HBCSD Corruption
Fact 23
Fact #23:
HBCSD's Traffic Assessment of North School by Richard Garland that was used in the official Environmental Impact Report for North School was 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) Dates listed on page 5.12.15 Impact Analysis are NOT reflected on any of the Stop Control Analysis sheets in the appendix.
1. NONE of the Stop Control Analysis sheets in the appendix of the Environmental Impact Report for the Traffic Analysis have the dates November 19, 2015, December 1, 2015, January 24, 2017 OR January 26, 2017 as stated in the EIR.
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?
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?
5. Why don't the dates match the EIR write-up? Why is there no proof of the counts actually taking place?
"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) Dates listed on page 4, 1M2-8 Impact Analysis are NOT reflected on any of the Stop Control Analysis sheets in the appendix.
1. 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) 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) 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) Richard Garland is a full time Traffic Engineer for the City of Carson. Was Richard Garland actually on leave from the City of Carson on the dates specified in the report when the traffic counts were performed?
1. Richard Garland's address 16787 Beach Blvd., Suite 234, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 is The Mail Center located in a strip mall in Huntington Beach, CA. Does Richard Garland have a physical work location other than his office at the City of Carson?
2. The only analyst identified on all the Stop Control Analysis, Level of Service Calculations sheets is ‘R. Garland’. If Richard Garland had employees why didn't they enter their names in the 'Analyst' box on the Level of Service Stop Control Analysis sheets contained in the Environmental Impact Report appendices?
"Traffic counts were taken from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM on days when District schools were in session (November 19 and December 1, 2015, and January 2017). Only the morning peak hour was analyzed because elementary schools do not generate traffic during the late afternoon commuter peak period, which is between 4:00 PM and 6:00 pm...."
(6) Is it physically possible for one analyst, R. Garland, to perform all traffic counts? If not, who were the other employees of Garland Associates who participated in the traffic counts? Why weren’t other analysts who may have participated in the study identified on the various traffic count sheets? If other analysts were employed by Garland and Associates to perform Level of Service Calculations for this study what was their training and qualifications to accurately perform traffic counts?
There were 17 intersections at which Richard Garland supposedly took counts. 8 of the intersections at which counts were taken were taken on Sunday, December 13, 2015. 9 of the intersections at which counts were taken were taken on Monday, May 7, 2018. The counts were supposedly taken over a one hour period. How was Richard Garland able to sit at each of 8 or 9 intersections for one hour each, all on either December 13th or May 7th, and take ALL his counts in a two hour timeframe between 7am and 9am? It is impossible.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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?
(10) Prior to releasing the Richard Garland Traffic Analysis Report representatives from the firm of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Rudd and Romo spent 1.5 hrs on May 2, 2016 to “REVIEW AND EVALUATE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NORTH SCHOOL PROJECT, CONFERENCE OFFICE RE TRAFFIC STUDY". WHY?
NOTE: HBCSD attorney Terry Tao was also involved in Pam Daly's Historic Assessment of North School. Pam Daly's report had numerous outright fabrications of fact. Terry Tao spent 3.75 hours advising Pam Daly regarding her Historic Assessment of North School for the Environmental Impact Report.
See Lie #18: Misinforming the public as to the historical facts and value of the circa 1934 North School in Pam Daly's Historic Resource Assessment of North School.
NOTE: HBCSD attorney Terry Tao also gave an approximately one-hour presentation on May 31, 2016, less than a week before the district's June 7, 2016 $59M bond vote. He misinformed and mislead the public and City Council members on nearly every issue regarding Pier Avenue School Community Center and North School, etc.
See Lie 16#: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district's $59M bond vote.
(11) Cost to taxpayers $77,420.19+: PlaceWorks warrants #22572797, #22664076, #22801732, #22841946, #22921285, #23001190, #23126374 for $23,185.99 and AALR&R warrant #24787512 for $54,234.20.
(12) On January 9, 2019, the City of Hermosa Beach sent a follow up letter to School Board President Doug Gardner regarding the district's Environmental Impact Report traffic study. Like many others, we were surprised to learn over the holiday that the Final EIR had been released"...
NOTE: The 2017 and 2018 versions of the draft Environmental Impact Reports were released during the busy holiday season (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year) when most Hermosa residents were busy entertaining and traveling for the holidays. In addition, HBCSD district offices were closed for many weeks during the holidays, so community members were unable to obtain more information regarding any issues with the DEIR. Releasing the DEIRs during the holidays impeded public review and comment for which the Draft EIR was meant to accomplish. Of all the days in a calendar year, why were HBCSD DEIRs always released during the busy winter holidays? Just coincidence, or a subtle plan by HBCSD to pass a highly flawed EIR?
(13) Since building the new North School, aka Vista School, HBCSD school board members have actively been recruiting students from school districts outside Hermosa Beach. In 2022, interdistrict permitted students numbered 83. Non-Hermosa Beach students are driven in and out of Hermosa Beach twice a day, five days a week. How has the addition of interdistrict students affected the traffic around Valley School, View School and 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.