In its ruling, the Court concluded that the EIR underestimated the proposed railyard's impacts on air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, inducement of further growth and failed to take into account SCIG's impact on existing BNSF operations at its Hobart railyard (near downtown L.A.) and SCIG's cumulative impacts when combined with UP RR's nearby LB-L.A. ICTF yard. p>BNSF's proposed railyard would use trucks to haul cargo from docks to the SCIG railyard a few miles away, operating 24/7 and bordering West Long Beach neighborhoods including homes and schools.

Source: EIR illustration

[Scroll down for further below.]

The parties that successfully challenged the EIR as insufficient included the City of Long Beach, Long Beach Unified School District, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Natural Resources Defense Council and East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. The CA Attorney General's office also intervened in supporting the challengers.

Advertisement

Advertisement

BNSF's April 8 release stated:

[BNSF release text] While this ruling is disappointing for BNSF and the Port of Los Angeles, it is a major loss for both ports, the local community and the region. The ports miss the opportunity to have a green, efficient facility that serves their customers and bolsters their competitiveness, while the community and broader region won't benefit from the traffic reductions, air quality improvements and good jobs SCIG would have brought. It's notable that this ruling came just before California's legislature voted to enact the highest minimum wage in the country, since SCIG would provide family-wage jobs with a solid career path.

"With this decision, California sends a clear signal to companies interested in investing in the state that their business isn't welcome, regardless of how green it will be or how it will support the regional and state economy," said Bobb. "It sets a chilling precedent for not only the rail industry, but the entire goods movement sector, which employs more than a million Californians."

The eight-year long environmental review was exhaustive, with a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Recirculated Draft EIR and Final EIR totaling more than 5,000 pages and an administrative record of more than 200,000 pages. As the court acknowledged in its ruling, "the EIR is an impressive piece of work. It is clear that a great deal of careful thought has been given to the environmental impacts of the project."

BNSF was ready to invest $500 million in the regional economy with this facility, going well beyond legal requirements, including $100 million in green technologies such as electric cranes, ultra-low emission locomotives and solar energy. The company also made significant changes to the project's design and operations in direct response to community feedback. In addition, BNSF committed to allow only clean trucks on designated industrial routes with GPS tracking, support for zero or near-zero emissions technologies, a soundwall, intensive landscaping, a local jobs training program and priority hiring for new jobs to qualified local job applicants...

Advertisement

Advertisement

The grassroots West Long Beach Association and a number of LB community advocates opposed the SCIG railyard outright, saying its impacts can't be mitigated and arguing that it shouldn't be built several miles from the docks requiring trucks to haul containers from ships to the railyard for transfer to trains. They supported on-dock rail, which would transfer the containers from ships to trains at dockside. ("Railyards belong in the Port, not in neighborhoods," they argued.)

BNSF, plus harbor and maritime interests argued that BNSF's SCIG would use the least polluting technology, the "greenest" equipment currently available; would allow only cargo carried on "clean" trucks that will be routed away from neighborhoods and would mean jobs for residents and bring cleaner air regionally by using rail to move cargo instead of freeway-congesting trucks. The Port of Los Angeles has said putting the railyard in the Port is infeasible citing a lack of currently available land in the Port. Politically active organized labor interests supported the project, arguing it would mean jobs.

Long Beach area public meetings on the SCIG produced large crowds and polarized positions. A November 10, 2011 public hearing on the draft EIR overflowed Silverado Park's community room in one of the largest turnouts in WLB history for a government-conducted meeting of its type,

Nov. 10, 2011 hearing on draft EIR

LBREPORT.com reported at the time: "Local trade union members and their leadership showed up in force, many wearing orange T-shirts and buttons, citing jobs in supporting the proposed project. Residents of impacted areas likewise turned out in numbers, citing health impacts, carrying opposition signs and some bringing their children with breathing in testifying against the project.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Long Beach City Council never took an up-or-down vote on whether to oppose the project outright. Instead, the Council agreed to join in challenges to the SCIG EIR as inadequate and sought "mitigation" for the proposed railyard's impacts. Among the items suggested as "mitigation" were landscaping (described as "buffers"); a community grant program to pay for double-paned windows and home air filtration.)

The court's ruling effectively requires BNSF and the Port/City of Los Angeles to rework the EIR to address issues that the court said were inadequately addressed. Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia and Councilman Roberto Uranga both praised the court decision when it was issued but left publicly vague exactly what measures they might agree to accept in a future EIR as sufficient "mitigation"; what other parties might accept or reject is likewise speculative.