Amid Overflow Turnout Pro & Con, Council Stops Short of Opposing BNSF-Sought "So. Cal. Int'l Gateway" Railyard, Approves Substitute Motion First Seeking Further Information from Port of L.A.

With the draft EIR comment period still open, the Council action allows time for City of Long Beach to receive and consider the Port of L.A.'s responses and then submit comments in the EIR process, and ultimately see the Port of L.A.'s formal EIR responses before the City of Long Beach takes a formal position on the project.

The Council vote was 8-0 (Garcia absent for entire Council meeting) and came after hearing lengthy public testimony, pro and con on the original Gabelich/Johnson motion.

Among those testifying in support of the Gabelich/Johnson motion (against the BNSF-sought railyard) were WLB Ass'n VP John Cross, Wrigley area advocate Joan Greenwood, Dr. Elisa Nicholas, MD (LB Alliance for Children w/ Asthma) and WLB Ass'n Pres. John Taelefi.

Among those testifying in opposition to the Gabelich/Johnson motion (and in support of the BNSF-sought railyard) were trade union and organized labor reps (citing jobs), various cargo interest advocacy groups, LB Area Chamber of Commerce board chair Joanne Davis...and former state Senator/Assemblywoman Betty Karnette.

A climactic moment came when a BNSF government affairs representative came to the podium as the final public speaker, contending the project is an example of green growth and will create jobs...and Council colloquy and comments ensued, followed by a substitute motion .

Mayor Foster framed the issue as whether BNSF and the Port of L.A. had done enough to ensure relocating now existing companies (that would be displaced by construction the new project) and said "from what he'd seen so far" that issue hadn't received the attention it deserves.

Councilman Neal said he'd heard conflicting information on health impacts and jobs concerns and said before he takes a position for or against the project, he'd "like to engage the Port of Los Angeles to better understand this EIR with certainty as it relates to jobs, emissions, job loss, potential on-dock locations" and thus recommends that the City Council request additional information from the Port of Los Angeles concerning five issues (below): With the draft EIR comment period still open (recently extended) -- meaning the City has time to submit questions and receive formal EIR responses from the Port of L.A. before LB City Hall takes a position on the project -- Councilman Neal made a substitute motion to that the Port of Los Angeles:

• 1. Further explain the EIR conclusion that zero-emission technologies are not yet feasible.

• 2. Provide further analysis of other potential on-dock locations for the facility.

• 3. Provide information about any job loss from relocated tenants or property owners

• 4. Further explain and provide data on light and noise impact analysis

• 5. Explain the assumptions and selection of the draft EIR baseline [of 2005]

• AND based on the information provided by the Port of L.A., direct the City Manager to communicate to the L.A. Harbor Dept., the City of Long Beach's comments by the close of the public comment period

Councilwoman Gabelich likened the issue to the Port of LB's initial draft EIR on Pier J expansion -- which amid objections was withdrawn and redone, led to PoLB's "Green Port" policy and had produced a better project. She questioned the draft EIR's use of 2005 baseline numbers for analyzing project impacts [noting that polluting emissions have been reduced since 2005] and publicly urged BNSF to "do the right thing and be a good corporate neighbor"...and said her first priority was "finding another location for the project."

Councilman Johnson suggested a friendly amendment, accepted by Councilman Neal, that other potential sites for the facility be in industrial areas [not simply in an industrial area that's adjacent to homes and near schools as presently proposed].

The large public turnout required opening an "overflow room" to accommodate Council meeting attendees. However Mayor Foster declined to take up the BNSF item early...and instead took up other items out of order that included Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal's response to OccupyLongBeach (urged restoration of a 1930's era banking law; item sent to Council's fed'l leg. committee), city policies urging healthier foods in convenience stores and requiring it in city vending machines, and a new ordinance regulating billboards (including electronic billboards).

By the time those items (and others) were dispensed with, it was 8:36 p.m...and Mayor Foster gave Councilwoman Gabelich the floor to present the item. About two minutes into her presentation, Councilwoman Gabelich noted that some Councilmembers weren't listening to her presentation.

With voices audible off mike [difficult to discern], Councilwoman Gabelich said.

"Isn't this amazing, that this isn't important enough. I apologize to all of you for the people that are not sitting behind the rail."

About ten seconds later, webcast video switched to capture the full Council Chamber after some men walked back to the seats (from screen right to screen left).

The Mayor did not respond to Councilwoman Gabelich or bring the Council to order; the voices off mike continued periodically as Councilwoman Gabelich continued her presentation.

LBReport.com will be adding on-demand audio of Councilwoman Gabelich's presentatation here.

The Mayor then gave Councilman Johnson the floor. His presentation paralleled his Nov. 10 testimony in WLB on the draft EIR, in which he criticized the draft EIR's failure to analyze "zero emissions" technology (a measure he has repeatedly supported and the draft EIR calls infeasible at present). We'll be adding Councilman Johnson's presentation here.

We'll also be adding audio of other salient testimony, including former state Senator/Assemblywoman Betty Karnette's podium comments here.

In addition, we plan to add audio of the testimony of BNSF's representative, ensuing Council/Mayor colloquy and the adopted substitute motion.

West Long Beach resident groups have long opposed the proposed SCIG railyard [and a separate Union Pacific proposed ICTF railyard expansion] on grounds that neither of them utilize "on-dock" rail. As proposed, the two proposed projects would follow the current practice of loading containers from ships onto trucks, hauling the containers by trucks through parts of WLB and transferring them onto trains.

BNSF says its new facility will require use of cleaner trucks and apply cleaner railyard technologies that will result in less pollution than its current railyard. (Resdident groups dispute this, citing projected future increases in cargo volumes). BNSF also says trucks hauling the containers from ships to their railyard will use routes that avoid WLB residential areas.