The hearing, held at 8:30 a.m. on a Thursday morning in a cruise terminal annex at the Port of Los Angeles, drew polarized testimony: Chambers of Commerce and business groups, organized labor (leadership and local rank and file) and cargo interests spoke in support...while environmental, health, air quality (SCAQMD) and grassroots neighborhood groups spoke in opposition.

Source: Draft EIR map

Officials were allowed to speak first...and Mayor Bob Foster opened with a statement that landed punches within the first few seconds and went on from there. For nearly nine minutes, Mayor Foster itemized impacts on Long Beach of the proposed facility...and wrapped up with a reference to a prominent BNSF shareholder.

[Mayor Foster]...It was quite succinctly described to me the other day in a meeting with the project applicant, as to where we stand. Across the table we talked about what we believe some of the impacts, environmental and otherwise, were of this project and it became very clear that the applicant basically chose not to deal with a lot of the negative environmental issues in their own environmental assessment. Fair enough. I know where they stand.

What they really said, if you listen to and understand California law and the politics around the Environmental Report process is 'we're going to wait until you sue us before we pay any attention to you' and that to me is counter-productive and foolish from a lot of perspectives.

Now they said this despite the fact that Long Beach residents bear nearly all the burdens of this project. And put quite frankly, this body has done precious little thus far to mitigate the impacts that we see [applause]. I hope that changes...

...Let's look at what this project is. At a basic level, this project proposes to take what is essentially a flat piece of land and activate it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with 8,200 or more truck trips every day, carrying as you just heard probably over 2 million containers. At a distance, in some cases, as close as 20 feet from homes, in one section and in the immediate vicinity of four schools

And that doesn't even consider the thousands and the pollution that's going to occur from the thousands of trains that are going to be loaded every year.

It kills off about 1,500 full time jobs, permanent jobs. It replaces them, at best, with as many as 450 jobs, new jobs, down the road.

So look at my city: you know we're willing to be good regional partners. We're willing to try to absorb some impacts in return for regional benefit. This is beyond the pale. We wouldn't be good partners. We'd be fools.

So look at the issue my city faces. My city's down 1,000 long term jobs. It's up 8,200 truck trips a day. And breathing all the attendant particulate matter from the thousands of vehicles while we reverse five years of immense environmental progress and lose the commitment from our Port stakeholders to be good neighbors. It's not a good trade-off for us...

...It is very hard intellectually for me to accept that you value the life of a kid on this side of the city border more than you do a kid in my city. [cheers, applause] That's an untenable proposition for me and I have to believe it's an untenable proposition for you.

You know I've said this many times: when we look at the impacts, particularly of existing projects, all of the costs are in the system. So let's just for a moment look under the present circumstances the tragedy of this project being built. All of the costs are in the system once this project is built, but the mitigation costs are now not borne by the applicant. They're borne by families and communities, so what happens is all of the costs that could have been avoided in mitigation measures are now borne, how? Sick kids, unemployed parents and increased cancer cases.

Those costs have now shifted from this applicant to families. And to me, that's unacceptable. There are mitigation measures that will work here, but quite frankly they haven't been used...

You all are leaders. You're appointed as leaders...And leaders never ask others to undertake something they wouldn't do themselves. So let me ask you, if you lived in the neighborhood near this yard, would you accept this project without mitigation that would offset the impacts I just mentioned? I believe that answer is no. [cheers, applause]

Maybe to put a finer point on it so that perhaps the applicant will fully understand: if Warren Buffett lived 20 feet from the SCIG yard, would the applicant wait until litigation was completed before it protected his property and his family? I don't believe so.

Other than wealth, what is the difference between Warren Buffett and my residents? [Loud cheers, extended applause]...

The Mayor was followed by 7th dist. Councilman James Johnson (salient portions below)

[Councilman Johnson]...Is it green growth to add air pollution to one of the most polluted neighborhoods in America? Is it just to place this project next to working class communities of color who already disproportionately bear the burden of goods movement? Is it fair to ask that Long Beach veterans, elementary school children and residents suffer from the noise, lights and air pollution from this project without any meaningful mitigation?

The answer simply is "no." The City of Long Beach has been crystal clear about what needs to change about this project. We need real, enforceable progress told zero emissions truck movement, help for the businesses that will be displaced by this project and a buffer park and real community mitigation for those whose lives will be directly impacted by this project.

I will focus on that third missing piece -- the lack of meaningful mitigation from this project -- as its absence is so glaring.

...There is one reason, one simple reason for the disparity between TRAPAC affected L.A. resident and SCIG affects Long Beach residents. The Port of L.A.has placed this project on the border with Long Beach so the negative effects all spill over in our community and now refuses to mitigate those effects on our community. This project will move thousands of fossil fuel burning trucks every day next to a facility for homeless veterans, two elementary schools, a city park and high school.

This project will have trains crashing, joining, just feet behind people's homes which will become virtually uninhabitable without even discussing sound proofing those homes. This project will create more diesel pollution for those who already suffer greatly and create tremendous visual blight in West Long Beach. Nonetheless, this project does nothing to provide meaningful mitigation for those residents.

This is a textbook example of environmental injustice in which a polluting project has been placed next to Long Beach residents L.A. believes it can ignore and working class and minority communities were thought too powerless to fight back.

I support truly green grown in which we improve neighborhoods while growing our economy, not sacrificing them. You L.A. Harbor Commissioners are public officials who must determine what is in the public interest. You must decide what is the right project, not the cheapest project.

I ask that you deny this project tonight, today, and work in good faith for the project with the buffer park and with mitigation to protect those residents who are profoundly impacted. Thank you.

To hear the full testimony of Mayor Foster, Councilman Johnson (and an ensuing colloquy between an LA Harbor Commissioner and Councilman Johnson (all carried LIVE on LBREPORT.com), click here (MP3 audio).

Although city staff had submitted technical comments critical of the EIR, the Long Beach City Council never took an up or down vote on whether to support or oppose the proposed railyard. (An agenda item that would have opposed to the project, brought by Councilwoman Gabelich and joined by Councilman Johnson, was sidetracked by a substitute motion that simply requested information from the Port of Los Angeles (while city staff filed technical comments in response to the draft EIR).

LB School Board President Dr. Felton Williams testified in opposition to certifying the EIR (an action approved by voted action of the School Board) on grounds it fails to adequately assess the SCIG's impacts on nearby schools. John Cross of the West Long Beach Association likewise spoke in opposition. And three representatives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District spoke in opposition.

The LB Area Chamber of Commerce and a number of business and industry groups testified in support. The LA and OC Building and Construction Trades Council testifying in support along with multiple reps from organized labor (leadership and rank and file locals). The Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n, Future Ports and the So. Cal Ass'n of Gov'ts (SCAG) all spoke in support.

A speaker in opposition noted that the DMV called his tiny car a "gross polluter" in contrast to the pollutants that will be emitted by the railyard...and said public has a right to cleaner air.

Other salient testimony came from Andrea Hricko, Prof of Preventive Medicine at the Keck School of Medicine @ USC & Director, Community Outreach and Education. Prof. Hricko noted that despite multiple studies on the impacts of goods movement on children, these data weren't included in the EIR.

Prof. Hricko also said that a new industry trend of "transloading" now occurs between the Ports and the Commerce rail yards and involves trucks traveling on the 710 to get to the railyards...and the revised EIR included an appendix that cited an Aug. 2012 report on the subject...but Port staff told her there was no such report. Prof. Hricko said she later learned -- after submitting her comments without seeing the Aug. 2012 report -- that there was a 60 page report...and it urges the Ports to allow the BNSF SCIG to take transloaded 53 ft containers. She said the report urges the Ports to encourage building more transload centers between the 110 freeway and the 710 freeway...and the public didn't have access to this information during the revised EIR comment period.

Prof. Hricko was followed [speakers were called in an order chosen by the chair] by a Long Beach woman named Ynez [last name spelling uncertain] who spoke through tears, then rage. LBREPORT.com believes her testimony deserves to be heard beyond transcription. To hear the testimony of Prof. Hricko and followed by Ynez, click here.

Jesse Marquez of Coalition for a Safe Environment brought death certificates of area residents who succumbed to pulmonary illnesses.

A serial exchange occurred after some speakers (including LB community advocate Gary Shelton) ended their remarks with the phrase "we just want to breathe." That phrase drew a response from a subsequent speaker who said he and others want to breathe but they also want to eat [to have jobs]. That prompted a speaker to say that while one can go without eating for a day, one can't go without breathing for even a few minutes.

NRDC attorney David Pettit criticized verbiage in a "project condition" [not required by CEQA but possible by the Harbor Commission to implement] that he said left a "locomotive size loophole" to avoid implementing zero emission equipment. After public testimony concluded, Port staff agreed to modify the verbiage to now require that BNSF shall implement new zero-emission technologies after the Harbor Commissions of both the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach determine it is technically, operationally and commercially feasible. The L.A. Harbor Commission also amended an EIR mitigation measure to require BNSF to implement other emission reduction technology after it becomes technically, operationally and commercially feasible.

For on-demand access to extended portions of public testimony, followed by the response from Port staff and Harbor Commission members and the Commission's voted action, click the icons below (which launch audio on-demand).

Video streaming by Ustream

Video streaming by Ustream

Item below is after Harbor Commission returns from recess. Port staff responses, Harbor Commission colloquy and voted action below:

Video streaming by Ustream

Today's L.A. Harbor Comm'n action can be appealed to the Los Angeles City Council.

The SCIG railyard is proposed to be located several miles inland from docks on land owned by the Port of L.A. basically adjacent to West Long Beach homes and schools. Trucks would haul containers from ships to the railyard. Opponents say railyards belong in the Port, not next to neighborhoods, and urge on-dock rail. West Long Beach Association President John Cross said bluntly that residents aren't opposed to the railyard, but are opposed to putting it outside the Port.

BNSF says its SCIG will be cleaner, greener and more efficient with fewer air emissions than its current facility. It also says the railyard would reduce regional truck trips by putting containers onto trains using the Alameda Corridor, avoiding truck trips to haul them to a rail yard in Los Angeles.

The Port of Los Angeles-proferred EIR acknowledges the facility would create negative air and other environmental impacts on nearby already hard hit by cargo-related operations.

• To view the agendized EIR "Draft Findings" (dated Feb. 2013) click here.

• To view an agendized report dated Feb. 28 to L.A.'s Board of Harbor Commissioners from PoLA Executive Director Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D, click here.

• To view proposed finalized portions of the EIR, click here.

• To view the recirculated draft EIR, click here.

Further to follow on LBREPORT.com

Recent related LBREPORT.com coverage: