|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 26, 2012 17:12:24 GMT -8
The new CPUC proceeding A1112010 for the rehearing of the Phase 2 crossings was assigned to Commissioner Michael R. Peevey and Adminstrative-Law Jusge (ALJ) Robert Mason on July 11, 2012. The rehearing will reopen pretty much everything. An error, which was pointed out by us earlier was also discovered and identified by CPUC. They omitted the I-405 freeway and Palms Park pedestrian bridge crossings in the original application and they will have to study these now as well, possibly requiring an addendum to the FEIR. The nice thing is though they can still continue with the construction of Phase 2 unless it's determined otherwise during the rehearing. Link for the CPUC proceeding A1112010 for the rehearing of the Phase 2 crossingsI freakin' hate NSFR. People blame Metro for a lack of a transit system, maybe they should look at their neighbors. I ride my bike through this s***hole neighborhood nearly daily to get between Santa Monica and Culver City station. I just want to flip them the bird and shout at 'em everytime I ride by.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 27, 2012 10:44:37 GMT -8
The new CPUC proceeding A1112010 for the rehearing of the Phase 2 crossings was assigned to Commissioner Michael R. Peevey and Adminstrative-Law Jusge (ALJ) Robert Mason on July 11, 2012. The rehearing will reopen pretty much everything. An error, which was pointed out by us earlier was also discovered and identified by CPUC. They omitted the I-405 freeway and Palms Park pedestrian bridge crossings in the original application and they will have to study these now as well, possibly requiring an addendum to the FEIR. The nice thing is though they can still continue with the construction of Phase 2 unless it's determined otherwise during the rehearing. Link for the CPUC proceeding A1112010 for the rehearing of the Phase 2 crossingsI freakin' hate NSFR. People blame Metro for a lack of a transit system, maybe they should look at their neighbors. I ride my bike through this s***hole neighborhood nearly daily to get between Santa Monica and Culver City station. I just want to flip them the bird and shout at 'em everytime I ride by. Impressive! Which route do you follow? Don't flip the bird and shout to everyone though, as the majority support the Expo Line. NFSR is the minority in Cheviot Hills, but as usual, opposition is much louder and more active than the support.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 27, 2012 10:47:31 GMT -8
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 8, 2012 15:50:08 GMT -8
This does not seem like good news: NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL v. EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY (LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION) Case: S202828, Supreme Court of California Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2012-08-08 Event Description: Petition for review granted Notes: Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ. For more information on this case, go to: appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2015235&q=258999&h=549964208
|
|
|
Post by carter on Aug 8, 2012 18:38:54 GMT -8
This does not seem like good news: NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL v. EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY (LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION) Case: S202828, Supreme Court of California Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2012-08-08 Event Description: Petition for review granted Notes: Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan and Liu, JJ. For more information on this case, go to: appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2015235&q=258999&h=549964208 Well, I think it was somewhat inevitable -- or at least predictable -- given that different courts of appeal had come to different conclusions about whether or not CEQA permits using a future baseline for traffic impacts. It makes sense that the CA Supreme Court would want to reconcile those difference for the purposes of establishing case law precedent.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 8, 2012 21:12:15 GMT -8
Thanks for the heads-up. Yes, this is something we expected. It would be surprising otherwise. What Carter said is true. So, the desperate pursuit of NFSR continues. Even if they win the Supreme Court case, all that will result is a quick redoing of the FEIR, which will not delay the project for more than a year. If NFSR chose not to fight the project but work with Expo, they would have far more impact in the design. Supreme Court probably knows that NFSR is fighting what will be the nation's busiest light-rail line with a ridership well over 100,000, which has had a perfect safety record since the initial segment's opening -- unprecedented even with the Gold and Orange Lines. Their chances of winning is very, very slim, if at all. Again, even if they won, it wouldn't change much as I pointed out above. You can follow the CA Supreme Court NFSR case at this link.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 10, 2012 16:41:04 GMT -8
NFSR's view of the situation:From: Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association Subject: CHHA - California Supreme Court Review of NFSR Challenge to ExpoCalifornia Supreme Court Grants Neighbors for Smart Rail's Petition for Review in Expo CaseThe California Supreme Court announced yesterday that the Petition for Review of Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (Expo) has been granted. appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2015235&q=259006&h=919416499Two critical issues are central to NFSR’s complaint: First, contrary to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) law which states that a proper baseline to evaluate project impacts is the existing environment, the Expo Authority contends that studying hypothetical projected traffic conditions 20 years in the future is sufficient. NFSR disagrees. We believe that, consistent with previous Supreme Court rulings, “existing” can only mean that which currently exists. Second, NFSR agrees with CEQA that proper mitigation for project impacts must be specific and enforceable. Expo maintains that their agreement to work towards mitigating impacts is good enough. This is similar to claiming that promising to pay someone back is the same as actually paying them back. State law requires that when mitigation is accepted, it must be implemented. On Phase 2, for example, Expo admitted their project will cause parking problems around stations but failed to specify any remedy, the potential costs, or whether, in fact, any mitigation at all would be effective or feasible. When people’s homes, security, and safety are involved, this is unacceptable. Additionally NFSR strongly believes that, among other things, Expo did not properly study traffic impacts or emergency response delays related to the proposed new rail line. Terri Tippit, President of NFSR and the West of Westwood HOA said: “NFSR is gratified by the Court’s decision to review these very important issues. Blocking Overland and Westwood 24 times per hour will have a devastating impact on traffic and public safety, and all evidence shows that Expo didn’t study it as required.” This decision of the Supreme Court to grant review of NFSR’s case comes on the heels of a recent decision by the California Public Utilities Commission which granted NFSR a rehearing of all of the Phase 2 Expo light rail crossings previously approved. The CPUC rehearing will address some of the same NFSR’s contentions of CEQA non-compliance as well as unresolved safety concerns, and alleged improper procedure. The CPUC has responsibility for grade crossing safety throughout the state. Colleen Mason Heller, board member of both NFSR and the Cheviot Hills Homeowners Association said: “The dismal safety record of the Blue Line, which shares cars and track with the Expo line, suggests that Metro and Expo have failed to create a transportation safety culture that our communities can trust. Expo’s ability and intention to create a safe, well-designed and properly studied light rail must be seriously questioned.“ NFSR is represented by John Bowman of Elkins, Kalt, Weintraub, Reuben, Gartside in Century City. Drew DeAscentis, NFSR board member and President of Westwood Gardens Civic Association said: “We really want to thank our lawyer John Bowman for his outstanding work in getting our case accepted by the Supreme Court. We look forward to working with John to convince the Court on the merits of our case.” Mike Eveloff, NFSR board member and President of the Tract 7260 Association said “Our case deals with fundamental aspects of how the State’s environmental laws will be applied. This decision will impact every environmental impact report for every project proposed within the State. We thank the Court for the opportunity to be heard.” On a different Metro light rail matter, the LA Times reported Monday that the Blue Line is on target to have its deadliest year yet. The Metro Board voted on Monday to study why the line continues to be plagued with so many accidents. A similar Metro Blue Line study commissioned in 1998 suggested a four point program to improve safety on the accident prone line: Engineering Safeguards; Public Outreach and Education; Traffic Enforcement ; Legislation (permission to install red light cameras). None of those fixes have proved to be more than temporary, and in the case of traffic enforcement, it only works when a critical mass of police are on site. Metro reports the average cost of light rail accidents is $500,000. With nearly 900 accidents on the Blue Line's 100 at-grade crossings, you have to wonder why Metro doesn't look at the the increased safety and economic benefits of grade separating some of the more dangerous crossings.Read the LA Times article here: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-blue-line-20120807,0,1509475.stor NFSR sincerely thanks the Cheviot Hills community and the CHHOA Board for their important and continued support of safety and neighborhood quality of life on the Expo project. We will continue to pursue transparency, due process and adherence to the protections afforded our communities by state law. We will keep you informed as details and scheduling of the two ongoing legal endeavors emerge Colleen Mason Heller NFSR Vice President CHHOA Light Rail Chair WNC Mobility Chair
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 10, 2012 12:17:12 GMT -8
Opening brief has been filed by NFSR. See the CA Supreme Court link above.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 2, 2012 9:54:27 GMT -8
The arguments of Expo and NFSR on the CPUC rehearing of the Phase 2 crossings have just been filed. Quite interesting read. Link
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 1, 2012 12:06:57 GMT -8
NFSR has filed its reply brief to the CA Supreme Court and the case is now "fully briefed." I believe this means that the decision of the court will come next, including an interim decision on whether to issue an injunction to stop the Expo Phase 2 construction. Expo Phase 2 NFSR CA Supreme Court case on the court Web site
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 15, 2012 13:07:43 GMT -8
I've never got an e-mail about this, but, as posted under the Phase 2 construction thread, yesterday the CA Supreme Court denied Neighbors for Smart Rail's motion requesting an injunction to stop the Expo Phase 2 construction: appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2015235&doc_no=S202828Phase 2 moves full-steam ahead and I have the feeling that the CA Supreme Court doesn't have a high opinion of NFSR. The revenue operation to Santa Monica should begin toward the end of 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 15, 2012 13:23:36 GMT -8
Our very own Dr. Ken Alpern once had said, "Don't tell me what you are against -- tell me what you are for."
I've always wondered what the true agenda of the leaders of the NFSR is. The different leaders in NFSR might have a different thing they are "for." Perhaps some of them are for keeping their neighborhood the way it is. This is probably roughly what most of them are for. Who knows what else. There is something they are for but they will never tell us.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 17, 2012 16:54:49 GMT -8
I've never got an e-mail about this, but, as posted under the Phase 2 construction thread, yesterday the CA Supreme Court denied Neighbors for Smart Rail's motion requesting an injunction to stop the Expo Phase 2 construction: Phase 2 moves full-steam ahead and I have the feeling that the CA Supreme Court doesn't have a high opinion of NFSR. The revenue operation to Santa Monica should begin toward the end of 2015. 8-)What you guys are not celebrating? What's up with that? Why curbed LA got more to say than you meat head!! s (this excludes Darrell, Bart, and Gokhan!)
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Nov 28, 2012 11:20:32 GMT -8
11/28/2012 Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Associated General Contractors of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 30 days of the filing of the brief.
11/28/2012 Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Associated General Contractors of California Attorney: Curtis A. Cole
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 28, 2012 11:33:36 GMT -8
NFSR will definitely lose their CA Supreme Court appeal.
The only thing left for them to fight at the moment is the CPUC rehearing.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Nov 28, 2012 22:43:46 GMT -8
11/28/2012 Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted The application of Associated General Contractors of California for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within 30 days of the filing of the brief. 11/28/2012 Amicus curiae brief filed Amicus curiae: Associated General Contractors of California Attorney: Curtis A. Cole CAN YOU PUT THIS IN LAYMAN TERMS?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 28, 2012 23:52:24 GMT -8
Amicus curiae is Latin for "Friend of the court". Such briefs (which can be anything but brief) can be filed by parties not directly involved in the case, but having material to support one side or the other. (that's the short version--if someone wants more detail, I'll ask my daughter the lawyer.) The respondent in this case is presumably the Expo Line Construction Authority, and I believe the other party (NFSR) is the petitioner.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 5, 2012 22:50:33 GMT -8
Apparently "Cheviot Hills News" magazine just published an article by the NFSR vice-chair Ms. Colleen Mason Heller titled "Expo comes to Cheviot."
Therefore, NFSR has finally conceded. Hopefully they will enjoy the Expo Line as much as the rest of us.
However, the article is complaining about the parking issues.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 6, 2012 11:27:39 GMT -8
I spoke too soon. NFSR still thinks they will win the lawsuit. Their biggest bet is the 2030 baseline (Sunnyvale case). They are hoping that the court will order a new EIR study and once that process starts, they can turn the table and have the line built underground. Here is for your enjoyment:
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 6, 2012 12:43:31 GMT -8
Ha-ha!!! Sensationalism that CBS and NBC could appreciate! And for the record, I made better looking newsletters in the early 90's--for a previous job incarnation--using Aldus PageMaker 5.0, QuarkXpress 3.3, CorelDRAW 5.0, Ami Pro 3.1, WordPerfect 5.1, and random TIF/CGM/WMF/EPS/WPG clip art images LOL!
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 11, 2012 19:17:38 GMT -8
Today, it seems that a flurry of amicus curiae briefs were filed from : the Southern California Assoc. of Governments, the Assoc if California Water Agencyies, the Southe Coast Air Quality Management District, the California Building Industry Assoc., the California Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, Culver City, and the Sierra Club, apparently against the NFSR request to redo the EIR.
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 12, 2012 19:38:46 GMT -8
Against NFSR? Oops! I guess they forgot to invite them to their 3 martini lunches or teas or coffees or whatever it was they were hosting LOL! It's good to know Expo is getting all this support though.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 12, 2012 21:45:02 GMT -8
The more this lawsuit drags, the faster Skanska/Rados will build Phase 2. Therefore, let's hope this lawsuit keeps dragging so that this project will be built in record time!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 20, 2012 14:03:02 GMT -8
Reposting at this thread because it's important: This is the CPUC link for the proceeding A1112010. CPUC evidentiary hearing for reopening the approval of the Phase 2 crossings was held a few days ago. I am guessing in a few days or weeks, the judge will issue a decision on whether to proceed with the construction of the Phase 2 tracks or not. Phase 2 tracks cannot be constructed before the decision is issued.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 21, 2012 10:06:55 GMT -8
It looks like the link I provided was temporary. Use this page to search for the proceeding no. A1112010 delaps1.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCProceedingLookupThen, click on the proceeding and click on the Documents, Rulings, Decisions, etc. tabs to view them. You can read in the last document by CPUC ( link) that the evidentiary hearing would take place on December 17 & 18. The ALJ should issue a ruling in a few weeks. If he rules in favor of NFSR, it will delay the construction by a year or more, as they can't build the tracks without the green light from the CPUC. This is potentially far more important than the CA Supreme Court case.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 21, 2012 10:41:26 GMT -8
Regarding the "Sunnyvale case," which is the main argument of NFSR in the CPUC case:
Sunnyvale and Expo are like apples and oranges. In the case of Sunnyvale, there was gross cheating and the court nailed the city as they should have. The case is about the city wanting to build a new city center along with a new highway that will serve it. What they did was, instead of having a single EIR, they decided to have two separate EIRs for the development and highway. In each EIR, they would cheat and assume that the other project has already been built. For example in the EIR for the highway project, they assumed that the city center was already built (year 2020) and therefore the highway would actually reduce the traffic. Of course, in reality, the city center couldn't be built without the highway, and it's absurd to separate the two projects.
They could have done the same thing for the Expo project. For example, they could have assumed that the Casden project was already built and was causing a traffic nightmare and the Expo Line would therefore actually reduce the traffic. Obviously, they have done no such cheating in the Expo EIR. The only thing they did is the standard 13% increase in traffic due to normal city growth -- not due to other projects -- which is the standard in transit studies. They do this because they want to evaluate the long-term effects of the project, as these are 100-year projects. In fact, assuming 13% more traffic actually works against light-rail because you would need more grade separation to deal with the 13% more traffic (Metro grade-crossing criteria would be harder to meet).
Therefore, Sunnyvale and Expo are really like apples and oranges. There is no relation between them. In the case of Sunnyvale, the city grossly cheated by doing an unjustified divide-and-conquer for the development and highway projects. Expo does not include Casden or other projects to justify its traffic impacts. Its EIR is perfectly honest -- no cheating there at all. I am not worried a bit about the CA Supreme Court case -- the judges already know what I said here.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2013 14:38:40 GMT -8
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Jan 7, 2013 14:49:04 GMT -8
They're running out of ammo, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2013 14:56:06 GMT -8
They're running out of ammo, eh? It's more like they are at all-out war and using all ammo they have. Read the last PDF -- it's their argument on why the Expo Phase 2 crossings should be reopened to discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 7, 2013 15:37:09 GMT -8
They're running out of ammo, eh? It's more like they are at all-out war and using all ammo they have. Read the last PDF -- it's their argument on why the Expo Phase 2 crossings should be reopened to discussion. Their summary of their argument in that last PDF starts with very high-running emotions: "That Expo is suggesting that a hypothetical future baseline is adequate for the Commission to use in determining the traffic and air quality impacts and safety of operation of the Phase 2 Project at the commencement of testing and revenue service is cynical at best. At worst it is the callous continuation of the Expo transit myth devised to avoid scrutiny of the Phase 2 Expo Project and the resulting consequences. In truth, the Expo Phase 2 Project is the extension of an underfunded, highly impacting skeletal project that is already failing in its first phase to meet the safety criteria and noise standards of a quality project."
|
|