|
Post by jamesinclair on Dec 4, 2010 0:34:21 GMT -8
If people are concerned that commuters will park in residential streets and use the train station, why not simply make the spaces residential parking only?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 4, 2010 8:14:13 GMT -8
Right now cars barrel past the shopping center and under the freeway bridge. With the increased traffic the station will generate, perhaps traffic will slow, but that could also mean congestion. Timed signals down Palms and National that are advertised as timed could help a lot. Sometimes when I used to drive to/from work in Santa Monica, I would take National through Palms. Making the left turn at National/Palms, from eastbound National to northeast-bound National (!) is tricky because of the strange angle of the streets, the cars/bikes coming off Exposition, the freeway overpass, and the immediate left-turn lane leading to the freeway on-ramp which often backs up into the National/Palms intersection. Then continuing northeast, cars pick up a good speed and start passing on the right. Then around the shopping center the right lane disappears, apparently catching lots of people by surprise. Buses have to merge left too, and they do so with force. I have done my share of commuting by car around Southern California, but this stretch is not for the faint of heart. Most days I breathed a sigh of relief once I made it as far as National/Venice. I can't imagine doing that route on bike. As a user of the Blue Line who drives to the station, I know that adding dedicated parking will draw cars to a station. Some commuters will only park in designated lots, not on the street. Dedicated parking will attract these people. Thus, dedicated parking will make the station more attractive to park-and-ride commuters. Dedicated parking should only be put in places where additional traffic is not a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 5, 2010 13:41:16 GMT -8
Apparently today's Expo board meeting was somewhat partly combined into the County board meeting and postponed to two weeks later. The project labor agreement, that is agreement with unions, is already something that will bog down Phase 2. Board members were fighting each other on this issue today. I think more the agreements there are, the more it will take Expo to be built and the more it will cost and the less the quality of the resultant project will be. Apparently project labor agreements are something every county is running away from and in some counties they were banned by the voters with more than 70% majority. Unfortunately here in LA County, the government officials are insisting on making things as inefficient as possible and Expo Phase 2 is the test case. There was a board meeting and the project labor agreement moved forward. As I said the more the agreements there are (regardless of the nature of the agreement), the costlier the project will become, the longer it will take, and the more the lawsuits there will be. Let's hope the delays associated with this will be minimal.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 6, 2010 13:02:34 GMT -8
Latest on the Palms Station matters:
Hi Charles (Palms Neighborhood Council),
I can tell you what I know from existing Metro riders that they don't drive to stations that don't have parking with the hope of finding street parking. I wouldn't do so myself either. There are also two stations nearby that provide parking: The Venice/Robertson parking lot is only a half mile from where you're proposing parking. Then, there is the Sepulveda Station, which is not too far.
A far better option for Palms residents who would commute to the station would be to use the Big Blue Bus on Palms Blvd, which goes by the station. During the rush hours, which we're concerned with, it runs frequently. Besides, even if you provided parking near Bagley, it would still be a half-mile walk to the Palms Station. Remember that the parking proposed here in the past was for the Venice/Robertson Station instead, which will now have a parking structure.
I disagree about pedestrian activity on Exposition on Bagley. Exposition is currently the most heavily used pedestrian street in northern Palms. Bagley is so as well, as I said there aren't other nearby north - south streets that cross the freeway. I would really like to keep Exposition green and make it even greener, rather than turning it into an unfriendly industrial environment with a paved parking lot, with nervous drivers looking for parking in the morning. Besides, 60 spaces would quickly fill (as we know for sure from experience), and you would end up with even more circulating drivers, as they wouldn't come there in the first place if you didn't provide the opportunity for parking.
I don't understand how you can propose eliminating the parking on the south side of Exposition while there are so many apartment buildings there. Also, the right-of-way there is narrow, and with the freeway embankment and the bike and pedestrian paths on the right-of-way, there wouldn't be any space left for landscaping if you put parking there.
Again, if people who live in Palms want to drive to the Expo station, they should drive to either Venice/Robertson or Sepulveda. I think the Palms Station is more than well-served for the Palms residents with the local buses and by walking.
I understand your concerns about permit parking but I think this won't ever come to that only because of the Expo Line. I don't think it will be a disaster if a few people try to find parking in the morning. I don't think it will ever be a major problem, as I said there is the nearby Venice/Robertson Station. Why not drive for two more minutes to Venice/Robertson instead of circling around the neighborhood for ten minutes and then spend ten minutes walking from a distant street-parking spot. These people would end up half-hour late to their jobs and getting fired. It just doesn't make sense. That's why I think your concerns aren't justified.
Also note that there is no parking option for the Palms Station in the FEIR and the preliminary engineering didn't study it either. The final design and construction will start in February and it's too late to ask for a supplemental EIR to realign the tracks and study the parking and traffic impacts, as it would delay the project for about a year. We're all interested in having the line opened as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Gokhan
----------------
Gokhan,
I completely relate to your perspective on promoting a pedestrian-friendly climate. I've had the pleasure of living in cities abroad where you did not need a car to get by. I would love to see parts of Los Angeles transform into that kind of environment. But we are a long way from that today. I'm also a hard-core environmentalist, so your concerns do not fall on deaf ears. It is precisely that thinking, however, that leads me to the conclusion that we must do whatever we can to get people to use public transportation. I think we have the same goals here. We just have a disagreement about the best way to reach those goals and the consequences of choices along the way. In the name of being specific, I will answer some of your points directly in context below.
> > 1. As you said, parking is very scarce in Palms. If you provide parking along Exposition for the station, many residents and guests, who don't use the Expo Line at all, will end up parking at the Metro parking lot. This doesn't have to be the case. We advocate that any solution for parking at the station be restricted to Expo Line riders only. There are several ways to accomplish this, be they stickers, an unmanned ticket machine that produces a dashboard pass along with the Expo ticket, or some other solution. MTA is has encountered these issues before, and we will push to see that any Expo parking be, indeed, used for Expo riders during most, if not all hours of the day.
> > 2. Even if you provide parking, it won't eliminate the problem of commuters seeking street parking in Palms. In fact, it will likely make it worse. The reason is that these Metro parking lots, especially the small ones, end up being filled very early in the morning. Many commuters will find out that the lot is already full and they will start circulating in the neighborhood to find street parking.
> > 3. Providing parking for the station will attract more cars to the area than with no station parking. Few people will try to find street parking if they know there is no parking provided for the station. But if you provide parking, you will attract many park-and-ride commuters, some of them will park in the Metro lot and others will circulate in the area when the lot fills up early in the morning. I think we will have much less problem with no Metro parking lot. If some people try to find street parking, it's fine -- it's a free country. Chances are that if it's too difficult to find street parking, they will give up and use the Venice/Robertson or Sepulveda Stations in the long run.
#2 and #3 here are essentially the same argument. I agree with your first sentence that states this proposed parking may not eliminate all problems in the neighborhood, but there's nothing to support the second claim that it will make things worse. This is a familiar argument that opponents to parking anywhere on the line have presented, but there's no data backing it. Typical commuters develop a pattern when they look for parking. If they don't find parking in spot A, they look in spot B, then in spot C, etc. As long as we do not have restricted parking in Palms--and we are trying to avoid that because our stakeholders don't want it--the people who use Palms Station will look for parking in Palms. If we can provide spots for 60-70 of these cars in a lot or designated area, that's 60-70 fewer cars that will be circling the streets of Palms, burning fossil fuels and generating pollution as they do so. Given the likelihood that there will be no parking at the Westwood/Exposition Station, that is a large population base that will be closer to Palms Station than Venice/Robertson Station. There is no data to support the "discouraged parker" theory that suggests these commuters will simply avoid Palms Station and initially go to Venice/Robertson Station because the streets in Palms fill up every day. On the contrary, they are more likely to make a pass through Palms and only on days when they do not find a spot will they continue through the rush-hour congestion on Venice Blvd. to the parking at Venice/Robertson. Or worse yet, these people will just not use the Expo Line at all because of the inconvenience. That would create a worse environment for all of us.
> > 4. My biggest concern is the environment. All residential neighborhoods are advocating for pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and landscaping. Why are we advocating for replacing the proposed landscaping with a paved parking lot? No one is. If you have this impression, it is mistaken. We are committed to seeing that any solutions promote the concept of increasing usable and water-responsible green space in Palms. On the contrary, by providing parking at Palms Station, be it along Exposition or another alternative, we will be protecting the health of our residents by reducing the air pollution from cars circling for parking opportunities--both from users of the Expo Line and residents who depend on street parking and now will be displaced, forced to spend more fuel to circle themselves. Expo Parking also mitigates concerns regarding safety for displaced residents with longer walking distances to their homes, not to mention the inconvenience factor.
> > 5. Currently Palms is not a pedestrian neighborhood. Many people simply drive in and out of their apartments. We are trying to change that and create a pedestrian neighborhood. Expo Line will help. Agreed. Let's get those cars parked, so they are not circling the blocks of Palms and clogging up our air. There are other things that can be done to promote a more pedestrian-friendly neighborhood, and the success of Palms Station as a high-volume stop on the line is essential to that vision.
> > 6. If you're familiar with the northern Palms (which I'm very familiar), Exposition Boulevard and Bagley Avenue is the most important pedestrian corridor in northern Palms. Building a parking lot along Exposition would ruin this pedestrian corridor. We need to have a transit parkway as in the other places along the Expo alignment, which consists of the light-rail, bike and pedestrian path, and landscaping. A parallel parking lot simply won't fit into a transit parkway. I lived two buildings away from this intersection for eight years. Before being elected as the Overland Residential Representative, I was the Exposition Residential Representative. I'm extremely familiar with this corridor, and I have to say, I don't agree with your assumptions or conclusions here. This is not a pedestrian corridor at all. The I10 overpass on Bagley is known primarily as a trouble spot for vagrancy, and is not a highly trafficked pedestrian intersection at all, especially when compared to National/Palms/Exposition/Manning.
No one is proposing a parking lot at Exposition and Bagley. We are encouraging Expo to investigate parking solutions at the station, which could include their original design option for parking on the north side of Exposition. This would likely be accomplished by removing parallel parking on the south side of Exposition, and then expanding Exposition Blvd. in the neighborhood of 3-5 feet in order to accommodate diagonal parking on the north side, yielding the equivalent of about four blocks of street parking in Palms (after subtracting the spots removed from the south side). No one is talking about removing bike paths, landscaping, or any pedestrian-friendly element. One benefit of this possible plan is that those commuters would add to the pedestrian use of Exposition Blvd. when they come and go from the Station, focusing pedestrian traffic in that area, instead of onto Canfield, Bagley, Regent, Watseka, Cardiff, Tabor, Jasmine, Woodbine, and Hughes.
> > Once again, building parking along Exposition in Palms is the biggest of all evils. While other neighborhoods are planning for a transit parkway with landscaping and a pedestrian-friendly environment, why should we ruin the most important pedestrian corridor in northern Palms by providing a very disruptive paved parking lot with cars constantly going in an out and interfering with pedestrian activity? Simply imagine what all these pedestrians would have to go through while they are trying to access the station in the morning with all the park-and-ride people trying to get into the parking lot on Exposition. We are all in this together, and the reality of the situation is that those "park-and-ride people" will be from Palms or the immediate surrounding areas. We're not talking about drawing away regional people who would find easier access at the hubs destined for Venice/Robertson or Sepulveda/Exposition. In fact, it is our desire to preserve the positive attributes of Palms (i.e. no restricted parking, air quality, pedestrian and resident safety, etc.), that is behind our efforts.
> > If you really think that you should pursue parking for Palms, the only reasonable solution would be to advocate for a parking structure. If it's found really necessary, funding could be identified. Even that would create more problems for the neighborhood as it would bring a lot of cars to the neighborhood and make it less pedestrian-friendly, but at least it wouldn't ruin an important walking corridor in Palms. As I mentioned before, we are not backing one particular parking solution. Another possible solution could include creating an MTA parking lot at the derelict fire station at Vinton and National. I was part of group that prepared a state grant proposal with the city to attempt to make this area a park. Unfortunately, the grant was rejected, and this city-owned property will continue to sit in disuse for the time being. No one has studied this as a potential combo MTA lot with some green space mixed in, but we do plan to encourage study of possibilities other than the Exposition parking we have been discussing. None of these, however, would promote making Palms Station a major transportation hub akin to Venice/Robertson or Sepulveda/Exposition.
At times you are arguing that Palms is not a pedestrian neighborhood but should be. At other times you are arguing the area around the station is currently an essential and fragile pedestrian hub. The former claim is more accurate. Exposition is not a significant pedestrian corridor now. It even lacks sidewalks in places. However, we feel that the proper balance of priorities in the neighborhood--including promoting parking options for users of the station--are important to fostering the growth of pedestrian traffic in this area of Palms.
> > My preference is to go with the Expo Authority's recommendation and wait. I don't think permit parking will ever be necessary. Remember that Palms is a residential neighborhood and people who would park and ride are commuters. Therefore, when Palms residents go to work during the day, the park-and-ride commuters can use their street-parking spaces and when the residents return in the evening, the commuters will empty these spaces for them again. Therefore, I don't think permit parking would ever be necessary as there would be minimal conflict between a few commuters who would look for parking spaces in the mornings and the residents who live in Palms. Unfortunately, the Expo Authority disagrees with you. Their study concluded that Palms would quickly be forced to adopt permanent permit parking. Because we came to the table late in these discussions, the prevailing political wisdom prior to now has been that it would be easy to dump this problem on the renter-based community of Palms while focusing on the home owners further along phase two of the line. We think there are better solutions for all of us, and we continue to work to accomplish progress in these areas.
While I will do my best to explore issues you have raised in this discussion and welcome further input, I ask that if you have further feedback, you accept my invitation to attend our meetings and participate in our efforts to make Palms Station a success for all of Palms.
Sincerely, Charles Miller Overland Residential Representative Chair, Transportation & Road Works Committee Chair, Ad Hoc Committee on Westwood & Venice Issues Palms Neighborhood Council 310 204 4940
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 6, 2010 13:17:50 GMT -8
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...the arguement that "providing parking relieves congestion" never works. Never. We just end up with way more parking. We are stuck in a catch-22. Provide x number of parking, we result in x + 1 demand and then more cars leading to more autocentric policies and streets. We can use the money and save on street maintenance costs by providing additional funds to Big Blue or Metro to serve the station. More bike paths, more pedestrian friendly streets. Adding more parking just gives additional incentive to drive...not to drive less. He's just encouraging more car use, but fails to realize that the more we keep giving in to parking, it just creates more and more car usage. A never-ending cycle.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 6, 2010 13:46:07 GMT -8
Also note that there is no parking option for the Palms Station in the FEIR and the preliminary engineering didn't study it either. The final design and construction will start in February and it's too late to ask for a supplemental EIR to realign the tracks and study the parking and traffic impacts, as it would delay the project for about a year. We're all interested in having the line opened as soon as possible. A fundamental change like this would definitely require an environmental study, because the environmental impacts could be significant. This is similar to the Foothill Project, where an SEIR was required in part to study changes caused by two new/relocated parking structures and realignment of a grade crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 6, 2010 14:33:56 GMT -8
Discussion nearing an end:
Hi Charles et al.,
Regarding the current situation of Phase 2, it's fully on schedule. The contract will be awarded in early February and that's when the final design and construction will commence. The line is now scheduled to open in early 2015, which is earlier than any previous expectations.
Regarding the NFSR lawsuit, the trial will take place on December 21. We will know the outcome a few weeks later. It's expected to be dismissed and NFSR is expected to file an appeal. But Expo Authority will not wait for the results of the appeal.
Best,
Gokhan
On 12/6/2010 2:19 PM, Charles Miller wrote: > Respectfully, I think you are mainly repeating yourself at this point, and I do not believe the facts support your conclusions. > > With regard to any delays caused by reopening the FEIR, that would not happen. Phase Two is already far behind schedule with its most optimistic projection aimed at 2015, even without accounting for delays related to the lawsuit pending from the Westside Neighborhood Council. Any study of parking solutions in Palms would create no delays. > > While we may disagree on this issue, it's clear we have common goals in many respects. Please feel free to attend our meetings and remain part of the community discussion. > > Best, > Charles
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 17, 2010 10:08:35 GMT -8
Well tomorrow (December 18) is the one-year anniversary of Metro's release of the Phase II FEIR to the public. And it's been 10.5 months since the FEIR was certified. Yet to date, no dirt has been turned on this project.
Obviously, once the NIMBY trial on Tuesday is over, we'll have a better idea of the timeline. I'm glad the two teams bidding on the project (URS/Shimmick or Skanska/Rados) are working on preliminary engineering, so that at least something is getting done. But is there any word on when one of the teams is going to be selected to build the project?
Also, is utility work waiting on the results of the lawsuit as well? Hopefully somebody at Metro has done some pre-planning on this, so that as soon as the lawsuit is dismissed (hopefully), the utility relocations can begin ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 17, 2010 10:40:50 GMT -8
Well tomorrow (December 18) is the one-year anniversary of Metro's release of the Phase II FEIR to the public. And it's been 10.5 months since the FEIR was certified. Yet to date, no dirt has been turned on this project. Obviously, once the NIMBY trial on Tuesday is over, we'll have a better idea of the timeline. I'm glad the two teams bidding on the project (URS/Shimmick or Skanska/Rados) are working on preliminary engineering, so that at least something is getting done. But is there any word on when one of the teams is going to be selected to build the project? Also, is utility work waiting on the results of the lawsuit as well? Hopefully somebody at Metro has done some pre-planning on this, so that as soon as the lawsuit is dismissed (hopefully), the utility relocations can begin ASAP. The bids will be submitted on Wednesday. No work can start until the contract is awarded in February. As far as the DWP relocations are concerned, I think they may start on that immediately after the lawsuit is dismissed in a few weeks from now. Expo, DWP, and the two teams have already been discussing it. I should also mention that the Venice bridge is not part of the Phase 2 contract and it will be bid separately by other firms. Currently they are doing the final design on that. It will be design - bid - build. The most likely candidate is Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, who have been building the eastern section of the aerial structure. Another thing important to mention is that there will be community meetings in January, exhibiting the separate preliminary designs by the two teams, including the various options.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 21, 2010 8:08:59 GMT -8
The buildexpo website has a new look today. Maybe freshening it up for the upcoming Phase 2 effort? www.buildexpo.org/
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 21, 2010 8:29:24 GMT -8
The buildexpo website has a new look today. Maybe freshening it up for the upcoming Phase 2 effort? www.buildexpo.org/They finally added Farmdale to their map. Also, they fixed the links to their meeting agendas, many of which had been broken.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Dec 21, 2010 10:08:52 GMT -8
Karen Leonard & Sarah Hays published a wonderful, upbeat opinion piece in the LA Times that was reposted on Facebook's "Hello Expo." Their survey of Cheviot Hills residents corroborates my own impression... that Cheviot Hills folks, in fact, SUPPORT Expo! The NFSR naysayers with all their signs and hot air are the proverbial "vocal minority." Here's hoping today's hearing results in a clear road ahead. ...It's about time! Here's the link: www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-leonard-rail-line-20101221,0,7786140.story
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 21, 2010 10:42:09 GMT -8
Reporting from courtroom tentative decision NFSR case denied
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Dec 21, 2010 11:16:43 GMT -8
Reporting from courtroom tentative decision NFSR case denied I guess this means an appeal is imminent (if they have the resource to do so).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 21, 2010 12:16:30 GMT -8
Over
Final decision by judge in a few weeks
Details later
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Dec 21, 2010 13:18:17 GMT -8
From Damien Newton on LA Streets Blog:
I just got off the phone from the courthouse in Norwalk and the news is good for supporters of Phase II of the Expo Line, although the case brought by Neighbors for Smart Rail was not completely dismissed by the judge.
Judge Thomas McKnew gave an initial ruling to dismiss the lawsuit brought by NFSR, but then John Bowman, representing the plaintiffs argued that the traffic figures used in the environmental documents was flawed because it should address the current traffic patterns and not just the ones predicted for 2030. Attorneys for the Expo Construction Authority will be given time to submit briefs countering Bowman’s claims.
What this means is that while it’s possible McKnew will change his mind, his preliminary research favors Expo’s argument that their environmental studies are adequate to begin construction.
A final ruling that would dismiss the case or allow it to go to trial is expected in January of February. While it’s probable that NFSR will appeal. However, unless they get an order staying construction while the trial moves forward, they could end up litigating against a rail line that’s already being built.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 21, 2010 14:02:27 GMT -8
Judge Thomas McKnew gave an initial ruling to dismiss the lawsuit brought by NFSR, but then John Bowman, representing the plaintiffs argued that the traffic figures used in the environmental documents was flawed because it should address the current traffic patterns and not just the ones predicted for 2030. Attorneys for the Expo Construction Authority will be given time to submit briefs countering Bowman’s claims. In its opening brief, Expo asserts that The Lead Agency Has the Discretion to Select the Appropriate "Baseline" in Identifying Significant Effects of the Project. Expo cites CEQA guidlines, which allow the agency to use future conditions as the baseline, when it makes sense: For example, "where the issue involves an impact on traffic levels, the EIR might necessarily take into account the normal increase in traffic over time." (Save Our Peninsula Com. v, Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cat.App .4thgg,125-126.) Later in the brief, Expo gives its justification for using future conditions as the baseline in this case: The Authority adopted the following finding:
However, the Authority finds that the existing physical environmental conditions (current population and traffic levels) do not provide reasonable baselines for the purpose of determining whether traffic and air quality impacts of the Project are significant. The Authority is electing to utilize the future baseline conditions for the purpose of determining the significance of impacts to traffic and air quality. (3 AR 00017 [Findings of Fact].)
There is substantial evidence supporting the Authority's finding. The FEIR indicates that, due to population growth, traffic congestion and resulting air emissions will increase in the project area over the next twenty years. (8 AR 218-34) For example, the FEIR documents that traffic at intersections in the Project area will worsen over time:
Twenty-eight of the ninety study area intersections currently operate at [Level of Service] E or F. n 2030, with no additional transit investment, 38 of 90 study area intersections are projected to operate at [Level of Service] E or F....(8 AR 00233.)
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like a solid argument. It will be interesting to see what the judge does with it.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Dec 21, 2010 14:29:54 GMT -8
I think the big(ger) decision will be whether he allows the project to proceed in the interim. The whole purpose of the lawsuit is to delay things as long as possible, getting ready to throw the next Hail Mary pass, whatever that happens to be. If the judge allows the project to proceed in the interim, NFSR will essentially have lost, since they aren't delaying things anymore. Then they will have the benefit of throwing away many thousands of $$$ of legal fees, while having no actual impact at all. You have to love that possibility RT
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Dec 21, 2010 14:37:57 GMT -8
In a CEQA case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not on Expo. That burden of proof is a high wall to climb, and there are lots of hurdles for NFSR (Nimbys For Subterranean Rail) to jump over before they even get to that wall.
This "initial hearing" is hurdle #1. If this lawsuit fails at this initial hearing level, then it means that NFSR's arguments weren't even remotely reasonable enough to justify a trial.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 21, 2010 14:55:46 GMT -8
I was at the courtroom today. I need to clarify things. First of all this was not an initial hearing but the one and only trial. This is called a "short cause," which means that there is only one trial that is finished by lunchtime. There will not be further hearings, briefs, or trials. Also, I was the one who phoned Damien Newton and something got misunderstood on the phone. There will be no briefs that will be filed because the City of Sunnyvale vs. West Sunnyvale HOA CEQA-appeal issue was brought up late and both sides had to agree but Expo naturally didn't agree on filing briefs. What this means is that now both sides will have to wait for judge's final ruling (anywhere from a few days to a month). Important: I just realized that this discussion is taking place in the incorrect thread. Therefore, please do not reply or post here but reply under the Final Expo milestone: Phase 2 FEIR certification thread.I will now start posting the details about today's trial in the other thread. Again, do not reply to this discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 21, 2010 15:01:36 GMT -8
First, the beginning and a page 1 excerpt from Judge Thomas I. McKnew, Jr.'s Tentative Order: #BS125233 TENTATIVE ORDER
NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL's petition for writ of mandate is DENIED. [...]
Standard of Review A challenge to an EIR is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. PRC $ 21168.5. "Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination is not supported by substantial evidence." Id. The court must uphold a decision if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's decision. PRC $ 21168; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 392. Substantial evidence is "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Id., 14 CCR $ 15384(a). Petitioner bears the burden of presenting credible evidence that the agency's findings and conclusions are not supported by "substantial evidence." Jacobson v. County of Los Angeles (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 374, 388. [...] The judge noted in opening that in "most of these cases ... every conceivable argument is raised ... like mud on a wall ... hoping something sticks ... you're on." Despite the plaintiff's attorney John Bowman raising issues in seven categories for about a hour, but for his breaking news of an appellate court decision last Thursday it seemed likely the judge would have made his Tentative Order final in court today. The news was Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale, which Bowman claimed held that the "baseline" for traffic, air quality, etc. must be the existing condition, not the No Build alternative as projected for 2030 in Expo's FEIR. The attorney for Expo (one of four present) countered that the California Supreme Court said that selection of the baseline is in the administrative agency's discretion, but in the Sunnyvale case the court concluded (pages 35-36) that there was no substantial evidence supporting their baseline, that it was prepared by the city after the Final EIR. He noted that the "AQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) said 'follow our handbook'" for environmental analysis, and the Expo Authority did exactly that. The judge concluded "I intend to take the case" under submission ("not my practice") because there were issues raised by the Sunnyvale case. The two parties did not agree to final submission of briefs, so the judge will do his own research on the Sunnyvale case and issue a decision, probably within a month. It seem pretty unlikely that this one court decision would overturn decades of CEQA practice and many decisions based on that, and otherwise the judge did not appear to find any of NFSR's mud had stuck to the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 21, 2010 15:09:44 GMT -8
Again, guys, this is the construction thread. Do not post about CEQA here but do so in the Phase 2 certification thread.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 3, 2011 17:17:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Jan 3, 2011 17:25:36 GMT -8
They still have to purchase the SMC parking lot from the city.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 3, 2011 17:29:49 GMT -8
They still have to purchase the SMC parking lot from the city. There will be no money exchanged there, as it's government land.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 3, 2011 22:31:15 GMT -8
They still have to purchase the SMC parking lot from the city. There will be no money exchanged there, as it's government land. I believe it's a three-party trade: City-owned land by the airport for the College-owned parkling lot by Verizon, then the City-owned parking lot for Expo-owned Verizon land nearest Exposition Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 4, 2011 8:27:18 GMT -8
Details on the swap can be found in this staff report to the Santa Monica City Council from November: SMC would trade its 2.35-acre site at Stewart Street and Exposition Boulevard (SMC Parking Lot) to the City in exchange for a long-term lease with purchase option of comparable City-owned non-aviation property at 3400/3500 Airport Avenue (Airport Non-Aviation Land). Following Expo/MTA’s acquisition of the property at 2900 Exposition Boulevard, Expo/MTA would trade with the City land which is approximately 100 to 110 feet wide by 1,000 feet long along Exposition Boulevard in exchange for the SMC Parking Lot owned by the City. The land acquired by the City from Expo/MTA would create a buffer area between the proposed Maintenance Facility and the adjoining neighborhood. The parties will make every effort to implement a triparty exchange of properties through simultaneous closings. So, Expo will get the old SMC parking lot, which will be added to the maintenance yard. The city will get a strip of land between Exposition and the maintenance site, which it will use as a buffer for the nearby residents. And SMC will get land near the airport, which it will use for parking. Expo paid $52 million for the entire Verizon site. Most of it will be used for the maintenance yard, except for the strip of land that it will trade for the SMC parking lot.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 4, 2011 10:58:55 GMT -8
Note that this was the largest Phase 2 acquisition but not all. If you read the link I gave, the parcel at the southwest corner of 17th and Colorado doesn't want to give it up. This means there will be eminent domain, which might bring a lawsuit. This parcel is needed for the Colorado/17th St Station and parking.
There are a few other acquisitions required. Partial acquisition of some apartment buildings just west of Motor Avenue is required to make right-of-way for dual tracks for example. Currently the right-of-way there is only 26-ft-wide and not enough for two tracks. There are a few others, which I don't remember. Some of them are for traction power substations.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Jan 8, 2011 7:51:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jan 8, 2011 11:41:37 GMT -8
As the Metro IG smiled and noted while presenting her report, there will be no big contractor that there haven't been complaints against and even Metro has had complaints against. See the meeting audio. This is just another excess measure by Mark Ridley-Thomas (such as grade separation, Metro grade-crossing policy, IG, and other things) that will eventually be a minor footnote for the project like others.
|
|