Behind closed doors, Councilmembers and the Mayor will discuss a lawsuit filed by the City of Long Beach (as one of a number of plaintiffs/petitioners) challenging the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that the Port/City of Los Angeles contend is adequate to enable a BNSF-sought railyard ("Southern CA Int'l Gateway" or "SCIG") adjoining West Long Beach neighborhoods (details below.)

[Scroll down for further.]

If the Council in closed session takes a voted "reportable" action (conduct specified in the Brown open meetings Act), the City Attorney will report the results of that vote after the closed session. If the Council [speculation here] were to vote in closed session to settle the litigation, that vote would also have to be taken in a subsequent public Council session.

The newly elected Council majority has taken up the BNSF matter in closed session on three previous occasions: Jan. 6, 2015, November 18 and August 6, 2014. Its Feb. 17, 2015 closed session will be its fourth on the matter in eight months.

As updated (below) by LBREPORT.com, all current Long Beach Councilmembers and Mayor Garcia have taken campaign and/or officeholder contributions from BNSF.

The underlying issues surround BNSF's desire to build/operate a 24/7 railyard on land owned by the Port (City) of Los Angeles, basically abutting a West Long Beach neighborhood with homes and schools.

Source: EIR illustration

At a November 10, 2011 public hearing on the draft EIR, crowds overflowed WLB's Silverado Park community room in one of the largest turnouts in WLB history for a government-conducted meeting of its type,

Nov. 10, 2011 hearing on draft EIR

LBREPORT.com reported at the time: "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.)

WLB neighborhood groups (including the West Long Beach Association), as well as environmental groups and health groups regionally, oppose building the railyard in BNSF's desired location. They argue that railyards belong in the Port(s), not next to neighborhoods. They favor on-dock rail instead of trucked-to-dock rail.

Supporters of the project include labor trade unions and cargo/maritime interests, and some neighborhood residents. They and BNSF say it will use the cleanest possible current technology, will allow only cargo carried on "clean" trucks that will be routed away from neighborhoods, will mean jobs for residents and bring cleaner air regionally by using rail to move cargo instead of freeway-congesting trucks. The Port of Los Angeles has said putting the proposed railyard in the Port is infeasible on grounds including a lack of currently available land in the Port.

Advertisement

In a key difference from Long Beach City Hall's position, neighborhood and environmental groups say the proposed RR's negative impacts can't be "mitigated" at the BNSF-desired location. To date, despite the polarizing controversy (or perhaps because of it), the Long Beach City Council (under prior Mayor Foster and current Mayor Garcia) has avoided taking an up-or-down publicly recorded vote on whether to support or oppose BNSF's proposed railyard outright. Instead, a now-former Council majority authorized city staff to submit objections (some quite strongly worded) to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) alleging it doesn't fully describe the proposed railyard's negative impacts and fails to require sufficient "mitigation" for those impacts. LB's Harbor Commission has also voted to support City Hall's EIR appeal.

LB City Hall's position effectively lets Council incumbents say they oppose the railyard "as currently proposed" (or words to that effect)...but leaves open the possibility that they might support it, or at least accept it, with some type(s) of "mitigation." The possibility that the City Council might agree to "settle" its action in exchange for "mitigation" isn't supported by a number of WLB community activists. Their position throughout the proceeding is that the SCIG railyard can't be mitigated where it's now proposed and should be moved elsewhere. (Settlement by the City of Long Beach might or might include other parties that have challenged the adequacy of the project's EIR.)

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Long Beach Unified School District has separately filed a legal action challenging the adequacy of the EIR (also not opposing the project outright.) Other groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, are purusing their own separate challenges to the EIR and there is other litigation pending related to the proposed railyard (and the actions have all been consolidated.).

LBREPORT.com lists below sums received by the Long Beach City Council's current incumbents (both as candidates and officeholders) who'll decide on whatever matters are discussed in closed session. Information is via the CA Secretary of State's website and City Clerk's office:

The closed session on the BNSF case is scheduled for one-hour starting at 5:00 p.m., following a public "study session" to "receive a presentation on the Long Beach Airport Noise Ordinance" scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. The main, open Council meeting is scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m.

These scheduled times are flexible. Last week (Feb. 10), the Mayor and Council allowed a 4:00 p.m. scheduled study session on LB's medical marijuana ordinance to extend until after 9:00 p.m.