The decision is a victory for the City of Long Beach, which said in a statement it believes more should be done to mitigate the project’s impact on local residents.
A California court has ruled that an environmental review of a planned intermodal railyard in Los Angeles was inadequate.
BNSF Railway and the Port of Los Angeles planned to build the near-dock facility, called the Southern California Intermodal Gateway (SCIG), at a cost of $500 million within four miles of the port, near the border of Long Beach.
The City of Long Beach filed a lawsuit in 2013, asking the courts to vacate and set aside the project, saying it did not comply with the California Enviornmental Quality Act. Long Beach was supported by several environmental groups.
The Long Beach Press Telegram said Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge Barry P. Goode ruled in favor of Long Beach and the other litigants on Wednesday “after concluding the project’s environmental impact report failed to deliver a complete analysis the environmental impacts of the project. His decision voids Los Angeles officials’ approval of the project and orders a suspension of any activities related to the construction of SCIG.”
The Port of Los Angeles must now complete a new environmental impact report that “identifies ways to reduce the project’s environmental impacts,” according to Charles Parkin, the City of Long Beach’s City attorney.
“The area around the proposed project site is already over-burdened by harmful air pollution and industrial noise, which the SCIG project would exacerbate,” Parkin said in a statement.
“We are relieved that the court heard and understood our concerns about the impacts of the SCIG project, which would significantly increase air pollution in an area where residents already face too many health hazards,” he said. “With this ruling, the port and BNSF must re-examine opportunities to avoid the project’s effects on public health and quality of life in West Long Beach and neighboring communities.”
BNSF said the Port of Los Angeles’s draft environmental review found that SCIG would have had a positive impact on traffic, both locally and regionally, by eliminating millions of truck trips from the I-710 freeway, reducing congestion near the ports and along the roadway.
The review said SCIG would “shorten the distance trucks loaded with cargo need to travel before transferring the containers to rail, instead of traveling 24 miles up the I-710 freeway” and support the competitiveness and growth of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. BNSF and the Union Pacific are the two major railways that serve the twin Southern California ports, handling about 40 percent of the nation’s containerized cargo.
But Parkin said, “The new railyard would have directed thousands of diesel trucks and miles of diesel trains close to schools, daycare centers, playing fields and residences on a daily basis. By 2035, the project would have generated two million truck trips per year to and from the site, and the loading and unloading of up to 1.5 million shipping containers annually.”
He said the Port of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles voted to adopt the Environmental Impact Report for the SGIG railyard in 2013 over the strenuous objections of numerous public agencies and non-profit organizations concerned about its environmental impacts
In all, seven lawsuits were consolidated into one case that focused on the increase in pollution resulting from the project. The original petitioners included the City of Long Beach; a number of community and environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council; Long Beach Unified School District; the South Coast Air Quality Management District; and several transportation companies with business at the port. The California Attorney General’s Office later intervened in support of the petitioners as well.
At the request of the City of Los Angeles and the Port, the case was moved out of Los Angeles, and the parties agreed to Contra Costa County, which is near San Francisco, as the new venue.
The Port of Long Beach said that since the beginning, it has believed “more should be done to mitigate the effects of the project” on the residents of the west side of Long Beach. The port said in a statement yesterday it applauded the ruling by Goode.
A report in the Los Angeles Times said the decision “will likely stall an important goods movement project for the region, but could benefit residents of west Long Beach who live, work and go to school next to the project site, an area already hard hit by pollution from port operation.”
Harbor Commission President Lori Ann Guzmán said the Port of Los Angeles and the city will continue efforts to mitigate the impact of the port.
“We are disappointed with the Court ruling that delays or deprives the region of many environmental benefits and both ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach of important rail infrastructure,” the Port of Los Angeles said of the decision. “We will study the decision and discuss next steps with BNSF and the Board of Harbor Commissioners.”
Opinion and Order (3-30-2016).pdf
Judge puts plan for BNSF railyard in Los Angeles on hold
