Among those visible at the event, held by the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT), were Tom Marchese, Melinda Cotton and Gordana Kajer (not a complete list).

Mel Nutter, who has practiced law in LB since 1965 and chaired the CA Coastal Commission during the last three years of his tenure, was also on the Board of the State Coastal Conservancy and represents LCWLT on legal matters involving preservation of local wetlands.

Mr. Nutter said he's been told by City Hall Planning Staff that it's likely that there'll be a Planning Commission hearing sometime in August to consider what conditions may be imposed on the Loynes-south parcel owner, Sean Hitchcock...and those conditions will be influenced in part by the type of information that city staff and the Planning Commission believes what was there in the past.

"It's possible that the Planning Commission will conclude that there was a wetland, or they may conclude that there wasn't a wetland, and if they conclude that there wasn't a wetland but that there were habitat values that can be restored..."

Mr. Nutter added that he believes that there will be a peer review of a 13 page environmental assessment, done for the parcel's landowner, that concludes that the parcel isn't a wetland.

Mr. Nutter said that if City Hall's Planning Commission "does the wrong thing," the property is within the appeal jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission's Long Beach certified LCP [local coastal plan], meaning residents will have an opportunity -- if they weigh-in when the Planning Commission hears the matter -- to file an appeal to the state Coastal Commission and have that state agency review what City Hall has or hasn't done.

Following Mr. Nutter's remarks, supporters held another in their continuing series of visible vigils alongside the property.

Leading the rally was Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust Executive Director Elizabeth Lambe...

...and LBReport.com asked Ms. Lambe about agendized closed session Council discussions (one has already taken place, another is anticipated followed by some kind of public action) on a proposed exchange of city-owned developable property for privately owned open space/presumed but not yet delineated wetlands.

"We're opposed to it unless it includes a deed restriction or conservation easement or enforceable provision that ensure that the land is kept open and protected while it awaits its transfer to the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. That is the most important condition to us."

And without those you you don't support it [we re-asked to make sure]? "Yes," she said, and added:

"What I've said many times to the Council and to Councilman DeLong is that we applaud these efforts to protect this land, but without the assurance of a deed restriction or a conservation easement or an enforceable provision, we don't know down the road what a future City Council may do with land in its possession that it controls without these development restrictions on it."

City management has previously balked at adding such restrictions in acquiring the open space, arguing that they could decrease the land's value in City Hall's future transfer of the property to LCWA [a government entity]. LCWA, which relies mainly on state funding, doesn't now have the funds to purchase the open space/presumed but not yet delineated wetlands [and Sacramento in a major fiscal crisis has no spare dollars to give].

Critics say of the transaction say that if a Council majority does vote to proceed with a land exchange, current and future taxpayers might end up holding it for an undetermined and possibly long amount of time.

City Hall hasn't said publicly exactly what parcels are now bring considered in such a deal. On Feb. 10, 2009, a Council majority voted to swap some areas south of 2nd St. for the city's Public Service Yard...but City Attorney Bob Shannon put that on hold after wetlands advocate/homeowner Tom Marchese made a Public Records Act request that uncovered emails that raised questions among many -- including some prominent wetlands supporters -- about City Hall's negotiations with the land owner.

City Attorney Shannon told LBReport.com that some "material facts" hadn't been disclosed to the Council...and his office has required that the transaction be discussed in closed session, after which it would then be re-voted in public session.

The additional parcels listed on a June 2009 closed-session agenda -- which may or may not be part of a subsequent proposed exchange -- far eclipse the Loynes-south area; if all of the area were included, it would stretch south to and across 2nd St.

On Feb. 10, 2009, a Council majority defeated a substitute motion (backed by Schipske, Reyes Uranga, Gabelich) that would have required management to bring a negotiated contract back to the Council for disclosure and review before completing the transaction (voting against seeing the final contract were S. Lowenthal, DeLong, O'Donnell, Andrews and Lerch, 1st dist. vacant), and then voted to authorize management to negotiate a contract and complete the transaction without further Council approval (Yes: S. Lowenthal, DeLong, O'Donnell, Andrews and Lerch; No: Schipske, Gabelich; vacant: 1st dist vacant).

As part of the Feb. 2009 exchange, management proposed to let the open space/presumed wetlands private property owner (Tom Dean, through an LLC) retain the properties' oil and mineral rights after conveying the rest of the ownership to City Hall.