Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record and conduct a public hearing on the appeal filed by Earthjustice on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club (Appellants), in accordance with Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.21.507; and adopt resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners' environmental determinations made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement for the Pier G dry bulk facility in the Port of Long Beach and for the Oxbow Energy Solutions LLC Lease of the Pier G Coal Shed (Coal Shed).
over to the clerk. Thank you, Mayor. It's a recommendation to receive supporting and documentation and record and conduct a public hearing regarding the appeal of the Earth of Earth Justice on behalf of the communities for better environment, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. And to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determinations relative to the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement involving the Port of Long Beach and Oxbow Energy Solutions. Thank you. Mr. Clarke, will you also administer the oath? Yes, please. If those intending to testify on this matter being heard by this council, would you please stand? That would include staff as well. Thank you. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this. Cause now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Now, I'm going to turn this over before we begin the the hearing and and kind of have our hearing and the and those that are involved in it speak, we're going to turn first turn this over to the city attorney who will kind of go over the hearing, the process of the hearing for the counsel. And if there's any questions. He'll be happy to answer those from the counsel right now about the process of the hearing. Mr. City Attorney. Thank you. Mayor Garcia. Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council. This appeal from a determination of the Board of Harbor Commissioners is somewhat unique in the experience of the City Council. So I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about the background of the actual approvals that the Board of Harbor Commissioners made. The scope of the appeal as it is before the City Council, the legal standard that the City Council would apply in making its determination on this appeal. The two options that are basically available to the Council when they're considering this matter and finally, the process that is allocating the time for both the Board of harbor commissioners and the appellants in this case to make their case. So as far as background, on June 9th of this year, the Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted two separate ordinances. And it's typical, unlike the way the city does it for the Board of Harbor Commissioners, to actually adopt an ordinance when they approve certain types of agreements. So in this case, the adopted ordinance number HD 2188 for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company, otherwise known as Metro Operating Agreement for the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility in the port. They also. Adopted ordinance number HD. 21 to 87 for the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease of the coal shed, also located at the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility as part of approving both of those agreements. The Board of Harbor Commissioners was required to make a second determination, and basically the determination in this case was made that for both of the agreements, they were both what is referred to as categorically exempt from the requirements of sequel. And with respect to the coal shared approval, they made an additional determination and an alternate determination that since there had previously been a negative declaration adopted in connection with the approval of the construction of the that coal shed, that there was no additional environmental review required . So subsequent to those approvals and within the ten day appeal period on June 23rd, 2014, Earthjustice on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, the NRDC and the Sierra Club appealed the second determination to the City Council. So that's the background and the scope of the appeal. And this is really the one of the important things I have to say. The scope of this appeal is really quite narrow, and it only involves whether or not the secret approvals were appropriately made by the port. The city's charter gives the port the absolute authority to make a determination as to whether or not the agreements in this case the operating agreement in the lease were appropriate. So those two items and what those leases contain or the operating agreements contain really are not before the city council tonight. It's only the issue of whether or not the sequel determination was appropriate. And as you're listening to all of the testimony tonight and ultimately when you take it behind the rail for deliberation, the legal standard that you apply, you make what's called a de novo determination, which means you are hearing this as if the board of Harbor Commissioners had not heard it. You are judging this on the facts as you hear them, and you're not required to give deference to the determination of the Board of Harbor Commissioners. The options available to the City Council after you've received all the evidence, are basically to, one, deny the appeal and approve the resolution affirming the secret determinations made by the board and making findings. And in that case, if you take that course of action, you will also be adopting a resolution in support of your determination in the findings. The second option available for the Council is to grant the appeal and direct the harbor department to proceed with appropriate sequel review before the Harbor Department reconsiders the two agreements that we've been discussing. And now for the process, both the parties, the Board of Harbor Commissioners, and the appellants in this case have previously been advised that they have each been allocated 20 minutes to make their presentation, and they can choose to reserve any portion of their 20 minute time period for rebuttal. But neither side will get more than 20 minutes. At the conclusion of the Board of Harbor Commissioners presentation and the appellants presentation, of course, it will be appropriate to take public comment and ultimately bring it behind the rail for your determination. I would like to introduce here at the table, as you can see, the city manager is not sitting with us tonight. To my right is Barbara McTighe, who is an attorney in the city attorney's office assigned to handle port matters for us. Behind me is Cathy Jensen, who is one of the outside counsel that the Board of Harbor Commissioners sometimes engages to provide secure advice to the Board of Harbor Commissioners. And Heather Tom Lee, who will be making the presentation on behalf of the Board of Harbor Commissioners tonight. All right. And so that said, as I indicated, we've allocated 20 minutes for each side to make their presentation. And I'd ask Miss Tomlin since she is making her presentation on behalf of the board. How much time, if any, you would like to reserve in rebuttal out of your 20 minutes? My presentation is approximately 12 minutes, so I'd like to reserve 8 minutes for rebuttal. Okay. So I'll ask the clerk if he would mind setting the clock at 12 minutes for the initial presentation. Okay. So with that, I think we've all will briefly see no questions from from counsel to the city attorney. We will open this hearing up and begin with the presentation from the Port of Long Beach. Mr. Singer. Mayor Garcia and council members, thank. You very much for the opportunity to address you. This evening. I am John Slinger, chief executive of the Port of Long Beach. My staff and I are here before you to confirm and defend. The environmental determinations that have been made for agreements with two established tenets Metropolitan. Stevedore Company and OCS for Oxbow Energy Solutions. Who operate a. Leading export facility. I would now like to turn it over to to Heather Tom Lee, our director of environmental planning, who will present our harbor department staff report. Thank you, John. And thank you, Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. As John indicated, the harbor department is before you this evening to respond to an appeal that has been filed not against our lease agreements, but against. Related environmental determinations that were made by the Board of Harbor Commissioners. On June 9th, the Board of Harbor Commissioners approved two real estate agreements for the use and operation of existing port facilities on Pier G. The two agreements that were approved are an operating agreement with Metropolitan Stevedore for operations at the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility and a lease with Oxbow Energy Solutions for the Pier G Coal Shed. Today, both Metro and Oxbow are operating on Pier G. The two agreements approved by the Harbor Commission on June 9th allow for the continuation of these operations. The Pier G Marine Terminal is used for the storage and loading of dry bulk commodities such as petroleum, coke, coal, sulfur and soda ash. Dry bulk goods are delivered to the facility by truck or train and then transferred to covered storage facilities for later loading onto vessels for shipments worldwide. Metro has been under contract for years with the port to provide terminal operation services for all of the dry bulk materials entering or exiting the pier facility. This includes responsibility for unloading dry bulk materials from trucks and railcars and loading vessels under their existing agreement. Metro also controls the Pier G coal shed, which they currently sub assigned to Oxbow. Under the terms of the new agreement. The port would take back control of the coal shed from metro so that the port can lease it directly to Oxbow, thereby maximizing the revenues that can be collected by the port. In addition, Metro will be required to carry out repairs and maintenance, including some repaving, which will bring the facility up to standards and improve worker safety. Metro has also agreed to green port programs to reduce environmental impacts, including assistance with an app birth and mission control technology, demonstration on vessels, installation of energy efficient lighting and the replacement of terminal terminal vehicles with zero emission vehicles. Oxbow is an exporter of dry bulk products and currently leases five storage sheds on the Pier G facility directly from the port and one through the SAB assignment agreement with Metro. Under the new lease, Oxbow will no longer hold its interest in the Pier G coal shed through Metro, but instead will have a direct lease with the port. In addition, Oxbow has agreed to Greenport provisions to reduce environmental impacts. Oxbow has agreed that its vessels will participate in the green flag and green ship programs and Oxbow will install low energy lighting for the coal shed, purchase greenhouse gas offsets for electricity use and participate in a vessel at birth emission control technology demonstration. Now let me discuss the secret requirements under the new agreements. There will be no changes to the capacity of the existing facilities. The operations at the facility are the same today under the current agreements as they will be tomorrow under the new agreements. As a part of the approval of the agreements with Metro and Oxbow, the Harbor Commission found the two agreements to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act or Secure Secret identifies various actions that require environmental analysis, but secret also defines the actions or classes that don't require further environmental analysis because they are not expected to result in any significant environmental impacts. Actions that fall into these classes, those that don't require further environmental analysis are identified as categorically exempt. A Class one exemption applies to repairs, maintenance and leasing of existing facilities when there is essentially no change from current conditions. And a class two exemption applies to the replacement of existing structures and facilities in the same place and for the same use. Since the agreements include leasing of existing facilities with maintenance work, including some repaving, they fit into these exemption classes. Therefore, the harbor department determined that the agreements were categorically exempt and thus did not require any further environmental analysis. Furthermore, the surgical shed was previously studied under a negative declaration that was adopted in 1992. Since a previous secret document was prepared for the coal shed and there has been no substantial changes and no new impacts and identified since the adoption of that negative declaration. The Harbor Commission also found that the approval of the new lease for the coal shed did not trigger the need for further environmental review beyond the previously adopted negative declaration. Now let me address a few of the specific points that were raised in the appeal. First is our requirement of a guaranteed minimum throughput or GMT. The new lease with Oxbow includes a GMT at 1.7 million metric tons of coal per year. I want to be clear on the purpose of a GMT. A GMT ensures that the port gets a fair financial return on the use of our facilities to move cargo. So the calculation for a GMT payment is based upon the actual commodity moving across the dock. In this case, the metric tons of coal. The intent is to secure a fair minimum dollar payment, a return for our investment on the wharf, and cargo handling equipment like conveyor belts and ship loaders. So despite the name, it's not a minimum performance or a minimum throughput requirement. The GMT requires that Oxbow make an annual payment to the port based on our tariff charge for shipping 1.7 million metric tons of coal. The guarantee does not require Oxbow to ship any particular amount of coal through the coal shed. In other words, if Oxbow didn't ship any coal at all through the facility, it would not be in default of its lease. Oxbow would simply pay the port the tariff charge as if they had shipped 1.7 million metric tons of coal. Most of our leases are structured in a similar way. GMT is are not new for the coal shed. In fact, when the coal shed first came online in 1994, the GMT for the coal shed through the Metro Agreement was over 2.4 million metric tons of coal per year, which was in alignment with the peak throughput at the facility that occurred in 1996 and is consistent with the working capacity for the coal shed, which is estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. It's important to understand that the GMT and the new agreement is not an increase beyond what has been exported historically through the coal shed or what Oxbow can export through the pure coal shed today under their current agreement. Finally, Oxbow is on track to handle 1.7 million metric tons of coal through the shed this year based upon market demand. Therefore, the GMT and the new agreement has been set at a level that is equivalent to the current throughput and will provide the port with a fair market return considering what is being shipped today. An additional item that was raised in the IPO is the repaving work that will be required in the operating agreement with Metro. A class to categorical exemption applies to the replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities. The replacement of over 126,000 square feet of the same type of asphalt, concrete, pavement, pavement and the exact same location at the facility clearly falls within the Class two exemption. This work is being required to ensure the structural integrity of the facility and to improve drainage to effectively capture stormwater runoff. It should be noted that the cout that Caltrans commonly uses class two exemptions for the in-kind replacement of millions of square feet of pavement, much larger than the work that's being done at the pier facility. I also want to point out that a letter from the appellants was received today at 1:20 p.m.. We haven't had a lot of time to review the materials, and but it doesn't appear that there is any new factual or legal arguments that are presented that would change our recommendation . The letter states several times that there has never been any analysis of the impacts of shipping millions of tonnes of coal out of perigee, but that's incorrect. As part of the additional reference documents, we supplied the 1982 negative declaration that specifically assessed increasing the coal throughput at Pier G from 2.1 million metric tonnes per year to 5 million metric tonnes. The facility is still operating well within that envelope. The 1992 negative declaration for the coal shed did not change that level of throughput at G. The closure did not increase the throughput, but rather changed how the coal was stored and closing it to help to reduce the emissions and help to make the train arrivals less sporadic. The train activity is well within what was projected. If anyone had objection with the 1992 negative declaration or the scope of its analysis, the time to challenge it was when that was adopted. The previous NEG decks cleared the way for the current operations that exist today. Today's submittal also repeatedly states that the port intends to expand the coal export operations beyond what is disclosed in the challenge agreement. The port has no plans to make any physical changes to the Pier Dry Bulk facility and there are no applications pending by any tenants to make expansions. The port is not looking at expanding the coal handling capacity beyond what now exists out there and is not considering any applications. The transit steam study was just an operating study and there is no plan to take action as a result of that study today. In conclusion, let me summarize the two agreements the Harbor Commission approved on June nine allow existing operations to continue and don't increase capacity. They will more fully realize the value of the port's facilities by directly leasing with Oxbow and they secure a structured maintenance and repair program. The Board of Harbor Commissioners found the agreements to be categorically exempt from secret and that no additional environmental review is required. The Harbor Department respectfully request that the City Council receive the supporting documentation into the record and adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners determinations. This concludes the Harbor Department's presentation, and we'll reserve our remaining time for rebuttal. And we're happy to address any questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to have the appellant come forward. And also just want to make sure I just a note that as we go through these presentations and the comments, that we'll be respectful of each other. And so let's as you know, let's have a good hearing that respectful of everyone's opposing views, you know, and make sure that we introduce ourselves before we before we begin. Okay. Great. Please. I'm just waiting for the presentation to come out. No problem. I'll just start the introductions. We could clear a mr. Mayor, if we could please clarify the time set for presentation, as well as reserved for rebuttal. What. What amount of time are you keeping for rebuttal at the end? We're going to reserve 6 minutes for rebuttal. Okay. Bigot. Okay. Or they're going to. Are they going to put up the presentation? Perfect. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and members of the council. My name is Adrian Martinez and I'm an attorney for Earthjustice representing Communities for Better Environment in Sierra Club. My colleague from our Justice Elizabeth Sites are also here. Also with me, we have Morgan Wian representing NRDC. And then also, Jessica, you're now a lawyer representing Sierra Club. And finally, Megan Krasno, representing Communities for a Better Environment. We're very well represented as appellants. Tonight, I'm going to give an overview on June 23rd, 2014, Sierra Club Committee for a Better Environment and the Natural Resources Defense Council appealed a decision by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners related to two new agreements that you've heard a little bit about today. The main contention is that the Harbor Commission violated California's bedrock environmental law. The California Environmental Quality Act would improve the two new agreements without any environmental analysis. These are organizations and other supporters from other organizations, and residents will be asking the city council to send this back to the harbor department for an environmental analysis. This presentation, I'm going to go over three main issues. First, I will start with an overview of the concerns about coal and petcoke and the shipments of these products. Second, I'll shift to a little bit more information about the agreements and clarify, I think, some of the points of contention. And then finally, I'll go over the legal applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act. As his counsel is intimately aware, climate change is a serious issue and an immense challenge that we must take seriously. Climate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The combustion of fossil fuels is a primary culprit in climate change. Fuels such as coal and petroleum coke are very carbon intensive, and as a result, there has been a major push to end the reliance on this fuel for energy generation in the United States. As this has happened, coal use for power generation has has reduced, and tenants and coal companies have sought to export more of this product abroad. In addition to the global global consequences of carbon from coal and petcoke, there are local consequences throughout this process. Several environmental groups and other interested stakeholders have presented information. For example, we presented information about the consequences of coal dust that is shipped mainly when these cars come from the mines to the ports, they are transported in uncovered trail rail cars. Tests show that coal dust contains arsenic, lead, chromium, nickel, selenium and other toxic heavy metals. In addition, coal dust presents several safety concerns. We presented various arguments and evidence about the impacts that coal dust can have on train derailments and other accidents. In addition to this, the ships, trucks and trains that help move this equipment emit significant quantities of air pollution. This counsel is intimately aware with of the air pollution impacts faced by its residents and Port of Long Beach is a contributor to a lot of that air pollution. The other thing is fossil fuel infrastructure poses cumulative impacts. This is a map from a an air that the Port of Long Beach did for the Thai grain terminal expansion. It shows other related projects in the project area. It identifies 79 projects, including several related to fossil fuel infrastructure, including about a dozen or more related to fossil fuels. This indicates the cumulative impacts of this project in addition to these many projects that will impact residents throughout Long Beach and also residents in the greater area. Now that we've gone over some of the information that's been presented, I want to provide a little bit of context so people can visually see what is taking place down at Pier G. This is a picture of coal cars. As you can see, they're uncovered the coal gums above the top of the railcar. This provides another context where you can see into a little bit higher. And then finally, this gives us a sense of how long these trains are assembled. So as you can see, there's a significant amount of cars that are filled with coal. In addition, we've provided evidence about how much coal dust is lost along the way. And that was in all the submissions we provided. Now I want to go over overview of the agreement in a couple issues. First, the the agreement creates a guaranteed minimum of coal. There has never been an agreement for this port that specific specifies the product as coal being the guaranteed minimum. This is in stark difference to the prior agreements and anyone we've seen it was generally a guaranteed minimum of any bulk commodity. Here they're locking in coal second in year six through 15, the executive director of the port and his sole discretion may increase any of the commodities. So right now there's £100,000 per year cap on petcoke that could be increased in year six through 315. Third, I want to address some contention that people have been arguing that the guaranteed minimum doesn't really do anything. A couple thoughts we have on that. One is generally you don't enter into contract terms that don't mean anything. And then second, an article submitted by the Port from Port Technology International States that these guaranteed minimums are designed to ensure tenants will use their leased facilities at ports to maximum possible potential. So the arguments that it doesn't really have an impact on operations are directly rebutted by the port's own technology journal that it submitted. Now I want to shift into some of the legal issues. And at the outset, I want to remind the council that courts have interpreted California Environmental Quality Act in the legislature as directed it to be interpreted in a manner that's where the foremost principle that you should interpret the act to protect the environment to the fullest possible manner. So your job tonight is to have that in the background as you're making this decision. There are categorical exemptions where sequel analysis is not required. These don't apply here. The various groups provided several evidence showing that the various categorical exemptions don't apply. And then the other important thing is that when there's a reasonable possibility that an activity will have a significant impact on the environment due to unusual circumstances, exemptions don't apply. Now I'm going to go over why the exemptions don't apply. The first exemption the port relies on is a class one exemption related to a lease renewable, where importantly there is no or negligible increase in use. We provided several pieces of information about the increase in use and the desire to increase the use of this terminal. In addition, we remind that it has a specific amount of coal that's required to be shipped, which indicates an increase in use. Now I want to go over there's been a lot of talk about the historical trends of coal through the port. Using the port's data that it submitted in its submission from Tuesday of last week, we charted out the levels. You hear a lot of talk about the 1996, which is the peak in that chart. The 1.7 million metric tonnes is the red line. As you can see, for the majority of years there has never been 1.7 million metric tonnes of products shipped through this facility. So what you're having is cherry picking specific dates to make an argument about the lack of a significant impact. In addition, the port hired trans systems to explore how it can increase coal. The port is what it is it talks about how can they increase the shipment of this coal and allow for other bulk commodities to be shipped as well. And in addition, we provided in the record evidence from Metropolitan Stevedoring Company for Port of Oakland Application, where it talked about dramatic increases at the Port of Long Beach. The port is also claiming it falls under Class two exemption. I just want to remind a couple of things. This is a large construction project. It's a pretty large facility. There'll be significant emissions from construction equipment as this is done. And the other issue is that doesn't cover the agreements. I think the port is only claiming the class two exemption for the various maintenance. If the City Council determines that these exemptions apply. Sequel allows for exceptions to exemptions due to unusual circumstances or cumulative impacts generally. For unusual circumstances to apply must differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and those circumstances result in an environmental risk. There's environmental risks to shipping this material. You have train emissions, safety issues, ship emissions, and also the issues of coal and petcoke getting into our water and our lungs. The this also differs from prior examples. The port provided examples of putting utility boxes in San Francisco, a case this is different. This is major industrial operations. It also provided an example of case law, talking about a 9000 square foot lease renewal in Pasadena. What we're talking about here is a 144,000 square foot coal barn and lots of major operations with trains, ships, trucks , lots of emissions and lots of impacts. Now I want to talk about the negative declaration. There's been a lot of discussion about how this was adequate to address the significant new information about climate change and the seriousness of that threat that coal dust and coal's impact on climate change. The 1992 declaration is a 23 page, bare boned checklist document. It solely looked at the construction impacts from the building, the coal barn. What it didn't look at is identified in this chart. And there's a lot of important information that was not looked at in the 1992 document. These are important issues for people who came out to support this appeal, but also should be for the city council. Ten. I just want to note the issues discussed in this pile are complicated. It's a very complicated record. There's a large amount of information that was filed within the last week. If you have any doubts here, the safest approach is to send this back to the harbor department for an environmental analysis. That way they can lay out all the information and have a period when all experts, residents and other stakeholders can weigh in on the impacts of this decision in a transparent manner. This process has been anything but that. I'll save. I have 6 minutes for rebuttal, but that's all we have right now. Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we will have we will go back to the the first rebuttal. And I believe, Mr. Clark, they have 8 minutes, is that correct? Up to 8 minutes. Not to use the whole 8 minutes. Mr. Cook. What was it? 8 minutes is up. Okay. Please begin. Okay. One of the issues that was addressed by the appellant has to do with policy issues related to the exports of coal and the effects on on global climate change and whether or not it's appropriate for the United States to be involved with exporting coal. And while I understand that there are important policy discussions to be had on this issue, the matter that's in front of the city council today has to do with the secret determination for the approval of the agreements that the Harbor Commission made. And the evidence that was presented by the Harbor Commission by the Harbor staff clearly indicates that CECA was conducted appropriately. The renewal of the agreements simply continues in existing use. There is no change in the use of what's happening out there from what they can do today under the current agreements to what they'll be able to do tomorrow under the new agreements. Therefore, there are no new impacts associated with the approval of those agreements. Renewal of agreements is listed as a class that's categorically exempt from Sequa. In addition, the repaving work falls into a class two exemption and is is commonly used for that type of action. In addition, there was the 1992 negative declaration that was approved for the coal shed specifically and helped to establish the existing operation that's out there today. For any sequel analysis, what you need to look at is what will happen in the future as a result of the action that was taken. And compare that to what's happening today. Today establishes the baseline conditions. These operations are currently in place today, and these agreements simply continue that existing use in the same capacity going forward into the future. There will be no change as a result of the approval of these agreements to the impacts associated with the operations. I also wanted to identify the issue related to coal dust from the uncovered railcars. That, again, is something that's being done today and I think as clearly was shown in the presentation. Coal arrives at the facility today and uncovered railcars that will not result in any changes going forward in the new agreements. There will be no changes to how that's done and no new impacts to how that's done going forward under the new agreements that were approved. Therefore, there are no new impacts associated with that action. In addition, the operations at the facility are subject to Air Quality Management District Rule 1158 requirements, which do require that the railcars be in in enclosed areas when they're doing unloading operations. There are water sprayers to help control dust and all of the operations at the facility are subject to that. AQ OMD Rule 1158 Oversight in order to make sure that the dust from from the coal is controlled to the maximum extent possible. The guaranteed minimum. There's been a lot of discussion about that today. The guaranteed minimum throughput is not a performance requirement. It's a financial term that establishes a minimum level of payment that guarantees that Oxbow, despite how much throughput they have at the facility, at a minimum, they will provide a payment that's equivalent to 1.7 million metric tons . And and there there is no requirement that increases the amount of throughput that they must have out there, that they they must meet a certain throughput. It's simply a financial term that establishes a minimum payment to the port so that the port can realize the maximum financial return on our assets. Go ahead. In addition, from a legal perspective, I'd like to just make a couple comments. There was a statement that to the effect that the port has suggested that the guaranteed minimum is meaningless. Obviously, we never have suggested that it's very meaningful to the port, but its meaning is financial rather than forced throughput. There was a reference made to the article that the port has submitted that talks about how common the GM 18 type terms are. And there was a reference made that those types of terms in facilitate the efficient use of port facilities. That's certainly appropriate. The port is supposed to make sure that its facilities are efficiently used. That's one of the mandates of the California Coastal Act to ensure that the need for additional port properties is not a result of inefficient use of port property plus. In addition, as trustees of trust assets, the Port the Board of Harbor Commissioners has an obligation to make sure that the assets are being efficiently used and are producing a adequate return. There was a reference to the cherry picking of dates to try to have higher throughput. We couldn't have cherry picked less on this because we actually provided information about the year this exact year, 2014, that in that year, in 2014, the throughput will exceed the minimum requirement by by some amount, but it's more than the minimum and specifically when you're looking at capacity. The Class one and Class two specifically refer to looking at the time the lead agency makes its determination here. That's 2014 is the time when the harbor board made its determination. So 2014 is an appropriate year to look at averaging years as they do in the chart that have multiple years when there was absolutely no coal transport makes no sense whatsoever. Finally, there was a point made relating to the 1992 NEG DAC negative declaration not being adequate. The time to challenge the 1992 negative declaration if there was an inadequacy was in 1992 when it was certified. Secure presumes not only a protection of the environment, but there is a closure. It allows reliance on documents that have been approved so that you're not repeating the process over and over and over. With each renewal for an existing facility so secure opens the door for new projects when new facilities are being constructed. But once they're approved and the secret compliance is completed, that process is over and secure. Does not envision re-opening it unless there is a specific guideline that requires it. Thank you. Time is up. And now the appellant's rebuttal, please. The timer is set at 6 minutes. Thank you. At first, I want to address the issue of claiming that we're raising policy issues. And I just want to be clear. The California Environmental Quality Act deals with policy issues. And what it does is it ensures that before an entity makes a decision to lock in 215 years of exporting coal as a policy matter, it has all the relevant information about the environmental consequences of that action before it. This is an important time for this discussion. If you allow this to go forward, this issue will not be before you for a long time. The port's own submissions talk about the next lease renewal for a petcoke facility. Oxbow is 2019. We're talking about issues of climate change, air pollution that are that require action sooner than that. The other there has been some reference that the project can't be changed and there's one part of sequel that hasn't been discussed tonight. We talked a lot about looking at the environmental impacts, but the other part of or the other kind of core principle is mitigation and what mitigation is. It helps protect residents when there's an environmental impact. It allows for you to change operations to ensure that the air is not polluted, the water is not polluted, and that you protect the environment and people from harmful port and other operations. So we contend that there were several mitigation measures raised that could have been considered for this project, including covering railcars and other kind of mitigation measures to reduce the coal dust. The port has a greenhouse gas mitigation fund that is used for other projects, but by not doing the analysis, the port has failed to look at the required mitigation. And while there are some commitments to explore projects that may or may not happen in the appendix, there's no requirement for enforceable mitigation that California Environmental Quality Act requires . Then there was a discussion of the California Coastal Act and saying that the California Coastal Act requires that they enter into this agreement. I could not I could disagree. I will disagree vigorously with that. There's no part of the California Coastal Act that requires you to pick winners and losers and pick coal as a winner. The California Coastal Act doesn't require this, and it's certainly wouldn't because it's counterintuitive. The port is going to be impacted by climate change. Their previous environmental review documents have conceded that it's near the sea. Sea level rise, they're going to be impacted. Residents in Long Beach are going to be impacted by climate change. So I think to argue that the California Coastal Act requires actions that harm the public, I don't agree. Now I want to talk about projected throughput. There's been a lot of discussion about 2014 being the appropriate year. First thing I want to point out that we don't have 2014 data. The port projected out to the end of the year. These are months that haven't happened. So this is based on, you know, kind of myth. The other thing is the California Supreme Court has been pretty clear that when you have issues that fluctuate, you average not pick outliers. Here's what's happened is they've picked outliers and they've used that to inflate the numbers. And finally, I just to end and I'll end a couple minutes early, save us some time, because I know there's a lot more on the agenda. But a lot of people have come out tonight to support sending this back to the port. This is an important decision. And I want the folks who are supporting clean air to stand up to supporting, sending this back to the port. As you can see by the attendance in the room, there are a lot of people standing up. This is an issue of significant import for the residents of Long Beach and the residents of the region. So we're asking that you respectfully send us back to the port for an environmental analysis so that all the information can be vetted in an appropriate venue. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going to be opening it up to public comment. I just want to remind you to please come forward to the mic. You must identify yourself for the record. And also just as a reminder that this and all public comment must be on the issue of the secret determination. That's what the public comment must be on. And the city attorney. What if we start getting off course on that topic? We will weigh in and the city attorney will weigh in on that. So please make sure you you stick to what is before the council and make sure that you also identify yourself. For the record. And because of. We're going to begin we're going to begin the process. And if we start continue to hear the same information, we begin with 3 minutes. We may then limited to two, depending on how the flow of the hearing goes. So we're beginning off with 3 minutes for speaker. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Council Members James Callahan, Chairman, President, CEO, Nautilus International Holding Corporation, which holds Metropolitan Stevedoring Company 72 East Street, Wilmington. I was born and raised in Long Beach is fifth District. And over the years, I've lived in the seventh and eighth districts. I currently reside in the third district. After being in Wilmington, a district of the city of Los Angeles for 91 years. Nautilus has sold its headquarters building. Just yesterday, we executed the Purchase and Sale Agreement to relocate the corporation to the exciting Douglas Park development near the Long Beach Airport, where we will construct 40,000 square feet of office space. We believe in Long Beach, its present and its future. We also reach out to our local community. Just one example is Metropolitans Cancer Risk and Prevention Program at the Memorial Care Cancer Institute in Long Beach Memorial. I appear before you tonight to urge you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determination made in accordance with secure for the Metropolitan Stevedoring Company Operating Agreement and the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G Dry Bulk Facility. Metro started operations in the Port of Long Beach over 90 years ago, and we have operated the port's dry bulk terminal on Pier G for more than 50 years. During that time, the City of Long Beach has wisely balanced environmental considerations with economic vitality to carry forth its mandate as one of the world's great ports. The matter before you this evening appropriately allows the continuation of a long existing operation that is vital to the local economy. Total payroll and benefits exceed $20 million annually for Metro's administrative staff. Longshore labor through the ILWU and Mechanics. Labor through the IAM by providing over 250000 hours of work for our labor pool. There is a direct economic impact to the local economy. Beyond the operations at this terminal, as there is a link to the entire logistics chain, including those who develop or refine export products like petroleum, coke and sulfur and soda ash and those employees use to transport the commodities to the terminal. We have Metro Salute the city of Long Beach in its continuation of participating effectively in the global global economy to the direct benefit of the residents, both of our city and the local region who earn their livings and who support their families by their hard work. Go Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Jesse Marquez. I'm executive director of the Coalition for a Safe Environment or an environmental justice organization headquartered here in the harbor with many members here in Long Beach. I'm also speaking as a impacted member of the harbor community and all sorts of Sierra Club member. You have heard and you've seen the fact that the negative deck was prepared in 1992 and it was 32 pages long. It would never meet today's standards in the state of California. You saw that the train cars are. Uncovered that would never be allowed. Today. When they can be covered. Ship emissions. Can also be captured. The Advanced Maritime Emissions Control Systems Technology is a proven technology. It's been tested on over 40 ships, bulk loading ships, oil tanker ships and container ships. It's been a complete success and they've been operating here at the Port of Long Beach. But we have a situation here where you need to use common sense. And that common sense is that prior to 2000, the truth of the matter is there wasn't that much of an educated public that know too much about environmental law, environmental requirements under sequa about port of Long Beach operations. But that has completely changed since 2000. There are thousands of Long Beach residents, more thousands of residents in the harbor area who do no school. Law school requirements have studied the Port of Long Beach and its past year and its historical record. And our organization has always committed and about 80% plus about Port of Long Beach projects. But we have always proposed that there be an environmental assessment and we support the fact that there should be an environmental assessment done on this project. There will be and continue to be emissions from the cars carrying the coal. Coal dust will be coming out, both blown out and falling out since coal has been recently mined. It still be it will still be having VLCCs coming out of it, so it will be arriving and impacting all around the routes. We have members in over 25 cities in L.A. County who will be impacted by the future and continue operations of this company and its failure to incorporate new technologies. So in that environmental impact, it needs to assess all the emissions, not only from the train locomotive engines, but from all the PPM, dust and the VOCs coming out of the product as well as the ships. You need to do a health impact assessment to determine what has been the health impact to the public and to the residents. That has never been performed here. It was never even recommended in the past. But a health impact assessment has now been proven. That is a superior public health assessment tool. And so we ask that you include that document. There is also what's an assessment of the noise? Trains make noise. They also vibrate. So an air should include the noise, vibrate and vibration as well. There will also be decreasing in property values for all residents that live. Near a railroad track. Thank you for your time, this opportunity. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and members of the city council. My name is Jesse Equity. I'm the board president for Future Ports. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and express future reports. Of support of the lease extensions at and associated with the dry bulk operations at Pier G. Future Ports members represent a broad range of goods movement, industry businesses. That operate throughout the Southern California region. Future Ports embraces the philosophy that businesses and supply chain supply chain serving the port of Long Beach, the green ports must grow cleanly. These concepts are not mutually exclusive and must be adopted simultaneously in order to sustain the long term economic vitality and health of the region. Future ports remains committed to working to find common ground on important issues facing our industry and local economy and values. The partnership we have left with the stakeholders, with stakeholders in the public sector, business and labor are united on this issue, and I urge you to support the Harbor Commission's decision on the approval and extensions of these leases. Thank you very much and have a good evening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Maya Golden Krassner. I'm a staff attorney at Communities for a Better Environment. We have we're an environmental justice organization with members in the harbor area and southeast L.A. The Port of Long Beach describes itself as the green port. And the city of Long Beach wants to see be seen as a green, sustainable city. Yet, as my colleague Mr. Martinez described, the port has never conducted an analysis of the greenhouse gas impacts and other impacts of shipping millions of tons of. Coal out of perigee. Despite the fact that we have new information that we now know about climate change and air pollution, these issues really were not contemplated in 1982 because then we were really busy trying to save the ozone layer. Second community for a better environment. Our members near the port and elsewhere in southeast Los Angeles are concerned about coal dust from the train's greenhouse gas and other air pollution impacts of mining, producing and burning coal and petcoke, and the potential. For coal dust to spill into the harbor. In the bay. Third, despite the copious amounts of documents we. Just received last week. There is. Still a lot. We don't know about this project. For example, any air would describe where the coal and petcoke comes from. Does the petcoke come from Wilmington refineries? If so, CBS members in Wilmington have the right to know that before these lease agreements are approved. The project also includes. Replacing an asphalt area the size of two football fields. What are the impacts of these. This construction that also has to be discussed in the air, along with mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. Fourth, since the 1982 Nag Doc in Shirley, since the 1982 NAG Deck, there has been significant new information on the impacts of petcoke. We now know, for example, that California refineries are increasingly switching to dirtier crude, which means in resulting in increased greenhouse gas and other air emissions from both processing the crude to create coke and from burning the petcoke. I have comments submitted by our staff scientists in 2011 regarding the low carbon fuel standard that discusses this issue that I plan to submit. In sum. A city that wants to be environmentally sustainable should not fast track the export of products. Like coal. And petcoke, and should instead require the port to conduct a. Thorough environmental review before moving forward. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. City Council members. My name is Clayton Headley. I'm the vice president for our exposed West Coast business, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. While we prefer to humbly go about the day to day work of running our business and doing things right. We also like to talk about ourselves. So I'm going to try to keep my comments as quick as possible. First and foremost, you should know that the facilities on Pier G are world class operations that set the. Bar for environmental excellence. In our industries. We are very proud of what we do here with the port, with Metropolitan and with Labor. The assets and operations developed by the Port of Long Beach, Oxbow and Metro are known throughout the world as examples of how things ought to be. Oxbow has been a partner and a customer of the Port of Long Beach for 43 years. And like the port, we take environmental our environmental stewardship seriously. We're pleased to receive the Port's Green Ship Award for 2012 and 2013. This award is given to companies having the greatest positive impact on California's Southern California's air quality. In addition, we received the Environmental Achievement Award, which is based on compliance with both the port's green flag program and green ship program. In terms of local jobs and revenue. We employ 48 people, including 31 union members. Our business in Long Beach supports local truckers, lab companies, surveyors, ILWU employees and countless other local businesses. In cooperation with our workforce, we've operated over 1.3 million working hours without a lost time accident, while generating more than $16 million in revenues for the city and the port of Long Beach. We're proud to be an active participant in the city and supporters and many community groups with particular emphasis on youth organizations. We sponsor the Conservation Corps of Long Beach, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach, the Long Beach. Ronald McDonald House. Children Today Itep and the International Seafarers Center. Further to our community support. Oxbow recently bought brought William Hickok C Scout Cup to Long Beach. This International Youth Regatta teaches character, leadership and life skills to youth, and we are proud to be part of the organization. Oxbow intends to bring this event back to Long Beach in 2016 and we look forward to the city's continued support of this program. With regard to the specific issues before you tonight. After two years of negotiations, our lease was approved by a unanimous vote of the Harbor Commission on June 9th. We believe the Harbor Commission properly applied secure. This agreement would simply transfer a lease of a bulk storage facility from Metro to Oxbow and create greater revenues to the city and and the port of Long Beach. The physical operation of this business will remain unchanged over the term of the lease. Revenues to the city and port of Long Beach will be approximately $130 million, which is an increase of more than 50 million annually. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Talk to your new. Good evening. Council Mayor Ann Cantrell. I'm a member of the Sierra Club and the NRDC and I support this appeal. You are being asked to send these leases back to the harbor commissioners for adequate environmental review. The port is relying on a negative declaration, which was just a check off list saying no study was needed. It was done in 1992, long before most of us started worrying about the burning of fossil fuels adding to the greenhouse gases and global warming. It was also before former then councilman now Congressman Alan Lowenthal became concerned about the transporting of coal into the port and the particulate matter involved. Some of you may remember that Dr. Lowenthal authored laws which required the covering of coal carrying trucks into the port, along with the covering of coal storage areas and conveyor belts. Unfortunately, railroad cars were not included in these laws. A complete environmental impact port needs to be done addressing the impact of millions of metric tons of dirty coal going through our community every year on railroad cars, which can lose up to 15% of their cargo along the way. Can this coal dust end up in the air, in the waterways, in the lungs of children and adults? Is there evidence that moving coal and coke can damage the lungs of port workers? A scientifically done air can answer these questions. It appears the port's only consideration in this matter is dollars. They're willing to sell the health of their workers, the community and the earth for what has been referred to by Scientific American as, quote, dark money, unquote, occupied America. Recently posted this on Facebook. This is Senator Ted Cruz, a Coke puppet. He was just bribed by the Kochs to introduce a bill that would sell America's national forests, parks and other public lands and open them for mining, drilling, fracking and logging. Spread the shame. I would like to add the Long Beach Port and Harbor Commissioners to this Hall of shame and suggest that they change their logo of green port to cock coke pile. Pardon me. Goose pile because Oxbow Bo is owned by one of the Koch brothers. This city council has the opportunity tonight to do the morally, legally and environmentally correct thing. Thank you. Please just say no to the Koch brothers and uphold the city. Next speaker, please. Before we begin, let's please let's try to look if we can just have the speakers go one after the other that way I would appreciate that. And let's be respectful of everybody. Thank you very much, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. My name is Sue in Schoenmaker and I'm here this evening on behalf of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach. The mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs is to enable all young people, especially the disadvantaged and underrepresented, to have representatives of our community to realize their full potential as caring, responsible and productive citizens. Our programs benefit over 4700 kids in Long Beach area, and our programs could not exist without the support of our community. Partners and local businesses such as Oxbow Expo has been a longtime supporter of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Long Beach, and we are very thankful to have them to be one of our partners. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Felicia Bander. The city of Long Beach has sometimes been known for its poor air quality. In the past few years, the port has received recognition for its pollution control improvements. Which of these two legacies do. You want to be known for? The port commissioners have recently voted to approve new 15 year leases guaranteeing the shipment of coal and petcoke to India and China. Coal arrives at the port in uncovered railcars known to lose about a pound of coal per mile traveled. Coal dust causes asthma and other respiratory ailments, including lung cancer. Scientists tell us that world wide fossil fuel emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050 in order to prevent heating this planet beyond livable levels. Air pollution in China and India is our pollution. Global warming affects the entire planet. The world has become a small place. Technology exists to allow us to transition to 100% renewable energy. We need to understand the seriousness of our predicament. We need to move away from business as usual and embrace the new energy frontier with everything we've got, all our investment. All our focus. Renewable energy will provide local jobs and boost local economies. Do not allow these lease agreements to go through and take us back to the days of dirty air. We need your forward thinking leadership now. Thank you. Your next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council members. I'm Norman Houser. Interim president metropolitan stewart, a company 720 east east street to Wilmington, California. This evening, I ask you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determinations after sequa from the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement and the actual Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G Drydock Facility. My remarks tonight are referred to Metropolitan Stevedore Company simply by the name of which we're best known Metro. There's been a constant evolution of the Pier G Dry Bulk facility. It's been my honor and privilege to lead, coordinate and witness during the more than 29 years I've been employed in the marine terminal industry . Metro has constantly engaged in effective partnering with the port to establish a terminal that is an excellent reflection of the Port of Long Beach as a green port through coverage, storage, water reclamation and closed conveyance systems. As a result, I say with pride and I mean significant pride that the dry bulk facility is truly world class. It is dedicated to. Shipping dry bulk cargoes efficiently, safely and in full compliance with environmental standards. In addition to the terminal enhancements discussed above, Metro has taken a variety of additional steps to protect our environment. Long Beach and we have replaced locomotives with the second off the assembly line brand new ultra low emission model. Metropolitan Operation Perugia was the beta site for the development of the Advanced. Maritime. Emissions Control System, mentioned earlier by Advanced Cleanup Technologies Inc. In addition, Metro provided intellectual capital to the development project. We even brought in a consult at our expense to assist in the design of the system. Metro's replace various diesel or gas powered equipment with propane, liquid natural gas or electric powered equipment, and star metro takes its environmental responsibility very seriously. Our first priority has always been to protect our employees safety, and we do this in concert with protecting the environment for the citizens of. The city of Long Beach. I do support clean air. I breathe the. Same air you do every day and are very proud of what we've accomplished. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. I am Henry Noonan, terminal superintendent of Metropolitan Stevedore Company at the Pier G facility. I appear before you tonight, ask you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the environmental determination following suit that the Board of Harbor Commissioners made for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company Operating Agreement and the Oxbow Energy Solutions lease for the Pier G facility. I am employed at the Long Beach Dry Bulk Terminal by Metro. In my capacity there, I manage the flow of traffic that brings multiple cargoes to the terminal for export. We handle all sorts of cargoes petroleum, coke, coal, sulfur, two sodas. I know that Metro has operated that terminal faithfully for over 50 years. I, in turn of loyalty, worked there at the dry bulk facility for over 20 years. This is how. I earn my living. This is how I provide for my family. Over my two decades there. I've watched with great pride as the Port and Metro have worked together to establish, maintain and operate a truly world class facility, one that is the envy in many in the world. Indeed, as part of my capacity, I have personally provided tours to delegations. From ports around the world that have been very. Impressed with our accomplishments in creating a state of the art. Marine terminal that's. Dedicated to the dry bulk products export. My father earned his living on the waterfront. So do I, along with countless associates and colleagues who dedicate themselves to operating the terminal for the city and port of Long Beach. I ask for your vote to continue this long existing operation and to ensure the livelihoods of those like me who depend on the dry bulk terminal. As the source of their income and security. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. And as we move forward, I just want to I just want to remind all the speakers that per the city attorney's earlier note there was try to stick to the speaker determination that is the issue before the city council for both sides. Sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Honorable City Council. Mr. Mayor, my name is Linton Johnson. I'm vice chair of ABC Long Beach. I'm also organizer at East Air Communities for Environmental Justice. Right. So sticking sticking to the issue at hand, the secure determination, the decision to continue, you know, to sign on for decade. It's more of exporting of a known toxic substance, right. Without doing an analysis on what the impacts are going to be in our communities. It's a you know, it's in my opinion, in my humble opinion, it's a bit irresponsible. The argument that I heard earlier was we didn't do it before, so why should we do it now? That isn't that. I just don't I don't understand. You know, there's a couple a couple of weeks ago, as there's a turn over to a new city council, there is an article. Mr. Mayor, you're actually quoted in saying that, you know, the port, the port and the city are strengthening relations and we are dedicated to smart growth. Wouldn't it be smart to know the impacts of of exporting coal and petcoke on our communities? I mean, we saw the pictures of these trains being go that go through our communities piled high with the coal and they're not covered. I mean, I spoke to I spoke to some youth who have actually seen these trains pass through their neighborhoods and they see the dust coming off. Right. This is this is not I mean, the argument that we haven't done it before so we shouldn't do it now is is shameful. We we call our port the green port. Right. Last week I was here and the director was here is talking about was very it was bragging. We're going to have one of the greenest terminals in the world. Well, what does that mean? We have one terminal is super green and another terminal is super dirty operating like you know, of offer. Our grandfather's technologies, then it kind of negates itself. Right. We need to stand behind what we say. And, you know, I'm a proud citizen of Long Beach and Long Beach native. And we go around and you see on busses in a bus stop the green port. Well, it's time to start acting like the green part. B, we have the responsibility not only to the residents of Long Beach, but, you know, here we are. We have residents from Wilmington, Carson. We have folks that have come down all the way as far as East L.A. because this the decision that the city of Long Beach has made to export coal not only affects us locally , but as a region and also internationally. Thank you for your time. I hope you make a decision. Thank you. Next week, a police. Hello. My name is Toby Gantt. I live in District eight and I would like to just encourage you to. Consider the human aspect of all of this. We've heard some great facts and figures today, but it comes down. To people, it comes down to health, it comes down to. The environment. A nice woman mentioned the money that's been given to the Boys and Girls Clubs by the energy industry. That's great. But what kind of future are we. Giving to those children? We want to give them a future that's healthy and green and clean, truly green and clean. And the very minimum. You all have the opportunity here tonight to take a stand courageously and say, at a minimum, we're going to require the port to do an environmental impact review. That takes very little courage on your part, but it is a courageous step. It is not saying that you stand for or. Against whether or not courts continue to be export from our port here. But it does show that you care enough to say, hey, we want to do what's right. For our children or for our future. I want you to think about those kids in the Boys and Girls Club, and I want you to think about your own children. What are we going to leave for them? The argument that we would be losing jobs. If a thorough environmental. Review was conducted and it was found that it is not viable. To continue, these lease agreements. Would not destroy jobs. That's ludicrous. More jobs. Would be created that don't. Necessarily depend on exporting dirty coal to other parts of the world where it is burned without any or little to no emissions regulations. We have one planet, one environment, one atmosphere. We share that with China, Japan and other places where this coal is burned. So please do what's courageous and just require a review. That's all we're asking. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Jasmine Vargas and this is my I love clean air sign. I take it everywhere. I'm with the Sierra Club's Beyond Poll campaign, and I've been working tirelessly in the Southern California area to build a climate movement that could answer and face the biggest problem that our generation has has faced, and that is climate change and global warming. But more than that, we're here to fight for justice. This is about environmental justice, and this is about putting pollution and on the backs of the poorest and most underrepresented people in this community, working in Long Beach and Wilmington and Carson in L.A., it's all the same. It's poor brown people, people of color facing the brunt of the pollution. And guess where that pollution comes from? We just heard about it, Ray. We just heard from the vice president and the president and everybody that makes lots of money from exporting coal. And what we heard from then is viable business. Great job. Right? But what we know is that it's not a viable business because they're creating an unlivable, unviable planet. And I'm not saying that people that work, people that are part of the system, people that are part of the fossil fuel industry are bad people. I'm not saying that the union workers that are getting jobs right now don't deserve a fair and just transition into a clean energy economy. And I'm not saying right now that you guys should kill this coal port or more or stop all coal exports, period. What I'm saying is for I want to see leadership, I want to see leadership from this council and I want to see you all stand up and say the bare minimum we can do is an environmental impact review for the people that voted us into this office. In the end of the day, if you vote against this deck, this environmental review, you're basically giving a blank check to the coal companies. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Louise Fleming. I live in Long Beach and District four. I'm opposed to the agreement to extend exporting coal from Pier G coal shed. The agreement did not take into consideration the future environmental impact due to the proper environmental analysis because of the exemption from this analysis. Furthermore, the agreement demands that a minimum amount of coal be exported to satisfy port fee requirements over an extended time. I believe at this stage the port should not be in the business of supporting coal. Interestingly, just today, Oregon's Department of State Lands denied permission to build a new loading dock to ship Powder River Basin Coal down the Columbia River to which would be exported to Asia. Similar to the model that is being proposed here. The Port of Long Beach is commendable for already having made tremendous strides in reducing port pollution with its innovative technologies and procedural changes, which is why it should not go completely blind into approving this agreement and undermine its own progress towards the theme of going green. There are no controls proposed to cover the huge piles of coal to contain the dust it would generate and would negate much of the pollution reduction benefits of the port benefits the port has recently achieved. Climate change is real. On September 21st, there will be a climate march, a climate change march in New York City that will focus attention on this critical issue. There is expected to be hundreds of thousands of people there and political leaders. It's a big deal. And, you know, it's going to draw attention to the demand action towards non-fossil fuel energy solutions. The clear direction of the United States as a world leader is to downsize coal while expanding alternative energy technologies. The Port of Long Beach would be going against this trend and send conflicting messages to the community and its own stakeholders. I urge the Council and the Long Beach port leadership to at the very least follow the school laws and conduct the proper environmental assessment on the coal export deal. But the best case and the big picture scenario here is that the council will make wise choices and think green port deny these future cold coal shipments for the environmental benefits and for benefiting from the green economic trends that is happening in our country. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And before but before we begin, we have if everyone in the line speaks with still over an hour of public comment, I know there's others that are not in line. She will limit public comment out of 2 minutes, beginning with the speaker moving forward without objection from the council. Please begin. Good evening. My name is Amy Turnbull and I am a. Resident who supports the appeal that we do an air on this matter before us. I'm concerned that extending. The extension of the lease agreements for the transportation, storage and exploitation of coal in and. Around Long Beach without conducting. State mandated environmental impact reports, is out of compliance and will set a precedent for special interest groups. Companies like Metro and Oxbow have interpreted the law. For their own benefit without regard for the health and safety and welfare of our community. Oh wait I forgot. Oxbow supports Ronald. McDonald House and for h transporting, transporting, storing and exporting coal goes against all policies of the Long Beach Green Port Program by allowing 1.7 million and more in the future. Tons of polluting coal annually through our streets, through our neighborhoods and our ports. Shame on the shame on the Long Beach Port. And for the people who support the Coal. Initiative for pretending that this project is exempt from Sequa analysis. The Seek the California Environmental Act guidelines define the impacts of projects. Replacing 126,000. Tons of asphalt as a significant expansion, requiring. Cycle analysis. Minimum tonnage and minimum. Shipments is a new language. Requiring sequel analysis. New data. On coal and its significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly requires discussion under Sequoia. I urge Long Beach. City Council to comply with the California Environmental. Quality Act and to analyze. With input from the. Community the many. Significant and negative impacts. Thank you very much. Of transporting and exporting coal. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. I'm Jeff Miller. I have lived in Belmont Shaw for 31 years. This is my first opportunity to speak to you since the recent elections. So I'll take a moment and congratulate you on your recent election. And I am happy to see all of you here tonight. And I welcome you to this chamber. I assume when you ran for office, you knew there would be nights like this. We had a couple of speakers who spoke about the economic benefits of this agreement and touted their community involvement as well. And they sort of implied what I heard was that 40 or 50 years of operating the way they have is is reason enough to allow them to continue doing what they are because of these benefits. The implication I was hearing was that these benefits will go away if they have to do the right thing. And I know we don't believe that if if railcars have to be covered, for example, they're not going to shut down operations. They're just going to be a little cleaner. I listened carefully to the arguments of the appellant. I found them believable, compelling and valid. And so I support the appeal. And I know that if you think about the details and what's being asked, you will, too. We're not asking that these operators necessarily leave the port. They're not going to do that. So please support that. And finally, on a personal note, every day I find a nice little film of black dust on my patio table outdoors. All of you live in Long Beach, so I know your table must look the same. And we breathe that dust. And now I don't know how much of that is attributable to the port operations or to this specific operation, but shouldn't we find out? That's what an environmental impact report will tell us. Please do that. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, repeat. And if we can also have the speakers just come forward that are in line so that we can create some room there in the back so we get an accurate count here. Please move forward. Please begin. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I just want to say that if we're going to continue with business as usual. Excuse me, ma'am. Can you. State your name. For the record. And serve Gail if we're going to continue with business as usual, these open called train cars spewing coal dust through highly populated areas of Long Beach, Wilmington and San Pedro. And for anyone who lives along the Alameda corridor or along the various highways where the petcoke is coming. Well, I've been doing train of do a lot of extensive research and we can make this into a workable solution so that everybody could be safe, healthy and still make money by selling coal and petcoke to third world countries. The way we can do this is issuing all the homes along these transit ways with a HEPA air filter and a HEPA vacuum cleaner and a respirator. This way people can stay safe and, you know, be able to breathe outside. Also, the most important thing I thought was to issue everybody a hazmat suit. They come in different sizes. They come in different colors. And they also are available for men, for women. They make respirators, smaller ones for children. And but most shockingly, to me, they even make them for pets. So, you know, for those of us who live, you know, near these transport areas, we can be covered and safe. Also, the industry people might think about this and, you know, get into these businesses of air filters and hazmat suits. But but I really want to say is we're America. We're not a third world country. And we can learn to live with coal dust if we have the means to do this. We can all get our hazmat suits every time you watch CNN and you see that all these unhappy people in China walking around and talking about their coal and how they can't breathe. Well, if we are well covered and we have respirators, we have American ingenuity and we don't have to be victims of very much. Time's up. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And can we can we please? I have I once again, I must remind us we need to stick. This is a hearing on the secret termination. So for both sides, it's a hearing on the secret determination. Please keep your comments to that. Per the city attorney's instructions at the beginning of the hearing, please. My name is Alisa Rivera. I'm a community organizer with Communities for a Better Environment, and I work with my work in Wilmington, nearby. And I would appreciate I know that it's getting a little late in day. You've been hearing from several people, but please don't. Be so sure. Thank both for the attention because we have. Prepare. For 3 minutes, so I'd appreciate to get my time. So I am going to focus on the. Effect of greenhouse gases. Things. That is what is involved with these two agreements of these very polluting material. I'm certain that you are. Aware that greenhouse gases have. Warm up the planet to very risky levels. Already the greenhouse gases are causing all the extreme weather events that we are seeing here in this country and worldwide. I started to realize the effects of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere when the tsunami in Indonesia happened in 2004. Do you remember that? I still. Remember it because it. Was after Christmas and I woke up to the horrendous photos on the newspapers and I realized that. The power of the sea was. Tremendous and that it could destroy anything suddenly and at any moment. What about the tsunami. In Japan more. Recently? What about Katrina in Sandy? And then we in the US and all this stolen hurricanes and freezing temperatures that have been paralyzed in different states in this country. Climate change is not recognizing whether the country is developed or not. Chad, look at the cases of the typhoon in the Philippines. And the record heat waves in Australia. Right now. These events are springing up everywhere in the world. The effects of greenhouse. Gases are being felt in the whole planet. That is why it is so imperative to cut down on activities that cause. More greenhouse gases. Coal and petticoat are two. Well-Known emitters of this greenhouse gas, and it is necessary to start cutting down on its use everywhere. Here in California, they are hardly used anymore. I think it is. Imperative that we take leadership and we say no to more. Polluting fossil fuels. Thank you very much for the appeal. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. Members of the council staff. My name is Joe Guiliani. I am the organizer of the South Bay 350 Climate Action Group and I will speak specifically. To the sequel issue. Here I am here to to ask that the appellate be upheld and that a sequel review be held. The primary justification that I have heard this evening from our friends at the port for not holding a sequel review is that nothing has changed. I heard that numerous times. I heard it in their original proposal presentation and then I heard it in their rebuttal. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. Well, the climate has changed. And what has really drastically changed in terms of CECA and our need for this review are the impacts that we suffer right here in Long Beach, in the South Bay, in Southern California. Our snowpack is gone. We have a drought, although many scientists consider this the new normal. This is the water we have to work with from now on. We don't have a wildfire season anymore because it's year round. We don't have an ocean that isn't acidified. Because it is acidified. You don't have a port that you can plan not to have sea level rise. You're having to deal with sea level rise. I could go down this list for you, but each of these impacts impact us here in this community, and each of these impacts are directly related to this operation at the port . You can call it bulk. You can call it dry goods. I notice that most of the people that work in this industry don't want to admit to calling it coal or petroleum products or fossil fuels. But I will say one thing to my friends who I admire and respect that work at the port. But there is one edict that I think we all must agree on. If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from it. Whether you are making your living from it, whether you're getting your nonprofit funding from it, if it is wrong to wreck the climate. We have a responsibility not to do that and we have a moral obligation not to profit from that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is David Trovato. I'm a Long Beach resident, and I love Long Beach and I love clean air. My background is that I came here seven years ago from West L.A. and before I came here and bought a house for the first time, I really did some research, and in my house that I ultimately did buy is a mile from the 710 Freeway. It's in the flight path. And just across the park from where I live there, there's a diesel train that goes by. Not exactly the cleanest air. But at that time. I did a little research and found out the. City council and the ports seem to be moving in the right direction to rectify that, or at least mitigate it. Make it better. And I was. Very and I was convinced to move here. And since then, I've been very. Proud of the city and the direction it's. Been going in terms of the environment. Having said that, I want to speak to directly to the Sea World. I do support the appeal. And the reason is basically that from what I hear, what I understand is that. There what they're saying is that there has been very there's no change. But to me, that's a very narrow definition of change, to be just that their operations are not changing. There are a lot of changes that are happening. So many people have already spoken about it. The environment has changed the product. My understanding that the product that they're moving has changed. And also the my understanding is that the quantities are changing. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there's a loophole in there that over the years, at some point they can change the quantity of what the amount of coal that comes into the port. I ask you, I urge you to look at all aspects, all angles of this to find out any way that you can justify having. The report done. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Thelma Golden. I'm a resident of Long Beach. I live at 3549 Fashion Avenue. I'm a long term resident here in Long Beach. I've been here almost 50 years. I'm here to support the repeal because it directly affects me. I live in what the port has designated as Area One, the most impacted area in Long Beach. These leases do. Not minimize the amount. Of coal that can come through the port. It only minimized what they can get paid for the total output. The way I understand the port's presentation is that it can go up to 5 million tons a year. The 1.7 is the. Minimum they have to go through, and that's the minimum that business members have to pay. But it nacht particulates which coal dust is directly impacts the children and the welfare of the residents of this city. And that is my most important recommendation for you guys to vote to send this back for school review. And I want to thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm Joel Weinstein, 4000 Linden Avenue. I'm here to support the appeal. If you look at the requirements of sequel, no further environmental impact analysis was required unless. Unless. There were substantial changes or there were changes in circumstances or significant new information available. Now, this was not 1992. There's been tremendous new information available. Part of that information, in fact, is what drove the impetus to have a green port. The new information available is of the entire area where we've been concerned with climate change. So I must ask those people who think we're setting a wonderful example for our young boys and girls. Do you think it's a great example for the port to be setting scofflaw example for doing the possible minimum instead of responding to the challenge of producing information in. In my career, I am always suspicious of arguments that we need less information or that we don't have to produce information even when the law encourages us to do so. I think you had better line up on the side of the wall and of providing information. You have had to do this to the point your predecessors had to do this to the port at least once. And I forget what the deal was, Pier J expansion or something. I think you'll have to do it again until they learn. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is. Barbara Brown. I'm a registered nurse at Community Hospital of Long Beach, and my name is Ellen Malkovich. I'm also a registered nurse at Longridge Community Hospital. I work in the intensive care unit. I've been a nurse for 31 years and I've spent all of it at Community Hospital of Long Beach, except for the ten months that we were closed. I'm also a proud member of the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, and we support sending this back for the appeal. Some people sometimes ask, why is the nurses union involved with the issues of dirty fossil fuels and climate change? And the answer is simple. When a child who lives or studies near refineries or export terminals comes to us with asthma, nosebleeds, headaches, nausea or worse, we care for that patient and we think this didn't have to happen. When a worker is injured in yet another well explosion, we care for that patient. And we think this didn't have to happen. When a train carrying toxic carbon materials derails and sickens an entire town, we care for the patients and we say this didn't have to happen. Our nurses union has deployed registered nurses to the disasters that were previously talked about. Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and the typhoon that ravaged the Philippines. The nurses cared for those patients in the devastated places. More and more evidence links those and other weather catastrophes to climate change. We as nurses are very concerned about dirty, deadly energy sources and climate change because we see the tragic results up close. And we want our kids to have a good future. Also, the children living near our port areas already suffer asthma at double the national rate, and that will continue to climb. And coal dust escapes from uncovered rail cars and into our lungs and water. It is my commitment to patient advocacy that brings me here, and it is the same for all the nurses. My time is up and I thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, wherever you are. And I'm city council members. Oh. The vice mayor here. Oh, say hello. And just to let everyone know when we go into the lounge, we have all of this piped in there. We can even hear it in the restrooms, even in the restroom. Since since the majority of the. People who have already spoken have presented practically all the important data and information that you need. Not to mention the fact that I have emailed you all. Like several times. I'm just going to say that I really can't believe that all of us have to come here and practically beg you for a secure review. The city of Oakland, which is a city who is probably in a lot more dire straits economically than we are. Their city council, their mayor, their port commissioners and the entire city. Okay, said no to Cole along with all the ports along the West Coast, up north in Seattle and Portland. They're all saying, no, they're fighting it tooth and nail. I just I must have been asleep at the wheel thinking that my elected officials were watching over us. My fault. Okay. But now I'm not asleep anymore. Okay. I'm your constituent. I voted for a couple of you already. I, I am saying that those of us who put you in office, you're there to serve and protect us and the city. And you have a responsibility. I'm a human being and I live in this city. I've been here all my life. I live on 35, 65 Linden Avenue, right where the 710 of the 710 of the four five come together. We're already breathing in massive amounts of diesel. Okay. We don't need. I want you to do the math here. They mentioned the 1.7 million. Ah, yeah. Trick. That's a trick question there. Do the math. 35 plus million tons over 15 years. That's what you're looking at. Excuse me, ma'am. I don't think you stated your name before you spoke. Catherine Castro. Thank you, Castro. Eddie, my name is Joe Ribicoff. I'm resident of Long Beach. I'm a neighbor of this mango. I live in the fifth district. Pleasure to meet you. And I see. Mayor Garcia has has changed a little bit. I'm here to speak in favor of the appeal. The Bible teaches us the sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children. In other words. The time to challenge the 1992 declaration is not long passed. In 1992 is today. We can't be bound by mistakes of 1992 that will project us another 15 years hence. If there is significant mistakes there, we should reexamine this today and not wait another 15 years. There has been change, change that merits this appeal, and the change may not be. The amount of coal that is supplied or the amount of. Repaving that needs may be required. The change is in the context, in the circumstances, as you've heard already. We're facing global warming. We've already experiencing the effects of global warming. What's changed is we're living in a much hotter planet. The pollution from this material is cumulative. We now live in an age where the accumulation is much beyond what it was back in 1992. Those reasons I urge you to grant this appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. I'm Gabriel Weeks, resident of Long Beach. I am the volunteer chair of the Sierra Club for this city, the ones in the surrounding areas here. I came down here mostly to say happy birthday to Rex, but for those of you who aren't having a birthday, we could talk about Sequoia. Oh, I've been working with Morgan and Adrian talking to various port staff for a long time, and there seems to be a genuine difference of opinion between the attorneys of whether or not we have to do a sequel document. Do we have to? Oh, we'd have to go to court to find that out, which way a judge would find. But maybe it would be prudent to do so even if we aren't legally obligated just to be safe. I get in the car. I don't think I'm going to have a traffic accident. I'm not planning on being hit by someone. But I put on this safety belt just in case we got in trouble in the city. Joe Weinstein was remembering, I believe it was Middle Harbor, something where we got in trouble for not doing the full secret document when there was the development. And second and PCH, the Home Depot Expo design, the attorney, the judge slapped that down because we didn't have a squad document. We hadn't done squat. So just to protect ourselves, we need to do that as a city and sequel. Do going through that process will give us a lot of information because I know I've met with a bunch of you guys individually. Patrick had some good questions. How much would it cost to cover the cool cars if that were done voluntarily by the Cole companies? Would the litigants drop any proceedings? I didn't know the answer to that because we we that's the kind of stuff you'd find out through doing a sequel process, the cost of some things that would make our lives and our our air cleaner for all of our families. So please send this back, have the port, just take another look at it, be a little more thorough so we all know what it is we're getting into with these contracts. Thank you, Gabrielle. Good evening, Vice Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Ruben Garcia. I am the president of Advanced Cleanup Technologies and also the managing member of Advanced Environmental Group. We are a technology based company based in Carson, California. I'm here tonight to speak to you and to give you a very brief story. And on behalf of Metro, I'm here to support Metro Knoxville. And I just would like to share something very, very briefly. We started developing this technology in 2004. This technology is in emission control technology to capture emissions from ships and locomotives. It wasn't well-received in 2004. And so we were able to partner with Union Pacific Railroad, several of the air regulators and some of the environmental justice community groups. The idea was to capture emissions from these moving locomotives in Roseville after a successful demonstration at the end of 2006. The idea was to move this technology down to the port of Long Beach or Los Angeles and continue the testing on ships. So the idea is to capture emissions from non stationary sources. After looking around for several partners in several shipping companies and terminal operators that would help us, we found none. There's only one company that stood up and stood up to the to the idea that this may be a good technology in the fight for clean air. So Metro has been a true partner. Not only did they let us test this technology on their dock, but they organized several vessels. To date, we've tested on over 50 ships and continue to do our testing. We're just about ready to be CARB approved. This will not happen without the support of metro ports in their forward thinking with respect to the environment. I urge you tonight to consider this and to support Metro. I also want to note that Oxbow has been a leader and has been helpful to us and also providing the leadership and other facilities, not just this one. Also, I want to note that it took me ten years to get this certification done. So I will note that the city and the port of Long Beach does not take these matters lightly. And if you can get approved in the port of Long Beach and the great work that the environmental staff has done under their leadership , I can tell you that you will. Your technology works. Thank you very. Much. Thank you, Robin. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Honorable City Council members. My name is Peter Santillan, business manager of Labors Local 1309 and tonight I'm here in support of my brothers and sisters from the IOW. And I am I hear the community. I hear the concerns. I also heard the report from staff. And while I'm here, strongly urge you to adopt a resolution denying the appeal of holding the Board of Harbor Commissioners environmental determination. I want to ask that staff continue to work with the community, find ways of possibly addressing the issues. But nevertheless, I'll make it short and to the point I urge you to adopt a resolution and approve the leases. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Morgan Wian. I'm an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the appellants this evening. Thank you for holding this hearing. I want to speak on a few issues. First, I want to just note that we cannot look at this in a vacuum. Just by opening up the newspaper. We can see the coal industry wants to increase export of coal from U.S. ports. There is no doubt that we will see an increase from Oxbow in others at perigee and desired increase of along ports across the coast. Because the port entered this agreement that locked us in for 15 more years of coal. We will not have another chance to even consider this issue to consider coal exports. Now is the time. Second, on the issue of the appropriate baseline, determining the proper baseline is a complicated legal question. There are countless court cases only about the issue of what is the proper baseline. The fact that we are having a debate about this is just another example of why you should send this back to the port for a proper sequence analysis. In my view, we cannot use the ports projections for the next several months as a baseline in a cycle analysis. Third, on the guaranteed minimum issue, whether it was written merely as a financial mechanism doesn't really matter. What matters here is the functional result of this part of the contract and the functional result. The result is that we can expect at least 1.7 million metric tons of coal, which is more colvin the port has exported for the past several years. 1.7 million tons is an increase. Fourth. Aside from the baseline question, a key question here is whether this is the kind of thing that was meant to be exempt from CEQA . It's a very simple question and the answer is no. This is just too big of a deal. Coal dust, greenhouse gases, we know we know a lot more about this than we did when I was just a little kid in 19. I was just born 82. And in 1992, we know a lot more. The port, the port locked us in the 15 more years of coal, and they did it blindly with basically no information of the consequences. You should send it back to make an informed decision. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. And and before we before we speak, I'm going to close the speakers list and there's someone else is going to that's getting in line that is not in line. That speaker is going to be closed with the last person. So please get in line because I am going to close the speaker list right now. So the line doubles again. Okay. And okay. So I don't know the person that in the last person in line with Alex Charron will be the last speaker. And the speaker's office is closed after Alex Stern is the last speaker. Okay, great. My name is this was Rosemont. I'm one of the 31 union employees at Oxbow. I could be an employee for 18 years. I worked there for 12 hours. So 18 years of experience. I've seen a lot of changes there. Everything's been for the better. They have a great track record. They have a strong workforce, an experienced workforce. Most of Oxbow employees have been there for ten plus years. I worked 12 hours a day. I have a clean bill of health. I don't have asthma. I'm not diabetic. And I work 12 hours a day. Oxbow held to a higher standard that we can. We keep our facilities clean. We have a high. What we see are a community drive by piece of mind. Because I know our facilities are always clean, spotless. And I'm here to say, please allow me to be the sole provider for my family for 15 more years. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Please. No, no yelling out in the audience, please. I've asked for us to be respectful of our speakers, regardless of who side they're on. Please, sir. Good evening, Mayor. And city council members. My name is Steve Cannon. I'm also in play for Oxbow. I've been working there for 14 years. The environmental cleanliness has increased drastically since my employment in the last 14 years. I heard one of the persons say that getting rid of the coal would not lose any jobs. It's going to lose my job and my coworkers jobs and makes me upset. You know, I have to fight. Pay my employer for my wages when I'm negotiating. And I had to fight environmental people to leave my job alone. And I wanted. I want you to deny the request for the sequel. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council members. My name is Bobby Olvera Jr. I'm a proud resident of downtown Long Beach, 1200 East Ocean, and I'm currently the president of the ILWU Local 13. Five months ago. I'm an advocate for a minute. Five months ago, I wasn't in a tie in a suit. I'm not really comfortable in it tonight. But five months ago I was working in the tunnels down to the cocaine. I was shoveling coke off the rails. And 40 years ago, I watched as my father came home from working at the Coke docks. The improvements that have been made, the improvements that are included in this appeal or this this lease, they're doing this for the betterment of the community. The workforce down there in the union have worked hand in hand with the employer to mitigate any types of air quality problems. We put in higher sprinklers. They require cars to be hosed off before you exit the terminal. So what we're doing here tonight is we're not here to talk about social issues because there's a lot of social issues and it becomes a myriad of hypocrites. What we're here to do tonight is to deal with the lease of the existing operation and to lay some new concrete in an existing spot. Nothing new, nothing more. We all know that there's problems around the world. That's not what you're here tonight to do. Brothers and sisters of the board and Mr. Mayor, you're here tonight to consider this lease, which has been thought out, work through by the Port and the Harbor Commission through counsel, not to minimize the worries of the environmentalists or my fellow residents in Long Beach, for those of you that are residents of Long Beach. But what you have here is the cleanest terminal. We've got a terminal on Stockton, California, that has open bars, that uses bulldozers outside. That's not clean. And they're working on that. They're making improvements. But here in Long Beach, it is growing. And I've issued each one of the city council members and yourself, Mr. Mayor, a detailed letter. I didn't want to regurgitate it to you tonight, but I was working there five months ago. My son, my house. I look outside my back patio every morning and I can see the coal burn. I can see the big blue barn. And I take my son outside and we play. And I'm comfortable with that. I'm comfortable knowing that I'm putting these brothers and sisters to work up there and that even with companies that I don't agree with, like Savage, I'm putting those brothers and sisters to work. So please uphold this lease and deny the appeal in front of you tonight. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Sam Snook. It's Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, I want to thank you first for your patience. I saw some of the stuff that was going around on around measure and your cents. And it's to your patience and to your foresight on this that I appeal to and folks have talked about 1992 is a long time. I don't believe at that point I was three. So we have literally a generation between the negative declaration, the conversation we're having this evening. With that in mind, AB32 wasn't on the books a generation ago. The Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports wasn't working on trucks a generation ago. Measure and wasn't law. A living wage for hotel workers wasn't law in Long Beach a generation ago. And it's to your foresight, foresight, the foresight of people like you and the foresight of yourselves that these things came to pass. And I appeal then to that foresight. And so that patience to kind of just push this back the cycle which exists to make sure these things work. And when it does and I'm sure it will, because as folks have said, Long Beach, it has a world class reputation for for being committed to zero emissions and to clean energy. And so community responsibility. One, this does come back and is approved. Then we'll talk about it again. Again, I appeal to your patience, which I've seen in good measure and to your foresight in making sure that Long Beach remains committed to being the cleanest and greenest port on the West Coast. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Mark Lopez. I'm with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, also a resident of East L.A. And in 1992, I was seven years old, playing soccer and baseball at the park by my house. Right. The same park that my daughters are going to play, soccer and baseball. And, you know, when I was sitting there, I wasn't even going to testify, but just hearing a lot of information, I had to come up here. So I was thinking about my daughter, who was about two and a half years old. And so she's a toddler. She asks a ton of questions. Right. Her probably favorite question is, what's that? Right. She hears her baby sister crying. What's that? She hears her mom walking in another room. What's that? Right. The TV makes a sound. What's that? Right. I also live about five homes away from the Union Pacific rail line that comes through East L.A. and the City of Commerce. And multiple times a day, the train comes roaring by. Right. We hear the engines. Sometimes you can feel the engines, right? You can hear the hundreds of cars that pass by, if not thousands, by my house every day. Right. They sound like this, right? Multiple times a day. 1 a.m., 3 a.m. all day. My daughter never asked, What's that? She never asks. What's that? She's become accustomed to it. Right. And the point of my story is, just because we become accustomed to something doesn't mean that it should continue to be acceptable. A standard from 1992 shouldn't be acceptable today. Now we can all live here, write and communicate with the rest of Long Beach, the rest of the region, the rest of the state, and so on. And we can communicate that you are here requested for more information on the impacts of this project so you can make a smart decision. Or we can go into everyone you didn't want to know. Right. That's. That's really the decision that's here. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Complete. I don't support the appeal. First, it's an attack on the transportation of coal. Well, how are we supposed to get it? If I transport it to the coal is dirty. Well, so is the gasoline we put in our cars to go to our jobs. Three coal feeds industry. It builds. It's positive. And we have a lot of restraints on it now. Four We don't need more regulations. We're overregulated enough. It stifles industry. Six It's good enough for me to hear the environmental agency give out an award to those responsible. Thank you next week. Good evening, Mayor. Council staff. My name is Jeremy Harris, senior vice president at Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce here tonight to speak on behalf of the chamber and urge you to support the staff recommended position to deny the appeal and uphold the Board of our Commissioner's environmental determinations. An interest of time. I'll keep my comments short, as we've already heard a lot tonight. As you're aware, Metro and Oxbow have been operating the port for decades. Their agreements were approved by the Board of Harbor Commissioners simply to extend their current operations and improve that financial arrangement with the port in order to keep business moving at the port. This is much needed in order to keep those high paying wage jobs and the economy moving down there. So in the interest of time, I ask you to support the staff recommended position allow you for our comments in tonight's record. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. City Council. My name is Al Sattler. I first would like to say I received an email from John Moreland and he said he had submitted it, but he wasn't sure it was going to be in the record. So I would like to hand this off a hard copy. And he did specifically say that he believed the Harvard Department did not adequately analyze the new environmental impact of the new agreement, and it did not address impacts not analyzing previous environmental documents for the facility. And he has a number of pages here also like to show you, for those who haven't been down to look, this is another look at what coal trains can look at the various coal cars heading off into the distance, probably 100 cars in that in that train. The air if if there is no environmental review of this project, see no evil, hear no evil, speak to evil. It's it's not good. And I also would like to point out to you the most recent issue of Nature magazine just came August 14th. There is an editorial in here from a scientist from China who is saying China should aim for a total cap on emissions. And he is pointing with concern to the possibility for up to 100 million tons of coal per year from the Pacific Coast. We should not be part of that. Thank you. Thank you. Please, if if the line can move forward. And just as a reminder, the speaker's list is closed. There are no more public public speakers after. I believe it's Mr. Chairman in the back. Please, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. My name is Hans Relman. I'm a member of the Sierra Club. The coal business is a worldwide business. And the Port of Long Beach is part of that business. And whether you're mining or shipping or burning coal, you're involved in a environmentally very dangerous process. So the city of Long Beach should have its eyes wide open when it makes a decision to continue. What what's been been going on for a long time. So I am very much in favor. Of an environmental review. Thank you. Thank you. It's bigger. Hello, I'm Jeannie Williams from the eighth District. I'm also secretary. They lost Cerritos Neighborhood Association and we represent 1000 homes just like you were and elected officials of our group. And we. Made a motion. To. Be in favor of doing this. So you're in favor of the appeal. A second thing I want to. Bring up that. Oh, did I say we represent like 1000 homes, you know, so that could be. Yeah. Three, 4000 people. L cne so. Second thing I want to bring up to you real quick is that I've been working with Adriana and work and I. Am incredibly impressed with her knowledge of the law, how articulate they are. And how they have cooperated for years with the port already. You know all that. Well, let's get to the sequel, though. Oh, well, what we have. Discussed, the reason I came at the end and what I won't discuss. I think we've already reached the conclusions that the port is green, that the stevedore docks were pro-environment. And I have to say that when they're forced to be by law, that the city council overwhelmingly over the years is going to the direction of being pro-environment . And that sequel will not eliminate jobs. Let's talk about secure. As far as I've learned, the people that do the environmental report are support. Am I incorrect? Like, if if it gets approved and you have to do a secure the port does it. So then you've got to say, okay, three points here I want to bring up just really quick to you. Why would they not want to do it? You have one cost. Okay. So cost equals how many babies, how many children with asthma, you know, should die? How does that equal anything? Second thing is, something's hiding. You know, this would bring transparency to all of us and put us all at rest. The third thing is that the Koch brothers, all of them are known are known for hating regulations of the federal government. One point the final point, here you go. Last sentence and I get this from the press telegram today. I'm plagiarize a little bit and I'm paraphrasing a little bit is that if you show favoritism and you circumvent the law talked about this, you make the laws laughable. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity. My name's T.L. Garrett. I'm with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. I'm here to support the staff's determination that the category one in the Category two categorical exemptions or the appropriate level of psychoanalysis for this project. I believe that's the case, and I believe you should deny the appeal. The only issue I have that I would also like to raise is the potential precedence that this action could raise. If every time a lease is opened that it's a do over. Situation, it will create tremendous uncertainty within the business community. And will result in chaos. So I urge you to deny this appeal. Please. I know I've said it many times, but let's be respectful of both sides of the people that are at the comment. They're here to give. They get their 2 minutes, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And City Council. My name is Jessica Yard. All Laurie. I'm an attorney for and a member of the Sierra Club. I want to address a couple of quick issues in addition to my my wonderful co-counsel from Earthjustice, NRDC and City. This issue is one about transparency and simply conducting a requisite and required study under. See what the legal review does not shut down the facility. It does not stop exporting any of these commodities. It is simply a study to figure out who is impacted and what the impacts might potentially be. In addition, you know, if if this decision stands, it stands with the port turning a blind eye to the myriad of impacts folks have talked about here this evening. I also want to talk about the context in which this is occurring and give you a snapshot of what's happening on the West Coast. The port, if it upholds and requires Sequoia for this decision, stands in very good company. The Oregon Department of State Lands actually just rejected a permit for the export of coal. Just yesterday in Oregon, the Port of Oakland rejected flat out a new coal export facility in Oakland as well. The Oakland City Council has also expressed severe concerns with the transportation of coal and other fossil fuels. More importantly, on the issue of environmental analysis in Washington, there are two large coal export facilities currently undergoing a joint NEPA and CPO, which is the Sequoia equivalent in Washington Review. It's simply a study. These studies, if you do them right and you do them in depth, they do take some time. This one actually is a fairly easy thing for for the city council to require just going back and doing an initial analysis that's not much. In addition, I believe the gentleman before me just said, well, what about the precedent this sets? What does this do for other commodities? The answer is coal and fossil fuels are unique. I mean, there is a unique impact here and one that has to do with climate change, coal dust, air pollution and a number of issues that the folks that our community all along the rail line, from the mine to the port, the port to the plant in China, that need to be analyzed. We can't simply turn a blind eye to all of these things. So I urge the Long Beach City Council to stand with with the other city councils along the West Coast to require this analysis. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and City Council. I'm speaking to you tonight in support. Of this appeal. I'm a 13 year resident and business owner in District one, the Linden Historic District. Excuse me, ma'am. Can you state your name for the record, please? I beg your pardon, Pamela Kelly. At the end of June or the beginning of July, I started noticing that I had shortness of breath and that the air was dirtier than usual. A little while later, maybe around July the seventh, on a monday night, when I was driving home from teaching at UCLA Extension, I was stopped at the red light at PCH and Long Beach Boulevard. I wasn't thinking about anything in particular. I just gazed out the window and I looked at the street light and I noticed what looked like a shimmering blanket suspended in the air. I'd never noticed it before, and I was startled by it. It was eerie looking. I shared that with my husband when I returned home and later with my city councilwoman Gonzalez at a neighborhood meeting on July the 18th. That meeting also happened to be out of doors, and I started feeling the shortness of breath during that meeting as well. I bought three air purifiers, which help, but they don't dust my furniture, which is constantly dusty. And again, I'm here and supported this appeal. And I thank you for your generous listening. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Excuse me. Honorable Mayor. City and mayor. City Council, city staff, simple citizen. I support this appeal. Please give your name for the. I'm sorry. Excuse me. My name is Peter Rosenwald. I support this appeal. During the rebuttal by the city attorney. I believe she said that there was no change, nothing was different in terms of use. Well, I just want to say, I believe that there is something different. I think that this is these are pictures which I believe all of you have seen of the work of the operation near the port. And when I gave these to the city clerk so that he can send them around to you. I had a conversation earlier today with Mr. Art Wang, the assistant director of communications for the port. And my question was, what happens to all the water that they use that they washed down the trucks with the area that has called dust? And the answer he gave me is there's $1,000,000 catch basin, a million gallon catch basin, a pure G to stop rainwater or any other water from running into the ocean. Metro stevedore who uses the water in its catch basin to suppress dust and keep the terminal clean. Have you actually looked in to see where this water goes, where it'll be used, where it's ultimately recycled? I think that that those are very important questions. I did call the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and I wasn't able, because of the lateness of this, to get an answer from them. But I think that this decision, if you don't support the appeal, that you will put this off so that more investigation can be done about the environmental effects. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. And our final speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Alex Charron, and although I represent Metro Ports, I'm here tonight in my capacity as a lifelong resident of the city of Long Beach and as a father of two children living proudly in the seventh District. The very first question you were asked tonight in public comment was who believes in clean air? Well, here's my scorecard. Metro Ports. Metro Ports believes in clean air at a time when the active system couldn't find a home and the saw kind of stack technology had no investors, metro ports stepped up. It wasn't easy financially or operationally, but they did because Metro believes in clean air. The Port of Long Beach believes in clean air. I know of no other agency, public or private, that has invested as much capital in cleaner technologies and been. Recognized for it as the Port of. Long Beach. But they did it because they believe in clean air. The Harbor Trucking Association, who I represent, who eight years ago because the port asked them to invest in 1 billion with a B $1 billion of their own money in clean trucks. It wasn't easy, but they did it because they believe in clean air and they support these leases. Lastly, the ILWU. With all due respect to all the other public speakers tonight, nobody else is on the front lines. Nobody else knows the impacts, good and bad, of the terminal operations more than the men and women of the ILWU . And they support these leases. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. With that, we are going to continue the hearing and we are going to now open it up for council deliberation and action. And just as a reminder, the city council has two options in considering the appeal. Option one is to deny the appeal and approve the resolution affirming the secret determination. An up or option two is to grant the appeal and direct the harbor department to proceed with with appropriate seek a review before the harbor department reconsiders the agreement. So as stated by the city attorney earlier, that was the the two options available to the city council. So bring this back and I'll start with Councilmember Price. I had a question for Mr. Mayes before we started this process. You talked about the narrowness of the issue before us. Can you please restate the issue before us? You're basically it's a matter of jurisdiction and the city charter vests in the board of Harbor Commissioners, the responsibility to make certain determinations regarding what activities can and should take place in the port. So it's within the port's purview to determine whether or not it's appropriate to either enter into leases, extend leases, modify leases, those sorts of things by state law and by secure regulations. It's within the city council's purview to handle any and all appeals of the six determinations. So the narrow issue before the Council is strictly deals with whether or not the port applied the appropriate sequence standard when they determined that both the lease and the operating agreement were categorically exempt from further sequent review. So it's that narrow issue. Thank you. Councilmember Price. See you back up. Wrong button. Okay. Any other questions? Customer Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, first of all, I want to thank the many members of the community who came out today. I want to thank the port. I mean, this has been back and forth. And this is not going to be an easy call for the city council in any way. I did have a few questions as I am deliberating my decision here tonight. And I wanted to specifically address the the the issue of capacity at the pier. And maybe somebody here can match from Metro or Oxbow can can answer my questions or the port. Probably appropriate for this time for someone from the port to begin to answer the questions. And if they determine that one of the other companies can step in, that would be fine. So as I understand it, there are at least four different commodities that are that are shipped out of the out of Pier G, export it. First and foremost, what percentage of of a business in a port is exports? Somebody. Anybody. Of our total volume of containers and bulk products, 30% of our business. Is bulk products. Okay. Thank you. And I understand that there are four different commodities that we heard about, the pet coke. We heard about the obviously the coal. I know there to be there's sulfur as well as sort of ash. These are the major or main commodities that are shipped there. I just want to tell you, I had opportunity. I've met with the the the in our DC and the coalition, Sierra Club Coalition that came in and had a great conversation a few weeks ago on the 14th floor. And I made a commitment to, to meet with all of the stakeholders. I met with the Port of Long Beach. I met with Metro, with Oxbow. I met with Congressmember Alan Lowenthal. I tried to do my due diligence to get my hand around this, my head around this issue. And I also went on a tour of pirogue. I got to tell you, I was a health and safety representative in the aerospace industry at Boeing for a number of years. I have a trained eye for for engineering and health and safety standards. I found that facility to be top class personal protective equipment was utilized. It was, in plain view, easily accessible. Everybody had on their hardhats, their stilettos, boots, hearing and breathing apparatus. They were they were dressed appropriately. I got an opportunity to witness the operations. I saw a coal train station. I saw where it it where the the the the the shower, so to speak, hits the train as it comes in. I actually saw the the the the apparatus that actually takes in the the train closes it it showers the coal and flips it and it sends it underground to a conveyor belt that then moves the coal to a to a capsule that that pushes it into the the the the shed, the coal shed in question. There was a not not a whole lot of exposure, particularly at the port. And so for that, I think the port operations is world class. What we don't have a handle on is the shipping of the coal, the trains from from across the country. They coal. They they they they mine in Utah and Colorado. And in talking to my congressman, he said, you know, and I talked to them. I said, you know, you you dealt with this issue early on as a as a state assembly member, as one of your first acts as a state assembly member. And it was major legislation because I lived in Long Beach a long time. I can recall, you know, the black dust. Yes, we still have it. And it's questionable where that's from. You know, it could be from our freeways and all kinds of other particulate matter that's in the air. But in terms of regulating the the the the shipment of coal along railroads, I don't think that's personally in the purview of this this council. The second question I had is regarding the fact that I know when I was out there, I observed several other operators in the port and it pure gee, not just the operators in question, obviously metro there. But my question is, are there other exporters of coal in the empire? Gee. And I wasn't exactly sure of that. Is there any other organization doing that? Our company. There are none other for export. Okay. To the Indian. All right. I have no other questions for right now. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Thank you. And I, too, appreciate the work of both sides. You did a good job of outreaching and educating us on your perspectives. And this is interesting. I really think this comes down to and maybe you, Mr. City attorney, you can help me a legal question opposed to a policy question. The policy side is, should we be digging up coal? Should we be moving coal? Should we be selling coal? But the legal question before us is, I think you've kind of laid out is pertains to the school provisions. Is that accurate? That's correct. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Turn back to you, Mr. Councilmember Durango. First of all, I want to thank everyone, especially those in the seventh District, who came down here tonight and speaking on behalf of what's taking place. Obviously, the seventh District is one of the most affected districts when it comes to decisions impacting the port. But I do have a few questions related to the presentations that were made. In terms of the Class one series of categorical exemptions. We're talking about a facility that holds well, that the minimum is 1.7 metric tons. Correct. That's correct. The current the estimated throughput for 2014 is 1.7 million metric. Tons, but the capacity of the facility. Is estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. Okay. You answered my question and that one in 1992, there's been a lot of reference about the 1992 study and how that was not also a negative declaration in regards to that. At that time, the negative declaration was obviously a different era. I heard some some young, young people say they were, what, five and six and seven when they were 92 or three when 92 was around. So it's a different world, different time. Has there since then been any move or any any any consideration for doing an environmental impact study on those and also on that on the transportation and storage of coal? At all. Has there been any any discussion about that? The the Sigma analysis is required at the time that there's a new action that's associated with the with the facility. The 1992 negative declaration was for the construction of the coal shed. And since then, operations have been continuing consistent with what was approved when the 1992 negative declaration moved forward. The action in front of the council tonight is related to the agreements that have just been adopted. That was a new action that the board considered. Those agreements are for the continuation of the existing operations as they're currently being done, consistent with the evaluation that was analyzed by the 1992 negative declaration. Which came in the category in a class to cat category to appeal for for the for the exemption here. There is a talk about the replacement of reconstruction that's going to be taking place with asphalt. Is that is it normal for any agency that's going to do that larger replacement to go through a sequel or in the air. Class to you? Exemptions are are provided for doing repair work replacement work in-kind in the same place. And so it the the asphalt repaving work that's being proposed. Is is. Consistent with a class two exemption. Class two exemptions are commonly used for repaving work by agencies such as Caltrans for repaving work that. They. Do on highway systems of much greater quantities than what's being considered here at the pier facility. For example, the 710 repayment was that with that trigger, something that. The. 710 project. Is is a. Different level of project. It's a it's there's a. Lot of different reconstruction that's being provided with. That. If they were to do repaving in kind on the 710 currently a class two exemption could apply to that. But the entire. I 710 modernization redevelopment. Project is. Is a different classification. Okay. Now I take it that the water Long Beach is not burning coal or pickle keep the same. That's correct. So so if there are so what are the local impacts on the air and water in the storage of the coal in this facility, if any? And if there are, are there any efforts to minimize those impacts? AQ m d Rule 1158 was associated with minimizing the. Dust. And potential nuisance issues related. With the. The movement of these dry bulk products through the facility, including coal. Petcoke. Another other products. The requirements that are established through that rule are being. Applied at the facility to minimize impacts. That includes covering all of the storage areas and closing all of the loading and unloading operations, including water sprayers and closing all of the conveyor belts and the ship loader and all of that. That work and all of the facility improvements out. At the. Facility are consistent with the requirements of a rule and 58. You know, if I heard correctly, there's another 79 or so leases or projects that are in the pipeline for evaluation and negotiation. And I guess in along with that, would those projects also be subject to this type of evaluation? They review. The the list. Of projects. That was identified by the appellants was from the EIA for the high green facility that was recently approved. It was. A list of all of the potential projects. In the area. Of. The port, and each of those would be subject to their own environmental secure analysis. To be handled independently. That would all be independent. That's correct. So just to summarize into, there would be no president if we were to say. To accept the appeal, and it would not affect all the other projects. It would not it would not be president, certainly to have all those other projects also in part. Go through an appeal. Process automatically. The list of projects that are in that Thai air are projects that are undergoing environmental review through year at this present time. And the there there kind of an apples and oranges type situations because they don't they involve changes to projects or brand new projects as opposed to projects for existing facilities where there are no changes being proposed. So it's kind of a different situation in terms of precedent setting. The you know, the granting of the appeal could potentially set a precedent of bringing all the lease renewals forward for new environmental review. That would be the precedent. Okay. So I understand. So this is dealing with a renewal, not necessarily the new project. It is essentially a renewal of a lease and a new lease, changing the structure of the lease so that there is a direct contractual relationship between the city and the lessee. Oxbow As opposed to Oxbow being a sub tenant of Metro. New York, which is. Thank you. Councilmember Gonzalez. Okay. Thank you all for being here and thank you for all the information. I just have a couple of questions. And, you know, we certainly understand the overall scope of this, but what we're presented here with is is very narrow. And so I just want to make sure I'm getting everything clear. First question, is the port director, he cannot just unilaterally increase the tonnage, is that correct? I just want to make sure of that. I mean, that's been a question that. That's correct. There. There is that the capacity of the facility is fixed. Nothing in the action and nothing in the agreement modifies the capacity that is to estimated at 2.3 million metric tons. There is a provision in. The lease that identifies that there is a. A limit on the amount of. Petcoke. That can go through the coal shed through the first five years of the of the facility. The executive director or chief executive can consider modifying that limitation on petcoke through the facility, but the overall throughput at the facility would never be able to go beyond the physical limits of the. Capacity of the facility. Okay. And then as far as a Q IMT and is it called a health impact reporter, what would it be called? The report that AQ, M.D. provides and how often is that reported? You know, it's two. Any impacts. I know you'd mention that briefly. Right. I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't think there was a reference to Akhmed requiring a report. I think there are there is certain equipment out there that Akhmed does provide permitting for, and they have prepared environmental impact reports for various actions that they've taken, including the rule adoption of 1158. So they have studied the issue and taken action on their own. But in terms of the a reference to a report that Akhmed has prepared, there has been no reference to that. Okay. So there's not again, there's just not regular reporting. I just wanted to get that cleared. That's. That's correct. That's our understanding. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Price. Okay. Well, first of all, thanks to all those who came out tonight to talk to us and express our concerns about this particular item and also educate us on some of the broader environmental considerations in terms of coal. I just wanted to clarify a few things with the staff before we conclude or go through our deliberation process. As I understand it, the issue before this body is as follows and that the scope is very narrow. And the only determination for this Council is whether the court decision regarding the second determination was justified based on the law and within the scope of the port's powers. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So the question really before us is whether the changes to this list fall outside of the categorical exemptions, thereby triggering the need for secure evaluation. Is that correct? Yes. In terms of that, specifically, these questions would probably go to the port. We've heard and like Council member Austin, I too have met with all the stakeholders and attempted to educate myself on the issues. And I did meet with NRDC, Earthjustice and the Sierra Club and followed up on specific questions that they had. I think, however, that there's still some a lack of clarity, at least in the minds of some, regarding two major points. The first and I'd ask the port staff to confirm this if I if my understanding is correct. My understanding, based on the documents that you've provided to us to review in preparation for tonight, is that there will, in fact, not be an increased capacity or throughput of coal. Is that correct? That's correct. That the GMT is not a coal throughput requirement. However, it is a financial term utilized in the contract. Is that correct? That's correct. It's a requirement for payment, not a minimum throughput or performance requirement. And that there is no expectation on the part of the port or the city that there will be an increase in the export of coal beyond what has been exported in the past or that is currently being exported. Is that correct? The at the facility, the current capacity is up. To an estimated 2.3 million metric tons. There's nothing in the agreement that changes that. The the facility could be operated in a way up to the limits of the physical capacity today. And they can be operated up to the limits of the physical capacity tomorrow under the new agreements. Nothing in the agreements will change that. Okay. Finally, in regards to the categorical exemptions, the fact that the port is relying on, is it accurate to conclude that the improvements on the property, the improvements that have been discussed, do not rise to the level requiring further environmental analysis because they include the same type of concrete pavement, same location and done for maintenance and structural integrity . That's correct. Of the maintenance and repair work that's identified in the agreements are replacements in kind for safety improvements and to restore structural integrity. And because of those two points, that's where the categorical exemptions serve to not require psychoanalysis. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you. So. So would someone help me understand the connection here between uncovered trains and whether the sequel was whether we're required to do a report? The question would be whether or not that's a new condition or a change in condition. The analysis that was previously done for the operation assumed uncovered. It has been uncovered, but. And in addition, putting aside the previous analysis, you're looking at a existing facility. And I do want to clarify that we've had a lot of reference to the 1992 negative declaration for the coal shed. There's also the earlier analysis that was done for the expansion of the throughput for the facility, all of which was coming by uncovered railcar. But it is important to note that the categorical exemptions are separate and apart from those previous analyzes. And the question there is whether or not it's an existing facility operating within its capacity or if the capacity is changing and that that is connected to the components that feed into that facility, such as the rail lines and their operation. So the real test is whether or not there's a change that is in capacity or from what exists now in order to apply those categorical exemptions. So so the trigger is is there a change? Is there a change as a change in capacity is a key issue? Yes. Okay. And there from what I hear tonight, there's no evidence of a change. Now, help me help me understand the the pavement aspect. Does that present any change to the operation? Repaving the two football fields worth of asphalt? It does not result in any changes to the operation. What it is, is a replacement in kind in the same location. Okay. When I repave it, when we repave a street, do we do an environmental? Because I'm sure the streets that we've repaved in the ninth District are more square footage than this? Or is there ever a moment where we have to do an air on those sorts of projects because we do those like all the time? Is there a difference there? No, there's not. Let me ask that. I thank the community for coming out on both sides. And someone said that this was this is a human element here. And I see humans that are impacted by this on both sides. And it's not an easy issue. And although it seems like the question that's put before us is a very narrow question. A couple of things did come up that really concern me. I just think it's inappropriately placed here, you know, this uncover train circumstance that passes through all of our communities. I'm really concerned about that. So my question is, what agency has the jurisdictional authority to actually do something about that? The Surface Transportation Board. Its federal agency. Is a federal agency. That's correct. So has the city of Long Beach ever engaged this agency? Have we added it to our federal legislative agenda? Have we ever engaged on this issue? Not to my understanding. However, I'm not I'm not sure a city staff would need to advise. Is anyone here? Okay. So. So, I mean, if it seems like when there was concern with the coal piles, we were able to work with our state legislators to to find a fix for that. And it seemed like here, if we really want to do something about uncover Coltrane's the appropriate place might be to amend our Fed Legenda or to send it to our federal or federal legislation committee to take a good look at it. Because, I mean, the question here is really narrow, but these are really juicy issues to to talk about. So, you know, at some point, I just want to say that maybe this is more appropriate there at Fed Ledge. And I I'd be willing to entertain that conversation as the chair of our village committee. And then the last question I have is how many leases do we renew, like on an annual basis of the port? How often do we go through this? Just a new lease with similar no change. How how often does this happen? Renewals. It's a common practice. It happens a handful of times each year. A handful of times a year. Do we go through this with with all of those? What's the difference between that one, those that we go through and this one? Is it the nature that this one is coal or what's the difference? Just help me understand. Break it down for me. It's our understanding is the concerns that are raised, raised with this issue are specific to the export of coal. Have there been any appeals on any of the other licenses we had in the last three years? Maybe. Not to my understanding. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Andrews? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. You know. I really I applaud everyone who's coming out tonight and the patient that you've shown us. And I've also had a chance to speak with the stakeholders. But, you know, I truly believe, you know, the documents to put it these cases, you know, I'm not a sick or environmental expert, but I do know that our port commissioners and port staff, city attorneys approved the documentation. And I think we're going to have to, like I say, give them time and know we I believe in it and I believe that it will work. So with all of that and I know his time is very limited here. You guys and I would like to sit up and make. A motion with that to deny the appeal. And affirm the. Decisions of the Harbor Commission. Second. Okay, there's been a motion and. Excuse me. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Does that emotion include adoption of the resolution and findings that support the staff's or the Port of Harbor Commissioner's determination? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So there is a motion and a second on the floor by Councilmember Andrews. Next is council. Well, I'll speak to the second and then Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilmember Mongo. I want to thank the so many people who took the time to email and dialog with us and come into our office on both sides. It's a great privilege and responsibility to represent people in this city and to have the opportunity to go to the facilities and see firsthand what the employees are facing on a daily basis . What a clean and well-run facility. I was actually significantly surprised at the level of cleanliness. It it matches some restaurant kitchens in cities I've been to in the region. And I'm very proud of the work that you do here in our city. I support Councilmember Richardson in bringing this up in our Fed Pledge Committee. It sounds like there are some very. Thin requirements on what we are even able to consider at this time, and that we should be having a policy discussion about our role on the national stage. So with that, I really appreciate the continued education because this needs to be a continued dialog. It cannot be held in just one night. We need to have this over the next several months and continue this dialog for for years to come. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, wanted to thank everyone that's communicated with each of us here at the council. We like the other council members. I've had the opportunity to either speak with or meet in person with the different stakeholders. Regarding this item and the project, and your tireless effort to advocate your position is something I'm very thankful for. This Council doesn't come to these decisions lightly. We don't come to any one issue knowing more than any one of you. And so each of your expertize and passion in this area is something that I'd like to thank you for sharing with us. Your generosity of knowledge allows this body to do its job much better than we could if we did not have access to that. And the time you spend is tremendous. The second District, as most of you know, is straddled with a lot of the issues that have been raised today. Many of my predecessors, including Congressman Alan Lowenthal, has dealt with the issues and has dealt with issues on how to resolve the impact of port activity here, not only for the second District but truly for the city of Long Beach. There are always environmental issues that somehow seem to emanate from the second District, whether it's from the port or the coast, that both the second and third district share. We are dealing with air quality issues, water quality issues. To that point, I wanted to thank the Port of Long Beach for its commitment to improving our air and water quality. I know that our harbor department is a partner not only with the city of Long Beach and its many departments, but really all its residents as well . And we have seen appreciable differences. And while that might have nothing to do with the issue at hand today, I do want to point that out that this is a long narrative. We didn't come to this point overnight, but it is a multi-decade narrative that I think we're going in the right direction. As Councilmember Price very articulately highlighted, the issue here can be separated into two concerns. I won't go over the points that she made. I think she made them quite well. And our attorneys and staff responded to them. This item today, there's. It is between two concerns. And I think all of us struggle with where we end up, depending on what we believe is the question before us. Is there a legal basis compelling the port of Long Beach and thus this city council, this body, to perform a square review of impacts from Metro Oxbow agreement, which requires them to carry out certain repairs, maintenance and replacement or materials and equipment in their terminal. I think the attorneys have answered that question as well as the staff has and through Councilmember Price's more textured questions under that, I think we have the answer to that. But for possible future discussion, I'd like to be able to buy for Kate the philosophical question, the environmental question. I don't believe there's a single council member here that does not regard him or herself as an environmentalist, as someone with regard for our environment, each of us. We all have children. We all have concerns for all our residents. But we have a personal investment here. So for possible future discussion, as Councilmember Richardson indicated, we could take up the issue of whether the port and really the city of Long Beach. The larger question whether we contribute to the global use of coal dust for energy, which has been identified as a contributor to air pollution and climate change. And we have to be able to separate that question. And I think that is a question that each of us wants to take up and can take up. As a separate matter, though, there may be a practical connection between exporting coal dust and contract renewal. In my opinion, there does not appear to be a legal connection using the vehicle of an appeal of Sequoia, and not my opinion alone, but one that I feel has been adequately defended by our staff and city attorney. The improvements being made to the existing terminal do not rise to the level of significant changes as described by Mr. Mays, and the agreement does not result in any increase in the amount of coal dust being exported. However, I do think the points that you've made are valid ones when it comes to the quality of life, when it comes to our sharing with our global community, a common environmental identity. And for that reason, I believe that this item should go to the Federal Legislative Committee, as well as the city's environmental committee, and can be duly addressed. And this council can determine if it would like to make a resolution to that. And going forward and with that, I'll be supporting the motion at hand. Okay. So with that, there is no no more council comment. So there is a motion on the floor. And Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. With that, we're going to take a five minute recess before we begin the budget hearing to allow the staff to prepare for that. Wow. Wow. Now. How many? Say. I am. I. Gay Jazz. 88.1. Let me tell you how I really feel about this one. Oh, I love it. I love it. I love it. Yellowjackets Taking Care of the Bears. Magnolia The name of that particular tune. From the album. Timeline. Before that fascinating rhythm complements of the. Definitive Vince Guaraldi Trio. Okay, Jazz got into that with McCoy Tyner Caravan. And of course, we topped off the last to the hour with Duke Ellington and The. Mooch as. We turn it over to Grover Washington. Junior. Okay, Jazz, 88.1. So when? I want to bring us back from recess if we can get the members to take their seats. Okay. We have a we have a quorum. Back with that, we're going to go into our hearing. Number two, Mr. Clerk.