In an April 30 letter obtained by LBREPORT.com addressed to the Mayors of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the Executive Directors of the LB and L.A. Ports and to SCIG project applicant BNSF RR, Councilman Buscaino states that "after speaking with each of you over the last few weeks, I understand that the City of Long Beach has requested, and BNSF has agreed to, mediation." Councilman Buscaino adds that he is "optimistic that a settlement can be reached that will serve the interests of all parties."

The development comes while the EIR for the proposed railyard is under Council-approved appeal to the Los Angeles City Council (due for hearing May 8).

Long Beach's policy setting City Council hasn't taken an up-or-down vote on whether to support or oppose the BNSF-sought SCIG railyard in its currently proposed location adjacent to West Long Beach neighborhoods just across the Los Angeles border. Mayor Foster, and 7th district Councilman James Johnson have both publicly, but without a Council vote on their advocated positions to date, urged "mitigation" -- including "buffer parks" and other measures in response to the railyard's anticipated negative pollution impacts on WLB residents.

Asked by LBREPORT.com exactly when and on whose authority the City of Long Beach had "requested" mediation, Patricia Whelan, Port Liaison in the office of Councilman Buscaino, said that Councilman Buscaino has been holding ongoing conversations with Long Beach Mayor Foster and spoke in person with the Mayor roughly two weeks ago. Ms. Whelan said that to her knowledge, the discussions were verbal only and there is nothing in writing on the matter. She noted that Councilman Buscaino's letter inviting mediation is cc'd to all Long Beach [and Los Angeles] City Councilmembers.

Ms. Whelan said that Councilman Buscaino is seeking to facilitate the mediation effort and wasn't seeking to be part of it personally. [Councilman Buscaino and the full L.A. City Council are currently scheduled to hold a hearing and eventually decide appeals of the L.A. Port approved EIR on the SCIG project.]

Councilman Buscaino's letter doesn't mention inclusion of representatives of grassroots neighborhood, health and environmental groups who have argued that the project can't be "mitigated" with buffer parks and the like in its currently proposed location. The groups argue that the railyard doesn't belong adjacent to Long Beach neighborhoods...and should instead be in the Ports and utilize on-dock rail.

The Long Beach City Council has previously voted to authorize city staff to file comments [some of which were quite critical] of the draft EIR on the SCIG project. After the L.A. Harbor Commission certified the draft EIR, the LB City Council voted to authorize appealing certification of the draft EIR to the Los Angeles City Council. The Long Beach Harbor Commission (Mayor chosen, Council approved) has voted to join in Long Beach City Hall's appeal of the draft EIR.

The SCIG EIR, with appeals of multiple other parties separate from Long Beach City Hall, is scheduled to reach the Los Angeles City Council for an appeal hearing on May 8.

At the L.A. Harbor Commission hearing on the draft EIR, Mayor Foster and Councilman James Johnson advocated what they described as "mitigation," including so-called "buffer parks" and the like.

However, the West Long Beach Association and other neighborhood, health and environmental groups testified in opposition to the SCIG project in its current location on grounds and have argued that it shouldn't be mitigated but should be relocated to a location in the Ports to utilize on-dock rail. Their position, reduced to a simple phrase in several public meetings, is that railyards don't belong in neighborhoods but in Ports with on-dock rail

The Port of L.A.'s EIR on the project, as certified by the L.A. Harbor Commission, deems on-dock rail infeasible for the project (and likewise deems zero-emisison technology infeasible at the present time).

The West Long Beach Association has for months pressed for a public Long Beach City Council vote to oppose the SCIG project at its current WLB-adjacent location. The issue is a political hot potato and to date no Councilmember, nor the Mayor nor city staff has agendized the item for an up or down publicly recorded vote.

Supporters of the SCIG project include organized labor and multiple local and regional business organizations (including the LB Area Chamber of Commerce). Supporters say the project will ensure continued Port competitiveness, bring construction jobs, facilitate commerce. BNSF and other proponents note that trucks (which will convey containers from the docks to the railyard a few miles away) will take routes away from neighborhoods and the new railyard will utilize cleaner technology that will produce less pollution than BNSF's current container transfer railyard.

The draft EIR acknowledges that the SCIG railyard will results in increased pollution for nearby residents -- who are already heavily impacted by Port related pollution -- but says the project will reduce net pollution regionally by encouraging greater use of the Alameda Corridor rail lines.

In December 2011, a Long Beach City Council majority rebuffed an item agendized by then-Councilwoman Rae Gabelich (exited in mid-2012 under term limits) and Councilman James Johnson to oppose the SCIG project in its current WLB-adjacent location. The Gabelich-Johnson proposal was blocked by a substitute motion by Councilman Steven Neal which sought additional information from the Port of Los Angeles on the project.

Developing with further to follow on LBREPORT.com .