|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 5, 2013 9:41:18 GMT -8
It's not under but it's over.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 5, 2013 10:48:09 GMT -8
It looks like it was a very close call, Expo winning 4 - 3. However, there seems to be a typo, showing that Expo lost 3 - 4. The decision clearly says that Expo has won though; therefore, there are no worries. It looks like the decision consists of two parts with different vote totals, reading the various concurrences and dissents. Part I: Expo erred in considering only 2030 impacts and not current impacts (4-3) Werdergar, Kennard, Corrigan, Liu Part I: Expo's error was nonprejudicial, and therefore the project may proceed unhindered (6-1) Werdergar, Kennard, Corrigan, Baxter, Cantil-Sakauye, Chin
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 5, 2013 10:50:46 GMT -8
It looks like it was a very close call, Expo winning 4 - 3. However, there seems to be a typo, showing that Expo lost 3 - 4. The decision clearly says that Expo has won though; therefore, there are no worries. It looks like the decision consists of two parts with different vote totals, reading the various concurrences and dissents. Part I: Expo erred in considering only 2030 impacts and not current impacts (4-3) Werdergar, Kennard, Corrigan, Liu Part I: Expo's error was nonprejudicial, and therefore the project may proceed unhindered (6-1) Werdergar, Kennard, Corrigan, Baxter, Cantil-Sakauye, Chin I've corrected it after reading the opinions of the seven judges. It's a little more complicated. I will explain below.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 5, 2013 10:52:07 GMT -8
Reading the opinions, the only judge out of the seven who took NFSR's side was Honorable Goodwin Liu, the youngest judge in the CA Supreme Court. He concludes:
"For the reasons above, I respectfully disagree with the court's conclusion that the EIR's failure to measure traffic-congestion and air-quality impacts against a baseline of existing conditions “did not deprive agency decision makers or the public of substantial information relevant to approving the project.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 30.) In all other respects, I join the court's opinion.
LIU, J."
The strongest supporter of Expo was Honorable Baxter, joined by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Honorable Chin. They say that the use of a 2030 baseline was fully correct.
The so-called "majority" opinion was written by Honorable Werdegar, joined by Honorable Kennard and Corrigan. It states that the use of a 2030 baseline was technically in error. Howewever, they conclude that this error was insubstantial and Expo was not prejudicial in making it; therefore, they fully affirm the existing EIR.
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Aug 5, 2013 11:14:07 GMT -8
The ruling does shut the door on future EIRs to use a future date as baseline.
And for those interested in politics, the conservative majority (yes, we have a conservative supreme court in California) ruled in favor of Expo.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Aug 5, 2013 17:15:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Aug 5, 2013 22:28:04 GMT -8
Amen! I am thankful that I live in an area (San Gabriel Valley) where governmental entities are solidly behind the Foothill Extension. We have no groups analogous to NFSR, and our local newspapers are all for GLFE. I was talking with one of the workers on the Operations Campus, a resident of Azusa; he mentioned some of the inconvenience of street closures, but on the whole he was quite enthusiastic about the project and proud to be a part of it.
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 6, 2013 7:33:52 GMT -8
Amen! I am thankful that I live in an area (San Gabriel Valley) where governmental entities are solidly behind the Foothill Extension. We have no groups analogous to NFSR, and our local newspapers are all for GLFE. I was talking with one of the workers on the Operations Campus, a resident of Azusa; he mentioned some of the inconvenience of street closures, but on the whole he was quite enthusiastic about the project and proud to be a part of it. Of course, NFSR is not a "governmental agency," and arguably doesn't have majority support among its neighbors. All governmental agencies (especially Santa Monica, and including Culver City and Los Angeles) are enthusiastic and fully supportive of Expo. Santa Monica (where I live) is putting down a welcome mat in the form of a widened pedestrian and bike friendly Colorado St Esplanade which will greet arrivals at the Downtown Station. Voters on the Westside overwhelmingly supported both measures R and J, and most are looking forward to Expo's completion. It only takes a few well-heeled homeowners to stir the pot, and their efforts have, predictably, come to naught. I am curious how court costs will be affected by the split decision. NFSR technically won on one issue, although this "victory" is moot. But I wonder if this means both sides will have to pay their own legal costs, rather than the "winner" paying for the "loser's" costs. Does anyone have an idea how this will play out?
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Aug 6, 2013 9:41:54 GMT -8
Hey Bob: Give them time those old goats and biddies will come after GLCA because they can't stand progress
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 6, 2013 10:06:35 GMT -8
Regarding the question on legal fees, NFSR is a nonprofit organization and therefore they cannot be asked to cover winner's legal expenses.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 6, 2013 10:15:33 GMT -8
Really bad news. According to a legal analyst who attended the trial, NFSR will win the CA Supreme Court case 4 - 3 or better. ... ... ... In the end, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye along with Justices Kennard, Werdegar, and Lui, seemed very concerned about the EIR’s failure to analyze operational impacts that might occur between 2015 and 2030. Justices Corrigan and Ming did not comment during the hearing. The Court will issue a written opinion within 90 days of oral argument. At the day of the hearing, Expo seemed to have lost the case. During the 89 days that lead to the opinions, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Honorable Kennard, and Honorable Werdegar had a change of heart, which lead to the Expo victory. I wrote a brief letter to all seven justices separately about a month after the hearing, explaining why Expo's EIR was valid. Perhaps it was a factor in the change of heart.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 6, 2013 10:25:42 GMT -8
First off, great news for Expo!
Going forward, Metro should really understand the arguments in the full Supreme Court opinion with respect to baselines, to avoid risk of legal challenges going forward.
Specifically, four Supreme Court judges said that Metro ought to have done a current baseline. OTOH, it does not say Metro needs to skip the "future baseline". My hope is that going forward, Metro (or it's contractor) will do both baselines, to provide a comprehensive picture of all impacts.
I do think that NFSR couldn't care less about baselines, and only selected this challenge because it had a snowballs chance in hell of stopping Expo in its tracks. That said, Metro would be wise to cover all bases going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Aug 7, 2013 13:08:52 GMT -8
Response from NFSR was posted on their website this afternoon. smartrail.org...and here for posterity:
|
|
andop2
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by andop2 on Aug 7, 2013 13:52:24 GMT -8
In my humble opinion, it is pretty obvious, without a lengthy study, to determine that Expo's long-term gain (which is HUGE for everyone and forever) far exceeds whatever short-term pain (which is low to moderate for a few) there could conceivably be.
I'm all in favor of reasonable short term mitigations (for noise, access, etc.) and that's what the studies did show and recommended. The only reason to abandon the project would be if, say, a whole block of people would be cut off from their homes for months, or it would take 2 hours everyday to exit the area, or... but clearly that is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 7, 2013 21:20:16 GMT -8
Denial.
Only one justice agreed with NFSR. Three completely agreed with Expo. The other three said that the use of a 2030 baseline was a technical error but it was insubstantial and not prejudicial to grant the preparation of a new EIR. How clearer can it be made?
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Aug 8, 2013 2:49:42 GMT -8
Big time kudos to Metro and their legal team for getting this taken care of so professionally and cleanly. After a similar experience with the Orange Line construction, they have considerably sharpened their game and come to any future bargaining table with a fantastic record to nip nonsense like this in the bud.
What NFSR failed at from the beginning is assuming that by being correct on a minute point of law they would get what they wanted: a halt to construction. The Court basically said, yes you're correct, but it's not significant.
This works out well for everyone except NFSR. Even their attorney "wins" in a sense, because he can show he's good at finding cracks in an admittedly daunting process - and he got to argue in front of the State Supreme Court (a feather in his cap) - and he got paid, pretty well, I imagine.
NFSR just paid a huge amount of cash to make a minor change in how future studies are designed. The biddies who were so adamant about this - getting their neighbors worked into a lather about it - will now experience a new kind of fame within their community - especially once the train opens and people see it's just not that big of a deal.
When it comes time for each member of the community to write a check for their share of "legal services rendered" especially if Metro is successful in sticking them with the defense fees, it won't be pretty or fun at all.
Amateurs with no legal experience + a chip on the shoulder + access to other people's money = Expensive Fail Every Time
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Aug 8, 2013 6:53:11 GMT -8
LOL at NFSR's confusion.
"The California Supreme Court agreed with NFSR that Expo violated CEQA." No, FOUR of the justices agreed on ONE point of the challenge. Simple reading comprehension skills are necessary to avoid "confusion".
Their conclusion: big bad government rigs the rules to get what it wants. My conclusion: the process works!
|
|
outthere15
New Member
Take back the rails
Posts: 33
|
Post by outthere15 on Aug 8, 2013 7:42:28 GMT -8
Was any construction activity delayed awaiting the ruling and if so, did the delay impact the completion date?
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 8, 2013 8:08:56 GMT -8
Was any construction activity delayed awaiting the ruling and if so, did the delay impact the completion date? Nothing has delayed Phase 2 so far. Colorado Ave underground utilities, Pico bridge, and rail-car purchase could delay the opening into 2016. However, let's hope that the line opens sometime in 2015 as planned.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Aug 8, 2013 16:43:35 GMT -8
Gokhan, Is there some reason that you stopped posting pictures of the Venice falsework? I have gone into complete transit picture withdrawal since Dwight left town. Though it is my understanding he will be back for a couple days for one final orgy of visual documentation. Can't wait RT
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 8, 2013 22:27:17 GMT -8
Gokhan, Is there some reason that you stopped posting pictures of the Venice falsework? I have gone into complete transit picture withdrawal since Dwight left town. Though it is my understanding he will be back for a couple days for one final orgy of visual documentation. Can't wait RT Yes, I'm returning from my vacation this week.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 12, 2013 12:33:40 GMT -8
Really bad news. According to a legal analyst who attended the trial, NFSR will win the CA Supreme Court case 4 - 3 or better. ... ... ... In the end, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye along with Justices Kennard, Werdegar, and Lui, seemed very concerned about the EIR’s failure to analyze operational impacts that might occur between 2015 and 2030. Justices Corrigan and Ming did not comment during the hearing. The Court will issue a written opinion within 90 days of oral argument. At the day of the hearing, Expo seemed to have lost the case. During the 89 days that lead to the opinions, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Honorable Kennard, and Honorable Werdegar had a change of heart, which lead to the Expo victory. I wrote a brief letter to all seven justices separately about a month after the hearing, explaining why Expo's EIR was valid. Perhaps it was a factor in the change of heart. I was really worried about the CA Supreme Court after the analysis of the hearing in May by the Thomas Law Group. Three of the justices (Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Honorable Kennard, and Honorable Werdegar) certainly changed their opinion meanwhile. Perhaps the following letter I sent to each and every of the seven justices on June 11 helped: Subject: Case no. S202828 -- Neighbors for Smart Rail vs. Expo Light-Rail 6/11/2013 Honorable Kathryn M. Werdegar, I would like to make a brief comment about this case. The case has been mostly revolving around the question of an appropriate "baseline" for the environmental review of this light-rail project. Expo Light-Rail Construction Authority did use both the current 2007 no-build and modeled 2030 no-build conditions as a baseline in their study. For their light-rail alternative, they used a 2030 light-rail-build scenario to analyze its traffic impacts on nearby intersections. (Note that for noise studies, current 2007 conditions were used.) In the 2030 light-rail-build scenario, the traffic is projected to increase moderately -- roughly 13%. Increased traffic actually increases the impacts of light-rail on traffic, as it's more difficult to operate a train through crowded intersections. Therefore, a 2030 light-rail-build scenario is a more stringent environmental criterion than a 2007 light-rail-build scenario. Appellant in this case has been trying to draw a false analogy between this case and a highway-construction case between Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association and City of Sunnyvale. In that case, City of Sunnyvale manipulated the baseline by assuming a complete-build-out scenario, which resulted in much less stringent environmental criteria. Therefore, in that case, the environmental study was indeed invalid. By asking the respondents to redo their environmental study for less stringent environmental criteria (2007 light-rail-build scenario) would have no use other than to delay the project and cost the taxpayers in the neighborhood of 100 million dollars as the contractor would have to restage and the third-party responsibilities would increase. Yours sincerely, ...
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 13, 2013 13:37:36 GMT -8
A revised Proposed Decision with changes highlighted and in finished form is up on the CPUC website. It addresses the Supreme Court decision and comments by Expo and NFSR, if anything to reinforce the validity of approving the crossings. Meeting starts at 9:30, Thursday, 8/15/13 ( Agenda). You can listen to CPUC voting meetings by phone by dialing 1-800-857-1917. When prompted to enter a passcode, dial 92105. You can also view via video webcast and listen via audio webcast.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 13, 2013 14:46:30 GMT -8
A revised Proposed Decision with changes highlighted and in finished form is up on the CPUC website. It addresses the Supreme Court decision and comments by Expo and NFSR, if anything to reinforce the validity of approving the crossings. Meeting starts at 9:30, Thursday, 8/15/13 ( Agenda). You can listen to CPUC voting meetings by phone by dialing 1-800-857-1917. When prompted to enter a passcode, dial 92105. You can also view via video webcast and listen via audio webcast. It still needs to survive tomorrow evening's (5 pm) hold list.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Aug 15, 2013 8:54:24 GMT -8
A revised Proposed Decision with changes highlighted and in finished form is up on the CPUC website. It addresses the Supreme Court decision and comments by Expo and NFSR, if anything to reinforce the validity of approving the crossings. Meeting starts at 9:30, Thursday, 8/15/13 ( Agenda). You can listen to CPUC voting meetings by phone by dialing 1-800-857-1917. When prompted to enter a passcode, dial 92105. You can also view via video webcast and listen via audio webcast. It still needs to survive tomorrow evening's (5 pm) hold list. I'm watching the webcast, but the meeting hasn't started yet. Expo is not on yesterday's final hold list. Meeting just started (9:58 a.m.). Two public speakers, neither an Expo-related name I recognize. Consent Agenda was just adopted unanimously. Chair Peavey added a comment about the Expo Line, concluding, "This very important light rail project is moving ahead."
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 15, 2013 9:03:55 GMT -8
CPUC has just approved all Expo at-grade and grade-separated crossings through the consent agenda. It wasn't even discussed by the commissioners before being voted. However, after the approval of the consent agenda, President Peevey briefly talked about the Expo Line.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 15, 2013 9:37:14 GMT -8
We welcome the end of this thread. There are no more regulatory certifications or legal challenges. This is the final certification of the Expo Line -- for real.
As I just posted, around 10 am today, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved all Expo rail crossings -- at-grade and grade-separated -- for good. It went through the consent agenda; therefore, it wasn't discussed by the commissioners before being voted on.
The following YouTube video contains CPUC President Michael Peevey praising the Expo Line after the approval of the consent agenda:
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Aug 20, 2013 12:05:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Aug 20, 2013 12:16:15 GMT -8
Lol It's over. CA Supreme Court simply won't grant a rehearing.
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Aug 20, 2013 12:40:45 GMT -8
cute way for the attorneys for NFSR to get some additional filing fees and billable hours.
|
|