Council To Hold Aug 5 Closed Session On Its EIR Litigation Re BNSF-Sought WLB-Impacting SCIG Railyard
(July 28, 2014) -- A City Council session, closed to the press and public is agendized for August 5 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss City litigation now consolidated other cases that involve a BNSF-proposed railyard ("Southern CA Int'l Gateway") that the railroad wants to build/operate on City (Port) of Los Angeles land adjoining, and thus impacting, West Long Beach neighborhoods and schools.
Public meetings on the project spanning several years routinely produce polarized public testimony on the proposed 24/7 railyard: neighborhood, health and environmental groups opposed; trade unions, cargo interests and BNSF in support. Despite the project's Long Beach impacts, the City Council has avoided taking a categorical up-or-down vote on whether to support or oppose BNSF's proposed railyard.
Instead, the City Council authorized city management to object to the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR), alleging it fails to adequately disclose the railyard's multiple impacts and address them with sufficient "mitigation" (under the CA Environmental Quality Act/CEQA.) Now-former Mayor Foster, and now-former 7th dist. Councilman James Johnson, both urged L.A.'s Harbor Commission to rework the EIR to include additonal "mitigation"; it declined to do so; the L.A. City Council upheld the L.A. Harbor Comm'n action; and Long Beach City Council authorized legal action to invalidate the EIR. Other groups, including NRDC, have independently sued challenging the EIR and other aspects of the proposed project.
[Scroll down for further]
Grassroots Long Beach groups including the West Long Beach Association and the Wrigley Area Neighborhood Alliance, as well as some regional community and health groups, contend the proposed railyard can't be mitigated in its current proposed location and needs to be put in the Port(s), not next to neighborhoods.
The Ports of L.A. and Long Beach have separately indicated that they believe putting the railyard in the Port(s) is infeasible (no adequate available land.) BNSF says its proposed railyard will be the cleanest possible with current technology and will be more efficient than its current railyard.
At one point, Mayor Bob Foster met with BNSF reps, not disclosing publicly what he was willing to accept as a compromise, but his meetings ended up moot when the RR rejected whatever it was that Foster may have offered.
It's a matter of speculation at this point whether the newly elected City Council -- whose majority vote behind closed doors would decide whether to pursue or settle the litigation -- might agree settle the City's EIR challenge in exchange for BNSF providing some type of "mitigation." Under that scenario, city officials could claim a "victory" for producing some improvements and "mitigation" although this might anger some Long Beach opponents and effectively leave other plaintiffs in the litigation to deal with BNSF on their own.
During his Mayoral campaign, now-Mayor Robert Garcia declined to oppose the BNSF-sought railyard outright, calling it a good idea while backing City Hall's position that the project requires additional "mitigation." Despite the Long Beach vs. Los Angeles lawsuit, Garcia touted the endorsements of both Los Angeles Mayor Robert Garcetti and L.A. City Councilman Joe Buscaino, the latter representing L.A.'s harbor area and an enthusiastic supporter of the BNSF sought railyard. At a campaign event and on June election night, Garcia appeared alongside Garcetti and said the two cities would now "work together" [not mentioning the railyard.]
During the recently concluded city campaign cycle, 7th district Council candidate (now Councilman) Roberto Uranga accepted a BNSF contribution, brushed back criticism by saying the sum showed that he has broad support, and indicated he favors City negotiations to resolve railyard issues (i.e. didn't rule out the WLB-impacting location for the railyard.)
Below is the Aug. 5, 4 p.m. Council item as agendized. Public comment is allowed prior to Councilmembers going behind closed doors:
Existing Litigation - closed session conference with legal counsel
relating to existing litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision
(d) of Section 54956.9 of the California Government Code.
City of Long Beach vs. City of Los Angeles, et al formerly LASC Case No. BS143356, now consolidated under
Fast Lane Transportation, Inc., et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.; BNSF Railway Company, et al., Real Party In Interest, Contra Costa County Case No. CIV MSN14-300.
14-0568
PUBLIC COMMENT: Opportunity given to the public to address the City Council. (Currently limited to three minutes unless extended by the City Council.
