335 (a). “All parking and loading spaces shall be located on the same site as the use they relate”.
a) You did not require on site parking be provided for 132 staff, parents, visitors or vendors. See MHS E.I.S and Dowling Traffic Review.
b) MHS benefited by not having to construct a parking structure with a playground on its roof and allowed MHS vehicles to park on street. An enormous financial saving.
c) Yet you are not allowing the owner of AP 048-023-25 to construct parking on N. Ferndale Ave. (which he owns in fee) and are requiring him to park 4 vehicles on his project site which will require him to construct retaining walls and or an expensive parking deck in order to conform to your personal wrong headed unsubstantiated opinion requirements.
6. MHS’ on-conformance with 24.04.340 (p). Approx. 132 parking spaces and a passenger loading bay are mandated to be on site parents, teachers, visitors and vendors. Only 49 spaces reserved for teachers and 2 ADA spaces are provided. 4 of the 49 parking spaces are nonconforming.
a) MHS benefited by not having to provide on site parking spaces for parents, teachers, visitors and vendor
7. MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.380. 4 of 49 parking spaces length dimensions are less than required 18 feet.
a) MHS benefited by being able to include 4 nonconforming parking spaces in MHS’ nonconforming total parking count.
8. MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.340 (p). “Schools shall have an off street passenger loading area”. MHS’ nonconforming passenger loading area is “on-street” and reduces the travel width to less than 22’ required for 2 lane travel.
a) MHS benefited by not having to use MHS site area for a mandatory on site passenger loading area.
9. MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.340 (p). “Parking studies may be required for these and other schools as necessary to determine actual parking requirements. You did not require MHS to provide off 132 (49 staff, 51 special events, 32 parents, visitors and staff.) off- parking spaces as determined by the County’s transportation consultant.
a) MHS benefited by not having to use MHS site area for on site parking determined by the county.
10) MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.370. No on-street ADA passenger loading space is provided conforming to 24.04.370 or California Building Code 1113.B.2
a) MHS benefited by not having to re-grade Melrose Ave. to conform to ADA maxim allowable slope of 2 %. See Melrose Ave. Pedestrian and Student Loading Study dated September 23, 2003. MHS benefited by not having to pay for re-grading Melrose Ave.
11). MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.390. Required back out nose to accommodate parking spaces at end of parking lot not provided. MHS benefited by being able to not lose parking spaces at end of parking lot.
a) MHS benefited by using space for parking needed to provide back out noses there by did not lose parking spaces or have to reduce play area.
12) MHS’ non-conformance with 24.04.440 (b). No sidewalks or curbs are provided on Melrose or Montford Avenues conforming to 24.04.440 (b).
a) MHS benefited by saving the cost of constructing sidewalks and curbs.
Given your history of biased actions in favor of Marin Horizon School (see the 11 Title 24 codes you omitted to require MHS to comply with) and your arrogant imposition of your unfounded professional opinions on defenseless Homestead Valley private citizens One wonders if you are simply incompetent and or unethical.
As you have permanently damaged the well being and endangered the safety of Homestead Valley residents, a full unbiased special investigation of your apparent professional incompetency and or unethical actions is warranted by the Marin County Ethics Committee and or the Board of Supervisors.
As supervisor S. Kinsey was an ardent MHS advocate he should recuse himself from all involvement in an Marin County Investigation of all issues related to County reviews and approvals of MHS’ expansion programs.
454 Homestead Valley residents who must live with the result of your omissions demand an investigation into this scam.
Regards,
Charles
No comments:
Post a Comment