|
Post by Gokhan on Apr 29, 2011 14:19:16 GMT -8
Here if the notice of appeal by Neighbors for Smart Rail. This pointless appeal will be denied even more strongly than their nonsense original petition. Once this is over, it's going to have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to NFSR, and the Cheviot Hills Homeowners' Association will lose all their savings made in decades and likely go bankrupt as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jun 20, 2011 14:23:58 GMT -8
Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) filed appeal on April 25, 2011: 04/25/2011 Notice of Appeal (CK#56425-$655.00 ) Filed by Attorney for Petitioner LA County Superior Court Web site(Type in case no. BS125233) There has been a motion by Expo: 06/10/2011 Notice of Motion (NTC OF MTN AND MTN FOR ORDER REQUIRING & FIXING AMOUNT OF DISCRETIONARY UNDERTAKING TO STAY ENFORCEMENT ON APPEAL ) I'm not sure what it means but it could be that Expo wants NFSR to pay the $50,000 in expenses now, instead of after the appeal. There will be a hearing on the motion: Future Hearings 07/21/2011 at 09:00 am in department H at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650 Motion Hearing
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 23, 2011 18:04:31 GMT -8
Expo's motion to have NFSR pay their expenses (~ $50 thousand) was granted, at least in part. Go to the link above and type the case no. for more info: 07/21/2011 at 09:00 am in Department H, McKnew, Thomas I., Jr., Presiding Motion Hearing - Motion Granted in PartWhere will NFSR now find the money?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 14, 2011 21:51:54 GMT -8
Well, the confirmation of the dismissal of the Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) appeal due to NFSR failing to file their brief has apparently turned out to be false. President Ms. Terri Tippit of the NFSR has just informed us that they will file their brief tomorrow, on the last day. Therefore, this legal hurdle hasn't been over yet. Link to the NFSR appeal case
|
|
|
Post by joshuanickel on Sept 14, 2011 21:52:24 GMT -8
BREAKING NEWS: Neighbors for Smart Rail appeal is dismissedWell, today the prerevenue operation for Phase 1 started. Enjoy the YouTube video posted earlier. But, now, the question is how many good news you can handle in one day? It's been confirmed that Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) appeal against the rejection of their petition to stop the Expo Light-Rail Line Phase 2 to Santa Monica is now dismissed because they have quit! All legal hurdles against the Expo Line have now been overcome! Link to the dismissed NFSR appeal casePerhaps their lawn signs are at least will still be good for Halloween. Cheers everyone! Article posted today in SMDP has quote from Terri Tippit stating that they are waiting for a decission to be made on the appeal in November: www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2011-09-15-72559.113116-Lawsuit-Not-so-fast-Expo-Light-Rail-line-construction.htmlLawsuit: Not so fast, Expo Light Rail line construction By Ashley Archibald September 15, 2011 CITY HALL — In a private ceremony Monday, state, county and city officials enthusiastically broke ground on what will eventually be the final stop on the Exposition Light Rail Line at Fourth Street and Colorado Boulevard. During that ceremony, they pledged to get the project completed by 2015. But on Tuesday, the City Council was presented with how little is actually finalized about the project — and then there's that lawsuit by residents trying to stop the line in its tracks. The basic statistics are out there. The line will be 6.6 miles from Culver City, where the first phase of the $2.4 billion project ends, to its terminus in Downtown Santa Monica. Seven stops, three of which are in Santa Monica, will comprise the second phase, which is expected to cost $1.5 billion. Most of those will have parking. Current modeling projections estimate that by 2030, the line will transport 64,000 riders daily. "We expect that's on the low side," said Rick Thorpe, the CEO of the construction authority. While Expo has a number of projections, the one thing it can't predict at this point is the start date of construction. Crews have been out for weeks doing potholing work and checking for utilities on Colorado Avenue and elsewhere on the line, but that's all preliminary to actual construction. In fact, whatever the golden shovels at the groundbreaking may have suggested, much of the line as it pertains to Santa Monica is still in the design phases. That particularly applies to what Expo calls "betterments," or improvements on the basic design for each station that City Hall specifically requests. One example of that would be the side platform at Bergamot Station, which would allow riders to exit the train on either side for better access to the Bergamot Transit Village, a mixed-use development planned for the area. The side platform also reduces the footprint of the station and leaves more room for the 17-mile bike path that previous designs had narrowed to the point that bicyclists would have had to dismount at Bergamot Station. "That's one of the advantages of the side platform," said Francie Stefan, a community and strategic planning manager with City Hall. "When (the platform) was between the two tracks, they had to straddle it. With the side platform, it narrowed that. That's a real advantage of the layout." Those designs, while conceptualized, haven't been priced out yet, and will return to the council at a later meeting, Thorpe said. Design aside, Expo couldn't begin construction if it wanted to. In March 2010, a coalition of homeowners' groups called Neighbors for Smart Rail filed a lawsuit against Expo, asking it to go back to its environmental impact report and take another look at the consequences of putting at-grade crossings on certain streets.
The coalition contended that the report didn't address the potential problem in any way, said founder Terri Tippit.
"If we prevail, all it means is they have to do another EIR and look at grade separation differently, or look at it at all, period," Tippit said.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas McKnew ruled for Expo in February, declaring that the organization had met or exceeded the requirements of state law in its environmental impact report.
Neighbors for Safe Rail appealed the decision, and are still waiting on their next court date.
Tippit hopes that the ruling will come down no later than November, although there's no guarantee. For Expo's part, the goal is to wrap up the litigation before it finishes up design and pre-construction work.
"We're cautiously optimistic that will be resolved by the time we get to the construction side of the project," Thorpe said.The design time might be positive if only to satisfy City Council members, who seemed put off by features like fencing and other blockades that would be installed to separate the light rail cars from traffic as they chug down Colorado Avenue between 17th and Fourth streets. Pedestrians would also be hindered by the set up, and limited to signalized crossings. "Why do you feel the need to do things that take us out of the realm of complete streets and put barricades in the way of free flow?" asked Council member Kevin McKeown. He then flipped through a slide show of photos from other global cities with light rail lines that run unimpeded despite cars and foot traffic. "I realize there are three of us negotiating here," McKeown said, referring to the California Public Utilities Commission, which has authority over the crossings, "but I think that there may be some things we could do that wouldn't require the kinds of fencing that would change the character of the street." In a unanimous vote, with Council member Bobby Shriver absent, the council sent the project on with direction to examine how to balance safety for cars and pedestrians with unimpeded streets.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 14, 2011 21:56:09 GMT -8
Yes, see the post just made above yours. Thanks for the news article. Well, the confirmation of the dismissal of the Neighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) appeal due to NFSR failing to file their brief has apparently turned out to be false. President Ms. Terri Tippit of the NFSR has just informed us that they will file their brief tomorrow, on the last day. Therefore, this legal hurdle hasn't been over yet. Link to the NFSR appeal case
|
|
|
Post by erict on Sept 15, 2011 6:06:38 GMT -8
It's not over till the fat baby screams, or in this instance the case is dissmissed (again).
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 16, 2011 15:49:55 GMT -8
NFSR brief is filed and Expo brief is due before October 17. The case should be resolved by November or December. I give a 100% chance to the rejection of NFSR's appeal. Link to the NFSR appeal case
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Sept 20, 2011 9:41:48 GMT -8
I noticed all the houses on Westwood Blvd with those silly NSFR signs are for sale. Let's chip in some money for U-Haul and get these guys out of here!
BTW, I went to an open house in Rancho Park last weekend (it was on a street off Overland) and one of the selling point on the flier (I wish I took one...) was... drum roll please...
"walking distance to future light rail station"
I lol'd like an idiot when I read that.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Sept 20, 2011 21:44:17 GMT -8
I noticed all the houses on Westwood Blvd with those silly NSFR signs are for sale. Let's chip in some money for U-Haul and get these guys out of here! BTW, I went to an open house in Rancho Park last weekend (it was on a street off Overland) and one of the selling point on the flier (I wish I took one...) was... drum roll please... "walking distance to future light rail station" I lol'd like an idiot when I read that. Real estate agents get it, even if some of the existing home owners don't.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 26, 2011 11:25:05 GMT -8
Latest from Neighbors for Smart Rail:SEPTEMBER 25, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Neighbors for Smart Rail Contact: Terri Tippit at President@Smartrail.Org Neighbors for Smart Rail Files Appellate Brief in Expo CaseNeighbors for Smart Rail (NFSR) filed its opening brief in the California Court of Appeals on September 15, 2011 claiming, among other things, that the Expo Light Rail Construction Authority failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in its evaluation of environmental impacts, its mitigation plan, and in its design. NFSR president Terri Tippit said, “NFSR is looking to prevent West L.A. gridlock by protecting access to the 10 freeway through West L.A. Trains blocking Overland and Westwood 24 times per hour will have a devastating impact on the existing area traffic, and all evidence shows that Expo didn’t properly study it.” NFSR’s brief, available on its website ( www.smartrail.org), cites the precedents of the recently published Sunnyvale case and Madera case in support of their contention that Expo failed to study present-day traffic impacts of at-grade rail in already-crowded West L.A. The consequence of not studying the additional traffic congestion caused by the trains also has serious implications for emergency responders and air quality. Expo also failed to study impacts to present-day air quality of additional greenhouse gases resulting from their Project. Moreover, Expo failed CEQA by “deferring” mitigation for impacts such as excessive noise, parking intrusion, cut-through traffic and security until some later time and by neglecting to detail what the mitigation might be, whether it would be effective, or whether it was even possible. At an Urban Design Committee meeting convened by Expo last week Expo revealed that the promised noise mitigation through Cheviot, Westwood Gardens and West of Westwood residential areas may simply not be possible due to space limitations. That is especially troubling as some homes in those neighborhoods are as close as 20 feet from the tracks. Overland Avenue Elementary School is only about 70 feet from the tracks and at-grade crossing at Overland Avenue. Next StepsExpo’s Response to the NFSR Appeals is due October 17. However, the Rules of Court provide for an automatic 15-day grace period for the filing of briefs. Expo can file their brief as late as early November. NFSR’s Reply to Expo is due 20 days after Expo files its brief. Subsequent to the filing of briefs, the Court will notify the Parties regarding the date and time for oral argument which typically occurs within 2-3 months of the last brief filed. Following oral argument, the matter will be taken under submission by the Court. The Court must issue its decision within 90 days thereafter During the pendency of the Appeal, Expo performs work on the train project at its own risk. If, as hoped and expected, NFSR is successful Expo would be required to undo any work that had already been performed. “NFSR is confident that this appellate court will find, as other appellate courts have found, that the way Expo studied the impacts of the train through West L.A. was flawed,” said Tippit. “We should not be spending over a billion and a half tax dollars on a poorly studied, poorly planned, and highly impacting project. Poorly designed transportation projects fail to fulfill their own objectives when they increase traffic congestion and our communities deserve better. We look forward to our day in court.” Key cases: Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (Sept. 13, 2011, F059153) _Cal.App.4th_ Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Ass 'n. v. City of Sunnyvale (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1351 Save our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. a/Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 128.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Nov 5, 2011 10:54:14 GMT -8
From the Santa Monica Mirror this morning: Los Angeles Comes To Defend Santa Monica In Expo Line Lawsuit
posted Nov. 4, 2011, 2:15:00 pm
Mirror Staff
Santa Monica has the official support of the Los Angeles City Council when it comes to defending a lawsuit that could derail the Expo Light Rail being built to Santa Monica.
The unanimous vote by Los Angeles City Council members on Friday gives the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office authority to file a legal brief supporting the environmental study and process of what was involved in creating it.
Filed March 5, 2010, the Neighbors for Smart Rail are mainly concerned with the at-grade street crossings at Overland, Westwood, and Sepulveda. The group calls for the Expo Board of Directors to restudy the EIR before building begins.
The Expo Light Rail project will run from the downtown Los Angeles Metro Rail Station to Santa Monica. The first phase of the project is underway connecting Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. Expo Line Phase 2 will run 6.6-miles from Culver City to Santa Monica.
The Board of Directors of the Expo Line Construction Authority certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Phase 2 in February 2010.
The $1.5 billion line is expected to open in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 8, 2011 18:49:51 GMT -8
Responses and resolutions are flying from Metro and Expo staff and board in the NFSR appeal. The next step is NFSR's reply to these responses (to NFSR's opening arguments), which is due by December 15, 2011. The appeal should be rejected sometime in Winter or Spring 2012. Link to the NFSR appeal case on the California Appellate Courts -- 2nd Appellate District11/08/2011 Respondent's brief. Respondent: Los Angeles Count Metropolitan Transporation Authority Attorney: Ronald W. Stamm 11/08/2011 Request for judicial notice filed. Respondents Exposition Metro Line Authority and Board: Resolution 11 (attached) 11/08/2011 Respondent's brief. Respondent: Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority Attorney: Robert Donnelly Thornton Respondent: Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority Board
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 5, 2011 12:48:54 GMT -8
New appeals court announcement today: The following transaction has occurred in: Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority et al. *PREF CASE*Pub. Resources Code sec. 21167.7 CEQA* Case: B232655 2nd District, Division 8
Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2011-12-05 Event Description: Appellant's reply brief.
For more information on this case, go to: appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1977893&q=60218&f=531862401 The webpage at the link states "Case fully briefed."
|
|
K 22
Full Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by K 22 on Dec 6, 2011 9:16:10 GMT -8
Would it surprise anyone if the Westwood station winds up being the best-looking one in the entire line?
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 6, 2011 9:55:17 GMT -8
Would it surprise anyone if the Westwood station winds up being the best-looking one in the entire line? Hollywood/Vine to me is currently the best looking station with in station architecture. That's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Dec 6, 2011 10:50:28 GMT -8
Would it surprise anyone if the Westwood station winds up being the best-looking one in the entire line? Hollywood/Vine to me is currently the best looking station with in station architecture. That's my opinion. Kind of apples-and-oranges. Hollywood/Vine is an urban station and Westwood/Expo will be a streetcar suburban station with lots of nice natural features.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Dec 6, 2011 10:58:44 GMT -8
Kind of apples-and-oranges. Hollywood/Vine is an urban station and Westwood/Expo will be a streetcar suburban station with lots of nice natural features. In that case, Wilshire/Rodeo station has a potential to be a very good looking station with it's natural outdoor features and strong urban area.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Dec 6, 2011 11:13:48 GMT -8
Would it surprise anyone if the Westwood station winds up being the best-looking one in the entire line? Hollywood/Vine to me is currently the best looking station with in station architecture. That's my opinion. I'd agree. Hollywood/Vine is my favorite subway station from an inside architectural standpoint. I remember going in there on the opening day for this section of the Red Line and thinking it was just awesome. As for above ground stations, that is a little different since they are kind of barren so it depends more on surroundings.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 6, 2011 13:41:48 GMT -8
In that case, Wilshire/Rodeo station has a potential to be a very good looking station with it's natural outdoor features and strong urban area. I think portals like this would greatly help:
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 6, 2011 14:22:12 GMT -8
In other works, the next step is the decision, aka rejection of NFSR's appeal. It says "Administrative record returned to superior court. 02/15/2012 11 volumes and one thumb drive." I wonder if this is the deadline for the decision. I also wonder if there will be a single-day trial as there was for the case. I think there is no trial for the appeal though.
|
|
|
Post by carter on Dec 6, 2011 14:59:04 GMT -8
In other works, the next step is the decision, aka rejection of NFSR's appeal. It says "Administrative record returned to superior court. 02/15/2012 11 volumes and one thumb drive." I wonder if this is the deadline for the decision. I also wonder if there will be a single-day trial as there was for the case. I think there is no trial for the appeal though.There's typically a day of oral argument for state appellate cases.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 12, 2011 15:23:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Dec 12, 2011 15:58:03 GMT -8
^ Wait it's still months away? Are you serious?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 12, 2011 16:10:26 GMT -8
^ Wait it's still months away? Are you serious? The construction can/will start before the decision. The more it takes for the decision, the better it is for Expo. The next step for NFSR after the rejection is CA Supreme Court and chances are that by the time that considers the case, the line will be completed.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 13, 2011 13:35:22 GMT -8
It's ironic that the light-rail opponents in Cheviot Hills have become transit geeks, like Fix Expo was. Speaking of that, this letter also mentions Fix Expo, referred to as their former mentor from South LA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- NFSR Files Expo CEQA Reply BriefDear CHHOA Friends and Neighbors, NFSR submitted its Reply to the California Court of Appeal on December 2, 2011. This is final brief and we now wait for a hearing schedule from the Court. The reply brief encapsulates NFSR's arguments as well as Expo/MTA's. You can read the brief here. Our sincere thanks to NFSR attorney, John Bowman, and his team from Elkins, Kalt, Gartside and Weintraub for their outstanding work on our behalf. FTA Chides MTA For Failing to Examine Civil Rights IssuesAlso of interest regarding MTA/Expo is an article in the LA Times dated December 10, 2011 regarding the civil rights failures of MTAs transit planning that may disadvantage minority transit users. Failures to study the impacts of reducing bus service along the Expo corridor to promote train ridership are mentioned. Quoting from the LA Times: "On the forthcoming Expo Line, which was scheduled to be accompanied by a reduction in bus service, auditors similarly faulted the agency for not adequately studying the effect on riders.
"You put in a new rail line, if at the same time you're taking out some bus routes, people might have to walk further," said Daniel Levy, director of Metro's division of civil rights programs compliance.
In a quick about-face, Metro announced Thursday that it would be implementing a series of bus service changes associated with the Expo Line and suspended the changes Friday. Officials said they wanted to be sure they were in compliance with federal civil rights guidelines.
"The FTA says that when you're doing a capital project … you need to do an analysis to see if the new service would create a disparate impact," Levy said.'"At the core of the civil rights complaints is not only that riders have to walk further to access trains as MTA implies. The greater issue of how transit is actually used by riders. Buses are used much more like cars as they make frequent stops along major commercial corridors. Light rail generally plan stations a mile apart, and in the Expo's case, most of it does not traverse a major commercial corridor but goes through residential neighborhoods. Collapsing bus routes to provide funding and ridership for light rail may disadvantage minorities and low income riders who depend exclusively on public transportation. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mta-audit-20111210,0,3475552.story A former NFSR mentor and researcher from the Expo Communities in South LA has been meeting with FTA and FHWA officials on various civil rights issues related to transit planning in LA County. His complaints were joined with others as part of the actions pending. He lives three blocks from the Phase 1 Expo Line and said he can hear the train, which is in the testing phase, every time it goes by. In various NFSR/CHHA comments during Expo's environmental process MTA was challenged for not studying changes to the bus system prior to Expo commencing. Thank you for your continued interest in Expo's community issues. Colleen Mason Heller CHHOA Light Rail Chair NFSR Vice President ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Dec 16, 2011 14:54:18 GMT -8
It's ironic that the light-rail opponents in Cheviot Hills have become transit geeks, like Fix Expo was. Speaking of that, this letter also mentions Fix Expo, referred to as their former mentor from South LA. I wouldn't call them transit geeks. It's more a case of the Sun Wu principle of knowing and understanding your enemy, something which we as transit fans ought to do more.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Dec 30, 2011 10:53:31 GMT -8
NFSR is asking the CPUC for rehearing on the phase 2 crossings, but I doubt the CPUC wants to reopen it. The key document among the many in the zip file below is 000_NFSR Application for Rehearing Final 2.pdf . NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF
APPLICATION OF NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL FOR REHEARING WITH ORAL ARGUMENT
December 23, 2011
Dear Parties:
Please be advised that on December 23, 2011, Neighbors for Smart Rail filed an Application for Rehearing and Oral Argument with the California Public Utilities Commission. The documents and exhibits are available at: www.tract7260.org/pdfs/ExpoDocs/NoticeOfAvailabilityNFSRRehearingApp.zip
…
Colleen Mason Heller …
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 22, 2012 15:23:33 GMT -8
This might be the NFSR appeal trial at high noon (well, actually at 1 pm) on March 22, 2012. I asked my lawyer friends about it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Feb 22, 2012 18:51:20 GMT -8
This might be the NFSR appeal trial at high noon (well, actually at 1 pm) on March 22, 2012. I asked my lawyer friends about it. From the case summary in that link, there will be a oral hearing on that date (March 22). The oral hearing takes place in front of three judges and it may be several weeks before a decision is mailed. There was also a settlement at one point but my guess is that it was only about some money payment.
|
|