LBReport.com Seeks, Obtains & Publishes Memo Seeking Mayor/Council Responses re City Staff-Prepared Comments re EIR on BNSF-Sought, WLB-Impacting SCIG Railyard; No Council Vote Scheduled Today (Jan. 24) On Issue With Filing Deadline Feb. 1

Public hasn't seen/heard Council responses, if any, or seen city staff's finalized filing response

(Jan. 24, 2012, 6:45 a.m.) -- LBReport.com has obtained on request from city staff a memo (dated Jan. 9) circulated to Mayor Foster and City Councilmembers, inviting the elected officials' responses to comments that city staff proposes to file in response to the Port of Los Angeles' draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the WLB-impacting BNSF-sought SCIG railyard.

After receiving (midday Jan. 23) the staff memo and draft filing indicating that it had been circulated to Councilmembers outside public view, LBReport.com made a follow-up request for any Council comments received (afternoon Jan. 23). As of dawn today (Jan. 24), neither we nor the public (pro or con) know for what LB Councilmembers told city staff (if anything) in response to city staff's draft...and more significantly, the public doesn't know what Long Beach city staff will ultimately file (in response to those Council comments, if any) in the proceeding in the City of Long Beach's name.

Circulating the document to the Mayor and Council for comments/responses outside public view effectively lets LB's elected Councilmembers avoid a publicly recorded vote on whether they support or oppose certifying the DEIR and oppose the project in its currently proposed location. The city staff document (a memo for the Mayor/Council from City Manager Pat West, drafted by development services director Amy Bodek) calls the city's comments "technical" in nature and proposes to file them in the name of City Manager Pat West.

City staff's proposed text cites in detail (11 page proposed filing) multiple grounds for City opposition to certifying the project-enabling draft EIR. However, it stops short of calling for finding another location for the proposed railyard (away from adjacent WLB residences) or in the Port of L.A. itself (enabling on-dock rail to avoid container hauling by truck through part of WLB). City staff's draft states in part:

Overall, City staff are quite disappointed with the underwhelming analytical efforts and false conclusions presented in the SCIG Draft EIR and we believe that the document falls short of meeting California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for revealing and evaluating the probable environmental impacts of this new, extremely large, intermodal rail facility, which would be sited adjacent to many sensitive receptors and thousands of residents living nearby. Further, we contend that as this evaluation is flawed and the environmental impacts of this facility on its neighbors are greatly underestimated, the mitigations proposed are inadequate as well.

To view the memo and city staff proposed response in full, click here.

The neighborhood impacting, polarizing project has filled WLB venues to overflowing (coverage, click here) and sparked roughly three hours of Council discussion (including polarized public testimony pro and con) on December 6, 2011 (photo right and coverage, click here).

The proposed railyard pits neighborhood residents (including the West Long Beach Association), environmental and public health advocates (who oppose locating the facility outside the Port of L.A. next to WLB residential areas and continuing to rely on trucks to haul containers from ships through parts of WLB) versus BNSF (which says its new facility would use less polluting technology) and union interests (who say building the railyard will bring their members construction jobs).

There is no agendized item on the matter scheduled for the Jan. 24 City Council meeting...and in the memo, city staff proposes to submit its comments without a publicly recorded Council vote directly on the matter [although the Mayor or five Councilmembers could agendize a special meeting on 24-hours notice prior to the Feb. 1 filing deadline.]

City staff's comments omit a major point sought in a Dec. 6, 2011 agenda item brought by Councilmembers Rae Gabelich and James Johnson, who not only urged the Port of L.A. not to certify the enabling EIR but also urged finding another location for the railyard. The Gabelich-Johnson agenda item proposed:

...that the City Council adopt the position that it opposes the Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) facility at its currently proposed location and that there are significant and fundamental flaws in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which understates the major impacts of the project, and consequently, the mitigation of such impacts to the affected communities, including schools and residences in Long Beach in close proximity to the project, and direct City Manager to communicate to the Los Angeles Harbor Department the City's position prior to the close of the public comment period for the DEIR...

In response to the Gabelich-Johnson motion, Councilman Steve Neal made a substitute motion (seconded by Councilman Dee Andrews) to instead seek further information from the Port of Los Angeles on five issues related to the draft EIR:

1. Further explain the EIR conclusion that zero emissions technologies are not yet feasible;
2. Provide further analysis of other potential on-dock locations for the facility that are not near residential areas or in proximity to schools;
3. Provide information about any job losses 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 DEIR baseline; And secondly, based on information from the Port of LA, direct the City Manager to communicate to the Los Angeles Harbor Department the City of Long Beach’s comments prior to the close of the public comment period for the Draft EIR on February 1, 2012, with said report provided to the City Council by January 17, 2012.

The substitute motion carried 8-0 (Garcia absent)...and city management now proposes to submit staff-prepared comments without a further Council recorded vote on the matter, based on Council comments received privately outside public view.

On December 6, 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 Neal's 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.

The large public turnout required opening an "overflow room" to accommodate Council meeting attendees.

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.

Although LB's elected Councilmembers have effectively spared themselves a recorded vote on the issue, the LB School Board's elected members DID take a voted position on the SCIG draft EIR (coverage click here).

On Jan. 17, 2012, the School Board acted on an item agendized by LBUSD's top management to oppose certification of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as currently circulated by the Port of Los Angeles for a WLB-adjacent container transfer railyard sought by BNSF ("So. Cal. Int'l Gateway"/SCIG).

The Board voted 3-0 (Stanton, Barton absent) to approve the LBUSD management-drafted resolution (full text below). Its text was approved and recommended by LBUSD Superintendent Chris Steinhauser and Facilities Development and Planning Branch Exec. Dir. Carri Matsumoto. It states in pertinent part that LBUSD's Board of Education "opposes certification of the SCIG project EIR in its current form, and requests recirculation after completion of substantial revisions to ensure it adequately evaluates the environmental impacts on District students, staff and facilities."