.

Metro Board Hearing Set; Beverly Hills Hires Attorney

The Gilchrist & Rutter law firm will represent Beverly Hills at a May 17 Metro board hearing as the city attempts to stop the Westside Subway Extension from going under BHHS.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board of Directors has set the public hearing requested by Beverly Hills regarding the Westside Subway Extension for 1:30 p.m. May 17.

Beverly Hills has hired attorney Robert McMurry of Gilchrist & Rutter to represent the city in its objection to Metro's plan to tunnel under Beverly Hills High School as part of the subway extension.

"The purpose of this hearing is to introduce evidence, including oral testimony, regarding the reasonableness of the Metro proposals," according to a Beverly Hills press release.

Metro's proposed plan would extend its Purple Line to stops in Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood and the Veterans Administration Medical Center west of the 405 Freeway. The subway line currently starts at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles and ends at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue.

The Metro board on April 26 certified the environmental documents for the extension and approved construction plans for the line up to La Cienega Boulevard. The board  on the route west of La Cienega until after the . 

The Beverly Hills City Council, Beverly Hills Unified School District and many residents are to dig a tunnel for the subway under BHHS to reach a station at Constellation Boulevard/Avenue of the Stars in Century City, citing  related to the  below the school. 

The public hearing will be held at the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Boardroom at One Gateway Plaza in downtown Los Angeles.

JT May 07, 2012 at 08:52 PM
John; thanks for the link, sounds interesting. I guess I can imagine that the various experts have to tread carefully as they deal with political agendas. I do believe there can be much good information developed in this process; which will eventially help city planners with respect to public safety. Too bad things have to get so polarized. And it doesn't help matters that some pretty talented audio/video folks produced the 'explosive' video clip regarding BHHS. Informed folks might chuckle at the spoof, but some folks could take it seriously. I wonder if this effort could backfire if folks recognize that methane, faulting, and seismic shaking hazards exist at BHHS, regardless of where a tunnel may go? And we wind up with folks so freightened that they move away from BH? Joe: With respect to seismic shaking, and liquefaction, etc... this is normal stuff to deal with all over California. It doesn't matter where the station is, the designers can either find good soil conditions or improve conditions so the station won't be damaged when subjected to strong shaking. Of course, mitigating for fault rupture requires a different approach.
Joe Parker May 07, 2012 at 10:13 PM
@JT - The question that keeps running through my mind is how real is a rupture on Santa Monica Blvd. Dolan was unable to conclusively say that the SM fault fell within Alquist-Priolo criteria of active (within 11,000 years) from his trenching at the Veteran's Hospital site. How can he be sure it's active further east and this time without trenching?
JT May 11, 2012 at 04:14 AM
Adequate trenching sites are needed to prove it, one way or another. How many property owners are standing in line to offer acces, given the prospect of finding an active fault on their property. Not many I would guess. That's why the definition of AP zones isn't as complete as it could be.
JT May 11, 2012 at 04:25 AM
BHHS has taken a first step in a series of investigations that will be needed to adequately identify a variety of constraints that will need to be mitigated during design of the planned new facilities. Faulting is just one issue. Another is mitigation of gas migration. The good news is that the technology exists to protect the school buildings, just like many other structures in the area have done. The bad news is that it will be more costly than usual, but there isn't much choice.
joninla May 11, 2012 at 08:47 AM
The faux-concern for the safety of the 'BBHS CHILDREN' is as close to the old affage ... DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER. The opposition to the tunnelling began years ago based on no information or knowledge but fester into a group of irrational activists who were so convinced years ago that the purely made up possible catastrophic results were initially just the imaginatios from a period of time when the plan was first proposed to the point in time when the first piece of actual information was documented and released. Since then the zelots with no life and suffering from paranoia have been seeking a disaster sceenario to fit their objection to the tunnel. For the idiots on the school board who are totally unaware they lack both the technical knowledge and skills as well as all objectivity as they plan to cause very dangerous to the school, students and the city. Worried about methane seeping up??? Well why on earth would you disturb let aloe dig up and expose methane that has remained safely sequestered benieth the same earth the BHUSD (non geo scientists) is plannning to dig up on their own. BHHS IS A MUCH GREATER RISK TO THE OLD SCHOOL STRUCTURE, THE STUDENTS SAFETY AND THE POTENTIAL REAL CONCERN AMATeur SCIENTISTS DIGGING UP A METHANE FIELD COULD CAUSE THE CATASTROPHIC EXPLOSION THEY HAVE FEAR MONGERED.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »