Ownership of N. Ferndale Ave and right of access

From: charlessands
Date: December 27, 2009 11:54:31 AM PST
To: sperl@co.marin.ca.us
Cc: 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, fmansourian@co.marin.ca.us, bbeaumont@co.marin.ca.us, BDavidson@co.marin.ca.us, mmoheb@co.marin.ca.us, nosborne@co.marin.ca.us
Subject: Ownership of N. Ferndale Ave and right of access

Dear Mr. Perl,

Thank you for your letter of 23 December 2009 re: our Public Document Request.

We'll be very interested to confirm who owns the easement on which North Ferndale is built as our titles indicate we own it in fee contrary to Ms. Moheb's opinion that it is County owned. Subcategories 1, 2 & 3.

We are surprised that there are no County records that confirm that Ms Moheb is a registered State of California professional civil engineer qualified to establish and enforce her engineering design conditions of approval upon property owners. Subcategory 4.

I am fully conversant with Title 19 and 24 and that Ms. Mohebs imposition of her personal opinion that the County can legally not "allow temporary access" by a property owner to North Ferndale is not supported by any known county ordinance. Subcategory 5 & first subcategory 6.

You are respectfully requested to inform Ms Moheb that she can not arbitrarily refuse to allow access to N. Ferndale.

As I am very conversant with county design requirements, I knew you would agree that the County does not have any known design standard prohiting property owners from accessing an abutting a county owned or privately owned street. Second subcategory 6.

You are respectfully requested to inform Ms Moheb that she can not arbitrarily refuse to allow access to N. Ferndale.

You are also respectfully requested to direct Ms. Momheb to correct her incorrect DPW Merit Comment # 3 which reads "Temporary Access on North Ferndale will not be allowed" See Notice of Project Status Re: Tsutsui Design Review (DR 10-29) Planner Neal Osborne

You are also requested to ask Ms. Moheb why she required Mr. Tsutui's project to conform to 24.04.335 (a) 24.04.340 (a) and 24.380 (a) but did not require Marin Horizon School to confrom to these same requirements. 24.04.335 (a) requires all Marin Horizon School related parking to be located on site.

Ms. Mohebs Tiltle 24 omissions deprived Homstead Valley residents of the protection of 11 Title 24 requirements and saved MHS the enormous finacial expense of complying with Title 24 requirements.

Ms Moheb's omissions extended special favors to Marin Horizon School not enjoyed by Homstead Valley residents.

A special Marin County competency and ethics investigation of Ms Moheb's design review and condition of approval expertise is called for to eliminate extending special privilges to any property owner or tenant in the future.


Regards,

Charles