yep. The rest of us pretty much ride or walk around here as well, that would be a vast improvement. Therefore what is up with this "concrete crap?" I was against it from the get go on Evergreen, now its creeping onto other street corners, such as Hawthorne Ave and now Scott st... STOP THIS FOOLISHNESS ALREADY! GET RID OF THE SIDEWALK. WE GOT 200 signatures against it, why is it proceeding???
Mari,Why didn't yu write "Yep. While 99.6% of MHSers ride in luxury SUVs the rest of us pretty much ride or walk around here" ??????????????????????????????????????????????????How much destruction of your neighborhood do you need to see in order to comprend that Marin Horizon School Corporation Inc. policy is to rule with a no nonsense, totalitarian, hefdnistic. me first, the ends justifies the means iron aided and abbetted by Kinsey ????????????????What you see is what you get by politically correctly ignoring the actions of this commercial eductional business that are driven by its bottom line not by the Montessori philosophy who would disown this educational business for what it is. An educational money mill. When are you goig to this educational busines to task by holding it solely responsible and accountable for the destruction you claim to be "FOOLISHNESS" In the fall of 2003 Homestead Concerned Citizens Committee chairperson Christina Oldenber sent its 450 signatures to Kinsey to STOP the commercial, educational, money grubbing, traffic and parking generatot on Melrose from blighting your neighborhood. Kinsey ignored them.What makes you believe that now because of 200 signatures he will "GET RID OF THE SIDEWALK" when he has ignored every resident who pleaded with him since July 2010 not to impose this sidewalks destruction on them and Homestead Valley NOW that MARIN HORIZON SCHOOL CORPORATION INC.'S SIDEWALK IS NEARLY 80% COMPLETE ?
Mr. Sands - I didn't write that post, someone else did. I have enabled anonymous comments for the HEAR US Blog. That is why they are moderated. I had yet another sleepless night about this horrid slab, so I checked my email - and there were several comments in the queue, including yours.A lot of people are afraid to speak up - they fear "repercussions."For example, when I posted that email from (Homestead resident) about the flaming pile of doggie doo on their doorstep, someone thought it was MY doorstep. If you would like to increase your blog readership, I'll show you if you like. It's a lot more rewarding than just sending emails that people don't read.Blogs have a wider audience - and you can see where your readers live. Please stop trashing Mr. Kinsey - he may not be your choice - but he's doing a good job for some people, otherwise - he would not have been re-elected. I know some of the people who support him. They are not all 1% ers.I haven't yet stepped over to the cynical side - ALL politicians are not corrupt. They depend upon hearing from their constituents.That is the way social media works. When used properly, it can be a great tool for civic engagement.
No one claimed all politicians are corrupt, but some politicians most certainly are. I am more than satisfied Kinsey is one of them.Kinsey is doing a good job? What is a "good job?" And, for whom is he doing a "good job?"? Yes, Kinsey got reelected. You can bet MHS types voted for him, as did developers, building contractors, members of the Marin Builders Assn., small business owners bending and breaking environmental protection regulations, (especially those with red-tagged septic systems). Lots of others voted for him, too, for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's doing a good job (whatever that means). Hell, Richard J. Daley was elected mayor of Chicago 6 times and held that office for 21 years, and it wasn't because he was a champion of truth, justice and the American Way. The guy was as crooked as the day is long! He did a "great job" for somebody, and a lot of those somebodies went to prison!As I've said before, I've had no small amount of experience with Kinsey, and not just on MHS-related matters. My opinion of him could hardly be lower. I find him to be narcissistic, manipulative, duplicitous, and calculating. If there is anyone who is cynical, it is he.Kinsey's lack of concern for the redwoods MHS cut down, disregard for the runoff from MHS' parking lot into the creek, and his flippant dismissal of the need for an EIR to examine effects of the sidewalk on Reed creek should certainly come as no surprise; he doesn't give a damn about the environment! Read what Jeff Miller of Inverness reported in the IJ:"Supervisor Steve Kinsey's misleading campaign materials claim he has championed environmental protection and salmon restoration.The truth is Kinsey opposed every meaningful protection measure for our endangered coho salmon in Lagunitas Creek; he ensured Marin County's general plan did not protect salmon habitat in the San Geronimo Valley from development, stymied a tree protection ordinance and delayed the county salmon enhancement plan. During the salmon protection debate in our community, Kinsey showed a complete failure of leadership and judgment, repeating misinformation about supposed takings of property rights and making inflammatory statements impugning the local watershed group.He has needlessly cultivated an acrimonious relationship with Point Reyes National Seashore, going so far as to endorse killing native tule elk in our public park to curry favor with ranchers.Under Kinsey, the county's coastal policy amendments have been skewed toward weakening environmental protections. For example, promoting a study on industrial wind towers without first undergoing environmental review. Kinsey has made a career catering to developers, real estate donors and politically-connected agricultural interests, while consistently ignoring environmental regulations." Not enough? How about Elena Belsky, X-com member for Sierra Club Marin Group?"The Sierra Club characterizes Supervisor Steve Kinsey's influence on Marin as a steady onslaught against environmental protections.Kinsey has supported numerous harmful projects, including overdevelopment at San Quentin if the prison closes, and berated the California Coastal Commission and Marin's own planning commission for taking reasonable positions.Recently, Kinsey has used the withdrawn Lucasfilm Grady Ranch application as an excuse to attack environmental planning protections in Marin."I don't doubt for a second if MHS decided it wanted to fill the creek with concrete to make a skateboard run for "the children," Kinsey would do a "good job!"
Thanks for the information.
In answer to your question, re: MHS. Yes, they started this mess, that is true. But it was made worse by the DPW's current process - which is get the money first, fix the design later - after listening to the "pushback." They had nothing to hide, which is why they shared the SR2S application with us.The HVCA are not bad people, they were just helping out a friend and doing what they saw was something "for the kids." Many people support the "idea" of a sidewalk. THIS sidewalk is not only the worst solution for Evergreen and Homestead, it is illegal.But you are not seeing the big picture here. The big picture here is this: DPW was bound by the funding restrictions of the Safe Routes to Schools grant, combined with Marin uniform building standards, combined with the unique and very troublesome drainage issues that exist on Evergreen.THAT is why their answer to the MHS request for a path - which was their initial request - ended up, being a concrete regulation sidewalk. That is why the DPW said to us in July 2010 - it was "this or nothing." They can't build any of the nice paths you have described.At this point, all they can do is put it back to the way it was - or at least close to the way it was, call it shoulder repair and be done with it.That is why the ADA grid grasspave/gravelpave is in the neighborhood recommendations.Look, here's the way I see it : unless we at least TRY to help the DPW get out of this mess, Homestead will be divided forever.Can you help me make a drawing?
Ms Tamburo/Mack/Frager aka Mari which is frienlier than Ms. Doe.Evergreen Ave. folks looked to you for leadership for 2 years. What did threy get ?You "slapped" down Keith but offered no community sidewalk opposition leadership to replce him except verbal "pablum" and "platitudes" in HEARUS and a blog petition that remsinds in progress although MHS's sidewalk is nearly complete.Since 2003 Kinsey has heard from and ignored his Hoomestead Valley constituents.All they asked was if he suported Marin Horizon School Corportion Inc.'s expansion wsa that it be required to compply with the mandatory requirements of County ordinancees 24.04.350 a) and 24.04.340 p) and accommodatte all of MHS's parking and passenger drop off and pick-up requirements on site AND BUS OR VAN ALL K - 8 GRADE STUDENTS to avoid the traffic their chaufers would create.Unlike you, I could care less about increasing my blog readership. Blogginhg serves no usefull purpose other than to increase one's egotisical sense of self worth brought about reading one's words in print. Your blog HEARUS has simplY furnished MHS INC's sidewalk supporters with a public venue to insult and silence Evergreen Ave and Homestead Valley folks and obviously did not impress or sway Kinsey from supporting MHS since 1993. AND WHAT HAS IT ACHIEVED. TAKE A WALK AND LOOK AT THE PRODUCT OF HEARUS blogging. This response has been copied to my Homestead neighbors and MHS carpet baggers.
So, you're in support of a path, correct? And MHS initially petitioned for a path too, right? And it was the DPW that said given all the regulatory constraints, a sidewalk is the only practical solution, right? So why do you constantly deride MHS? I know you say you don't but I see it very differently. Nevertheless, why don't you call out and correct Charles and Frank for their continuous attacks on MHS? Don't you think their attacks are very divisive for the community?
Scott - Yes, I see personal attacks as divisive - but people are human - and there is a lot of pent up frustration in Homestead - because of the expansion.Fact of the matter is, this illegal, horrible concrete sidewalk is being forced upon Evergreen - built for a commuter school - to TRY to fix a traffic problem that is originating from the school. It snowballed from there - and pretty soon, many stakeholders were pushing for it - especially one certain Principal engineer at the DPW - who was trying to save face.Truthfully, when I had my meeting with Mr. Kinsey, I didn't get the sense he was/is corrupt, he just didn't have all the information. As it has been stated before - we ALL bring our life experience into decisions.He and the DPW have a lot of bad experience with "pushback." Maybe that is why they bring the public in at the last minute.I have been watching the CEQA debate. It may be set up to protect the environment, but it is ridiculous that the only way to protest an incorrect exemption - is to file a lawsuit. Yes, we could have filed a lawsuit sooner, but I never wanted to sue the County. I still don't.But it is out of my hands. Other people are going to sue as well. The question the Supervisors need to be asking is - how is that working for the communities they want to serve? We need to come together and we need to make that slab go away - or a lot of good people are going to get hurt, because a lot of rules were broken to build it. I may be naive, but I'm not stupid.I know the difference between right and wrong.So should our elected representatives.
Scott, Facts are not devisive. 4. In nonconformance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA0) and in violation of the Brown Act, MHS’ mid-afternoon and late trips shown in MHS’ Use Permit 2005-105 Condition of Approval 18 dated 30 August 2005, see Table A below, were deleted from MHS’ Use Permit 2005-105 Condition of Approval 18 dated 30 August 2005. See Red Line changes to BOS Resolution August 16, 2005 Exhibit A.Table A.Permitted Maximum MHS Vehicle TripsBOS Resolution 2005-105 August 16, 2005MORNING 8-9 AM 2:30-3:30PM 4-6 PMIN: 119 53 24OUT: 88 55 43TOTAL: 207 108 67Table BPermitted Maximum MHS Vehicle TripsBOS Resolution 2005-105 August 30, 2005MORNING 8-9 AM 2:30-3:30PM 4-6 PM IN: 119 Deleted DeletedOUT: 88 by Kinsey/ by Kinsey/TOTAL: 207 Tejirian Tejiriana) The above deletions of mid-afternoon and late afternoon trip monitoring criteria is silent witness to the County’s intent to ensure that MHS is not constrained by MHS’ E.I.S’ recommended mitigating measures required to mitigate MHS’ E.I.S’ vehicle trips significant negative impact on neighborhood traffic.b) As a result of the above deletion of MHS’ mid-afternoon and late afternoon maximum allowed vehicle trips MHS’ vehicle trips are not monitored at mid-afternoon and late afternoon pick-up times. As a result of these deletions MHS parents pick-up their children who walk to MHS in the morning at MHS so they don’t have to walk back to Whole Foods’ parking lot after school effectively increasing MHS negative traffic impact on Evergreen Ave.’s local traffic.a.
The problem with your assertions, Mari, is you're only using the "facts" that suport your position. You ignore facts such as: a strong majority support the sidewalk, far more people in the Valley want and will use the sidewalk than just kids and MHS people, you can see that even now with the sidewalk yet to be completed, the school serves a far greater portion of HV than what you contend - by my estimation about 20% or greater (30 - 35 HV students vs. 150 public school students in HV, less when HS students are removed) the school is accommodating the neighborhood by a) requiring bussing for older students, and walking from Miller for younger kids (and drop-off for the youngest, the youngest of which may not even be located at the school in the future). Walking from Miller is difficult due to the safety issues on the street, hence the petition for a SR2S.I didn't respond to one of your earlier comments but I will here: at the MVCC meeting Kinsey absolutely did ask for a show of hands and the result was so lopsided I nearly felt embarrassed for the community that this was even an issue. Kinsey has been responding to what the community wants. There are a lot of issues on which I heartily disagree with him, but all politics is local and his support of the issues that directly affect me (sidewalk, Meas. A) got my vote. i had several conversations with Diane Furst and I think I'd agree with her on far more issues but the fact she waded into an issue she didn't understand but on which she wouldn't take a stand either way seemed to me to be doing so just to oppose Kinsey. That lost her my vote.At the end of the day, none of this really matters because it truly is a done deal. There's nothing that can be done to stop this sidewalk at this juncture. I think if you really don't want to divide the community, the time is now to stop with the divisive activity and it's your blog posts where most of the division emanates. Yes, Charles' emails are highly divisive too, but I don't think there are many who take him seriously and fortunately, for me, I'm not on his list (and why I post my name but not my email).
Scott,Why did HVAC & Kinsey dienfranchise the folks on Evergreen Ave whose properties are impacted and all of the Homestead Valley drivers who will be endangered by narrowing Melrose Ave. to a travel lane width less than the safe driving width at 25 mph in a school zone and locate 2 cross walks less than 50 feet apart on Melrose Ave at Volunteer Park ? Where is the vote results these HV folks were promised by Kinsey in Nov. 2010 to substantiate your unfouded baseless claim of majority?After Kinsey's promise of a vote In Nov. 2010 DPW Director Mansourian told the room fulll of Evergreen Ave folks "If you don't want a sidewalk we won't build one"I find it disturbingly un-democratic that the you and HVCA Board voted to decide for Evergreen Ave and Homestead Valley folks what they should have and especialy so when one has known since 2003 that the HVCA by-laws HVCA prohibit the HVCA from taking any position on any issue that efects the community. In 2003 at Christina Oldenberg's home members, includin my self and Frank, of the Homestead Valley Concerned Citizens Committee steering committee were told this by HVCA Board members. That committee was supported by more than 400 HV north side of the valley property owners totally against MHS' K-8 expansion to 300 students and by more than 150 south side of the valley property owners who supported MHS' plans with the caveat that MHS furnish small buses or vans to eliminate additionl traffic, furnish on-site parking for all MHS staff, visitors and vendors and a on-site loading zone complying with County ordinances 24-04-350 a) and 24.04.340 p) I personally organized that support and even provided an alternative concept design to illustrate how MHS could be designed with the community. Thoes petions signed by more than 550 HV folks and the concept design plan were presented to and discuse with Supervisor Kimsey and igored.The disgusting facts are that an excessive majority of HV folks were not supporters in 2003-2005 for the precise reason that MHS' traffic would have a sigbificant negative impact on HV. Now in 2012 MHS's sidewalk for fewer than 24 morning only park and walk commutting students, an unsafe narrowinf of Melrose and 2 crosswalks less than 50 feet apart being imposed on all of HV folks are silent witness to the destruction Kinsey wrought on HV in 2005.
Charles, I'm sure whatever legitimate issues you have will be addressed by the county and anything else will be ignored.
Scott,Your reply ignoresyour's and HVCA's disenfranchisement of everyone in HV except those few of you who raised their hand "yes" when asked by Kinsey to vote for or against MHS sidewak. I presume a representative of MHS voted yes.Would that your assurance were enough. Given that your's and those few HVCA members including perhapsa MHS' Head of School supporting the destruction of a historical semi-rural street and neigborhood vote in favor of its destruction when asked by Kinsey, I feel 100% certain that neither Kinsey or you comprehend that your unacceptable un-democratic disenfranchisement of all othere HV folks who were denied the right to vote.
Charles, see my above response with respect to legitimate issues being addressed and all else being ignored and add me to the list of such responders.To be clear, you again state as facts what are really opinions (misguided as they are) and therefore there's no response necessary.
Scott,You, HVCA disenfranchiseed all of HV and every resident on Evergreen Aveof their right to vote for or agaist a sidewalk when you and HVCA voted for a sidewalk for MHS. That's fact not an opinion as you yourself stated that Kinsey akedx you and other HVCA memembers to vote for or against MHS' sidewalk. Unless you in fact you and HVCA didn't vote and it was omly your opiniion that you al voted. Man uo to what your did, apologize and think of the well being of others next time. :)
Charles, if you consider this a 'fact' it a fact then your 'facts' are wrong. Disenfranchisement assumes the right to a vote existed. In this case it didn't. It would seem you are under the incorrect belief we live in a pure democracy which, of course, is also incorrect. We live in what some would consider a representative democracy and others a constitutional republic. Regardless the essential differentiating factor is the public do not have the right to vote on individual issues. The elect representatives who then vote on the issues. HV residents rarely vote directly on an issue and instead vote for someone to represent them. If they were disenfranchised, then you'd have to show the HVCA somehow prevented residents from voting for/against Steve Kinsey. Of course you cannot and so, of course, you're wrong. Again.More 'facts' that you have wrong, the HVCA Board, representing the HVCA board (AND NO ONE ELSE), sent a letter expressing support for a safe route to school along Evergreen. I challenge you to produce any evidence where they disenfranchised anyone. Steve Kinsey did exactly what he was supposed to do. He listened to his constituents and voted how he thought he would best represent them. In this case, he saw a very lopsided showing of a support for the sidewalk at a very crowded community meeting and received tons of written and verbal support from a broad spectrum of residents supportive as well. This was borne out in a comprehensive survey of residents along Evergreen that showed a strong majority of such support. It would seem, if anyone is out to disenfranchise (really, act against the wishes of the majority) it is you, Frank and Mari. More indisputable facts you all like to ignore. And, by the way, Steve Kinsey is but one vote of five on the BOS that approved the sidewalk. He didn't decide it alone. Sure he championed it but all the other supervisors voted for it as well.Moreover, I didn't vote for anything the board did regarding its support for the SR2S and I have nothing for which to apologize. Rather I do have many to thank people for doing what most residents in HV want and not bowing to the pressure of a very small group of people supposedly speaking for me. (You on the other hand could spend a year apologizing and still not settle up.)Instead of telling me what I should do, you could stand to look in the mirror and judge your own actions. Don't waste our time with apologies, though, I'm betting most would just prefer silence.
Scott - thanks again for your input.Regardless of who wants or doesn't support the "idea" of a sidewalk or path, it doesn't change the fact that laws have been broken to build THIS sidewalk - and it WILL make things worse, not better.It already has.Just because you still think your opinion represents the majority of the community on this issue - doesn't make it so.Just because you see this blog as "divisive" - doesn't make it so. What is dividing this community is GREED and selfishness.
Mari, your response is why it's difficult to engage you on this issue. You've been claiming for so long there's no support for the sidewalk but when I provide ample evidence to the contrary you counter with "regardless of support...laws were broken...," and "Just because you still think your opinion represents the majority of the community on this issue - doesn't make it so." Truth remains, it's not an opinion, it's a fact and the proof has been provided. (Unlike the opinions Charles masquerades as "facts" these facts are verifiable and indisputable.)It's responses like this that cause me to be firm in my belief you don't want the sidewalk purely for aesthetics and are throwing anything you can find at the wall to see if it'll stick (i.e. alleged illegalities, steelhead, etc.) That and your continued tolerance (some may believe, encouragement) of bomb throwers like Charles and Frank also convince me you have no interest in community cohesion, only your interpretation of what a the street should look like.Yes, I do think you're being divisive. Your last line is the latest example. Where does greed come into play? And how is it selfish to do what the majority want? In fact, I think all your antics, aimed purely at achieving your own personal view of what the street should look like in opposition of what the community desires, could rightly be considered selfish.
Scott - what is the "ample evidence" you have that a "strong majority" support a sidewalk? - Mari
By the way, Mari, who "noted the bus rarely contains more than a few students?" I thought you were against publishing lies and yet you publish this one?The bus is full every morning and afternoon. I believe it even makes two runs each way.
I will never use the "new" sidewalk ever! Infact I will be boycotting it!
Scott - It has been noted by several people. That said, I have changed to wording of the post, because I understand how it might have been interpreted as antagonistic and make you defensive. Sorry about that. Thanks again for your input.STAY GREEN - I won't use the sidewalk either.
oops "the wording"
Mari, I'm not being defensive (though it was antagonistic), I'm just pointing out the facts. I know they get in the way of your opinions, but I appreciate you correcting one of your mistakes.Good for you all, you're boycotting the sidewalk. You should know, it's not actually a business (I know some here clearly do not understand what constitutes a business) and boycots will have absolutely no impact on the sidewalk - except to reduce congestion. I'm sure people will appreciate not having to bump into you.
An Oct. 2010 14 day pedestrian and vehicle count showed a daily average of 14 MHS students and 3 adults walking on Evergreen Ave between 8:30 AM and 4;00 PM No one is going to be bumped by this hoard of walkers :)FYI while the use of "boycott" is associateed with refusal do do business with a business it may also be used to idicate ones refusal to use something.
Scott - you are being defensive. "SUPPORT" is an OPINION."THIS sidewalk project is illegal" is a FACT.
Mari,The thing about illegalities is we have a very good system of judging whether they're fact or fiction. In this case, the system judged against you and I doubt it will ever decide otherwise. I know, I know, it was based on a lie, blah, blah, blah. IF that is true what did the judge say when you lawyer argued that? BTW, even if we accept your view as fact, you were still untimely as you filed way after the date your own professional environmentalist, the SPAWN guy, gave as a deadline (which was wrong anyway). You had plenty of advice and still got shown the door. You waited so long to even think of the fish angle, because you were only focussed on the aesthetics angle, that you missed your opportunity to challenge the findings. It's illegal if they ignored your challenge, but not so if there's no timely challenge in the first place.Why didn't that SPAWN guy take the case? Why are you relying on a rank amateur environmentalist to argue your case? Given how over the top zealous the SPAWN guy was at the joint meeting, it would seem if there really was a case, he'd have taken it. You do know if he was successful he'd have his fees paid for by the County, right?As for support being an opinion, you miss the point. A strong majority indicated support for the sidewalk. The fact isn't in their support, the fact is a STRONG MAJORITY indicated their support. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.P.s. I really don't care whether you define my words as defensive or not. If you want to significantly mischaracterize the facts, go ahead but don't think doing so makes what you post trustworthy or credible. It does the opposite. I'm just trying to help you gain some credibility.
Let it be Scott, you're not going to talk any sense into her because she's got Homestead's own version of Rasputin, Chuck the Insane Duck quacking and jibbering in her ear. One minute supporting her, the next tearing her down. If I was Mari's husband I would stomp that rotten piece of crap into that ugly old sidewalk for talking to my wife like that.Yeah Chuckles, I'm talking to you. Take a good hard look at my picture and see if you have the junk to spew your hate talk to my face. I think you are a cowardly, old craven keyboard commando who does his best work from the safety of his living room berating women and taking cheap potshots at his neighbors.I'm the guy who walks my bichon up and down Melrose every day at about 930 or so in the morning in the black straw cowboy hat. I look forward to meeting you, you festering old crank. You're a real tough guy, shouting down women behind the safety of your keyboard. What a disgusting, bitter old man you are!Mari, as my good buddy Wesley advised you, disassociate yourself from Sands. He's nothing but a blast of negative energy and you don't need to take his abuse and anger anymore.I'm done here. Chuck, I'll see you around. Mari, do the right thing and ignore that evil old goat.
Thanks for your input, neighbors. Mr. Armstrong - My husband has already said all he has to say to Mr. Sands. FYI - I'm not some delicate little flower that needs protection and I don't mind Mr. Sands' anger, because I understand his frustration. I don't agree with him on all issues or how he communicates, but at least I know where he stands and I respect the wisdom of his experience. Scott - The system is BROKEN and you really do not know all that you think you know. I don't care what you accept. You do not represent me, nor any of the other property owners on Evergreen. Although Mr. Kinsey represents Homestead - he has no right to demand the DPW pillage the Safe Routes to Schools fund to help MHS keep its Conditional Use Permit - or so you and your neighbors on Laverne can have "a more convenient walk to Whole Foods and Swirl."County Counsel is hiring.
Scott and Armistead:There none so blind that will not see and none so uniformed for they care not to read. 21. Marin Horizon School’s (MHS) Safe Routes to School (SR2S) joint application with DPW was signed January 2009 by MHS’ Head of School Rosalind Hammar on MHS’ SR2S application 9. Deliverability fraudulently omitted to reveal another “red flag” associated with the project” by concealing that the “project” is subject to California Environmental Quality Act required environmental review as MHS’s sidewalk project does not comply with the following Tamalpais Area Community Plan (TACP) requirements:a) Tamalpais Area Community Plan Goal # 1: Maintain the semi-rural character of the community as defined by its small town residential and commercial setting and the quality of the natural environment. 1. A 4’-0” wide concrete sidewalk is not consistent with TACP Goal # 1 but a 4’-0” wide pervious asphalt at grade pathway is. b) TACP Objective T-6, Road Way Design Character: To retain the character of the Planning Area by assuring future roadway construction and improvements will have a low impact on the residential environment. 1. A 4’-0” wide concrete sidewalk is not consistent with TACP Goal # 1 but a 4’- 0” wide pervious asphalt at grade pathway is. c) TACP Policy T-6.1: All roadway improvements must be designed to preserve and enhance the semi-rural character of the Planning Area. 1. A 4’-0” wide concrete sidewalk is not consistent with TACP Goal # 1 but a 4’-0” wide pervious asphalt at grade pathway is. d) TACP Policy T-6.2: All new roadway improvements must be designed to have a minimal impact on the values of the natural environment. 1. 1,500 lineal feet of lineal asphalt pavement significant increases the negative impact of oil polluted storm water runoff on the Reed Creek habitat of endangered Steel Head trout. The same length of pervious asphalt significantly reduces the negative impact.2. DPW’s proposed new storm water drainage system dumps raw unfiltered oil laden polluted street and new concrete sidewalk storm water runoff directly into the Reed Creek habitat of endangered Steel Head trout At the Mill Valley Community Recreation Center District # 4' elected representative told those intersteds HV folks that he (Kinsey) would ask them to vote pro or con non building MHS' sidewalk. DPW Director Fouhad Mansourian followd Kinsey saying :"If a sidewalk is not wanted DPW wno't build a sidewalk." At a Homestead Valley Community Association Board mmeeting, Kinsey asked the Homestead Valley Community Association members , including Scott and MHS' Head of School to raise their hand for or against a sidewalk.HVCA members had the privilge of voting. A privilge Kinsey promised to Homestead Valley residents and to those most effected but not kept by Kinsey.Kinsey, with the knowledge and concurrence of a few HVCA memmbers and MHS'Head of School,disenfranched all other Homstead Valley folks but he willing franchised a few HVCA memmbers and MHS'Head of School to vote for or against imposing MHS' sidewalk on historic, semi-rural, tree lined, 100 % pedestrian & vehicle accident free Evergreen Ave. MHS' sidewalk has nearly completed the rape and destruction of a historic, semi-rural, tree lined, 100 % pedestrian & vehicle accident free Evergreen Ave. and will remain as a monument to some beings insenistive to others and the natual world they were borm into but seemingly don't respect.
Mr Strong - when I tried to publish your latest comment from the mobile phone - I accidentally hit delete instead of publish. Better yet, please talk to Mr. Sands in person. This is a sincere effort to inform the community.
Not worth it Mari. Too much teaching a pig to speak. (Won't work and is really annoying). It's in your deleted messages folder, you can get it there.
I welcome the opportunity to talk to Chuck in person.
Mari,The last time I talked with Arne, your husband, was with Dan Frazer at the corner of Evergreen and Scott. At that time, I told him it was a waste of time and money to sue the County. And as you know provided you and Arne with all the documented evidences needed to win but your attorney did't use it and lost. Did you give them to him including an 5 email requests since last last year asking for DPW sidewalk design info.? Your case was tossed because the judge said it was not "timely". If your attorney had my 5 emails he could have responded that you could not be "timely" because DPW had not provided "timely" informtion,That's nearly 3 months earlier than you recent post above which was less than several days ago.While I have, most folks have moved on yet there are those who continue as if there were anything to be gained or lost by rehashing the destruction of Evergreen Ave.'s neighbors front entrys and the historic charctere of the street. Seems your blog serves a useful purpose for folks who took no action last year when the decisions were made as it gives some folks a venue for venting. Unlike most venters on your blog, I continue to try to publicly assist the folks on Evergreen Ave.-----Original Message-----From: Charles Sands To: bbeaumont Cc: krice ; ksears ; sadams ; jarnold ; skinsey ; eklock ; sschneider ; ALum Sent: Mon, Jul 23, 2012 7:48 pmSubject: A little boy's questionBob, I understand that MHS' sidewalk construction cost is said to cost $675,500. Given SR2S funding authorized $900,000 if one deducts DPW's design, engineering and CM costs plus whatever construction extra work costs have been incurred to date out of the $225,000 remaining in the SR2S funds there is more than enough to: 1. Resolve the MHS sidewalk damage done to the front entry walks of the folks on Evergreen. (The red home in the first block of Evergreen Ave and 101 Evergreen Ave. for example) There appears to be not more than a few and even it were say 5 the costs to provide sloping ENTRY ramps +/- 8 3/4 % the cost should not be exorbitant. Say less than $50,000 total. And if that expense can't be paid out of SR2S funds surely the County has funds to make good and set right MHS' new sidewalk damages to the front entry walks of these few homes which damages their resale value. 2, Have PG&E relocate 2 poles out the way of pedestrians on the new sidewalk. Leaving existing power poles and supports in a $675,000 sidewalk in my opinion simply is not a good design solution. When I'm faced with a design issues like this and seeing the designer's built design I always ask the designer what will be his response to a little boy's question: Mr. Designer, "Why did you not put right the entry walks to existing homes and: Why did you not require PG&E's poles to be relocated out of MHS's new sidewalk and leave its SR2S design and construction budget surplos nearly totally unspent" ?? I'd appreciate a response from you and Supervisor Kinsey. Best regards,Charles Sandscharlessands@aol.comHRARUS is old hat now that the sidewalk is nearly built and informs those who read it with old rehashed news and angry pro or con sidewalk or other subject venenters.Hey Armistead, umlike 99% of bloggers on this rag, I'm in the phonebook.
Mr. Sands - I understand and appreciate your efforts. People are frustrated and angry, sir. On a positive note, I received this email from an Evergreen resident yesterday : "I agree with you about Charles, in writing he may be terse but, I found him to be a very interesting person when one talks to him face-to-face. He cares about the neighborhood which is different than just wanting ones own way-which is a selfish viewpoint."
Charles Sandscharlessands@aol.com-----Original Message-----From: Greeley, Scott To: Charles Sands Sent: Wed, Jul 25, 2012 8:21 amSubject: RE: 205 MelroseCharles, As you said earlier, I need to follow what the Development Code says. The findings could not be made to make an exception. Scott GreeleyPlanner, County of Marin(415) 473-704________________________________From: Charles Sands [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]Sent: Tue 7/24/2012 9:36 PMTo: Greeley, ScottCc: Lai, Thomas; Rice, Katie; Sears, Kathrin; Adams, Susan; Arnold, Judy; Kinsey, StevenSubject: 205 MelroseScott, I'm sure that most if not all Hometead Valley and Marin Horizon School folks appreciate the CDA's recent 205 Melrose Design Review conditions of approval that the fence at Merose and Montford not exceed 2'-6" as this will ensure good driver visibilty at this busy intersection.Thanks, Charles Sandscharlessands@aol.com
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.