Draft letter Re. Re. M. Cty. MHS Special Investigation, St. improvements, MHS Scholarships

From: charlessands
Subject: Draft letter Re. Re. M. Cty. MHS Special Investigation, St. improvements, MHS Scholarships
Date: January 17, 2010 4:46:59 AM PST
To: HV Concerned Citizens

DRAFT COPY FOR 1ST REVIEW BY HOMESTEAD CONCERNED CITIZENS.

Dear President Brown:

The following “exposé clearly documents that Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors were mislead into approving Marin Horizon’s (MHS) Negative Declaration, USE Permit and Design Review by the Community Development Agency’s use of MHS’ E.I.S which is replete with errors and omissions favoring MHS and failure to document and assess the negative environmental impact of MHS’ proposed project not strictly conforming to Title 24 Section 24.04.330 and 24.04.335 , and 24.04.340 (p) ordinances.

It is extremely unfortunate that MHS’ E.I.S. and Design Review documents can be demonstrated to contain so many errors and omissions in favor of only MHS in an apparent effort to obtain a Negative Declaration. Given the extreme number of “inexplicable items” documented below an unbiased reader might conclude that Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental initial (E.I.S) review process fraudulently used to provide MHS a Negative Declaration.

Why is it extremely unfortunate? Because the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15403 Authority to Approve Projects Despite Significant Effects states “a public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that:
(a) There is no way to lessen or avoid the significant effect, and
(b) Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.

The failure of the County’s Agency and staff to ensure that MHS’ proposed expansion program and plans were fully, completely and objectively reviewed and found to be strictly in conformance without exception to the: County Wide Plan; Tamalpais Area Plan; Development Code and Development Standards deprived Homestead Valley residents of their civil right to equal protection of Marin County’s County Wide Plan; Tamalpais Area Plan and Title 19, 22 and 24 ordinances.

To mitigate the County’s deprivation of our civil right to the protection of County ordinances we a respectfully ask the the County take the following mitigating actions:

1. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: To prohibit future deprivation of our right to protection of County ordinances convene a Special Investigation Team of unbiased professional community planners and traffic engineering consultants be convened to identify and investigate the person (s) who prepared MHS’ E.I.S. and Design Review documents and recommendations to determine:

a) Who did what, when and why;
b) Who benefited;
c) Who was damaged;
d) Who are the person (s) of interest and their role and responsibility in committing following documented inexplicable errors, omissions and failure to require MHS to conform to County ordinances contained in MHS’ E.I.S.
e) And recommend appropriate punitive action.

The possible persons of interest identified below might have information related: To the County’s and MHS’ contracts for E.I.S consulting services; ; Supervisory oversight review, comment, revision and approval of staff review of MHS’ project for strict conformance to County ordinances Titles 19, 22 and 24. Supervisory oversight review, comment, revision and approval of review of consultant prepared MHS’ E.I.S and staff prepared Design Review; Supervisory oversight review, comment, revision and approval of consultant’s MHS’ E.I:.S.; Supervisory oversight review, comment, revision and approval by person(s) responsible for staff review and evaluation of MHS’ projects conformance to Section 22.42.060 Design Review; Supervisory oversight review, comment, revision and approval of person(s) responsible for drafting staff reports to the Planning Commission and; Supervisory oversight review and approval of staff’s drafting and revisions to the Planning Commission’s and the Board of Supervisors’ Resolutions and; County communications with the Chairman of Homestead Valley Concerned Citizens prior to August 16, 2005.
Persons of interest include but not limited to are: Rosalind Hamar, Paul Andre Schabracq, Mark A. Bowman, Steve Kinsey, Christina Oldenberg, Alex Hinds, Tim Haddad, Ben Berto, Jeremy Tejirian, Neil Osborne, Jason Nutt, Eric Steger and Mitra Moheb.

2. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: In lieu of the County not requiring MHS to mitigate the significant negative impact of MHS’ traffic and parking DPW must now provide those mitigating actions by planning, designing and constructing the following Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Ave. street improvements.

.A. Montford Ave.;
a) Widen Montford Ave. from Homestead Valley Community Center to the County boundary with the City of Mill Valley to conform to the conform to the County road standard minimum width required to carry current community and MHS’ additional traffic which will also provide for MHS’ 32 +/- on-street parking demand determined by MHS’ E.I.S. ;
b) Paint lane median traffic striping lines;
b) Construct a left hand turning and stack up lane for MHS’ vehicles destined for MHS’ non-conforming on-street passenger drop-off pick-up zone;
c) Construct a turn around in the vicinity of the Homestead Valley Community Center for arriving MHS parent, visitor and vendor parking;
d) Install “Left had traffic must turn immediately”;
d) Construct a formal accessible Montford Ave. gateway entry to MHS’ campus;
e) Repave Montford Ave. and construct a decomposed granite pathway on along the south sose of Montford Ave.

B. Melrose Ave::
a) Widen Melrose Ave. from Montford to Laverne Aves. to comply with County road standard minimum width;
b) Delete MHS’ Traffic Plan requirement that MHS vehicles must exit via Evergreen Ave. which concentrates MHS traffic on Evergreen;
b) Locate pedestrian cross walks at Montford Ave. and Volunteer Park;
c) Require MHS to provide an accessible passenger drop-off loading zone. See attached Melrose Ave. Concept Plan;
d) Install “No-Parking except for residents” from Montford to Laverne Aves.
e) Paint lane median traffic striping lines.
f) Repave Melrose Ave. and construct concrete curb and sidewalk along MHS and a decomposed granite pathway along East side of Melrose

C. Evergreen Ave.:
a) Widen Evergreen as required to comply with County road standard minimum width.
b) Paint lane median traffic striping lines.
c) Repave Evergreen Ave, and construct a decomposed granite on-street parking zone and five feet (5) wide decomposed granite pathway on both sides of Evergreen Ave. separated from traffic by decorative metal bollards 5’0 on center to prohibit parking on Evergreen Ave’s pathways.

3. MHS FULL SCHOLARSHIPS HOMESTEAD VALLEY STUDENTS:

Require MHS to provide full tuition, books and materials to 3 students per year in exchange for Marin County permitting MHS’ to use Marin County’s public right-of-way for Title 24.04.330, 24.04.335, and 24.04.340 (p) for MHS’ accessible passenger drop-off loading zone on Melrose Ave. and MHS parent, visitor, vendor and Special Event parking (32) on Montford Ave. (See MHS’ E.I.S page 28)
MHS’ Scholarships shall be awarded to 3 students whose parents combined income, after all state and federal taxes is less than $100,000 and who live within a 1/2 mile radius from the center line of the intersection of Melrose and Evergreen Ave.

It is unknown if MHS and its consultants can legally be financially liable responsible for their error and omission damages to the County caused by MHS sponsoring and providing misleading and incomplete E.I.S. base study information for County and MHS’ consultant’s and sub-consultant’s use in their preparation of MHS’ inexplicably erroneous E.I.S.

It is extremely unfortunate for the County, MHS and the residents of MHS’ Homestead Valley neighborhood that the person (s) who prepared MHS’ E.I.S. failed to properly and correctly assess the negative impact of MHS’ traffic and parking and impose the necessary mitigating actions described above. If this had occurred MHS would now be a respected welcomed into the neighborhood as a responsible concerned and likeable Homestead Valley neighbor.

What event or occasion triggered the following detail review of MHS’ E.I.S., Design Review 22.42.060 findings and Resolution 2005-105?

Last year Mr. Jeremy Tejirian informed me that MHS was in compliance with Resolution 2005-105 Condition of Approval # 50 and only required to only provide Special Event temporary parking after normal school hours.

I found this to be inexplicable as MHS’ E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation Special Events Parking page 28 specially states “Special Events that occur during the school day would have 55 spaces available for parent parking etc.

1. 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. The mitigating MHS’ parking actins described in E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation actions on page 28: omitted to be included in COA # 50 include.
• Temporary parking for day time events;
• Day and evening shuttle bus;
• Satellite lot parking space for day and evening events and;
• Require all Special MHS vehicles that can not be parked on site to park elsewhere. .

2. It is inexplicable that the out of date Marin County Code (MCC) Title 22 Zoning Ordinance is listed in MHS’ Appendix A but not the then current June 24, 2003 Title 22 Development Code nor Title 24 Development Standards which contain the County’s road, parking and loading mandatory requirements.

3. It is inexplicable that MHS’ E.I.S finding that “adequate parking is proposed for the project”. See MHS’ E.I.S. d) page 28. MHS’ proposed parking for visiting parents, other visitors and vendors is proposed to be on-street in total non-conformance with the mandatory requirements of Title 24 Sections 24.04.330 , 24.04.35 and 24.04.340 (p) and 24.04.340 (p) mandatory requirements that requires that all MHS’ project’s parking be on-site.

Given past events that have occurred since the 2003 and the inexplicable omission of MHS to provide Special Event day time temporary parking, I decided to perform an in depth review of MHS’ E.I.S. and the County Design Review findings.

I am uniquely qualified to provide an unbiased review of MHS’ E.I.S. as I have worked as a senior planner and urban designer with Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd in Philadelphia a nationally and internationally recognized Planning, Landscaping and Urban design firm. I also have worked with Louis I. Kahn, Architect in Philadelphia and Georges Candilis, former lead architect in Le Corbusier’s office, in Paris, France. I have worked on the planning and design of architectural, urban redevelopment projects new towns in the USA, Japan and Venezuela.

Review of only selected sections of MHS’ E.I.S revealed a beyond belief magnitude of inexplicable errors, omissions and failures to require MHS conformance with MC Ordinances and always in MHS’ favor. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

4. It is inexplicable and unknown if the CDA’s and DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic Directors and their staff were unaware of the errors, omissions and failures to require MHS conformance with MC Ordinances and always in MHS’ favor. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

Was the MHS’ E.I.S. including its errors, omissions and failures to require MHS conformance with MC Title 24 traffic and parking requirement knowingly used by the Community Development Agency (CDA) to justify the CDA’s Director’s recommendation that the BOS approve MHS’ Negative E.I.S Declaration and Design Review? Only a Special Investigation can answer.

If not, then the competency of the CDA’ Director and staff is in question. If yes, then an ethical practices investigation is in order. Only a Special Investigation can answer

Special Investigation findings and recommendations may provide the County with unbiased, actionable, discovery information leading to recommendations that the County should censure, remove from office, discipline or terminate those persons (s) responsible the MHS’ E.I.S inexplicable errors, omissions and failures to require MHS conformance to County ordinances.

My in depth review of MHS’ E.I.S. left me professionally disgusted

MHS’ E.I.S. INEXPLICABLE ERRORS, OMISIONS AND FAILURES TO REQUIRE MHS TO CONFORM TO COUNTY ORDINANCES.

1. It is inexplicable why Marin Horizon School’s (MHS) Environmental Initial Study (E.I.S.) does not identify the person or persons who prepared or person or persons who prepared or participate in the initial study.

2 It is inexplicable that the Community Development Agency (CDA) violated 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 Only a Special Investigation can answer

3. It is inexplicable why Marin County’s Community Development Agency’s (CDA) recommended Marin County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approve the imposition of Marin Horizon School’s (MHS) commercial, corporate, not for profit, private educational facility consisting of a nursery, kindergarten and elementary school (K-6) and junior high school (7-8) on a Department of Education, State of California substandard sized Homestead Valley kindergarten and elementary school site 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). Only a Special Investigation can answer

4.It is inexplicable that during MHS’ projects’ Design Review CDA reviewers failed to review MHS proposed expansion plan for conformance to TACP’ s community goals # 7. “Limit commercial development or redevelopment to uses that primarily serve the Planning Area residents at a scale compatible with the semi-rural environment.” Only a Special Investigation can answer

MHS is a commercial educational facility that primarily serves students living out side of Homestead Valley and the TCAP area, it is inexplicable that CDA staff failed to review MHS proposed expansion plan for conformance to TACP’s community 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.”
Only a Special Investigation can answer.

The MHS’ (E.I.S.) page 12, “1. Compliance with the Tamalpais Area Community Plan”(TAC) failed to cite TACP goal # 7 page III-34 and two pages latter on page III-36 revised TACP LU1.3 policy statement to read “New development shall be compatible with the scale (bulk, mass, and height) and appearance (colors, materials and design) of the particular neighborhood and integrated into the area’s natural setting.”. TACP LU1.3 Compatible Design on page III.36 reads “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.” It is inexplicable why the person (s) who prepared MHS’ E.I.S. and reworded LU.3.to delete the above words in bold italics. Only a Special Investigation can answer

On August 16, 2005, a Homestead Valley resident called the BOS’ attention to this unlawful rewording of a county approved document ,TACP policy LU1.3, and submitted to the BOS evidence documenting this unlawful rewording.

5 It is inexplicable why the BOS took no known action to reprimand the person (s) responsible and approve BOS 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). Only a Special Investigation can answer

6. 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). MHS Environmental Initial Study (E.I.S) page 13. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

7. It is inexplicable why DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic reviewers had 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.

8. It is inexplicable, why DPW Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic reviewers failed to require MHS to conform to the following Title 24 on-site parking requirements mandating that MHS’ provide 273 on site parking spaces and provided no explanation why they exempted MHS from conforming to the following mandate Title 24 requirements. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

9. It is inexplicable why DAI and DPW Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic person (s) responsible for preparing and reviewing MHS’ E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation failed: To include the following Title 24 mandatory requirements in MHS’ E.I.S. Section 6.; Paraphrased 24.04.340 (p) to eliminate mandatory on-site passenger drop off loading and requirement that MHS’ parking demand be determined actual MHS’ parking requirements; To evaluate MHS’ proposed expansion program and plans for conformance to the following Title 24 mandated parking requirements and; To include in MHS’ E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation MHS’ non-conformance to the following Title 24 mandatory requirements and recommend mitigating actions. All in violation of C.E.Q.A requirements.
Only a Special Investigation can answer.

24.04.330 General intent.
(a) Every main building or use hereafter created or established shall be provided with minimum off-street parking and loading spaces as specified in this chapter.
(b) If particular circumstances justify an exception, the amount and dimensions of required parking and loading spaces may be increased or decreased by the agency through design review or other appropriate process of the community development agency. Such approvals shall include a finding citing the particular circumstances and reasons why the exception was made and may also include provisions for periodic review to establish actual parking needs and to allow for revision of the parking requirements.

24.04.335 General conditions.
(a) All parking and loading spaces shall be provided on the same site as the use to which they relate.

24.04.340 Minimum required parking spaces.
Minimum off-street parking spaces shall be provided for buildings or uses according to the following schedule. Where a parcel includes two or more uses, the parking requirements shall be the aggregate of the requirement for each individual use. Parking studies may be required for unique uses or where the following guidelines may not be appropriate to the specific project proposed.

(p) Schools. As general guidelines, nursery schools should provide four spaces per classroom and elementary schools (K-8) should provide three spaces per classroom. Parking studies may be required for these and other schools as necessary to determine actual parking requirements. In addition to required parking, schools shall have an off-street passenger loading area of an appropriate size as determined by the agency.

10. It is inexplicable that DPW Land Use, Water Resources and Traffic reviewers failed to require MHS expansion program and plans to conform to all of the above Title 24 mandatory parking requirements. DPW regularly require Homestead Valley residents to strictly conform to the letter to Title 24 requirements. Only a Special Investigation can answer.
requires Homestead Valley residents to conform to? Only a Special Investigation can answer.

11. It is inexplicable that DAI’s Traffic and Parking Study projected an inaccurate MHS Special Events on-site parking demand of 200 based on MHS 204-2005 enrollment of 263 and not on MHS’ increase in student enrollment from its 1993 Use Permit of 250 to its proposed enrollment of 300. Based on MHS’ assumption that not all MHS’ parents of 300 students will attend a MHS’ Special Event, MHS’ projected Special Events daytime on-site parking demand could be 273 spaces. (49 staff spaces and a projected maximum of 224 Special Event parking spaces) which leaves an unsatisfied day time on-site parking demand of 124. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

12. It is inexplicable why a CDA staff member on August 16, 2005 knowingly recommended to the BOS that the BOS approve MHS’ expansion program and plan after his attention was called by email, 19 July 2005, to the obvious fact that MHS’ expansion program and plan did not conform to Title 24, Section 24.04.340 mandatory on-site parking requirements. Section 24.04.340. requires that MHS 1043hall be provide on-site loading and parking areas as determined by the Agency? Only a Special Investigation can answer.

13. 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. DAI was also “retained to comment, as appropriate, on a number of recent communications from the surrounding community and others regarding traffic, parking, or circulation related issues near the school” and was not contracted to provide a traffic environmental impact study in accordance with CEQA requirements and check lists.Only a Special Investigation can answer.

14. 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.’ existing street width to 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. Only a Special Investigation can answer

15. 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 which reads
“TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:

a) 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)? Note: Bold words were deleted)
Only a Special Investigation can answer.

16. It is inexplicable why DAI and DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources 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 Aves.; Cite MHS’ school day and Special Event daily traffic volume projected by an MHS enrollment of 300 +/- commuting students; Cite Montford, Melrose, and Evergreen Title 24 Section 24.04.030 Road classifications and 24/04/110 Width requirements; provided a table showing existing and projected Montford, Melrose, and Evergreen Aves.’ ADTs and required road widths with and without MHS’ projected traffic volumes. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

17. It is inexplicable why DAI 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 traffic volume on Montford Ave.; 48% of the traffic volume on Melrose Ave. and 42 % of the traffic volume on Evergreen Ave. These percentages are based on an MHS enrollment of 250 and MHS’ proposed traffic plan which includes car pools of no less than 2 students per car pool. Maybe this is why the CXEQA question was paraphrased See 15 above. A layperson would conclude MHS’ traffic has a significant impact on neighborhood existing and future street width capacity. MHS’ E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation Only a Special Investigation can answer.


18. It is inexplicable why the DAI and DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources person (s) who prepared MHS’ E.I.S. Section 6. Traffic/Circulation did not cite the significant 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 traffic volume on Montford Ave.; 55 of the traffic volume on Melrose Ave. and 53 % of the traffic volume on Evergreen Ave.
A layperson might conclude that MHS’ traffic has a significant impact on neighborhood existing and future street width capacity. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

19. It is inexplicable why DAI and the DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources persons 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. Did not project MHS’ future school day daily traffic volume: Did not provide existing ADTs or project future ADTs for Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Aves. MHS’ consultants R.T. Harrison, Transportation Planning and Reed Traffic Data consultants only used unreliable hand counts of observed traffic. Only one day of Reed Traffic Data consultants hand count observation data for September 16, 2004 is included in DAI’s Traffic Study Appendix. In the opinion of a layperson
One day of hand counts of observed traffic is not sufficient to establish base line traffic data upon which a environmental impact assessment can be made and mitigating action recommendations, if any, can be made. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

20. It is inexplicable why DAI DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources persons preparing / reviewing MHS E.I.S Section 6 Transportation/Circulation did not cite or 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. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

Title 24 Section 24.04.030 Road Classifications states: “The design criteria for a road shall be based on the classifications defined below. Use figures (i.e., units served and ADT) shall be based on the ultimate development of the area served by the road as defined by the Marin countywide plan and/or any general, specific or community plan applicable to the area.
"Arterial road" means all arterial roads as specified in the countywide plan or the Marin county annual road list, and other major roads with an actual or projected ADT over two thousand.
"Industrial commercial road" means a road providing access to, or through, an industrial or commercial zone or an area of high truck and/or other large vehicle traffic.
"Collector road" means a road with an actual or projected ADT from one thousand to two thousand.
"Residential road" means a road providing access to a generally residential area and which serves or may serve twenty or more dwelling units, and a maximum potential ADT of one thousand.
"Minor residential road" means a road providing access to a generally residential area and which serves or may serve seven to nineteen dwelling units, and a maximum potential ADT of five hundred.
"Limited residential road" means a road which serves two to six dwelling units, and a maximum potential ADT of one hundred fifty.”
(Ord. 3181 § 5 (part), 1994)

Title 24 Section 24.04.110 Width states: a) The following (Table 1.) sets forth the minimum widths for the improved section measured from face of curb to face of curb. Where no curb or berm is proposed the paved width shall be one foot greater than that listed to allow for edge striping and pavement edge raveling.
Table 1.
MC Road Classification and Minimum Paved Width

Road Classification Minimum Paved Width
Limited residential road (LR) 20' with shoulders
24' with curbs
Minor residential road (MR) 28'
Residential road (RR) 36'
Collector road (CR) 40'
Arterial and industrial/commercial (IR) As required
(b) Additional width may be required for left turn storage, intersection widening, bus lanes and multipurpose pathways.
(c) Shoulders shall be provided on each side of all roads. Shoulders shall normally be four feet wide although wider shoulders may be required as deemed appropriate by the agency.
(Ord. 3181 § 5 (part), 1994)

22. It is inexplicable that DAI and the DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources persons preparing / reviewing MHS E.I.S Section 6 Transportation/Circulation did not assess MHS’ existing and projected traffic volume impact on the existing Road Classification and Width of Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Aves. Only a Special Investigation can answer.

23. It is inexplicable that DAI and the DPW’s Land Use, Water Resources persons preparing / reviewing MHS E.I.S Section 6 Transportation/Circulation failed to assess the environmental impact of MHS projected traffic volume on the existing and future road classifications and widths of Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Aves.
Only a Special Investigation can answer.

Table 2 illustrates a lay persons attempt to understand MHS” traffic environmental impact on the Road Classification and Width of Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Ave. Table 2 reveals that:

1. Montford, Melrose and Evergreen Ave.s are and have extremely substandard street widths.
2. MHS Melrose Ave. passenger drop-off-loading area reduces Melrose Ave.’ 50 feet right of way by 13.5 feet to 36.5 feet which is significantly less than the 40 feet required by 24.o4.110 and has a significant negative impact on Melrose Ave.s’ capacity to carry existing, projected and future traffic volume seriously “deteriorating Melrose Ave. below acceptable County standards” MHS’ Section 6 Traffic/Circulation environmental impact question 6. a) “Substantial increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion such that existing levels of service on effected road ways will deteriorate below acceptable County standards”

Table 2
MHS’ projected traffic impact on road classification and road width.

Road Name R.O.W.
(1) Exist’g paved travel surface (2) Exist’g total trips 08:00 to 18:00 hrs.
(3) Projected
MHS after expansion trips 08:00 to 18:00 hrs.
(4)
. Projected total trips
after MHS expansion 08:00 to 18:00 hrs.
(5) Probable
ADTs
after MHS expansion
(6) HV ADTs
with out MHS
expansion trips
Minimum
paved width
with MHS expansion
trips Min. paved width
with out
MHS expansion
trips.

Montford Ave.
50’ +/- 22’ 1320 485 1423 1375 1450 40’
(CR) 40’
(CR)
Melrose Ave,
50’ +/- 29.5’
890 485 1345 1508 860 40’
(CR) 36’
(RR)
Evergreen Ave.
50’ +/- 27’-30’ 910 485 1141 1528 1043 40’
(CR) 40’
(CR)

Footnotes:
1). Right of Way width from MC Assessor’s Maps.
2). Pavement width based on field measurements.
3). Existing total trips from MHS’ E.I.S. Section VI Traffic/Circulation.
4). Projected trips based on MHS enrollment expansion from 250 to 300 students..
5).Projected total trips based on adding 103 MHS additional expansion trips.
6). Assumed probable ADTs = approximately 500 00:00 to 08:00 hr. trips plus existing total 08:00 – 18:00 hrs trips minus existing 2004 MHS 382 total trips plus 500 18:00 to 24:00 hrs trips.

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 never-the-les a CDA reviewer permitted MHS to schedule 6 more Special Events in 2004-2005 than permitted in MHS’ 1993 Use Permit? Only a Special Investigation can provide an answer.

Based on MHS’ parking demand projection base assumption that the parents of 265 existing students generate a parking demand for 200 (.248%) on-site parking spaces, the parents of 300 future students will generate an on-site demand for 224 parking spaces. 24 more on-site parking spaces than DAI’s Traffic and Parking Study’s base data 200 parking space demand.

BOS Resolution 2005-105 increased in MHS enrollment from 265 to 300 and the number of MHS Special Events from 43 to 50. The significance of the impact of MHS’ current number of days (43) and future number of days (50) that MHS usurps neighborhood residential on-street parking in lieu of providing mandated MHS off street parking spaces was not evaluated by DAI is unexplainable. The fact that CDA reviewers did not require MHS to conform to Title Sections 24 24.04.330 (a); 24.04.330 (b); 24.04.335 (p) which mandate that MHS provide off-street parking Only a Special Investigation can provide an explanation.


parking demand means that instead of MHS usurping residential on-street parking 25 days a year MHS will usurp residential on-street 50 days a year.

MHS’ Special Events parking obviously a significant negative impact on daily ability of residents to use residential on-street parking.

DAI’ Traffic and Parking Study projected an incorrect on-site parking demand of 200 spaces. Based on the future number of MHS students (300) MHS’ factual on-site parking demand would be: 49 staff spaces and a projected maximum of 224 spaces for Special Events for a on-site total parking space demand for 273 spaces. See Wrong No. 2 for details.

DAI’ report states that a MHS Shuttle Bus service to a remote uncommitted parking lots not owned by MHS’ outside of Homestead Valley could make up MHS’ parking space deficit of 100 spaces.

BOS Resolution 2005-105 contains no Condition of Approval requiring MHS to maintain a permanent shuttle bus contract and a parking space contract to mitigate the significant negative impact of MHS’ site inability to accommodate all of its 200 mandated spaces on site. See Section 24.04.340.

Several year ago the County required a neighbor who could not accommodate 4 cars on his site in accordance with Section 24.04.335 to provide title to an area across the street for 2 cars and build a 2 car parking deck on-site citing Section 24.04.335.

Last fall the County again required another neighbor to provide 4 parking spaces on site which will require a retaining wall or deck citing Section 24.04.335 (a) and Section 24.04. 340 (a)



DAI omitted to project day time Special Event parking space demand.

MHS’ Special Events Schedule for 2004-2005 schedules events parking space demand for 20 – 200 spaces. On-site existing and new constraints limit available area for parking space supply to 100 spaces. MHS’ maximum Special Events day-time demand for parking space is 200. MHS’ staff parking demand is 49 parking spaces leaving 51 temporary playground spaces available for day-time Special Event parking leaving an unfulfilled parking space demand of 149.


wling Associates Inc. (DAI) found that MHS’ Special Events on site parking space supply was 51 spaces on the playground, 4 spaces in staff parking, 45 staff spaces.

This 100% increase means that instead of MHS using residential on street parking 25 times a school year MHS will use residential on street parking 50 times a year.

MHS’ daily use of residential parking for its Special Events parking obviously a significant negative impact on daily ability of residents to use residential on-street parking.

Was MHS proposed number (50) of Special Events provided to the County’s MHS’ environmental traffic consultant Dowling Associates Inc. DAI for their information and use during its 2004 environmental impact evaluation of MHS’ proposed Special Events on Homestead Valley traffic and parking ?
(Source: Resolutions 2005-105 page 21 Proposed School Use and 2005-104 approved MHS )
DAI was provided with MHS’ 2004-2005 Event Schedule ( 25 total events) dated 5/20/2004 describing: Approx. Date; Event Name-Major Event Bold; Time of Day. Hours ; Who Is Involved; Attendee Estimate and Parking Plan for DAI’s information and use as base study data in DAI’s evaluation of the significance of MHS’ Special Events environmental impact on traffic and parking. Totals of 20 to 200 ttendees were estimated for school year 2004-2005.


MHS’ 2005 Special Events schedule provided to DAI in 2004 shows 12 evening events and 13 day events (25 total ) as being scheduled. 1993 Use Permit

MHS deceived DAI and in so doing violated the California Environmental Act (C.E.Q.A.).

The failure of the County’s Environmental consultant and staff to review and confirm factually accurate and complete data was provided to DAI resulted in the traffic consultant not knowing, that if approved by the Board of Supervisors, that MHS intended to increase the number of MHS Special Events from by 100%.

The deceitful “garbage in garbage out” errors and omissions described above resulted in the BOS’ approval of 2005-104 and 2005-105.

Instead of MHS usurping the surrounding community’s on street parking and increasing traffic on Montford, Melrose, Evergreen, Laverne and other surrounding street 25 times a year, MHS will now usurp the communities parking and increase traffic on their streets 50 times per year. A 100% increase.

Coupled with the already identified County’s massive errors and omissions to require MHS to conform with nearly all Title 24 parking code requirements such additional errors in favor of MHS as the above strongly suggest that some individual (s) at the County’s environmental consultant, Paul Schabracq, and at the County is/are demonstrably either incompetent or unethical.

The only way MHS’ Middle School, Elementary School Kindergarten and Nursery could have been imposed on the substandard Homestead Valley elementary school site would be:
o To provide County environmental impact consultant’s with incomplete data;
o To commit massive errors and omissions in order to conceal MHS’ massive non-conformance to the:
- County Wide Plan;
- Tamalpais Area Community Plan and
- Sections in Title 19, Title 22 and Title 24 in order to gain BOS’ approval of MHS’ proposed expansion plan

The MHS’ E.I.S., biased in favor of only MHS, is demonstrably replete with documented errors and omissions favoring only MHS and as such was not prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

MHS’ deceptive E.I.S. was used by County employees to misinform and mislead the BOS into approving MHS proposed expansion plan, Negative Declaration and Use Permit on August 30, 2005

If the Board of Supervisors have any concern for their collective and individual reputation and County’s officials’ and employee’s reputations for unbiased fairness, honesty and, objectivity then the BOS would convene an independent unbiased professional Special Investigation to determine the individual (s) responsible for providing MHS’ incomplete and biased Environmental Initial Study that misinformed and mislead the 4 BOS members into approving Resolutions 2005 104 and 2005-105.

“It only takes one rotten apple to spoil a barrel”

Regards,

Charles D. Sands, Architect
Sandsconsult Architect
12 Madrone Park Circle
Mill Valley, Ca, 94941