Depending on the measure's ultimate text and Sacramento fate, it could undercut now-pending legal actions brought by the City of Long Beach among other appellants challenging the EIR. The now-pending litigation has for the moment blocked the advance of the controversial project.

AB 2208, introduced as a placeholder on Feb. 20, 2014 by Asssemblyman Travis Allen (R., Huntington Beach) states:

It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would facilitate the infrastructure development and implementation of the final environmental impact report, described as ADP No. 041027-19, which was prepared for the Southern California International Gateway Project, a proposed project for the construction and installation of various cargo transfer facilities at the Port of Los Angeles.

The ultimate text of the measure isn't yet known and the measure's fate in the Dem-majority state legislature is unclear. It may be heard in committee as soon as Mar. 23 but (as of Mar. 10) hasn't been assigned to a specific committee. Depending on where it goes, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal (D., LB) may have an early opportunity to vote on it.

In 2013, the City of Long Beach (with Council voted support) and the Port of LB (with Harbor Comm'n voted support) have filed a legal action against the Port/City of Los Angeles challenging the EIR for the SCIG railyard, alleging it fails to provide sufficient mitigation for the railyard's WLB impacts. However to date the LB City Council hasn't taken a direct up-or-down vote whether to oppose the project outright.

Instead, LB City Hall's position, articulated on multiple occasions by Mayor Bob Foster, seeks mitigation (unspecified but could include physical measures, community funds, or both) for the project at its currently proposed WLB-adjacent location.

In contrast, a number of grassroots neighborhood groups, including the WLB Association and the Wrigley Area Neighborhood Alliance, oppose the project in its currently proposed location. They argue that its impacts can't be mitigated where it's now proposed and favor locating it inside the Ports of L.A/LB to provide on-dock rail. The Ports and some maritime interests say on-dock rail isn't feasible with this project due to a lack of available interior Port space and the need for flexibility in assembling trains that will direct cargo to various locations.

BNSF says its proposed railyard will use state of the art equipment, handle cargo more efficiently at greater volumes with less pollution than its current facility not far away; says trucks that will convey containers from the docks to the new railyard will use routes avoiding neighborhoods and says transporting containers by rail is more efficient and regionally less polluting than using trucks on freeways. A number of labor locals support the project on grounds it will provide their workers with jobs.

The issue of the BNSF-sought railyard has come up repeatedly in Long Beach election candidate fora. Virtually all candidates acknowledge the project's likely impacts but agreement ends there. Mayoral candidate Garcia and 7th dist. candidate Uranga have supported City Hall's current position which seeks mitigation for the project at its currently proposed location. Mayoral candidate Otto has said he favors a "social benefit approach" with a "comprehensive plan" for the westside of Long Beach.

Mayoral candidate Lowenthal has said she's deeply troubled by the proposed railyard and has publicly questioned how any amount of mitigation could mitigate its likely impacts. Mayoral candidate Dunn told a Bixby Knolls/Los Cerritos forum that the SCIG railyard shouldn't move forward "without there being excessive concessions that ultimately the community would have to agree to" and said "quality of life trumps economic development, particularly when you're putting other peoples' lives at risk";

Mayoral candidate Schipske, as well as 7th dist. Council candidate Greenwood, have both plainly stated that in their view the railyard simply can't be mitigated where it's now proposed (next to a WLB-neighborhood.) In addition, Schipske swiftly returned a campaign contribution offered by BNSF.

[Update] Mayoral candidate Dunn received a campaign contribution from BNSF which he directed his campaign to return on Jan. 24. [end update]

Mayoral candidates Garcia, Lowenthal and Otto received contributions from BNSF, as have Council candidates Uranga (7th), Gonzalez (1st), Richardson (9th) and Mungo (5th.)

The BNSF proposed railyard, and the RR's contribution to 7th dist. Council candidate Uranga, prompted a sharp exchange at a recent candidate forum organized by the Los Cerritos Neighborhood Ass'n and the Cal Hts Neighborhood Ass'n.. To hear the candidates' responses on the proposed railyard, click here.

The railyard also came up during a CPAC organized forum for 1st district Council candidates. To hear their responses re the SCIG, click here.

Additional background:

2013/2014 BNSF contributions

BNSF late/$5,000+ contributions.