Construction of Phase 2A to Azusa

[metrocenter]

Just a reminder of the details of the lawsuit, in case there are any lawyers in the house:

Feb 23, 2011 8:48:58 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

Well, here it is. Mr. Brokate has filed suit to stop the Foothill Extension in Monrovia.

The lawsuit was filed in LA County Superior Court, case number BS130732. If anybody is interested.

The lawsuit alleges the following against the Gold Line Authority:

• Authority improperly segmented of Phase 2 into two projects (Phase 2a to Azusa, and Phase 2b to Montclair).
  
• Authority didn't consider enough alternative sites for the maintenance yard.
  
• Authority didn't do a thorough analysis of all environmental impacts from the maintenance yard.
  
• Authority's analysis was rigged to support their decision to relocate the maintenance yard to Monrovia.

[tobias087]

Unless I'm mistaken, that first point is identical to the claim NFSR made about the Expo line: that it should not have been segmented into 2 phases. Most likely that will be dismissed, just like the Expo argument.

[metrocenter]

The Foothill Extension now has multiple issues related to the maintenance yard site in Monrovia, which are threatening to delay or derail the entire project.

• The City of Monrovia's redevelopment agency owns a substantial amount of the property on the site, which the Authority needs to buy from the city.
  
  
• The redevelopment agency could be eliminated any day now due to action at the state level, and this could affect the city's ability to sell its property on the site.
  
  
• The city has not yet authorized sale of the property, as it intended to do at the special council meeting last Tuesday, due to stalling by City Councilman Tom Adams.
  
  
• George Brokate, an owner of property on the site, is suing the Gold Line Authority to prevent it from buying/seizing his land (see previous posts).
  
  
• Mr. Brokate alleges that if Monrovia sells it's land to the Authority, it will breach a 2004 settlement that obligates the city “not to cause another to bring an eminent domain action”.

The Authority must acquire 50% of the site before it will receive any Measure R funds, per its funding agreement with Metro. Thus, it is urgent that the City of Monrovia authorize the sale of its property to the Authority ASAP, so that funding can flow and construction can begin.

The next Monrovia City Council meeting is April 5. The next Gold Line Authority meeting is April 13.

References:

• Monrovia delays public hearing on $40M land deal for Gold Line yard
  
• Stalled Land Sale, Lawsuit Threaten Gold Line Progress

[bobdavis]

I have no doubt that the GLFE staff is working diligently to overcome these obstacles, but at this time it looks like we may have something akin to what the Farmdale situation was to the Expo Line--a roadblock, or at least a speed bump, on the path of progress. One more "thing that Henry Huntington didn't have to worry about."

[metrocenter]

I have a feeling Monrovia councilman Tom Adams' position is related to the mini "silly-season" (aka election season) in Monrovia. Adams is up for reelection on April 12. Despite being involved in the Gold Line deal for several months, he objected publicly to the deal for the first time ever last Tuesday.

Anyway, April 5 is the next opportunity for the City Council to approve the deal. Hopefully the state won't have voted to seize the assets of the redevelopment agencies by then.

This is probably the first time that I've ever rooted for the California legislature to act slowly on a budget issue!

[bobdavis]

I would guess that the redevelopment agencies have a certain amount of "Political Horsepower" a.k.a. "Clout", and will be doing their utmost to stall or defeat such a seizure.

[metrocenter]

Well, Monrovia's sale of property to the Gold Line Authority has been removed from the agenda for tomorrow night's City Council meeting. The following is from the Monrovia City Manager's Weekly Report:

City Council Meeting Preview
The April 5 Council meeting will be a mix of interesting and important topics for Council discussion. I should note right off the bat that the scheduled public hearing regarding the Monrovia Redevelopment Agency's (MRA's) proposed sale of land to the Gold Line Construction Authority (GLCA) has been cancelled. Unfortunately, GLCA and City/MRA have been unable to come to terms at this time regarding the transaction. For the time being, the City of Monrovia - and presumably GLCA - will mull their respective positions; if a deal is possible, we will re-notice at a future date. Mayor Lutz has asked that this matter be discussed briefly under her portion of the meeting.

Ugh. Effectively, the entire project is on hold until a resolution can be found, because the Authority must own 50% of the site before Metro will release funding to the Authority.

I will be interested to hear what Mayor Lutz has to say about this unfortunate delay.

[LAofAnaheim]

Apr 4, 2011 14:59:19 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

Well, Monrovia's sale of property to the Gold Line Authority has been removed from the agenda for tomorrow night's City Council meeting. The following is from the Monrovia City Manager's Weekly Report:

City Council Meeting Preview
The April 5 Council meeting will be a mix of interesting and important topics for Council discussion. I should note right off the bat that the scheduled public hearing regarding the Monrovia Redevelopment Agency's (MRA's) proposed sale of land to the Gold Line Construction Authority (GLCA) has been cancelled. Unfortunately, GLCA and City/MRA have been unable to come to terms at this time regarding the transaction. For the time being, the City of Monrovia - and presumably GLCA - will mull their respective positions; if a deal is possible, we will re-notice at a future date. Mayor Lutz has asked that this matter be discussed briefly under her portion of the meeting.

Ugh. Effectively, the entire project is on hold until a resolution can be found, because the Authority must own 50% of the site before Metro will release funding to the Authority.

I will be interested to hear what Mayor Lutz has to say about this unfortunate delay.

Wow...let's see, what happens first

1 - Passengers riding the Expo Line to Culver City?
2 - Passengers riding the Orange Line extension to Chatsworth?
3 - Heavy construction starting on the Gold Line foothill extension?

[joshuanickel]

Apr 4, 2011 15:43:25 GMT -8 LAofAnaheim said:

Apr 4, 2011 14:59:19 GMT -8 metrocenter said:

Well, Monrovia's sale of property to the Gold Line Authority has been removed from the agenda for tomorrow night's City Council meeting. The following is from the Monrovia City Manager's Weekly Report:

City Council Meeting Preview
The April 5 Council meeting will be a mix of interesting and important topics for Council discussion. I should note right off the bat that the scheduled public hearing regarding the Monrovia Redevelopment Agency's (MRA's) proposed sale of land to the Gold Line Construction Authority (GLCA) has been cancelled. Unfortunately, GLCA and City/MRA have been unable to come to terms at this time regarding the transaction. For the time being, the City of Monrovia - and presumably GLCA - will mull their respective positions; if a deal is possible, we will re-notice at a future date. Mayor Lutz has asked that this matter be discussed briefly under her portion of the meeting.

Ugh. Effectively, the entire project is on hold until a resolution can be found, because the Authority must own 50% of the site before Metro will release funding to the Authority.

I will be interested to hear what Mayor Lutz has to say about this unfortunate delay.

Wow...let's see, what happens first

1 - Passengers riding the Expo Line to Culver City?
2 - Passengers riding the Orange Line extension to Chatsworth?
3 - Heavy construction starting on the Gold Line foothill extension?

Better yet,

Which will start construction first?

Expo phase 2
or
Gold line phase 2

[jdrcrasher]

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!

[metrocenter]

Metro's Planning and Programming Committee has a staff recommendation up for approval ready for next week's meeting, related to the Foothill Gold Line M&O facility.

The recommendation does two things. First, it states for the record that Metro agrees with the Foothill Authority that the SEIR was legally sufficient, and therefore the lawsuit against the Authority is without merit. Second, the recommendation sets the "budget envelope" for the M&O facility (now known as the "Eastern Operations and Maintenance Facility" or "Division 23"). This states that Metro will pay 75% of the site development costs (including acquisition and construction costs), up to a fixed cap, after which the Authority will pay 100% of the excess costs.

Importantly, real estate acquisition costs are estimated at $69.5 million. The City of Monrovia wants to sell its property to the Authority for $40 million, except that Councilman Adams (who won reelection last night) wants to renegotiate the deal to get the city more money. The renegotiation may be good for Monrovia, but it definitely strains the Gold Line's budget.

[metrocenter]

George Brokate, the property owner on the M&O site who is already suing the Gold Line Authority (case BS 130732), is now also suing the City of Monrovia.

The lawsuit was filed in LA County Superior Court, case number BS129985.

The lawsuit alleges that the City of Monrovia is in breach of contract by selling its property to the Authority, and thus bringing about the eminent domain of Mr. Brokate's property.

[rajacobs]

On the Expo Line, motivation to stall construction seems to stem from fear--fear of property devaluation, fear of crime coming up the rails, fear of increased traffic congestion (i.e., along Overland and some other North-South streets).

But on the Gold Line Foothill extension, motivation seems to stem from greed--gain more profit for Monrovia and funds for a constitutency (and still get the Gold Line in Monrovia!), gain more profit from the sale of "my" plot of land.

In both cases, community interests take a back-seat to aggressive selfishness. ...I guess this is a lesson in human nature? ...at least the nature of some humans. I have to add that the behavior of Councilman Adams of Monrovia shocks me--a reversal of posture from one of support to that of a roadblock.

[bobdavis]

From Habib Balian (GLFE CEO)

"Today, Metro and BNSF Railway executed the amended shared use agreement abandoning their rights to use the corridor between Santa Anita Avenue (in Arcadia) and the San Gabriel River Bridge (in Irwindale). This is a major milestone for the project, as it satifies one of the two remaining conditions of the Funding Agreement with Metro that need to be met before significant funds can be transferred to the Authority to build the project from Pasadena to Azusa."

Adding my comment: Now we just have to get the Monrovia situation resolved and start the construction. I've already volunteered to borrow a spike-puller for the ceremonial removal of the "first spike" from the old Santa Fe track.

[metrocenter]

^ Finally!!! Well, better late than never...that's great news!

Now if the City of Monrovia will just sell its property AS IT PROMISED, the funding spigot will open and construction can begin.

[rubbertoe]

In an e-mail from the authority today. The IBS has temporary fencing going up now, shoring the freeway median in May, then footing pouring in June:

I-210 Freeway Bridge Update

Over the last few months, significant progress has been made on the design for the Iconic Freeway Structure. This month, the contractor (Skanska) begins mobilizing equipment and installing temporary facilities. Shoring in the I-210 median is scheduled to begin in May, and foundation work for the structure is set to start in June.

As construction begins, there will be periodic need to close the freeway for the movement of equipment and installation of bridge falsework across the freeway. Full closures will occur many times over the course of the bridge's construction; however, they will be limited to late night hours (from Midnight to 5:00 a.m.) and traffic will be detoured along Foothill Boulevard, to keep everyone moving.

As construction begins, notices will be provided to interested stakeholders. If you would like to be added to the distribution list for construction notices for the I-210 Bridge, you can provide your cell number for text message notification, or your e-mail address for e-notices. Requests should be sent to [e-mail].

[metrocenter]

At the next Authority Board meeting April 27, the Board will approve changing the completion date to July 2015 (previously, it was "late 2014").

For more info, see the Board reports for the upcoming meeting.

[rubbertoe]

And actual guideway construction (not IBS) has been shifted to no earlier than 10-08-12
So, no actual construction for 18 more months despite the July 2010 ground breaking.

Looks like the IBS is also being delayed a bit, though still tracking a 07-04-12 completion, because of more environmental issues. And design to 90% completion is supposed to be 04-26-11, a few days from now. There is also an issue with some overhead lines.

I just hope this doesn't get caught up in the state bond fiasco, where projects that haven't yet started construction get deferred to allow those that are actually building to complete. The near term discussion here might turn from "construction progress monitoring" to "financial shell game monitoring".

RT

[bobdavis]

If it ain't one thing, it's another (line from old Blues song). I suppose this is typical of getting anything done in Southern California--the Perris Valley Line of Metrolink was supposed to be running last year; so far, nothing had been done, and 2013 is now given as the startup date. I look back at the San Diego Trolley project of 30 years ago and wonder what their secret was.

[bobdavis]

The possibility of moving the completion date to mid 2015 was discussed at last night's meeting, but no action was taken. The impasse with Monrovia regarding the maintenance facility site, and the legal procedings regarding the portion of the proposed site owned by Excalibur Property may be part of the delay. Also, the three "proposers" for the DB2 contract (main part of the project) may want more time to address various concerns. (Just from personal knowledge of the route from Azusa to Claremont, I can see a number of "challenging" locations.)
On a more positive note, the California Public Utilities Commision is moving right along with approvals of crossings (both at grade and separated) It would appear that the crossings which might run into complications are those in Azusa, where both Gold Line and BNSF tracks will be running side-by-side.

[rubbertoe]

A recent e-mail from the authority said that grading of the 210 median and South of the 210 where the IBS will land was supposed to begin in May. As of today there is no activity in either location.

RT

[bobdavis]

From the GLFE Board meeting last night: Still no resolution on acquiring land for the Maintenance Facility in Monrovia; legal matters with the owner of Excalibur Properties are still in process, and the Monrovia City Council has scheduled a vote for June 7 on their part of the site. One speaker at the public comment section of the meeting said that although Metro and BNSF have reached agreement on abandonment of the track west of Irwindale, the Surface Transportation Board has not approved it. On the positive side, grade crossing approvals from the PUC have been moving along; only 9 are still pending; the last is expected to be done by Sept. 2011. Also in Sept., we should see major activity starting on the IFS (210 Freeway Bridge). On the main part of the project, award of the Design-Build Contract (C1135) is expected to be done on July 27. The projected Substantial Completion date is July 10, 2015. Some may remember that in the early days, "Azusa by 2013" was the goal, but this is the 21st Century; it was a lot simpler in the days of Henry Huntington, when an electric railway line was the alternative to horse-and-buggy, rather than mass-produced automobiles.

[metrocenter]

Monrovia City Council Pushing Forward with $39 Million Land Sale to Gold Line

Full article here.

Per Scott Ochoa, Monrovia City Manager:

"No doubt, the consideration of this proposed agreement will ratchet up the legal maneuverings by the party already suing both the city of Monrovia and GLCA on this matter. Yet, while the plaintiff, Excalibur Holdings (the owners of the former DEC property at the southwest corner of Shamrock and Evergreen Avenues), may try to block the City Council's consideration of this transaction, the council's deliberation on this matter is more important than simply weighing the pro's and con's of any proposed agreement."

[spokker]

Apr 23, 2011 21:59:16 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

If it ain't one thing, it's another (line from old Blues song). I suppose this is typical of getting anything done in Southern California--the Perris Valley Line of Metrolink was supposed to be running last year; so far, nothing had been done, and 2013 is now given as the startup date. I look back at the San Diego Trolley project of 30 years ago and wonder what their secret was.

The recession halted or downsized some projects.

[bobdavis]

I sent an e-mail to the GLFE office asking if there was any news about the legal proceedings, but apparently there's nothing that can be made public at this time.

[metrocenter]

Monrovia Vote On Gold Line Falls Apart

Well, the the Gold Line Phase 2a project appears to have taken a turn for the worse.

At Tuesday's Monrovia City Council meeting, the council was prepared to vote to approve a deal with the Gold Line Authority to sell city property to the Authority to use for the maintenance yard. However, the attorney for the Authority, addressing the city council, told the council that no final deal had been reached between the Authority and the City of Monrovia.

This statement led to recriminations from the city council and city manager, who apparently felt like they had been punked. It's not immediately clear why the council was surprised to hear that negotiations were still ongoing.

The Authority's attorney said that the vote would basically just be approving a proposal, and had no legal teeth without the Authority's approval. Which, by the way, the Authority was not yet prepared to give.

Naturally, the city council decided not to vote on the deal at Tuesday's meeting. Without the city's property, the maintenance yard cannot be built, and the whole project is in jeopardy.

Now I'm not sure who screwed this up: the City, the Authority, or both. It looks to me like there's incompetence all around. This project is turning into a big mess, and time will tell how serious all of this is.

Full story here, and further analysis here.

[metrocenter]

BTW, the vote was delayed for two weeks, and is now scheduled for Tuesday 21 June.

[rubbertoe]

Sounds like the biggest sticking point is who will be responsible going forward paying for and litigating the lawsuit brought by that guy Brokate who will lose his property by eminent domain if the city does sell the land to the authority. Apparently Brokate believes the city doesn't have the right to sell the authority the land, hence his lawsuit.

A confusing situation, no doubt. Anything involving multiple lawsuits could bring big delays to construction start. I wonder why the authority doesn't just eminent domain all the required property, including the city property? Maybe a public entity can't eminent domain property from another public entity?

If this is truly the last thing (I believe it is) holding up actual construction of the GLFE, then you would think that there would be a lot of people trying to figure out how to get it resolved ASAP. It's things like this that make me glad I'm not a lawyer...

I don't think that you can blame the Brokate guy, who is probably just using his land as a big bargaining chip, no doubt trying to get maximum value given that it is currently the only game in town for building the maintenance facility.

You would hope that he could look beyond the balance of his bank account to see that the project is not only a huge job creator for the near to medium term, but will also be providing a tremendous boost to all the communities along the way, and all the people who would be using the line once built. But alas, greed rules the day, and it is obviously all about him...

RT

[metrocenter]

If the Authority were to use eminent domain on the city, it would result in a legal war. The last thing GLCA needs is a two-flank war, one with Brokate and the other with Monrovia. There seem to be several issues separating the Authority and the City, but it is in both party's interests to resolve them ASAP.

[jdrcrasher]

What sucks is that Brokate most likely KNOWS this is what is keeping the GLFE from breaking ground.