HBCSD Corruption
Lie #53
The Misleading Information:
HBCSD's Traffic Assessment of North School by Richard Garland was used in the official Environmental Impact Report for North School and was found to be highly suspect.
Environmental Analysis Transportation and Traffic. 5.12.3
Environmental Analysis Transportation and Traffic. Page 5.12.11. (November 2017)
Environmental Analysis Transportation and Traffic. 5.12.3
Environmental Impacts, Impact Analysis, Approach. Page 5.12.15. (August 2018)
"Traffic counts for the peak one-hour analysis were taken from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM when District schools were in session: November 19, 2015; December 1, 2015; January 24, 2017; and January 26, 2017.”
(1) The Misinformation:
1. None of the dates listed on page 5.12.15 Impact Analysis and Approach (November 19, 2015, December 1, 2015, January 24, 2017 and January 26, 2017) as being when traffic counts were supposedly taken are reflected on the detailed Stop Control Analysis sheets contained in the appendix. The detailed Stop Control Analysis sheets should show the exact time and day the traffic counts were made.
2. The dates that appear on the Stop Control Analysis sheets contained in three appendixes have the date of December 13, 2015, February 6, 2017 or May 7, 2018.
3. Approximately 75% to 80% of the Stop Control Analysis sheets in the appendix have the date of 12/13/2015 entered into the Date Performed field. The date of 12/13/15 was a Sunday date in the middle of winter and is NOT a day when HBCSD schools were in session. Why was a Sunday date in the middle of winter entered into 75% of the Stop Control Analysis pages and NOT one of the dates listed on page 5.12.15 Impact Analysis, Approach was indicated on the analysis pages?
4. If the level of service calculations were taken on the dates specified on page 5.12.-15, why didn’t the analyst, R. Garland, identify one of those dates in the ‘Date Performed’ field in the General Information of each tally sheet?
"Manual traffic counts were taken at 17 study area intersections in April 2018 during the morning and afternoon peak periods.... The counts were taken on Tuesday, April 24 and Thursday, April 26." Introduction and Project Description, page 4, 1M2-8
(2) Correct Information:
1.Dates listed on page 4, 1M2-8 Impact Analysis are NOT reflected on any of the Stop Control Analysis sheets in the appendix.
2. NONE of the Stop Control Analysis sheets in the appendix of the Environmental Impact Report for the Traffic Analysis have the dates April 24, 2018 or April 26, 2018 as stated in the EIR.
2. The dates listed on the Stop Control Analysis sheets in this May 2018 report show the dates of May 7, 2018 and May 8, 2018 along with December 13, 2015.
3. If the level of service calculations were taken on the dates specified on page 4, 1M2-8, why didn’t the analyst, R. Garland, identify one of those dates in the ‘Date Performed’ field in the General Information of each tally sheet?
4. Why don't the dates on the Stop Control sheets match the EIR write up? Did Richard Garland just make up this information for the official HBCSD EIR? Didn't any of the school board members or Superintendent Pat Escalante review the facts before they were approved in 2019?
5. All counts were taken by Richard Garland, no other names are listed on the sheets. Most of the Stop Control Analysis sheets also show traffic volume counts that are multiples of five, not true traffic counts.
(3) Correct Information:
Almost all of the Stop Control Analysis sheets included in the appendix have traffic volume counts that are multiples of five, like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30... It seems unlikely that true traffic counts would occur in multiples of five. True traffic counts would likely present more array of numerals.
Were the 'Existing' counts that were multiple of fives actually REAL traffic counts? Or were they made up by Richard Garland at his kitchen table on Sunday, December 13, 2015?
(4) Correct Information:
The Stop Control Analysis sheets that reported traffic volume counts in multiples of five were all identified as 'Existing' traffic counts.
1. Although the Date Performed field showed '12/13/15', many of the sheets were identified as being '2018 Existing' counts NOT '2015 Existing' counts. Shouldn't counts identified as 'Existing' counts be taken in the same year they were taken and NOT used as traffic counts three years later in 2018?
2. The date 12/13/15 was also entered in the Date Performed field of sheets identified as being '2019 with Project', '2019 without Project', '2018 Existing + Project', counts.
3. Apparently, the future traffic impacts of the new North School ('2019 with Project', '2019 without Project', '2018 Existing + Project', etc.) were built on suspect, incorrect or made-up 'Existing' traffic counts. Therefore all findings of Richard Garland Traffic Analysis Report for North School are highly suspect.
(5) An example of suspect information on the traffic analysis Stop Control Summary sheets for Valley Drive at 24th Street.
1. Two Two-Way Stop Control Summary sheets for Valley Drive at 24th Street both were supposedly for AM Peak Half Hour and both identified as '2018 Existing' in the 'Analysis Year' field. One count was supposedly taken on 12/13/2015 (a Sunday date) and was was supposedly taken on 5/7/18.
2. Both sheets show ALL traffic volume counts in multiples of five. The difference between the two counts seem to be a random difference of exactly five cars in the counts. The counts seem to have been made up by Richard Garland. NOT true counts of traffic.
(6) A letter submitted for the Environmental Impact Report from neighbors of North School, Terry and Betty Dunbar identifies other serious flaws in Richard Garland's April 2016 Traffic Impact Analysis for North School. Terry and Betty Dunbar live on Morningside Driven, north of 25th Street that dead ends into the back of North School.
(7) Since building the new North School, aka Vista School, the City of Hermosa Beach has made 26th street a ONE WAY street. How did this change affect the traffic surrounding Vista School?
CONCLUSION:
The basic data information used to make assumptions in this study lacks sufficient disclosure and accountability which brings in to question the accuracy of this entire traffic study.