Overflow Crowd (Pro & Con) For EIR Hearing re BNSF Proposed WLB-Adjacent SCIG Railyard; Union Members & Reps Cite Jobs, Wear T-Shirts & Buttons; Residents Cite Health, Bring Signs & Breathing Masks For Their Kids

The crowd (we roughly estimate several hundred) was standing room only inside and overflowed outside.

Local trade union members and their leadership showed up in force, many wearing orange T-shirts and buttons, citing jobs in supporting the proposed project.

Residents of impacted areas likewise turned out in numbers, citing health impacts, carrying opposition signs and some bringing their children with breathing in testifying against the project. [The actual subject matter for the hearing was adequacy of the Port of LA's draft Environmental Impact Report.]

LBReport.com's coverage of the meeting includes VIDEO, click here or on arrow below.

West Long Beach resident groups have long opposed the proposed SCIG railyard on grounds it doesn't utilize "on-dock" rail (to transfer containers from ships directly onto trains) and instead applies the current practice of loading containers onto trucks, hauling them roughly four miles from the docks through parts of WLB and transferring them onto trains.

BNSF says the new facility, which it proposes to build on Port of Los Angeles-owned property a few miles from the Port of L.A. on the WLB border, will use more efficient, cleaner technologies and produce 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.

The Port of LA's draft EIR calls "zero-emissions" technology infeasible at present, a position colliding with Long Beach 7th dist. Councilman James Johnson, who has previously urged that the EIR for the SCIG project (and another adjancent WLB railyard, the UP=operated ICFT) analyze the feasibilility of using zero-emission technologies. Councilman Johnson's draft EIR testimony at the EIR hearing is below, followed by video of additional testimony pro and con..

Long Beach 7th dist. Councilman James Johnson was among the first invited to speak. LBReport.com transcribed his testimony, below. [It was recorded from across the jam-packed room; three asterisks indicate where we couldn't decipher a word or two and are seeking clarification.]

Councilman Johnson: ...This project of course essentially proposes to bring regional benefits to southern California at the expense of local communities. We can and must do better than this.

As with many construction projects, the SCIG project would provide jobs and economic activity to the region which are certainly needed. BNSF has signed a Project Labor Agreement, to ensure that any jobs created by this project are quality jobs that benefit area residents, and I applaud them for that.

However, these jobs would come at the expense of the neighborhoods directly next door to the * project just over the city line in Long Beach. Recently, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have committed themselves to green growth, growth in the goods movement industry that brings economic benefits to the region, while improving the environment of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, this project is not an example of such green growth as its benefits to the region come at the expense of those who live next to it. Under this proposal, there will be approximately 5,500 additional truck trips every day, driving within a couple of hundred feet of schools, parks and homes. These trucks would add to the health crisis that already exists today.

Air quality in communities known to many as the dirty diesel death zone is already some of the worst in the nation. Residents in the area suffer abnormally high rates of asthma, heart disease, cancer and other illness directly as a result of the goods movement industry.

To these residents, the project says: get ready for another 5,500 trucks a day, burning the same fossil fuels that have created the health care crisis in the first place. West Long Beach residents simply cannot allow their children, their seniors their families to get sicker *.

Another near dock rail facility may be needed, but why here? Why within a couple of hudred feet of several schools and playgrounds? Why next to Gold Star Manor, America's only housing facility dedicated to providing housing for those relatives of those who've fallen? Why next to the Villages at Cabrillo, a center dedicated to fighting homelessness for veterans? Why build it next to residential neighborhoods? Is that good land use?

This City Council and the Harbor Commission have called for a new model of goods movement, for a new goods market without polluting communities, a system of goods movement that would result in zero emissions. The 710 Project Committee has established that this is feasible. However, this EIR did not even study zero emissions goods movement. Instead the project assumed to use trucks that pollute the neighborhoods with every trip. This approach, more of the same, is unacceptable.

This technology is here and the time has come to move goods without polluting our neighborhoods. We do not need to sacrifice some neighborhoods for the benefits of the region. We can grow the Port, bring good jobs and have the benefits economically without sacrificing West Long Beach and surrounding neighborhoods.

However this proposal is not that green growth that we're looking for, but growth that comes at the expense of our residents. Let's come to gether and figure out a way to grow our Port without sacrificing our residents. The future of our Ports, and the health of our residents *.

Councilman Johnson remained for the entire meeting (lasted roughly three hours). Also present for the duration was 8th dist. Councilwoman Rae Gabelich (observing and taking notes) .

We saw no other LB elected officials present. To date, the Long Beach City Council hasn't taken a position on the SCIG project itself.

At one point, a speaker opposed to the facility asked other opponents to exit the room and a number of people walked out and rallied outside, chanting "In the port, not in our neighborhoods."

A second public hearing is scheduled on Nov. 16 at the Wilmington Senior Center, 1371 Eubank St. in Wilmington (Los Angeles). The public comment period (includes written comments) closes on December 22, 2011.