Union Pacific presents two options for Lomax site as neighbors warn of traffic and safety risks

Union Pacific Railroad representatives and developer Trammell Crow detailed competing plans on Oct. 28 for the company’s 269‑acre Lomax property, saying the site has been in UP’s portfolio since 1963 and must be activated to meet customer demand.

David Welch of Union Pacific said the company will pursue either of two paths: a higher‑cost ‘‘option A’’ with Class‑A industrial buildings, extensive landscaping, a synchronized traffic signal and a roughly 9,000‑foot sound‑absorbing wall; or ‘‘option B,’’ a lower‑investment transload and rail‑storage plan with substantially more outdoor rail and truck activity. Welch said UP has begun steps toward site work and would submit a rezoning application in the near term.

Residents who spoke during public comment urged council to block rezonings that would bring warehouses and switchyards closer to homes. Cliff Wilson of Robinson Road said the proposed project was ‘‘just too close to us’’ and cited concerns about safety, increased truck traffic and environmental exposures. Donna Medford Tobias, who identified herself as the city veterinarian adviser and a member of the Lomax Rustlers Group, estimated the project could add ‘‘100 to 200’’ truck trips a day and said the large‑lot residential designation helps preserve youth agricultural programs.

Trammell Crow principal George Farish, presenting the option A site plan, highlighted project features intended to reduce neighborhood impacts: a new east‑west public road to divert industrial traffic, preserved landscape buffers, dry‑bottom stormwater detention ponds and a sound wall his team described as ‘‘state of the art.’’ Farish said the design would capture approximately 230 acre‑feet of stormwater, provide more than 25% permanent green space (about 75 acres) and include a perimeter fence and a 100‑foot landscape buffer. He said the option A investment exceeds $250 million and that the first decade of operations could generate an estimated $50 million in tax revenue shared by the city and La Porte Independent School District.

Farish also told council the plan would ‘‘comply 100% with La Porte’s noise ordinance’’ and that the sound wall system his acoustic engineers proposed would reduce ambient noise to levels ‘‘essentially undetectable’’ (a difference of less than 2 decibels, he said). He added the developers will include permanent commodity restrictions in the rezoning application to limit hazardous materials stored on site.

Council members pressed presenters on permitting and recent clearing activity. Staff and project representatives said the clearing and grubbing work awarded to a contractor is limited to non‑specimen trees and underbrush and—because no native specimen trees would be removed—did not trigger a tree‑removal permit, according to staff explanation. Several council members signaled concern about a possible tactic of advancing groundwork while land‑use approvals are pending; others urged staff to expedite study of adjacent rezonings to address neighborhood continuity.

Neither a rezoning nor a council vote on the Lomax project occurred Oct. 28. UP said it preferred option A but would pursue option B if a rezoning were not approved. The company also invited ongoing feedback and said a formal application would go to planning and zoning after a community review period.