from p. 2
Harbor Commission Approves Railyard 30-acre park to protect residents and set aside $12 million in community mitigation funds,” Johnson said. “Here, the proposal is simple: zero acres and zero dollars for a buffer park and zero dollars in community mitigation funds.” So, it was no surprise that the following March 12 , the Long Beach City Council voted to appeal the decision to the Los Angeles City Council, the elected body that hears appeals of decisions made by the appointed POLA Board. It should be noted, this was the exact same process that it took to get the community benefits associated with the TraPac expansion. The threat
of a lawsuit also played a role with TraPac. That threat remains in play here as well, as was reflected in the language of Long Beach’s letter of appeal, which states, “The grounds for this appeal are that the Board of Harbor Commissioners did not proceed in the manner required by law, abused its discretion, and violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by failing to comply with CEQA’s requirements. More specifically, the board certified an EIR (environmental impact report) insufficient in scope and not based on substantial evidence.” Tom Modica, Long Beach director of government affairs and strategic initiatives, confirmed that “the appeals process does preserve the city’s legal rights to take other actions.” But that’s not the city’s immediate focus, he stressed. Indeed, the letter itself stated, “The City of Long Beach remains committed to a cooperative resolution,” and there was even a cordial exchange between Foster and Harbor Commission Vice
Yellow area shows the location of the proposed railyard
President David Arian following Foster’s testimony. “I know you’re committed to trying to solve these problems and I state that publicly, I want to thank you for doing that,” Foster said to Arian.
“Because of its location, this project is unlike recent port projects. SCIG would substantially increase truck and train activities generally upwind of a large community. With pollution, the closer one is to the source, the worse the impact. ... The impacted area includes homes, schools, elder care, homeless facilities and daycare.”
22
DESIGNS
March 22 - April 4, 2013
Serving the Seven Cities of the Harbor Area
—Peter Greenwald, AQMD
The Natural Resources Defense Council also notified the Los Angeles City Council of its intention to appeal as well. “We filed a notice of appeal and we’re going to do everything we can to get this project moved on-dock,” said NRDC senior attorney David Petit. In addition, the AQMD also might testify before the city council, according to spokesman Sam Atwood. “I can’t predict whether we would address LA City Council, but I’d say chances are very good that we would if the matter is taken up by them,” Atwood told Random Lengths. While the comment meeting unfolded with scores of people testifying on both sides, the AQMD played a unique role as experts in air quality, clean technology and the law. On the one hand, Sandi Bradley, co-executive director of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce typified many who favored the proposal, offering the Chamber’s strong support, and calling the SCIG “an ideal example of green growth.” But actual environmentalists strongly disagreed. “Eight years ago, Dave Freeman [past president of the Harbor Commission], at the scoping meeting said there will not be any diesel trucks going to this facility,” David Petit recalled in his testimony. “Your staff has had 8 years to make that a reality and they’ve failed to do that.” AQMD’s Peter Greenwald began his testimony by saying, “AQMD staff’s evaluation is that the EIR must be revised because of deficiencies in mitigation and analysis.” He went on to reinforce Foster’s concern for local residents, saying, “Because of its location, continued on following page