Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and adopt resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND 02-16); and Deny the appeal from Warren Blesofsky representing Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development; and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Site Plan Review, Standards Variance, and Conditional Use Permit for construction of three 65-foot-high, 44,500-square-foot buildings for a 300-megawatt battery storage facility on the Alamitos Generating Station property located at 690 North Studebaker Road, in the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan (SEADIP/PD-1) area. (District 3)
Motion carries. Thank you. Have hearing number two, please. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution adopting mitigated negative declaration and deny the appeal for more than BlueSky representing the Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve a site plan, review standards, variance and conditional use permit for construction of 365 foot high for 44,500 square foot buildings for a 300 megawatt battery storage facility on the Alamitos Generating Station property located at 69 zero North Studebaker Road in the Southeast Area Development and Improvement Plan Area District three. Thank you, Mr. City Manager. I yes. I believe an oak is required for this item. Yes. Okay. If there's an oath. Mr.. Ms.. Madam Clerk, can you administer the oath? Witnesses, please stand. Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the courts now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you, Mr. Modica. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for the staff report. We will have a presentation from Linda Tatum, our planning bureau manager, and Carrie Tai, our current planning officer. I'd like to turn this item. Over to Carrie. Tay, who will do the staff presentation. But I'd just like to acknowledge the support and assistance that Kerry received on this project from the. The project. Planners. Scott Kinzie and Alexis Oropeza. Kerry. Thank you. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and the city council before you tonight is an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve a site plan reviewing standards variance and conditional use permit for a battery storage project at the AEC site. And there's a PowerPoint presentation on the screen. And so just a quick description of the site. The project site is located at the existing Alamitos Generation Station site, east of Studebaker Road, south of the 22 Freeway and west of the San Gabriel River. The yellow outline on the screen shows the northern portion of the site, and the red outline shows where the proposed buildings would be located. I will note that the site is large enough that it actually goes off the screen and the southern portion of the site is actually in the coastal zone. However, you'll see from the the red portion on the north that none of that is within the coastal zone. The property directly to the north of the site, just for context, is the Southern California Edison Switchyard. And then the site's entrance is just south. Of. The the 22 eastbound on ramp there. There's a Signalized intersection that leads into a guarded gate entry and the site is not open to the general public and it's guarded 24 hours a day. So just some context on the existing structures on the site. Here are some photographs of the site. And the upper left photo is one of the generating generating units. It is approximately 160 feet tall. The upper right photo is from the eastern edge of the project site, looking west towards Studebaker Road. And basically the parking lot here shows where the proposed buildings would be. The lower right photo is from the project site looking over north to the switchyard and then the lower left. I'm sorry, the lower yeah, the lower right looks at the units and the lower left is standing from the southern edge of the project site, basically in front of that generating unit looking north toward the to the switchyard. The three proposed buildings total 44,550 square feet each. They would be constructed, like I mentioned, just south of the Switchyard there. So you see them up here on the screen. The building closest to Studebaker Road would be set back over 300 feet from Studebaker Road. The buildings are 50 feet tall, but on the rendering you can see there's a sloping roof element and that results in the maximum building height at the front of the buildings, 65 feet tall. There would be associated landscaping and site improvements, and there are also existing parking areas on the site that would accommodate for the buildings. And it is anticipated that the buildings will take about five employees to maintain. So just some quick. Building elevations here. The building elevations are on the screen. They're also in your agenda packet. The buildings are designed in a modern esthetic with clean lines and primarily neutral colors. The color scheme reflects the AEC sort of color branding, if you will. And while the buildings have no windows and generally resemble basically data server buildings, there is significant architectural articulation that has been incorporated to ensure that there is even some visual interest, despite the significant setback from the road. So there are several entitlements that are required for this application. And just a little bit of clarification, this project is only for the buildings and only for battery storage that is regulated under the city's zoning regulations. Power generation is regulated by the California Energy Commission, which is a state agency, and then power distribution is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. And so that's why the request is only for the buildings and only for the battery storage. The three entitlements are the site plan review approval for the construction of the buildings. The standards variance would be to allow the 365 foot tall buildings because the sea dip, which is the Southeast Area Development Improvement Plan, has an. Overall allowable. Height of 35 feet. Even though the sub area is zoned industrial and industrial is allowed 60 feet in the rest of the city. And then a conditional use permit is approved. Approval is required for battery storage facilities because they are considered gas, electric and sanitary services. In terms of environmental review, an initial study and a mitigated negative declaration were prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. That document was circulated twice, the first in the fall of 2016 and the second in the summer of this year, 2017, due to project an architectural changes, namely to the building height. Because in working with the city, the applicant incorporated a more defining architecture onto the building. As a result of the recirculation. There were comment letters received, three of them to be specific, and staff did provide supplemental information regarding the topics received in the comment letters. Those were presented to the Planning Commission and also in the City Council packet. In terms of public noticing, I wanted to give this some attention because there is a distinct detail here. The public noticing consisted of the standard 750 foot radius mailing to property owners and occupants as well as nearby neighborhood groups. However, the Long Beach Municipal Code requires that for all building height, variances, story poles be put up. Now there are existing overhead power lines and also regulatory limitations that prevented a putting the placement of storage poles in on the site in its existing condition. So therefore. In consultation with the city attorney's office as well as the applicants regulatory agencies, visual simulations showing the building height from different vantage points were provided. And we were we mailed those to the radius as well, as well as posted that on site on posters. Oh, how'd that happen? So on August 3rd, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, heard public testimony, and voted to adopt mitigated negative declaration for the project as well as approve the project within the ten day appeal period on August 8th, Warren Lisowski of the Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development filed an appeal, citing the inappropriate use of a mitigated negative declaration and also that an environmental impact report should be prepared for impacts to wetlands and the coastal zone. So with that, I did want to mention that to reiterate that the environmental was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. And as a result of the initial study, it was found that the project with mitigation would not have significant impacts to the environment, and that's why the mitigated negative declaration was prepared. There is a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program that accompanies the documents for the project's approval, and therefore staff finds that the appeal does not have merit , and with that recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the mitigated negative declaration, deny the appeal, and also uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project. Thank you. And that concludes staff's presentation. I would like to mention that the city's environmental consultant is with us, and I know the applicant is here and the appellant is here as well. Thank you. Thank you. So the applicant is here. You have an opportunity to come forward and you have a reasonable amount of time to add to the add to the discussion. So would you like to provide comments? It's the appellant Vice Mayor. The applicant doesn't get an opportunity to speak before the appellant. Okay. Well, let's start with the appellant. Thank you. So let's have 2 minutes. Vice Mayor. I think Mr. Olsavsky came in after the oath was provided. So if we could. Let's do the oath. Minister, you. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I will. Thank you. Mr. Pisarski was 10 minutes up for. I'd like 3 minutes to report as well. Well, let's start with the comments and then the applicant gets to rebut since you speak first. Yeah, but at the last appeal hearing the mayor allowed. So is short about time. I'm fine with 10 minutes plus three. I don't think I'll even use all of it. Okay, that's fine. Thanks. So. So what? You mean you want to give it all right now, 30 minutes from. Now and three, if there's anything that stuff says that I might have. Necessary to see the attorney. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Go for it. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Vice Mayor and City Council. My name is Warren Blue, Soft Sky, Long Beach Citizens for Further Development. I just wanted to give a little context to our appeal. It's a pretty interesting climate here in Long Beach. Around the land. Land use issues. I guess an exciting time to be a politician. We've got standing room only town halls across town that the newspaper reports are being taken over by liberal citizen groups. So I think that's probably exciting for the council, Mr. Mayor, and it's also exciting for us as environmental community activists to see this upswing of community involvement. There's a term known as the Urban Growth Machine, some smart guys, scholars M.H. and Logan wrote in their book Urban Fortunes. And basically the idea is that capital seeks to get the maximum possible profit from land, because in a city like Long Beach, the land is the most important commodity in terms of how you can get profit. So the developers looking for the highest exchange value, but the residents of the city, we see the city in a different way. We see the city in how it's used and how it can better our lives. And so we know on the national level the government's not going to help us on the national level. And so really, cities are the last bastion of progressive politics. And so that's why we bring this appeal before you tonight. I have enter I sent you all a letter today from our Counsel Coast Law Group, and I'd like to just briefly run through this. This project has significant impacts and sequel calls for an environmental impact report when there are significant impacts. Also, this project is going to affect the views in the area that the developers renderings are not to scale. And really, in the absence of the story, poles that are part of the city code and now have been waived by the Planning Commission. Really it doesn't give the citizens an opportunity to see how these 70 to 75 foot buildings in the sea area where there's a 35 foot commercial height limit, so a solid 40 feet over the height limit. How that conditional use variance helps. Long Beach. Also, I think the biggest problem with this project is not battery storage itself, but it's the location of this battery tower. This battery tower is the largest battery array that will be deployed anywhere in the world, the largest one. And so, you know, Los Angeles County has other areas, quote unquote, wasteland areas that could or better suited for this battery tower. If you go ahead and look at the figure on the screen, you can see that the property and the project site are less than a mile away from the low cerritos wetlands, less than 500 feet away from the Los Rios Channel, directly bordering the San Gabriel River. And if you look at that neighborhood there, I think that's the hole right between Loynes and Studebaker. You've got hundreds of homes right there across the street from this 90,000 gallons of lithium ion. 90,000 gallons. Let's think about the Samsung note five. When Samsung came out with that phone. You couldn't bring one milliliter of it on an airplane. Everyone heard about it. You couldn't bring a Samsung note on an airplane. And they want to put 90,000 gallons of that between our wetlands, between the rivers and near thousands of homes. It's not a good place for this. Furthermore, there's never been a fire study that's been done on a battery array of this size. So even the fire departments and the fire hazard consultants don't know how to put out a fire that's caused by this size lithium ion batteries. They did some smaller testings. I have submitted those quotations in my letter, and it was very difficult to put these lithium ion fires out. Also, lithium ion fires release toxic gases, toxic chemicals. And when I objected to this project at this site at the Planning Commission, I noted that there was that there was the same day as a budget hearing, the same week as a budget hearing in this body. And there was no additional money being allocated to the fire department. And so your staff responded to that in their staff report saying, oh, Long Beach has 21 or 23 fire stations and we're also part of the local joint fire authority. And so other cities will come help us put out the fire when this inevitably happens on this battery array. All it could take is some storm surge like we saw in Houston, like we saw in Puerto Rico a couple of feet over to get into the electronics of this building. And once the cooling system goes out, you can easily have a meltdown. It's not a nuclear meltdown, but it's a lithium ion meltdown. It releases toxic chemicals. And I ask you to have you consulted with your fire chief to ask him if he knows how to deal with 90,000 gallons of toxic, flammable lithium ions and the gases it releases, it releases hydrogen, hydrofluoric acid as a gas. That's the same chemical that the residents in Torrance were fighting against at the refinery there. So that's what that's what you're. The potential fire damage can happen if there's some type of failure in the cooling system that's needed to keep these batteries cool all the time. So what's the big picture? The big picture is this part parcel in this property are part of the wetlands. They might not be officially part of the wetlands complex, but go ahead and look at this map on the screen. You've got the loss of Rita's channel on one side, the San Gabriel River on the other side, and the wetlands right across the street. So just because 75 years of bad decision making were made on our precious water, air and land resources on this side of town, the city does not need to continue to facilitate. These mistakes are being made. The environmentalists. We thought that the city should have intervened in the S.E.C. process, building a new gas fired power plant on this site. And yet the city chose not to intervene. So the city should use its zoning power, Mr. Mayor. And. Not make this the wasteland of Long Beach anymore. This area should be restored along with the rest of the wetlands. I urge you to grant our appeal, denied a conditional use permit and add some sensible planning to dangerous 70 foot flammable buildings in close proximity to residences. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a staff or applicant rebuttal at this time? Thank you. We'll give you 5 minutes. Okay. Thank you. My name is Steven Kane. I'm with a yes. I'm director of Sustainability and Compliance. Thank you, vice mayor and council members for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I did have a quick couple of slides prepared. I'm not sure if you were able to get those up. I don't want to go through a point by point rebuttal. You had all the written material. We've been through. The City Planning Commission staff has done an excellent job of detailing the the laws, ordinances, regulations that apply the mitigation measures that are in place and why any are not required for this project. And that DEC would be. But I would like to give you a little more background and context to exactly what this energy storage project is and what this project means and what it'll do for the city, our electrical grid and the state. The AC element is very energy storage project is truly the definition of a sustainable energy project. The entire purpose of this development is to enable greater integration of clean, renewable energy into the electrical grid that serves Long Beach and will result in the retirement of existing inefficient fossil fuel generation and pave the way for the eventual demolition removal of the old power plant on State of Studebaker Road. This project is economically viable, environmentally responsible and result in greater quality of life for those residents living closest to the plan. I brought the only two images to share with you to try and demonstrate the amazing transformation we can affect at the AC Alamitos Generating Station, which is located at one of the few eastern entrances to our city. What we saw before us was a two scale, a two scale Photoshop the simulation of the proposed energy storage buildings, which would be 50 feet in height. The other building 65 to the top of that architectural feature. So a little bit lower than what the appellant stated there. And the next slide here is units one and two at at Alamitos. These these are the two units that are right at the entrance to the plant closest to the Studebaker road and represent the same amount of generating capacity of those three buildings. We can take three quiet, innocuous buildings, barely visible from a public vantage point with no stacks, no emissions, essentially zero water use other than a couple of restrooms. And we we can replace that. Excuse me. We can replace 350 megawatts of gas fired generation, which require us to store 75,000 gallons of oil there. 20,000 gallons of aqueous ammonia for pollution control, 3000 megawatt hours of lead acid battery. That's all what's there right now? And so we will replace it with something much less hazardous. And we would these units emit up to 1.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. A battery energy storage system emits zero. And if anybody who lives within a few miles of this plant, occasionally these 60 year old units, they get a system fault. And it might be a little bit noticeable when we have to release steam. That kind of noise will also be completely eliminated with the use of three buildings to to provide the electrical service to this area. This project and others like it is critical to expanding our reliance on clean, renewable energy and reducing our dependance on fossil fuels. In Southern California, we're blessed with an abundance of solar power, but not able to harness that power to use it now or when we most need it in the evenings and at night, as opposed to when as generated during the daytime, we've got to store it. And an energy storage system is one of those critical components that is going to help us manage our grid much more effectively. You've also heard that this project, or better than you described, is a bit of new, unproven technology. I will use the term transformative technology, but certainly not new and unproven, as has been operating lithium ion battery storage units since 2008 and in constructed systems across the U.S. and the world. Today we have systems operating in the UK, the Netherlands, Philippines, Chile, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Arizona and California. And in fact, just south of here earlier this year, 120, 120 megawatt hour system was commissioned for San Diego Gas and Electric, which is currently the largest system in the world. The Alamitos project would would be the next one on that list, but I doubt we'll keep that title. This is new. Technology is being implemented and embraced around the world in electrical grid systems everywhere. In order for us to clean up our grid, reduce emissions, reduce our water consumption and reduce noise. I know it's a bit strange getting really excited about batteries and power generation, but I hope you feel some of that energy. Pardon the pun, as this will really will be transformative for the views for the city, the noise, the reduction in emissions and the greater integration of renewable energy. So I urge you to take the staff's recommendation and deny this appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. I thank you, and I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. We're going to go in to the appellant does have an opportunity to rebuttal, so we're going to give the appellant, Mr. City Attorney, I think we should. 3 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I E.S. is does not care about the environment. Okay. S is one of the largest coal burning companies in the world. Okay. So they're disingenuous when they say that. They're also disingenuous when they show you a picture of the old plant is going to get torn down and fail to let you know that a new one's going up right next to it. That's gas fired. So. But he has made a mistake and they put a lot of research and energy into these battery towers and now they're trying to dig themselves out of that hole at Long Beach's expense. Don't let these be the 20 teens Enron at the expense of Long Beach citizens. They don't care about renewable energy. They just care about their bottom line. They had this site between the wetlands and the San Gabriel River. And they're going to put thousands and thousands of toxic flammable gases and liquids on this site. So once again, I urge you to simply. Approve this appeal to dine the conditional use permit. And let them go get an environmental impact report so that the citizens, the homeowners that live in the hole across the street. Those of us that take Studebaker Road every day. Those of us that are affected by these toxic proposal on our wetlands get a chance to enter in to the environmental discussion. That's what Zeke was there for. That's what environmental reviews are for. And finally, I'm glad that the representative from AP has brought up the fact that the old plants coming down and the new plants going up and this battery tower is going to go up all on the same site. They're calling it the Alamitos Energy Complex. And. If there's not a better example of piece mealing underscore this is it. You should not have signed an mou you to tear down the old power plant, not entered into the process for the new gas fired power plant and the acceptance of this battery tower. This is one project seek what has tearing guidelines that these environmental reviews should have been done in a stepwise tiered manner so that this piecemeal thing that's happened and this wonderful I mean, the gentleman said that the residents of the city are going to enjoy the view of these buildings. Hardly, hardly. We want our wetlands back. The petroleum industry has run roughshod over Long Beach for long enough, and it's time for us to get our resources back. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead. That concludes the appellant and the applicant comments. We're going to go to public comment now and then we'll go back to the deliberation from the council. So any public comment now would be the time. Very good. In all candor, I had not really gotten inside of that issue of the environmental aspect. But it's obviously is a problem and we haven't done our homework. I'd feel more comfortable in the beginning if they would sign an agreement that this this. The gentleman that spoke in favor of them will commit to in writing that his family would live there forevermore and in succeeding generations. There's obviously we haven't done our homework. And we need to go back and look at that. So that's certainly that's part ugly, but I don't think from what I understand, the other side is going to be any different, but it's the danger there is. Lurking there. And as a good faith gesture, they should have they had no problem saying, okay, our CEO and the gentleman who made the presentation will commit in writing that he and his family will live in the immediate area now and for future generations after. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Could I have the start when I start speaking? I've already lost five, 7 seconds. Go ahead. I always let people go a few minutes, minutes, seconds after if they need it. Go ahead, Lee. Go ahead. Misconstrue. I'll go ahead and start. When I start talking. Go ahead. Good evening. And Cantrell. And I'd like to remind you. About Sequoia. There are several levels of Sequoia. And one of them is. A complete environmental impact report that was not done for this project. What they did was a lesser environmental impact report, which is called a negative declaration, which means, oh, there's nothing wrong here. We don't have to mitigate anything. We'll just build this. Even though the height limit in this area is 35 feet. We're going to make it 65 feet. And I was kind of amused by the fact that the design of this roof can have future solar panels on it. If this is going to be for solar, put solar panels on it to begin with. I'm really concerned about the safety of the people not only living around this area, but on the freeways. We've just seen what happens when a fire hits a place and there's a lot of wind. Imagine what will happen if this facility catches on fire to the whole area around here. And I doubt there is a fire company near that has a 65 foot ladder to access this building. Councilmember Price, this is your district, and I know the rest of you look to the councilperson whose district these issues are in for guidance . So please, will you please protect the people not only of your district, but of all of Long Beach? And I'd like to also remind you why we have these power plants in the location they are. It's because they use the water from the San Gabriel River and the Los Cerritos Channel to cool. But they are no longer allowed to use this water. And so these plants do not have to be in this location. As Mr. Plastic said, there's other places in California where this would be a much better place to put this than in of highly populated. Thank you, Ms.. Control. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Your becoming. And it started racing that clock. Anna Kristensen, local resident since 1945. And in some ways I feel like this is kind of a Groundhog Day moment. Most of you on the council and in this room were too young to remember the phrase What's good for Westinghouse is good for America. Westinghouse built the. Nuclear power plant in Japan that went down during the tsunami. This is a tsunami zone just south of this area. Maybe you remember when. The council. Came back and said over here and the extra panelists presented a project for Long Beach, a liquefied natural gas facility, to be located in our harbor just offshore. And as the expert. Talked about, a firestorm. That stretched would stretch to San Diego should this particular fluid that none of us knew much about. Explode. Our mayor passed notes about. Real estate to our. Third district city councilman. I'm looking today. I don't. Oh, Mr. West decided to leave. He was just visiting with Mr. Modica. When somebody was talking about public safety. We need you. We need you to help us be safe. We need our 100 plus thousand dollar salaried Long Beach Development Services to be our protectors. All right. And just for context, as the developer said or the staff said, just for context. Right. Just south of this amazing. Transformation that's at pure. AD and the amazing transformation that this facility is going to occur runs the Newport-Inglewood earthquake fault line. All right. An earthquake fault line that caused the 1933 earthquake and according to some scientists at Caltech, was triggered by a single oil well, a single little thing or just nature. And this is a real thing. This is a fault line. Now, we're not the right messengers. It's obvious. Nobody's looking at me except for Mr. Super Stacy. Just what? Pisarski me and control. Your local. Environmentalists. We know that. We know where we are. We're used to it. We come here all the time, and we're. We're consistently used to it. But but every once in a while, you know, Mr. Modica, it's not or I'm sorry, it's Chris that said that over there. It's not just in a Christian sense opinion, it's the Coastal Commission's opinion that some things are dangerous. Why would a developer tell you something is dangerous? That if he doesn't have to, that's your job to figure this out. I don't know if any of you on the council other than Mr. Duran, who's also on the coast commission, really read it. But I would just ask you, you know, I know the young people. I met them the other night at a public meeting that work for Long Beach Development Services. They're nice. They're nice young people and older people. These people work hard for a living, but it's not enough. It's never been enough for us and Long Beach. And that's why the city gets sued over Home Depots. And that's why we we don't we don't want to have to do that. I want you to take your time to make it right. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Arthur Shopper. I am a resident of Torrance, California. What sparked my interest to speak on this matter was for someone to make references to the upheaval regarding the Torrance refinery and the fact it is it is a very diligent, yet small, yet loud contingent on the vast majority of residents, including myself, who have lived there for the greater part of our lives, feel no threat to our safety. And I think it's a disconcerting aspect when someone says we've had lots of people overwhelming town halls trying to scare or diminish or intimidate elected officials away from projects. And I think it's very important to keep that in mind. I am a direct I have been affected by that. Many people in our community are affected by that. I understand mitigating concerns regarding this project will affect other people. All in and around the L.A. basin here. But the fact of the matter is it's important that we have a cool head regarding all projects with the attitude I hear from some environmental activists. It's almost as if they wouldn't want anything built at all. So just I feel compelled to make a comment about that. It bothers me when people want to use a talking point from something in my city in order to stop a project which is followed other procedures as is needed. Torrance We're not big fans of the loud green lobby. That essentially wants. To shut down our refinery, and you can be sure it will affect. People in this city. As I know you have employees in the city who work in that refinery. And I'm certain that with this project, as it goes forward, you'll have more jobs, you'll have sustainable growth, you'll have an opportunity to do what's good for the environment as well as for the city. So don't allow a small contingent of loud green activists pressure you or intimidate you. It's all it's all bark and no bite. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. I believe it's the responsibility of the city council to looked after the interests of the people in the environment of Long Beach. I think that's the main priority, right? I believe a full impact report is needed for this. The guy talked about how they're minimizing. The waste from the existing structure and how it's so much better than the past. It's we have new technology now and we have a new understanding of how. How our technology impacts the natural environment. And so it's about finding out how the full impact. Of to the environment. Affects us. And we need a full. Report to do that. We can't just measure how much better we are from the past. And it's it's important to the environment, to the people here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. And we have I'm closing the speakers list. So it's we have four speakers left in the speakers list. I'm sorry, Mr. Austin Harris, are you going to speak, too? Okay. So the five speakers and then the speakers list is closed. Please continue. Hi. This is carelessly and you have my address on file. What I wanted to bring up was your business evaluation of this. Having worked in aerospace for 25 or 30 years as a manager, I went through many project reviews. In every project review. It's the same discipline, it's cost, quality and schedule. And then you take a long, hard look at risk. And what I'm hearing here today is that we don't have our arms around the risk. There's something called a kill zone that, you know, I haven't heard mentioned. And normally with something that has this kind of an environmental impact, you would want to know if there was any kind of a natural disaster. What is the kill zone? I know no one on this council would want to be responsible for looking backwards, even when you're gone. If suddenly this thing went down and some huge fire occurred, you need to at least ask for the air, ask for the full amount of information you can get before you make this decision. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Janet West, and I live in. District four. And I. I was at the torn city council meeting when they discussed the explosion there and the debris that landed ten feet from the tank that carried that chemical that I now understand is. Going to be at this bad battery. Tower. The most vivid thing from that meeting was a kill zone map, and it came to East Long Beach from Torrance. And I heard no one, no one dispute that there would have been a kill zone if that tank had been breached. So I ask you to please take that into consideration and do a full. A full. Yeah. Yeah. Of this this development. Thank you. Thank you very much. Actually, I'm going to have Miss Emily now. Dustin Harris. You'll be next. I am Francis Smith's. Mary's and I reside in District one. While this is a subject matter that's kind of beyond my level of expertize, certainly with the background that I have in nursing and other things. But I'm kind of sitting here and I'm thinking about all that took place to get here today because there's a lot of different things that occurred for us to get here today. And I'm hearing both sides and everyone has a right to have, you know, their opinion on the right side or the left side, so to speak. But when there was mention about as other areas are a better place to put this, if I, I didn't hear where the other areas are. And then when I think about the future and they speak about like lack of trauma, impulse threats, I feel comfortable that the buildings contained that in a way there's no emissions. I was kind of wondering why they didn't have any windows, but I think it's a good idea because nothing can leak out. And so I understand about the wetlands, but you really have a hard decision on. The site, the charm. And I'm glad I'm not sitting among the seats right now at this moment. And I wish you the best in the course of making that decision. But I believe that is I just can't see how we got here today. And it's not pretty finite that this that which way to go on this thing. And I feel comfortable that whatever decision you make is going to be the best interest of the city of Long Beach. And the fact that we have to have battery storage factors to reduce a mess and there's not going to be emissions. I feel comfortable on that. So I just try to share that with you and thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you. And next up, believe is person. Thank you. My first comment. Larry, could you fill that in? Because if the owners this is a private company and if they just live on the premises. I agree. Just just set a condo right up in their in the construction and commit to be there because it's that safe. The next would be the insurance policy for the range of damage for each person that would be that would be impacted should a crisis occur. Individual insurance policies for each family member in each house should be part of this company's commitment to this community. Emergency. Emergency plans for residences. Evacuations should be in place and each house should have a copy risk benefit plan monitoring because it's all going to boil down to money. So start paying the dividends. Now, the moment they open the plant, pay some dividends to the residents, to the community from the moment they turn a switch. Each member of the community gets paid not because the damage has occurred, but because the fear factor not being able to sleep is like the airplanes flying over. This is this is more damaging to the emotional life than the airplanes over their heads. You cannot hold lithium in your hand. For a very long period of time without your skin starting to do something negative. So the fear factor alone, even if it's mitigated so-called but we don't have an environmental report, so we don't know. But even if it's not legitimate fear, pay for it because the plant's going to be real. The plan's going to be a real thing. And the fear that is maybe that is presented just by having that lived. When I left the Amato, I didn't plan to speak on that, but here I am living. Okay. Let's remove the monetary benefit to the city if there is any. Billionaire somebody somebody a billionaire. His daughter comes up with breast cancer. They say spare no expense. Or doctor spare no expense. I just want my daughter. Well. We're saying to this company. No environmental report do you need? We're telling them we're going to let you spare some expense. Oh, don't go through all the stuff necessary for a normal citizen to feel good about this. Put the plan up. It's going to be good. Oh, okay. Well, thank you. We're going on one of. Word only. Oh, no. This is more dangerous than the airplanes flying over. After 9 p.m.. Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Next speaker for our final speaker. Okay. I'm Karen Reside and I live in the first district and I've actually gone to a number of meetings hosted by the county and actually looked at the science related. You know, we all carry lithium ion batteries in our cell phones. We carry them all around with us every day. I'm also one of those wild green environmentalist, but I like to look at what the science says. This plant is a great thing. It is going to reduce and a significant amount of pollution and clean up a big environmental mess at the power station. When I was growing up. My family went to the Colorado lagoon and when I was in high school, I had boyfriends that surfed. One of the big issues with the lagoon and going out surfing in local facilities was the fact that the water was heated at it, encouraged the growth and development of jellyfish and sharks coming up. The channels and the beaches would be blackballed and we couldn't go in the water. That was because of the heated water that was necessary to cool the gas fired plant. I can't wait for that plant to go away. The battery operated system is going to actually move us into the next phase and help us reach our emission goals of going to zero emissions by 2030 as a state. So there are people that do support this plant and can't get it in fast enough. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. We're going to go now deliberate from the city council. I'll start with Councilman Price. Thank you. I want to thank the appellant and the members of the public who spoke as well as the applicant. I'm going to ask staff a few questions regarding some of the statements that were made. First of all, is there are there any statements in particular? I know that the appellant made a lot of statements and and allegations that that perhaps weren't entirely based on fact. But are there any statements in in particular that were made that should perhaps be corrected in terms of the record moving forward? Thank you. A councilwoman and place for your for your questions. I jotted down several topics and I would like to just clarify. First of all, I noticed the reference to the wetlands, and I would like to clarify that the site is not in the wetlands. And in fact, in terms of measurement, whether you're measuring from the entrance or from the closest proposed building to Studebaker Road, the measurement is about 1800 feet to 2000 feet to the nearest point of the low cerritos wetlands. Second, I would also like to point out that as part of the City Council's recent approval of the C CIP, the southeast area specific plan, the site and its immediate immediate area there between Studebaker Road and the San Gabriel River was zoned industrial. And and on a side note, actually, that zoning has a height limit of 65 feet. And so based on the future zoning, the proposed height of the buildings would be in complete compliance with what the zoning is with regard to in safety. And actually, let me talk about fire with regard to the appellant mentioned. The the. Fire resources of the city and the well-known procedure of mutual aid when when firefighting resources need to share jurisdictions. You know, even as we speak right now, Long Beach has a firefighter team over in Anaheim. So I would like to point out that certainly what is cited in the environmental document with regard to firefighting resources is a is a current and ongoing practice. And also that all new development pays into public service fees, impact fees. And so there would be development impact fees associated with new development of that would pay for additional needs and services. One more note about regulations, the environment. I'm sorry. The initial study does include a discussion about on hazardous materials and specifically with regard to lithium ion cells and electrolyte within them. There are existing regulations that any building or facility or use of batteries must comply with. And given the existing regulatory infrastructure that the business and or building must comply with, there are regulations in place to ensure the safety of battery storage as. Well as those who work around them. And lastly, with regard to the review of the proposed project in association with the Alamitos Energy Center, the appellant cited that this might be an example of piece mealing, and I would like to point out that this project actually is not physically connected to the generation units. Rather it actually connects to the switchyard to store surplus energy in order to feed surplus energy back into the grid during times when extra energy is needed. This type of facility could actually go anywhere except that there was a available site and piece of land here and a convenient connection to the Southern California Edison Switchyard So those are several points that I heard. If you have any additional questions, I'd be happy to address them. Thank you. No, and I has one. I would like to just add one other item that the appellant mentioned that was carefully looked at. And just to note that it is in compliance with all state, federal and local requirements regarding the seismic. There are very specific building codes that address seismic structures. And due to the sensitive nature of this structure, we, of course, at the staff level are really concerned or careful to make sure that any facility of this type are completely compliant with all of the building codes, especially as they relate to seismic safety. Okay. And I appreciate staff answering those questions. I think it's it's always good for us to have a healthy debate about projects that are being proposed for the city. But I think it's important when we have that debate that we're all operating on the same fact sheet. And so when I'm hearing things that perhaps are inconsistent with what staff has reported, I think it's important. And we have a duty to actually correct that record as we engage in the conversation. And so I appreciate that that correction there in regards to allegations or implications of any sort of increased danger to the community by virtue of the implementation of this project. Is there any data or research that would suggest that there's any truth whatsoever to those allegations? The staff is not aware of any any immediate risk or danger regarding the particular type of facility that's posed here. As the applicant mentioned, this this type of facility or facilities of this nature have been built in other locations around the state and around the the world. However, the size of this is what makes this one extraordinary, but the size does not equate to any additional risk in terms of the the technology and the type of facility it's being operated. And that's important. I ask that question because according to some of the comments that were made, I think I and our city attorney both live in the kill zone. So I just want to make sure that that is a risk that is mitigated, if at all there. But I also want to highlight and I think some of the comments that were made, this is a battery storage facility, not a coal mining operation, is that correct? Because I heard some references to coal mining and I was a little confused how that relates to the item. It does not relate at all. This is a battery and it's the energy storage that they're not producing. They're storing the energy on this facility. Okay. Well, I want to I'm going to be moving this forward and recommending to my colleagues that this appeal be denied. I think that it's very important to highlight a few key things that staff has already pointed out and regards to some of the the factual inaccuracies in the statements made by the appellant in regards to the designation of the wetlands, in regards to the height requirements or the height limits, in regards to procedures for public safety services to this area, in regards to the existing infrastructure that's already in place and what this means to it, if at all. I do want to say that, you know, one of the comments that was made was, you know, well, maybe the folks who are proposing this should live in the area. And although it's not relevant nor appropriate to talk about specific addresses of people who run this company, I will tell you that at the very highest levels of management, they do live in the area. And I think that says a lot. When people are willing to stand by a project in such a way that they'll say they're there exposing themselves to the very same risks that are being complained of, as has thus far been an incredible community partner to the third district. They have had numerous community outreach meetings with residents who live in the immediate area. Although the appellant may have been at some of them, I don't personally recall the appellant having been to them. A lot of these issues were discussed at many of the hearings and so on. I think A has gone above and beyond to try to address the concerns of the residents and some of the misinformation in regards to the the potential risks. Again, this is a highly specialized area of expertize, and our city staff did a tremendous job working with the regulatory agencies and within this area of subject matter expertize to identify potential concerns and to work through them and come up with the proposal that they did. I fully support this project and I ask my colleagues to deny the appeal and allow this project to move forward. And I thank everyone for expressing their their opinions in such a respectful way. Thank you. Q Thank you. There's a motion to deny the appeal, and there's a second by Councilman Austin. Councilmember Pierce. Nope. So I'm sorry. So there's a motion in a second. No other council comments. Members, please go out and cast your vote on the motion, which is to deny the appeal. Motion carries.