Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, consider third-party appeals by Ann Cantrell representing Citizens About Responsible Planning, and Anna Christensen/Charles Moore representing Protect the Long Beach/Los Cerritos Wetlands, and uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny the appeals, adopt resolution certifying Environmental Impact Report (03-15), select the environmentally-superior project alternative (#5), and make certain findings and determinations related thereto; adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and approve a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Los Cerritos Wetlands and Oil Consolidation Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2016041083);
Thank you. That concludes the presentations as well as the initial adoption. So we're going to go into our hearing. So we just need about a minute, 2 minutes to actually get everything set up for the hearing. I want to ask again, we have folks that are standing and I'm being told by, of course, our fire folks that we need to make sure that if we can be seated would be ideal if you're here for anything but the hearing. It's going to be a while. So please, if you're here for the hearing, which is on the the bond hearing, wetlands hearing, that's where it's going to begin in about 2 minutes. So. Thank you. Will transition and Madam Clerk will get everything set up and just give us a minute. Was it? Wrote my. That's a reasonable. Right. You see over. I like. Thanks. So. You know, that would be a. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Yes. Right. Yes. See that. But. Okay, we're going to go ahead and start. Let let me. Let me just go ahead and clarify and just make sure that everyone knows the order of the hearing tonight and we'll go from there. So obviously, we're going to begin the hearing in just a minute. There will be an oath required that the court will conduct. We will have the staff report, as is typical, and that presentation will go forward. And then after the staff presentation, the applicant will go first. Okay. So the applicant will go first. The applicant has 15 minutes after the applicant concludes their 15 minutes. Then the appellant, the actual two appellants. So each appellant group has a max of 15 minutes. If it can be between ten and 15 minutes is ideal, but up to 15 minutes you have. And then the applicant will have a opportunity for a five minute rebuttal. And then, of course, there's public comment and then we'll close public comment and then we'll actually go into deliberation from the city council. So, Mr. City Attorney, I think we have to correct that. Right. Okay, great. So with that, let me go ahead and begin and have the city clerk please read the item. Report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Consider third party appeals by and Cantrell representing citizens about responsible planning. And Anna Christiansen. Charles Moore representing Protect the Long Beach, Los Cerritos wetlands and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the appeals. Adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report. Select the environmentally superior project. Alternative Number five. Adopt a statement of overriding considerations and approve a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program for the Los Cerritos Wetlands and Oil Consolidation Project. Declare Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code Amendment, read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Adopt a resolution to submit a request to certify an amendment to the support of Certified. Local Coastal Program. Adopt an ordinance approving an amendment to the city's oil map and approved site plan, review and Certificate of Compliance to consolidate existing oil operations. Implement a wetlands habitat restoration project and provide public access opportunities. District three. Thank you. With that, we're going to do an oath for those that are going to be addressing the council. Madam Clerk, we can do the oath. Please stand. The appellant's appellants. Please stand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. Thank you. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn this over to our city management team who will be doing the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have Oscar Orsi, our deputy director of development services. Christopher Koontz, Advanced Planning Officer in Kerry. Tie, our current planning officer are going to be conducting the presentation tonight for us. Thank you. Good evening. Honorable Mayor Eric Garcia and city council members. As mentioned by the clerk before you tonight, Cerritos, Wetlands, Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. This project takes place over four separate sites, generally located near the corner of Pacific Coast Highway, Second Street and Studebaker Road. I'm going to spend some time on the project sites. So on the screen before you are, it's an aerial with a four color overlay sites. So the first site, the largest one we're going to start with is the synergy oilfield site. It's 150 acres and that's shown as green on the screen. This is the site that's behind the In-N-Out Burger there at Second Street and Pacific Coast Highway. The site is divided, divided roughly into two portions. There's a northern portion and a southern portion. The northern portion contains a steam shovel, SLU and wetlands. And the southern portion is an active oil field that currently has 39 wells on it. The second site is shown in teal on the screen. It's 33 acres that is owned by the city and it fronts Second Street and Shopkeeper Road. And if you're on Shopkeeper Road, you can see some oil derricks there as well. And this is a wetland site and it currently has 13 wells on it. The third site is shown in yellow on the screen, located at the southeastern corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Studebaker Road. And this is the Studebaker Road that is a stub. That's a seven acre site, and it's known as the pumpkin patch site because every year it hosts the pumpkin patch around Halloween and also the Christmas tree lot during the winter. The site is undeveloped and currently has one well on it. And then the fourth site is shown in amber and it's at the corner, the south or northeastern corner of Second Street and Studebaker Road. And this is the Studebaker that does go through. This is a five acre site, and it's owned by the little Cerritos Wetlands Authority, who is one of the project applicants. And currently the site, the site is undeveloped and currently it's used for a variety of industrial storage. You might notice stacks of corrals stored up there. So the project ultimately involves moving all of the oil operations off of the synergy site and the city sites and then consolidating or creating new oil facilities on the pumpkin patch and the CWA sites. So I'm going to spend some time on the project description for each site. So I'm going to start with the synergy site first. So as mentioned, there's a northern portion in the southern portion and and the northern portion would primarily it's wetlands restoration. And the applicant is pursuing this as a mitigation bank that's currently under review. The southern portion is the active oil field and it currently has the Bixby Ranch Field Office on it. The driveway access for that is off Second Street, directly opposite shopkeeper there. And that building is located in an earthquake fault at the moment. So as part of this project that would relocate the building about 400 feet to the southwest of its current location and convert that to a visitor center along with the public access trail for so that people can walk and see the wetlands. The entrance point is proposed to be the same as the current driveway. As part of the improvements, the applicant would also need to do frontage improvements, namely sidewalk and any bike lane improvements that are needed along the street frontage specifically here, Second Street and Pacific Coast Highway. So I mentioned a little bit about the mitigation bank, and this is just a graphic of the northern half of the site and the list, and it lists the different habitat types. So throughout the the plans as well as the air, there's detailed information on the wetlands restoration. And there's also mentioned the mitigation bank would need to be reviewed by an interagency review team, and that would consist of various federal and state agencies, but would include a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, etc.. And then I also will add on this is just the graphic for the northern half. The southern half does have restoration and it's phase two, and that's also located in the plans that are in the council's packet. And so this is a close up graphic showing the visitor center access from the current driveway and some of what it would look like once improved. So it would have landscaping along a a more traditional driveway. The driveway right now is meant for industrial use. It's got a gate on it, etc.. And this would be a paved surface accessing the visitor center and the public access trail is shown at the line starting from the edge of the parking lot. I don't think my laser's working, but it's up on the top of the screen and there's a little gathering of trees that's shown as a picnic area. So moving on to the next site, the second largest site is the city site. This site currently has 13 wells and the proposal would be to remove all the obsolete oil facilities. The applicant. However, the development portion of this would be that the city site would host a pipeline system to connect the LC site and the pumpkin patch site. So this graphic I'm just going to note is not oriented north like the other graphic is. And so the LC site is actually shown at the lower right hand corner. But the purpose of the pipeline would be to connect the two sites so that they do share some oil facilities. And I'll talk about that in a bit. The use of the city's property does require a surface use, release agreement and grant of easements, otherwise known as a surge. There is an existing surge on the site now, and that would need to be amended by the city to reflect the project. The amendment of the surge would reflect the ultimate configuration of the pipeline and also clean up any existing easements on there that are no longer being used. So that brings us to the pumpkin patch site. And this is the seven acre site that fronts PCH and Studebaker Road. The proposal for the site is a combination of office and warehouse, so a 5200 square foot two story office building, as well as a 9750 square foot warehouse. The back half of the building would be you. I'm sorry. The back half of the site would be used for the proposed oil facilities. The applicant proposes 50 new wells and that would be a combination of oil production, water injection and water source wells. They would be located in wells cellars below grade, so they would look a lot different from the current oil wells. On the Synergy Oil Field site, these are below grade and they would be behind a screen wall that's on the perimeter. So that essentially the view from the public streets as well as the bike trail would be generally of landscaping and a screen wall. There's a 30 foot setback, for example, along the PCH frontage and also at the corner of the site as you're entering Long Beach from the city of SEAL Beach across the bridge, there is a spot where the applicant is proposing to incorporate entry monument tation for for use as a city gateway there. So this next slide shows the building elevations of the proposed office building as well as the warehouse. As you can see, the building is designed in a modern esthetic with colors to generally reflect water and the incorporation of natural materials. The building does use materials that are durable, and so for the most part, there's a substantial amount of glazing, aluminum and metal. However, the the substantial overhang of the sloping roofline is, is clad with the natural wood. So it creates a natural wood soffit, which. Brings a sort of a warmth. Of warmth of appearance to the to the building. The warehouse itself is a multicolored concrete construction, and it continues on from the warehouse into a screen wall that wraps around the perimeter of the site in order to screen the oil facilities. And then the last site is the site with five acres. As mentioned, the site is currently undeveloped and the applicant proposes to improve the site with a 70 new wells again in a below grade sellers and there would be the combination as well oil production, water injection and water source wells. The project includes an energy microgrid, which is an energy system that essentially serves the the projects, the four sites. Electricity is generated through natural gas turbines that uses the natural gas that is produced as part of the oil extraction process. And this, combined with solar panels on the pumpkin patch site, will produce energy to power the oil operations. As you can see on the slide, there is extensive landscaping proposed on both street frontages. The setbacks range from 25 feet at a minimum to up to 50 feet. At that wide spot there on Second Street. And like the other sites, like the other sites, the applicant is required to improve frontage improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes. And I should note that while this is not part of this next part, it is not part of the city council's approval. There is a land exchange. In other words, a low rate of wetlands authority would exchange this for the Synergy oil field site, which is being restored as wetlands. And so that is involved sort of in a in a background fashion. So we've talked a little bit about the project components, but I did want to talk about the timeline of the project. The project proposes to take place up to 44 years. And the way I like to look at it is it's it's four years of activity. And I'll walk the council through the activity. But then there's a 40 year timeline of basically decommissioning the existing oil wells. And there's also a threshold at which the oil wells must be plugged and abandoned. So the basically upon issuance of building permits for the pumpkin patch site. Oil production potential on the synergy site is capped at 25% of the oil production potential. So right off the bat, as soon as the city issues building permits for the office building, there will be an immediate reduction in oil production. But more noticeably within the first year, your first two years, there will be a substantial removal of obsolete oil facilities, including aboveground pipelines and tanks. For example, today, you know, there are quite a few storage tanks on the synergy site that just are marked out of service. So those would be an example of things that are removed and that would be similar to the other sites. Wetlands restoration on the northern portion of the synergy oil field would begin immediately. And then grading activities on the pumpkin patch and CWA sites would follow. So then to year three and four would we would start to see the construction of oil facilities as well as non oil facilities. So that's the relocation of the Bigsby Ranch Field Office and conversion into the visitor center, construction of the office and warehouse, public access trail and frontage improvements like sidewalks and bike lanes. At this point, a well plugging in abandonment of existing wells would also begin. So I did want. To talk about the the 40 year that comes after. So after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the office building begins a 40 year timeline during which the existing oil wells are basically put out of put out of service. And there's a there's two milestones that I'll talk about first, which is year by year 20, the existing wells would be reduced by 50% and by year 40, completely eliminated. And there's also a threshold in the project that if a certain well produces less than one barrel of oil for 18 consecutive months, that that well will also be plugged and abandoned. And so at the ultimate conclusion of this project timeline, the synergy oil field site will be completely restored. So this is the list of approvals. I'd like to talk a little bit about. Through. The entitlements that are before the council tonight. So first on the list, we have the zoning code amendment, which is an amendment to the sea dip. That's the Southeast Area Development Improvement Plan, which lists permitted uses for the different sub areas. The four sites are in three different sub areas and so the setup amendments are intended to ensure that the seated language is consistent with the allowable uses and also taking out uses that would no longer be allowed. The second portion is the local Coastal Program Amendment. All of our zoning documents in the city are for the coastal zone, are incorporated into the city's local coastal program, and as such, any changes to the zoning documents have to be certified by the California Coastal Commission. And so as part of this action, the city council would transmit a resolution of four, a local coastal program amendment . The next the next step is an oil map amendment. Currently, the city's oil code, entitled 12 of the Municipal Code, requires that only drilling can only occur in designated areas, and the pumpkin patch site and the alpha site are not listed. And so part of the action would be to add those two sites to the city's oil code as well as the map. And thus I'm going to cover the next two together, but the site plan review and the certificate of compliance. So the site plan review is to allow the development of buildings, the office and warehouse building, as well as the visitor center on the on their two respective sites. And then the certificate of compliance is to record a legal description certifying that the site is in compliance with the Subdivision MAP Act. The last on the list is a consolidated coastal development permit. As luck would have it to, only two of the four sites are in the city's local leading local permitting jurisdiction for coastal. The other two are in the state permit jurisdiction. And so in 2014, the city the city agreed to have the Coastal Commission process a consolidated coastal development permit. This allows for a more comprehensive review and an integrated review of the four sites, since this is one project that occurs on the four sites and so subsequent to the LCP amendment, the California Coastal Commission would need to take review and take action on a consolidated CDP. Next, I'm going to cover environmental review. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project. As you can see on the screen, the city released the initial study, a notice of preparation in 2016 about mid-year and also conducted a scoping meeting. It was during this initial study that it was determined that certain environmental resource areas would have potentially significant impacts and therefore an air was prepared that air went through a 45 day review period last fall. And then since then, staff did receive a series of comments which have been every single comment has been responded to. And so included in the council's packet is the draft IIR as well as the final IIR. And the final IIR is what includes the response to comments as well as any errata to the draft EPR and the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program. This is a list of the environmental resource areas that were studied. There should be 18 of them, with the exception of one, which is air quality. Every resource area was found to have less than significant impacts or less than significant impacts, along with incorporation of mitigation measures. And so I will talk about the one significant impacted resource area in a bit. But here's the full list just so you can see all the topics. So under air quality, the project is shown to have short term significant impacts as a result of construction during the air quality modeling for this project. The worst case scenario basically would be that all construction phases of the project occur simultaneously, and while it's unlikely that would happen, just in case it does happen, the project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District threshold for nitrous oxide. Despite inclusion of mitigation measures that reduce NOx emissions to the degree possible, the project would continue to exceed the. I call it Squamish but south coast kms. The thresholds for NOx and. Therefore. The included in this Environmental Impact Report is a statement of findings and a statement of overriding considerations. And in order to certify the EIA, the Council would need to find that the benefits from the project outweigh the one significant impact in this case short term construction emissions. There are no there are no long term operational characteristics of the project that would result in air quality impacts. So again, construction only and then the next two slides detail all of the mitigation measure titles just for your benefit. But the full mitigation report is in the Environmental Impact Report that's been included in your packet. And so because this is not our everyday development project, I wanted to talk briefly about some of the the care we took during the E.R. process. So the E.R. was independent, independently prepared by the city and city secured consultants. These consultants are under control exclusively to the city and therefore producing a document that reflects the independent judgment of the city. All technical reports that were supplied by the applicant were peer reviewed and verified by city secured consultants. Tribal consultations were conducted in accordance with state law and specifically Assembly Bill 52. And also the process as a whole. Both the project and environmental review were were subject to extensive an extensive public review process with numerous opportunities for public engagement. Every comment, as I mentioned, was responded to. And basically the purpose of this extensive documentation effort is to protect the environment and the city's interests. As part of the preparation of an ER are alternatives are required to be studied. The alternatives are chosen in a way that have to reflect some realistic reflection of what could actually be done. And thus so the young studied five alternatives. The first is the the do nothing alternative. In other words, just leave the site the way it is. The second. Is to assume that development consistent. With the zoning would put today's seat up or would occur, and that would be construction of a commercial or industrial commercial on the on the pumpkin patch site. Construction of an industrial project on the CWA site, for example. So all of the assumptions that the zoning would allow. The third would. Be for reduced production, which involved the construction of the same level of equipment and infrastructure, but capping the production levels and therefore basically extending the timeline where oil wells would be taken down. The fourth would be to use the Southern California Edison system for energy rather than construction of an energy microgrid. And the fifth was an alternative pipeline location on the city site. Each alternative is evaluated with regard to all of the environmental resource areas that were on the prior slides and compared to the level of impacts that the proposed project would have. The air found that the other alternatives resulted in the same, if not greater, environmental impacts. But the relocated pipeline alternative alternative five would result in lesser impacts to biological resources, and I'll explain why on this next slide. So the two graphics on the screen compare the alternative, a number five to the proposed to the proposed project. The alternative five is shown on the on the top graphic and you can see that it it it's on the it's on as the service road is on the west again. So these aren't oriented north because of the way they fit on the screen. But the alternative five would be located on an Eastern Service road that is wider. It's already wider, which means it has been previously. It's been previously disturbed. Any biological impacts along that have been more previously disturbed than the other service road and placing the aboveground pipeline along this alignment would result in less biological impacts. And so overall, comparing the five alternatives to this one is the environmentally superior alternative because it has lesser impacts to biological resources. I do want to note that as we mentioned, the consolidated coastal development permit, the Coastal Commission will be able to review the all of the proposed improvements on the site and that includes the pipeline alignment . So I do want to make sure that we understand that the Coastal Commission will also look at this. So I want to cover a few topics that were broached on public comments in previous meetings. And just to clarify a few topics or a few project details. So the we've been asked by the public of whether the project in involves a process called fracking, otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing. And what hydraulic fracturing does is that it basically opens fissures in the underground structure to release additional oil. So fracking is basically the use of we have to use a lot of water, sand, chemicals. And most notably, an extraordinary amount of pressure to change the underground structural integrity of the ground. What the project proposes and that's documented throughout the air as well as the project description is, is not that simply the project needs to reinject the wastewater that comes out of oil production. And I should stop and explain that when oil is extracted from the ground nowadays, because oil production has decreased over the last ten or 12 decades, the 90% or so, basically the vast majority of what comes out of the ground is water. And that has to be re-injected back in in order to avoid subsidence. Furthermore, additional water has to be re-injected because you have to fill the void that is left when the oil is extracted out of the ground. And so the water the project will re-inject water into the ground in order to avoid subsidence and re-inject it in a place where the oil came from. However, it is done at a pressure which is monitored and which simply will fill the void. And it won't. It is not a fracturing operation. And so therefore the project does not include and is not approved for fracking. Furthermore, fracking has special permitting requirements through the California Department of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. It requires a special permit. There's a different notification process, and additional equipment would be needed because there is additional equipment that is needed. Any physical improvements on this site would be would have to be re-approved by the Coastal Commission as well as perhaps come back to the city as well. And depending on its configuration. And so we would like to stress that the regulatory framework of permitting oil wells is highly regulated. And not only do they control, does dogger control what is put in the ground, but it's what it is, how it's injected, the pressure. And that's demonstrated through regular reports that have to be submitted. Another set of questions we were asked What is the relationship between drilling and earthquakes and whether that was analyzed? This topic was covered in the air through the applicant teams researched. That was peer reviewed. Furthermore, various public and regulatory agencies have had the opportunity to comment. And the there is a lot of science out there about about the relationship. But in California, because of our regulatory framework and the method in which water is injected simply to avoid subsidence, there is no connection between the two. And I will go on. There's a second slide to this, which is that there is there has been in other parts of the country relationship between induced seismic activity and wastewater disposal . The most visible example of that was in a case in Oklahoma where water was being injected in in an area where they weren't even drilling oil. They were simply re injecting vast amounts of wastewater. And that created an instability underground. But that has not there's no connection of any of any of that in California, and that is documented by by scientific evidence. So I want to move on to talking about some of the risks from the existing equipment. The existing equipment on the site dates back to mid-century, the 1960s, and clearly no longer meet today's safety standards. The environment has also changed. There has been documented evidence of sea level rise and also climate change. And so without the project, the drilling equipment would basically remain there until something happened in you know, with the combination of sea level rise during a major storm event, the site is basically surrounded by water. So that could be this could be at risk for for some danger. And furthermore, the continued operations of an oil field in a wetlands does pose a significant environmental risk to the existing habitat and water quality. And this is an. Opportunity to get on a road to to clean that up a bit. So some of the project benefits the sign off of the building permit on the office building would result in a 75% immediate reduction in allowed oil production. The first two years would see the removal of the vast majority of obsolete pipelines and tanks, which would represent not only an important improvement to the just the safety of the site, but also the esthetic value of the site. And lastly, over time, the wells would be abandoned and equipment and the equipment would be taken out, allowing this energy site to fully be restored as a wetland site, along with a visitor center and a public access trail. So there will be some parts of the project that are more immediately seen and some that are going to take time. But there's a level of balance here. And so that's why the project timeline is, is what it is. I do want to talk about the appeal. The as I mentioned earlier, the city council has the final local authority on this project. On November 30th, the planning commission, which is the city council's advisory body on land use legislative actions, voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Council to appeals were filed of the Planning Commission's action and they were filed by an Cantrell representing citizens about responsible planning and also Anna Christiansen and Charles Moore representing protect the Long Beach low cerritos wetlands. The appeals site various reasons pertaining to the process outreach and environmental review. Just to explain broadly the appeals themselves are attached in the City Council packet. Other than the actual appeals filed, there was no additional information to support these assertions, and staff recommends that the Council proceed as it would on evaluating a planning commission recommendation. Lastly, I want to talk about public noticing. So public noticing was distributed in accordance with the Long Beach Municipal Code that included publishing in a newspaper, as well as mailing to property owners and occupants. Within 75 750 square feet of the combined project site to date, staff has received nearly 400 comments and I lost count, I have to be frank. But there were about there were over 350 support communications. So the recommendation for the city council tonight is to deny the appeals and enact the Planning Commission recommendation to certify the Air Select Alternative five and approve this project, as well as forwarded on to the California Coastal Commission for Review. This concludes my presentation and we're available for questions of the applicant or I'm sorry, our environmental consultant team as well as the applicant team is also in the audience. Thank you. Thank you very much to the staff for that presentation. Appreciate that. We're going to move on to the next piece of the hearing. And so before we hear from the applicant, which is going to be here in just a minute, we do, of course, as part of this part of the presentation, we have some comments first from the governor Band of Mission Indians per per staff. Is that correct? That's correct. Somebody has to be in there. Hasan. Welcome. Good evening. My name is Andrew Salas. I'm tribal chair of the Gabby Leonard Band, the Mission Indians Teach Nation. My father. Some of our tribal members are here. My father is up above. He's our chief and leader. Spiritual leader of our tribe. We are a tribe, are many of us from the villages of the Ali Basin here. We're a tribe. Of people who come from villages of the area. We are direct blood descendants to the Long Beach area. In my hand here. I hold the documentation of my family and. How we are connected. And so if you can just address. Okay. Thank you. We are connected to Long. Beach, Pobeda and on my grandfather's originally. Developed and made in old the Bixby Ranch. This. These documents here I hold shows the proof of. Who I am. During the past. 216, 2016, we got a letter from the city to engage with concerns if. We had of this development. Or the wetlands. And we think. These guys. That are opposing and standing up because their heart is in the right place. We have concerns also. About this particular area of the. Wetlands, which was sacred area. Of our people. But we must learn today, today that we must work with the lead agencies and developers. In these areas of concern, we must learn to take a little bit or take nothing at all. We are for the removal of the oil fields that are there. We are for the rehab of the wetlands and bringing in trying to bring it to what it was before. We are for this project. We are. And that's why we're here to represent in other respect. Like I said, guys you guys are up there. I this project kingdom yet as we follow through the project there's going to be concerns. We're going to have to speak up. You could do that. You can't do. This. We're going to be there. That's what we're here for. I don't know why people don't understand and don't give us the. Ability as Native Americans. Of this area, descendants, blood descendants. Why they don't acknowledge us and give us the opportunity to speak and let us handle our tribal affairs in our tribal lands with refugees in our own land. We cannot speak on behalf of our tribal territories because there's other individuals that interfere. We have a code of honor. Native Americans. Throughout the continent. There no other native interferes in another native territory. Tribal territory unless called upon further out. No one has called anybody. They haven't even reached out to us. People that are protesting. Which is a no no in our Indian in our books is a no no. So I, I know that there's been some static. I've seen the emails. That have been going around and there's representatives who have represented my people and speaking on behalf of my people. Who have no right to because they do not have the blood lineage. That we do of the people that once inhabited this area. In the folder, I don't see them here today in this folder, but I hold over 13 individuals that are not here today that I had to hire. Not only for this project, I had a genealogist that works. In behalf of Office of Personnel Management, not only to prove so I could prove who I am, but so I could prove who they are. So that way they could start getting into tribal affairs. They hired scientists. To go against us to prove that we're not from this area. Could you imagine where we were? All of this just turning out instead of coming to us and speaking to us and reaching out to us? They don't do that. They laughed at us. But we're here. We're going to stand strong. And with me, I brought tribal leaders and members of other nations who are going to speak in behalf of me and themselves and how we are going to resolve and work alongside and with you guys. That's the way it should be. We understand we were at Standing Rock. We were there. But like I mentioned, we need to give a little or get nothing at all. And we want our weapons back the way it was long, long ago, historically, where our families were gathered in that area. Those areas, these representatives here that I represent, my people, they call the area the wetlands sacred. Yes, it is sacred. The water sacred. The animals are sacred. Everything is sacred. Everything is sacred to us. But yet these individuals allowed digging up at Long Beach, at the veterans hospital in areas of low. So they allow that these people in this camp desecrated more sites than you can shake a stick at. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. And everyone else, of course, will speak during their public comment. Thank you. Thank you very much. So I'm going to leave these for you. Actually, you can leave them over here with the clerk. Thank you very much. And then I know here before the of the appellant, we also have. Thank you very much. We're going to we're going to go to all the other public comment will come during during public comment and then Mayor Bob Foster. Mayor Garcia, members of the council. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to. Make the council aware of my involvement. In this project. I was it was probably about to year 2000. When I got a call from the then. City manager, I was at Southern California Edison Company, and I got a call from the then city manager to ask us if we would consider taking those five acres, the LC site, and donating it to the city of Long Beach to do exactly what this project does, which is to facilitate the removal of the oil wells, transferring it to the locations, and being able to facilitate the restoration of the wetlands. It's been nearly eight years since that phone call. It's it's it's amazing to me that it's taken this long, but that actually is the point. This project cannot happen without the imagination and the resources that the developer has brought to this. I've wanted this done for 18 years. Well before I was mayor. Ellison donated that land that eventually. Went to EL CWA. EL CWA. Loves this. Project. It's the right. Thing to do for the city. It's the right thing to do for the environment. And quite frankly, if this project didn't go forward, I don't believe these wetlands would be restored, certainly in my lifetime, and probably yours as well, Mr. Mayor. And I just wanted you to know how important this project is, I believe, is to the city, and certainly to me personally, it's gratifying. Finally, after 18 years, this actually may become a reality. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mayor Foster. If I can, please have the appellants, the applicants. I'm sorry. Please come forward. There is an applicant presentation here again as we continue. And please begin when you're ready. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Richardson, members of the Council. I am Shana Shoffner, Chief Executive Officer of CAA Planning and I am representing Beach Oil Mineral Partners in this application. We are joined with our CO applicant Illustrious Wetlands Authority, who you will hear from shortly. I would like to thank staff before I get started for their very thorough presentation. I'm going to try to not be too repetitive from their presentation though. You will hear a couple of common themes. I note that I do not have a clicker up here in order to advance my PowerPoint. If I might get that, it would be very helpful. Okay. So to remind the council, we have four separate sites. We have the synergy site, the city site, pumpkin patch and LC CWA we are bound by. Oh, okay. So I have animations on this which are not working. Uh, is there a different way to do this? Other we can when we do this one, we're going to start the time. Thank you. We'll start over. Can you just make sure that we have our technical pieces here in place and for so we make sure they're working correctly and then we'll start the presentation over. Staff. Was this loaded as a PowerPoint? Well, it's okay. Just let's talk about the presentation. We'll go from there. Okay. So we had a list. Okay, that's fine. Oh, yes, I have a lot. That's fine. Okay. So it appears that this was not loaded as a PowerPoint presentation. And so all of the animations that I have provided to call your attention to certain things won't be here. I will try my best to do those in my allotted time, so I'm ready to keep going. Okay. So again, we have Studebaker, PC Age. And second, those are our main streets around the project sites. The project objectives are oil consolidation to upgrade the technology. To be safer and more efficient on a significantly smaller footprint, and the wetlands restoration to enhance the habitat quality, to create a visitor center and to allow for public access. The immediate actions associated with approval of the project or the establishment of a non wasting endowment, the initiation of wetlands restoration, the removal of invasive species from the restoration area, removal of 95% of the existing pipeline on the synergy and city sites which are shown in red. And to remove two of the out of service tank farms, one is shown in yellow on the synergy site, the second is shown below it on the city site. The next steps include the immediate grading to restore tidal flow within the wetlands, to create an earthen berm, to address sea level rise. A public access trail within the existing disturbed area, which is outside of the wetlands footprint and site preparation. Work on the CWA and pumpkin patch sites. Following that is the construction of new oil facilities. This includes tanks, infrastructure removal of the final tank farm on the synergy site, which is shown in yellow and the construction of a pipeline across the city property connecting the pumpkin patch and all CWA sites. Then we have well drilling, which will occur only on the pumpkin patch and all CWA sites. The final step is for a project operation. At the synergy site we see the visitor center and the public access trail and the purple. We also see the pumpkin patch and our CWA sites with the pipeline across the city property. I would like to go into a little bit more detail on the wetlands restoration and project components. As I have already stated, our project initiation, the wetlands restoration is the first step along with the establishment of a non wasting endowment for the future operation of the wetland property. This is not contingent upon the success of the oil operations. However, the transfer of the LC site is contingent upon the wetlands restoration, so we are assured of wetlands restoration by the transfer of those properties. In the yellow area we see the public access trail, which is within a disturbed area. Again, it's outside of the wetlands and we see the relocation of the visitor center shown here in red to an area outside of the fault zone. And we have a parking lot as well. Okay. Sidewalks and bike paths. The project includes another important component, which is the installation of sidewalks and bike paths on all street frontages. It also includes a bike repair station along Coast Highway at the Pumpkin Patch facility. And this is a great location because it's very close to the bike path along the San Gabriel River, which is a very heavily utilized bike path related to the existing oil operations. The project includes a provision to cap the oil production. At the existing wells. At 25% of their maximum capacity. That would be upon building permit issuance for the new facilities related to the removal of the existing oil facilities. Three important factors. The first is that four wells that produce. Less than one barrel of oil per day for an 18 month time period, those wells are removed immediately. Within 20 years, 50% of the wells are removed. Those locations are remediated and revegetated within 40 years. All. Remaining wells and any remaining infrastructure is removed and those sites are revegetated and remediated. These removal provisions are insured by an existing performance bond with dagger, which requires the removal and remediation of these wells. The project proposes the. Creation of a micro-grid energy system. This is state of the art technology. This is local source, local use. We are utilizing zero pollution, solar panels and natural gas. There is turbine cogeneration which reduces the air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Over 50%. Well, microgrid energy systems are new. They are supported by the federal government, the state of California, and environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club. As California transitions from oil to renewable energy sources, low carbon oil is viewed as a bridge towards renewables because it is less polluting compared to higher carbon oil. This particular oil, which is referred to as SEAL Beach. Formation Oil, has a very low. Carbon intensity compared to the California average. Historically and currently, there are 12 locations. Where the. Pipeline crosses the Newport-Inglewood Canyon fault on the project sites. All 12 of those locations are within wetlands. Under the proposed. Project. All existing pipeline crossings would be removed and replaced with a modern pipeline, which would only cross the fault in one location and would be located outside of wetlands. The pipeline has been designed to flex and move in response to a seismic event, which is compared to the current very rigid pipeline that cannot respond to these seismic events and that does not have containment measures. The facility design and safety includes modern technology, leak detection and active monitoring, automatic shutdown, pipeline tank and well containment systems. Here we see old technology. These are inefficient. There's no requirement to comply with modern standards. We have a static glide and there are no containment measures. The new well, sellers you see are energy efficient, newer, safer design, enhanced esthetic appearance because they are built into the ground and they have containment measures. Now, the applicants have involved have been involved and engaged in substantial pre-application planning and outreach efforts. That means before they even submitted the project to the city, they engage with city staff and Coastal Commission staff to refine the project in meaningful ways. In addition, there has been substantial outreach with the community, including groups like the Arbonne, the Land Trust, Native American stakeholders who we've just heard from business groups and nature ways. There was a three day open house which the applicant hosted a scoping session on the air. Two separate study sessions at the city level and the Planning Commission hearing for this project. As you will hear tonight and we have heard during this process, there have been three main issues raised. One is related to sea level rise. This is an issue that was studied consistent with the Coastal Commission regulations and address in the air with no action. Without this project. The synergy site will be subject to. Future inundation because of sea level rise. This project includes an earthen berm to. Address those sea level rise issues. The next issue is the Newport-Inglewood Canyon fault. Of course. All oil operations. Are clustered around faults because that's where oil is accessible. There are great benefits from the project from a technological perspective, but also moving the structure, which will be the visitor center away from the fault zone, is a great benefit. And critically, removing the existing pipeline crossings, which again there are 12 across the fault in wetlands, will be a great benefit of the project. Related to Native American consultation, we have heard from Representatives tonight, so I won't rehash that. Now I'm going to hammer off to Mark Stanley, the executive director from the Low Street US Wetlands Authority. He's got a few slides for you and then I will briefly conclude. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Mark Stanley from the service as well as authority and also the executive director of the same cable and also addressed the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. The lawsuit that's right now is authority as a Joint Powers Authority. It is made up of the State Coastal Conservancy. The RNC in both cities that. Are part of the lottery, those wetlands. So the city of Long Beach and SEAL Beach. Their mission level CWA is to provide a comprehensive program of acquisition protection, conservation, restoration, maintenance operations and environmental assessment of the illustrious wetlands. That is all in the protection of our habitat. Make sure we restore the area, improve the supply of water, its quality groundwater, recharge and water conservation. Since its inception in 2006, the CWA has acquired over 170 acres of land with the no less widows wetlands complex, which you see on the screen there. That represents over 500 acres. As you can see, there is multiple landowners we are concerned with not only what's before you tonight, but that entire 500 acres and getting. It all restored in the LC. LC Stewardship Program. We have been able to invite the public in to experience the wetlands. We sponsor tours throughout the wetlands. Thousands of citizens of the city of Long Beach throughout the region have been able to get out to the wetlands and see the potential of how it could be restored, but more specifically. The loss of this wetlands or consolidation. The Restoration Project will support the CWA with achieving its mission. So so will result in the public acquisition of 154. Acres of coastal. Wetlands property that has been. Privately owned for over a century. The restoration of title wetlands and buffer habitat of 77 acres. The consolidation and eventual full removal of antiquated all operations infrastructure that currently constrains 100 acres within the complex. The transformation of an existing Bixby Ranch building into a visitor center with Associated Trails, an expansion of our stewardship opportunities to a. Much larger portion of the weapons. The proposed project is. Consistent with the goals and objectives of the Conceptual Restoration Program. Next slide that shows the effort that we have gone through with the conceptual restoration program, several different alternatives that we have looked at, and the restoring of the 500 acres of the weapons area. Since this project is so well aligned with our mission. In August of 2016, they also had a board of directors authorize an operations agreement that outlines the terms through which they also. W-A would transfer approximately five acres. In exchange for the loss of those wetlands 154 acres. Since the signing of this agreement, the LC has been dedicated to tracking every aspect of this project. It is as it has progress through the permitting and entitlement process. CWA represents representatives who have worked closely with the applicant staff on the development of the project draft and in response to the comments. We've hired several consulting firms to perform peer reviews of the documents that most pertain to CWA is interested in the project and we provided the applicant with constructive feedback on how to improve these reports . We have reviewed we have reviewed the 31 public comment letters that were submitted to the City of Long Beach as part of the public comment process and recognized the numerous topics of concern that exist for this project. We have met with the applicant on numerous occasions since the public comment period ended to ensure that all reasonable stakeholder comments are properly addressed, that all necessary agencies are being consulted. All CWA staff has been impressed by their response enough responsiveness of the applicant to our concerns and even more impressed by the applicant's coordination. With those with those wetlands. Stakeholders. The applicants have met with the El Dorado Audubon, the Lost Widows Wetlands Land Trust on. Consistently throughout this project, these two organizations have identified themselves as the most significant proponents. Their perspective on this proposed project notes acknowledgment. Outside of these specific organizations, the applicant has presented the project at all the major home owner groups that surround the proposed project and for the public at large. The LCA was very impressed with the kids three day open house event that was held in August. Thank you. And we have to just wrap it up in October of 2017. This event showcased the. Applicant's dedication. In informing the community. Thank you very much. In conclusion. Yeah, time's up. Thank you very much. We are in support of this project and I hope to thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. And we'll be back for rebuttal. Yes. Appreciate it. Okay. Thank you very much. Next, I have two sets of appellants. Which are the two? Appellants, because it's going to go first. It's control. Okay. So both get a total max of 15. So I'd like to ask for additional time since the appellants had the Native-Americans speak on their behalf. And also I think they went over their 15 minutes. So so actually, let me just clarify that real quick. So, Mr. City, translate. I asked you the same question. And do you want to clarify that? Yes, Mayor. Actually, the presentation. By the local. Indian tribe was not part of the applicant's presentation. They were invited by the city. To make a presentation after a couple of meetings with them about the project. So I think as a courtesy to them, as an Indian nation. They were asked to come speak. As part of this. As part of the staff presentation. Correct? Okay. And was Mayor Foster also part of the staff presentation, guys? Because we were going to have a civil forum and a civil hearing. And so that's not helpful. So thank you very much. So I believe actually that we have taken out, Mr. Mays, that you took off time from the rebuttal for the portion of Mr. Foster, is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Ms.. Cantrell. So may I have two extra minutes? So per the city attorney, everyone is getting 15 minutes. Is that correct? Okay, Ms.. Control. Good evening. And Cantrell, on behalf of CARP citizens about responsible planning, we are appealing the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the EIA Zoning and Oil Map Amendments, LCP and Site Plan Review for the Low Cerritos Wetlands and Oil Consolidation Project listed in the air as the Low Cerritos Wetlands, Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project. I am curious as to why restoration was left off the title in the staff report. Perhaps it's because this project isn't really about wetlands restoration or even consolidation, as the Coastal Commission staff has pointed out. It is all about oil expansion, 120 new wells on smaller areas with a great possibility for disaster. Historically, this area was the estuary of the San Gabriel River, fresh water from the Lower Cerritos Channel. And I'm sorry this doesn't work very well, but it's here. And the San Gabriel River mixed with tidal saltwater, creating a brackish tidal marsh until driven off the land. Native Americans lived along the river finding food and tools for their baskets, houses, clothes in these west wetlands. With oil extraction, tank farms, houses and power plants. The annual flooding of this area required the channel ization of the San Gabriel and the Los Cerritos Channel, thus reduced the freshwater input for the wetlands to stormwater runoff and occasional rain. Once more functioning wetland remains in stream travels through which the air admits may be public trust lands. At one time, all of this area belonged to the Bixby family. But as oil became depleted and the Coastal Act denied new drilling, drilling and building on wetlands, the Bixby sold this property to Tom Dean and Jeff Berger. The city acquired the surface rights for the part of the wetlands by the east of Trader Joe's, in a swap with Dean for a developer city land along the Los Angeles River. Another land swap where the city got the short end of the stick by not getting the mineral rights. When Dean and Berger were killed in a plane crash, the remaining wetlands became the property of synergy slash beach oil minerals. Oil extraction is permitted on wetlands. If the pumps predate the Coastal Act. But new drilling drilling is prohibited even with well enhancement, which includes pumping water and chemicals into the wells to remove the sludge. These old wells are not producing much oil. The Earth states that oil production from Synergy and city properties as being around 300 barrels a day. Synergy believes there is a large pool of oil to the east of their property but needs non wetlands for dwelling drilling. Thus the proposed acquiring of the Lower Cerritos Wetlands Authority's five acres on Studebaker and Second Street, along with the lion's property known as the pumpkin patch on PCH. The loss of Rita's Wetlands Authority five acres was mitigation from Edison for the San Onofre nuclear plant and at one time was planned as the site of a visitor center for the low cerritos wetlands. Although this land was once part of the estuary of the San Gabriel, the property has been filled, covered with gravel, planted with non-native, so as no evidence of wetlands left. However, it is uncomfortably close to the earthquake fault to allow drilling. The Lion property on PCH also has layers of landfill and has been used as a pumpkin patch Christmas tree, lot storage for Grand Prix tires, oil extraction and was once a lease term nesting site. Joanna Eagle Inglewood Finding John Joanna Ingle, the Coastal Commission biologist, reports that some of this property has the hydrology to qualify as wetlands . These photos of the endangered southern Tara plant are from her July 2017 report. She concluded there were not enough plants to qualify as ACIA environmentally sensitive habitat. This is not surprising as the property owners have been killing off all the wetland plants for years. In July 2004, Don may, as president of Earth Core and Most Serious Wetlands Land Trust reported at an MLP for the proposed strip mall in the pumpkin patch that there was a three acre dense cover of Southern power plants, about a third of the site and a thick mat of heliotrope and pickle weed over much of the rest. On August six, 2004, I visited the site with Don and took these pictures. We found about half of the plants had been scraped off, as you can see in the background behind Don. But there were still lots of tar plant there. Don wrote to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on August 12, 2004, and reported that the rest of the plants had been sprayed with herbicides. On August 8th. On January 12th, 2018, I was alerted there were heavy equipment working on the pumpkin patch. When I arrived, there were no bulldozers, but I did find the area scraped clean of all vegetation, as you can see here. There were patches of very green, healthy plants growing inside the fence, but otherwise even the back of the property not used for Christmas trees was completely bare. After the recent rains, it would be reasonable to find some sign of plants growing in locations other than just along the fence. I can find no explanation for this perfectly level moonscape other than scraping by a bulldozer and destruction of all evidence of wetlands. Here is the steam shovel slew on October 2017. This northern part of the synergy property is functioning wetlands with obligate plants and animals. However, this is the area scheduled for, quote, restoration, unquote. Bond plans to enlarge their mitigation bank by breaching the current berm, separating the slew from the oil fields and flooding the uplands with more tidal flow. The problem with this plan is that the uplands have been indentified as being full of oil, sludge and toxins and require extensive cleanup. This is where the endangered building Savannah Sparrow now nests and forages. Because of the brief description in the A.P., the California Fish and Wildlife apparently didn't realize the significance of this project and made no comments. Their biologists have had a long involvement with these wetlands and should have been consulted. As a layperson, I believe this so-called restoration is going to have direct, disastrous effects on many species of plants, birds and animals that now call the wetlands home. An independent, qualified biologist is needed to make that determination, not one paid for by the applicant. Another big issue is the wisdom of oil drilling and running pipelines on or near a known earthquake fault. The red line on this map is the Newport-Inglewood fault, which runs right through the wetlands. In the argument for Alternative five pipeline through the wetlands, it stated that in the event of a rupture in the pipeline, only 30,816 gallons would be spilled, compared to 37,773 gallons, which could be released with the pool limit per parameter location. Further, the EIA eyes response to a possible oil spill or oil leak was that the oil will be all contained on the property by berms and will cause no harm to humans. What about the other inhabitants of the wetlands? Coastal Commission staff recommended an expanded annual analysis of the risk of the oil spill. As far as I'm aware, this has not been done. One of the project's objective is enhance gateway entry points to the city over existing industrial conditions and RMS control. Have four and a half minutes. I'm going to give you in an additional minute. So just to give you that additional a minute. Okay. So you have five, five and a half minutes. Thank you. Even the 18 foot wall, which is called a screen wall at the pumpkin patch, will not hide this 160 foot oil drilling rig, which will be what the public will see when entering our sustainable city. There will be another 160 rig at the corner of Second and Studebaker, along with collapsible 120 foot rigs at both sites. Although labeled temporary, these rigs can be in use for possibly the entire life of the oilfield. Plus, the public will still be looking at the existing oil pumps on the Synergy and city project for almost up to 44 years. Leave it in the ground. Ask the port to provide the restoration money for the degraded portions of the wetlands, as it did for Bolsa Chica and other wetlands. This may require some changes in the law, but as shown tonight with the sea dip amendments, nothing is written in stone. There are too many defects in this project to cover in one short session. Karp urges you to have at least one public study session to address all the impacts, including esthetics, air quality, biological contamination, cleanup, cultural, geological, oil, spill risk traffic, water and inadequate mitigations. This EIA is not ready for approval. Please be good stewards for one last remaining salt. What marsh in California and Joe Weinstein has some comments also as president. Of carp. As part of your your your time. Sure thing. Yes. Yes. Hello. I am Joe. Weinstein, president. Of Citizens. About Responsible Planning. Of course, we endorse the notion of. Restoration of these wetlands to something much closer to their former natural state. The problem is that while there are a couple of problems. One problem is that the air does not fully specify what might in fact be good news, what might in fact be components of an adequate project. But there is no specification there to guarantee that. And without specific. Statements. In the project description of the air, what you're really buying is a pig in a poke. We hope that's not true. But no matter how many verbal reassurances you have gotten tonight and we'll get afterwards, unless it's put into the EIA or project description, there is no guarantee to the public. We are concerned not only with environmental impacts of the project itself. But with the loosey goosey approach to the supposed restoration. The few details as to restoration methods are not reassuring. For example, plants are to be are to be wonderfully protected from any chemical treatments, but weeds are to be subjected to, quote, aqueous glyphosate. That is to say the probable. Carcinogen. Roundup, which we. Do not even want to see. Continued further in the Long Beach parks, let alone in this wetlands. And as and control mentioned. Simply flooding the uplands with tidal flow and then maybe leaching out contamination that is there and will be there without extensive operations that are not fully detailed or guaranteed is simply a recipe for contaminating what is good now. In fact, the Coastal Commission pointed. Out that there are no specific standards of the so-called restoration that has to be met. Who will carry it out. Which obviously qualified biologist will certify the success or mandate amendment of the restoration? Who will do the necessary long term monitoring so that it isn't just a flash in the pan one time success and then die off restoration. The air does not provide clear answers. There might be good answers, but they better be written into the air. We are concerned that there has been no comment from. The California. Department of Fish and Wildlife. I remember the concern is that, you know, there is a whole. Slew of mitigation measures and monitoring measures, but only two of them pertain to what would be done by way of actually upgrading and restoring the wetlands. All the others pertain to maybe mitigating the extra damage that this project will do to the existing wetlands. Thank you very much. Finally, if I may make one final point. We're concerned with the misleading. Treatment of the no build alternative. You see, this is a long term project. Therefore, there isn't simply a single no build alternative. Thank you very much. Many alternatives are possible, consistent with not building today. Thank you very much, sir. But getting. Your support tomorrow. Thank you. And we'll have our second appellant, please. Okay. We're going to set 15 minutes for the second. Appellant. Your first. We're splitting up our time into five minute increments. Sure thing. Okay. Okay. Sure. It was possible to get the clock up. It was up last time, but it was in the way of the presentation. But. Oh, do you want to. Do you want it up? Yes. Okay. So we'll do put the 50 minutes up there. Okay. Okay. Thank you. My name is Tasha Knapp Kristensen. I'm co-founder of Protect Long Beach, Los Cerritos Wetlands Group, along with Rebecca Rebecca Robles, a Harshman elder, and Anna Christensen component. So I'd like to start off by acknowledging that we are on the land, and I would like to thank the council. I appreciate those of you who took the time to meet with us and let us offer our perspective. And I would like to say I am also a member of the Omaha Nation. I'm indigenous as well. So we've been working with a shaman and talking about elders on wetland protection issues, along with Gloria Ioannis of the Anthony House Band and Rebecca Robles. I am an elder and this project is presented by the project and is actually part of a very ancient landscape. It's a bit about the tongue of ownership in peoples and has the potential for sacred site designation under the Native American Heritage Act. The evidential basis for this fact is that there is many unmarked archeological sites, either within a half mile of proximity or directly on the project site. The pumpkin patch is a work site. They found a skull there. Mean, we actually found the remains of individuals. Rancho Los Alamitos was a Chalmette Insite industrial site for processing the food that they ate, the shells, the shell meat, and probably remains a current ceremonial site. I'm engaged with the time again to Hodgeman people as I grew up in this community. I attend those ceremonies. And you know, Gloria, I am speaking for Gloria, Ariana in this timeslot. I do not speak for the Tongva or Hodgman people, but working with Angela Mooney Darcy of Sacred Places Institute, Rebecca Robles and Gloria R.A., they have, you know, given me permission to to represent that perspective. So Angela was in a car accident recently, couldn't be here. And Gloria has the flu, so I'm here. The high likelihood of findings on these archeological sites compared to, you know, what was said in the planning process, what the planning department hearing was that they had done 100% tribal mitigation, tribal archeological mitigation. They can't be true because you don't know what you're going to find until you start grading as and control has demonstrated. That's already started happening, apparently. You know, what are you going to do, find a skull there or something? Everything's within a half mile of the site. The you know, the remains. In addition, as I was told by elders, Gloria and Rebecca, that, you know, there are also these unique archeological remains called cog stones. They are not found in very many Tongo Harshman sites, and they're usually a cultural signifier of a like a large population of individuals. So they found called stones that along with burials of one individual, which they consider probably of a status of like a, you know, a spiritual leader, because individual individuals are not usually buried with stones. And the other one was like a very old dolphin that was like tens of thousands of years old, surrounded by these stones . So you're talking about a unique, unique heritage and a very ancient culture that still continues to practice ceremonies today. And how many times? Okay, I got to hurry. I just want to bring up the high likelihood of findings along with the SB 18 and 83 to California laws, which puts the onus on Long Beach City Council to develop an ongoing tribal relationship with the Tonga people, and that that includes all three of the bands, not just the one that we heard from tonight. And, you know, we need to develop an ongoing relationship with all three tribal bands on this band. You know, we don't know that he got a letter, but if that has not happened, by the time if this moves on to the Coastal Commission, just as in Banning Ranch, you know, the same tribes came forward and actually our perspective one on that one, these same issues. So not just the ones you want to work with or you know, but that are like pro project or whatever. But also the other ones like that I'm representing, they care about their culture remains undisturbed. And so, you know, we also need to have a type of monitor on site that represents all three of those bands and that's also under the state law. Okay. So those are my asks too to make sure and contact all three of those bands and and how those tribal monitor before the screening starts. Okay. Thank you. And I Christenson Part two the process required to ensure that the public was informed of understood and was able to comment on the low cerritos wetlands restoration and Oil Consolidation Project is flawed. Public outreach has been inadequate and inaccurate. Public presentations designed like See the picture by Beichuan Middle Partners describing the project as wetlands restoration or consolidation are deceptive. Both the Low Service, Climate Authority and Long Beach Development Services have allowed Beichuan Middle Partners to create and present a single , distorted and self-serving misrepresentation of what is essentially under the Coastal Act, a, quote, hazardous industrial development, unquote. Responding to the project, A.P., an initial study, California Coastal Commission staff has stated, quote, to characterize the proposed project as a wetlands restoration project. And first, any relocation of oil extraction and processing equipment. Second is a misrepresentation of the overall project and could be misleading to the public. The impetus, the reason behind the development of the project was the updating and more importantly, the expansion of oil extraction and oil processing operations at the synergy oilfield between mineral partners has continued to speak for all parties, making presentations and engaging in additional promotional outreach efforts and has not altered either either of those. In spite of these concerns by the Coastal Commission at the very beginning of public outreach, the public is being misled and sales risk are being downplayed and ignored. As they stated, they presented both the air and the air to the Planning Commission and no community meetings have yet been held on this project that were not presented from the perspective of beach oil, mineral partners. No other points of view like the ones you are hearing in our appeals have been presented. Tribal consultation required by law has not been fully attempted by project proponents, by or by the lead agency under. And I won't go into that given the tiny bit of time I have it more layer on that in your packets. Also, you have more detailed descriptions of these. More. Points to these issues, the involvement of public lands and public entities. So now we're looking at the that we started with the process we're now into the proponents. Who are the proponents of this project? Well, the main proponent, the one on the paperwork is beach or Mineral Partners. However, as stated by the Coastal Commission staff, this project cannot take place without the land swap, without the CWA being involved. So over a 30 year period the involvement of the LCA make this Wetlands Protection Agency a fully necessary and willing partner in quote unquote a hazardous industrial development and a for profit mitigation being, the LCA has compromised its own restoration plan. Let me see how we're doing here in favor of that design. My Beach Men, Mountain Partners, as they said, to build that berm, that berm is necessary and. That is brought to the. Attention of the LCA right in the beginning by a biologist, an independent biologist, that it was designed to protect their new oil drilling platform from sea rise. The road to this wetlands, I-40 and its to two of its members, the Coastal Conservancy and the IMC were created, publicly funded and have as their core missions the protection of water polluting groundwater, the groundwater that's going to be used to drill for oil preservation and restoration of habitat. A core value clean air, clean water, open space are a priority. They also promote green initiatives. Okay. So is is it even legal for them to start drilling for oil? The project itself, the final Environmental Impact Report, states there's no sacred sites, just a heads up to the tribal group that's here. Read the project. They say there's no sacred sites there. No sacred sites, no problem. All right. This determination is made in spite of the testimony and evidence that you're hearing tonight. So when you say what's in the air, what are you approving that you're approving it? It states there's no sacred sites. And you just heard the tribe here today say they are okay. Finally, you can look in your packet to see the many numbered issues in the Coastal Act. I'm submitting it. I don't have time to read it, but but the code that basically says you can't do this, you can't do a hazardous site like this in the wetlands I that. So thank you for the opportunity to present our comments and our investigation into the air tonight. You know, I'm a 70 year old, 30, 50 year, so I'm 70 years old. But I've been commenting on city council matters for 50 years. So I've had a chance to look around. And from my perspective, you are the best city council Long Beach has ever had. Really? Yeah. I'll tell you why. You've shown a willingness to embrace future friendly ideas like the ban on expanded polystyrene and even improve on it by adding foam coolers and filler foam pellets used in pillows and beanbag chairs. You think independently, but are capable of acting collectively for positive change. And that's all we're asking for tonight, that you act together to reject this foolhardy air that will give us time to work with all concerned, to truly think outside the box in order to create a project that is a win win for the owners and the proponents of wetlands restoration. You know, I enjoyed reading the sea air. I like to read things like that. I mean, did you know there are several ways other than the Richter scale to measure earthquakes like the modified McCallie scale is it's qualitative a says one is earthquake not felt seven is difficult to stand or walk and 12 is damage nearly total. The claim is made in the air that the use of modern equipment and procedures will eliminate the danger of drilling next to a fault. The published conclusion that the Huntington Beach oil fields deeper drilling was a probable causal factor of the 1933 earthquake is dismissed in the air. For this project, however, the project is going to be very close to the fault line there. As fact, it's just about two houses away. It's 200 feet away. So it's and it's going to go very deep. It's a layer cake of poor, thin and missing sediments, multiple pools of oil stacked vertically. And they're going to go down maybe over 10,000 feet to get at this oil. There's a brand new oil source and this is a deeper, not yet drilled zone, and that's the target of the proponents. What we need for the restoration of this potentially beautiful area is a beautiful project, something that combines modern technology that will remove the existing infrastructure and then restore the wetlands with a lower risk. Profitable project for the developer. You will note that in the proponents literature there are many pictures of the restored wetlands and the visitor center, but not much showing the actual drilling apparatus. But this this is this is what the drilling apparatus looks like. You can see it right now on Second and PCH. That's where what's going on right now is second and PCH. And you know what? They're doing a lot of building of. Well, it was I mean, this is the modern. Oil. Rig. This is the modern oil well, like what we had on Porcupine Hill and SEAL Beach. But this apparatus will be used for drilling and re drilling, you know, before you can do these below grade pumps that you say are going to be invisible, you've got to drill the hole so you can start pumping. And these are the things that are going to do it. And then you're got to have capacity for flaring. That's another problem that we have here. There needs to be. A better way than wasting natural gas and directly heating the atmosphere, whereas the modern technology to avoid this fiery welcome to Long Beach along our gateways along both Pacific Coast Highway and Second Street, we would like to make a few comments about the 1960 landfill on the Pumpkin Patch site. We really love it. Algolia. We think this is modern archeological site. We'd love to be part of excavating that and getting it out because it needs to be x ray. It will be excavated because it's leaching toxics into the San Gabriel River. And we're hoping to be able to use this as a modern archeological site. But, you know, today the budgets of major cities are being drained by emergency response to events over which they have no control. Increasing numbers of their systems are dying and their property lost due to the rapidity, intensity of the effects of climate chaos occasioned by the proliferation of greenhouse gases. The Long Beach Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is a work in progress. But Mayor Garcia and Mayor Garcetti both signed zero emission goals. And these are states that now I'm going to run out of time. So just let me say this, that there's a new constituency here. There's kids that don't see our future. They see business as usual, as suicidal. What we need is business unusual. This project is not unusual enough. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes the appellant comments. Both sets of appellants we're going to have now, the applicant will have 4 minutes of rebuttal time. We'll put the 4 minutes up on the clock. Staff me get my PowerPoint back up. Please create the applicant's PowerPoint. Presentation backup, please. If the PowerPoint presentation. No. Why it is if there's a phobia to chatting an audience, please. We just need to continue with the hearing. Thank you. All. We put the time up, please. The 4 minutes. Thank you. Good evening again. Shawna Shoffner, C.A. Planning representing the applicant. I'd like to start my rebuttal with what happens if the project is not approved. There would be no wetlands restoration, no public ownership of the wetlands. We would reinvest in the existing oil operations, some of which are in the wetlands without newer, safer technology. We need no additional entitlements or discretionary approvals to reinvest in these existing wells. That can be done by Wright and will be done without this project. There would be no visitors center, no trail, no sidewalks and bikeways. So we see there is great public benefits with the proposed project. Without it. We do not need new discretionary approvals. I'd like to address some of the issues that were raised by the appellants. You've heard that the Coastal Commission does not allow oil wells in wetlands and that only pumps appreciate the coastal sector are allowed in wetlands. This is incorrect. New oil wells are considered development and require CDP. Coastal Act Section 30233 allows oil production within wetlands. It's one of the very few uses that is allowed within wetlands. We also heard that there will be impacts to wetlands under Alternative five with the pipeline. This is incorrect. The EIA discloses that with the pipeline and Alternative five, there are no impacts to wetlands related to the wetlands restoration and the technical studies. I understand that you'll hear from several biologists tonight who have worked on the restoration plan, but the quality of those technical studies that made up the plan have been subject to multiple peer reviews, including by the Audubon biologists and more significantly, the IATA, which is the inter-agency review team, which includes U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Commission, nymphs and others have been engaging in review of this plan for more than three years. There's also success criteria built into this plan and five years of monitoring to ensure success. We heard tonight that the maximum spill capacity was a question asked by the Coastal Commission and that apparently was not answered. This is incorrect. That is a question that was asked by the Coastal Commission staff in their comment letter on the air, and a response was provided in responses to comments and as part of your final air tonight. Okay. I'd like to conclude this is a project that has substantial public benefits, the immediate restoration of the low street US wetlands, and the establishment of a non-Western endowment for the ongoing operation of the wetlands. A visitor center and a public trail. New sidewalks. Bike paths. A Bike repair station. A sizable increase in revenue generation for the city of Long Beach and a state of the art project with a micro-grid energy system and enhanced safety associated with new oil facilities , and most importantly, the removal of these antiquated oil facilities over time from the existing sites. We request the project approval consistent with the staff and the Planning Commission recommendation. Our project team ownership and technical experts are available tonight if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. Okay. That concludes the application, the appellant comments. So we are. So just just to make sure everyone's very aware we're gonna be doing public comment a few things before public comment starts. Public comment obviously going to come to the mic. You say your name you and you make sure you identify yourself. But also please make sure that when your time is up, your time is up and be respectful. And if the audience please be respectful of every speaker, regardless of what place you are or what position you're in or what you're for. Okay. So we're going to begin public comments. Okay. Bend down a little bit. Done. A good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is David Bright and I'm a field representative for assembly member Patrick O'Donnell. I am present today in order to make a comment on behalf of Assembly Member O'Donnell in support of the Illustrator's Wetlands and Oil Consolidation Project. Assembly Member O'Donnell was born and raised in Long. Beach and spent his childhood in and around the low street as wetlands. He grew up with an appreciation of these special lands and has always fought to protect and restore them. A Senate member, O'Donnell believes that the loss of Rita's wetlands, oil consolidation and restoration project is a good project with many benefits. He appreciates that not only will wetlands be restored and move into public ownership, the existing oil operations will be consolidated to two offsite parcels and are replaced with newer, safer and more efficient technology. Additionally, the project represents a substantial revenue boost to the city's general fund, which he feels is desperately needed. Assembly member O'Donnell believes. That this is a great project for Long. Beach and is happy to offer his support. He is looking forward to the area being restored so that he and future generations can responsibly enjoy these sensitive areas. Assemblymember O'Donnell feels that this is a unique opportunity and urgency to approve the project without delay. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council. My name is Bill Thomas, a resident of Alameda Tates, living less than a mile from the property you were discussing. I can only say we've learned a little more history than I realized tonight. And my history only goes back to Long Beach to mid-fifties when I came out here. So many, many oil wells around here. And my goodness, they got a lot of oil wells. And now that I'm old and gray, I've seen the progress go. I was a Navy man back in the fifties, and we transitioned from a Navy town to a fantastic growing city. And I'm here to speak very positively on this project that I've watched closely for a number of years. I'm amazed that John McEwen has been able to have so many outreaches and talk to so many people and being active with the sea tip reconsideration. We thought we did a lot of outreach, but they've done a magnificent job of reaching everybody who's interested in this. And I see the future for the wetlands area being a great thing, and I just hope it moves faster than some of the numbers I've heard. I'm looking forward to having it. Thank you for it. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Ben Goldberg. I am a native of Long Beach, as well as a resident and homeowner at the neighborhood just adjacent to this project. I also work at the building that will be adjacent to the other part of the project, which is the pumpkin patch. So I feel I have a little bit of perspective here. I was the president of the University Park Estates Association for many years on the board as well for many years, and represent many of the residents there today. We've put all the communications up regarding. All the outreach on our Facebook page for our residents specifically. Everyone's been informed. It's been a well ran campaign allowing input from our residents directly in our neighborhood as well as surrounding neighborhoods. I will tell you that when Mayor Foster past Mayor Foster, I should say, mention that phone call 18 years ago. I was running for city council around that time as well, and this issue was front and center back then. And I am amazed it took this long to get here, but I certainly hope that this council will see fit to approve it unanimously and send it on to the Coastal Commission, which we know will be a whole nother set of circumstances to deal with. But this is a good project. There's a lot of residents here that were that have been here their whole lives that don't even realize that the wetlands is actually there because it has not been open to the public for all these years. The only way to get in there is through kayak or boat on one side, and otherwise it's basically private property and pretty much cordoned off. I mean, there have been a few tours recently, but it was sure would be nice after raising two children there, one who's now 21 and one is 28 who never visited the wetlands . I'd like to bring at least someday, God willing, grandchildren to this wetlands site. Re re rediscovered all that wonderful walkway and everything else. So please don't let the people from outside our neighborhoods come in here and tell you that we don't want this project to move forward. We do, and I hope that you'll approve the project as presented. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. City Council. My name is Wareham Lisowski President, Long Beach Citizens for Fair Development of a graduate of Long Beach Poly. So there's my Long Beach credentials. We'd like to support what all the appellant said. There's a lot of problems with the air. Namely, I sent you all a letter today describing some of the problems with the air. One of which is the sites currently producing 300 barrels of oil a day. And this proposal is up to 24,000. Barrels of oil a day. The Environmental Impact Report does not address the greenhouse. Gas emissions from that increased production. Also, there are environmentally sensitive areas like the appellant control said on the pumpkin patch area. In fact, yesterday and today there was workers over there scraping, putting, fencing up. Who knows what's going on over there now to obscure. Environmentally sensitive areas. So what we'd like is for this. Council, this body to while beach oil is extracting. Oil out of the ground. This council should be. Extracting from them. Concessions to make this a better project for the people of Long Beach. 40 years is too. Long to wait. California is making a move away from fossil fuels. We have regulations to where any new development needs, any new development needs, electric vehicle chargers. So we support the move. Towards non-fossil fuel energy, and we urge you to reconsider this project. It's just too much oil out of the ground in too environmentally. Sensitive an area on a dangerous fault line. Thanks so much. Speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council members. My name is Kyle St Romain. I'm a resident here in Long Beach. I'm in support of this project. I think this is the type of forward thinking that our city needs more of where we have public and private interests coming together to create something better for all of us. I've often driven past the wetlands, wondering what it's there for. You see these abandoned tank farms, marginal production, idle wells. It seems like a waste in its current state, and I'm in support of it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor to City Council Staff Jeremy Harris, senior vice president of Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, here tonight to support this project. On behalf of our 800 members, our leadership and all those involved with the chamber, we believe this is a win win. For the community and also those folks that care so much about the wetlands. We believe there's several reasons why you should support this tonight in order to move it forward. One has been mentioned multiple times tonight, the wetlands habitat restoration and the amount that will be going into that to the new revenue, as pointed out by the report, is welcome new funding to the city's budget and finances as it's been estimated, and then three protections that have all been mentioned in and around the site as compared to what you see there now. For the interest of time, we just ended our comments in tonight in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and vice mayor and members of the Council. My name is Lucy Johnson and I'm not a native of Long Beach, but I've been here longer than anywhere else. I've been so since 1980. I drove past the site virtually every day, both directions. And in this past October. Excuse me for reading this, but I wouldn't forget it otherwise. I toured the Synergy Oil site during one of the open house days after viewing a presentation of the restoration plan and walking around the site. I came away impressed with the plan to consolidate and modernize the oil operations and over time, restore about 150 acres of wetlands. From what I saw and learned about the project that day, and since this is a tremendous opportunity for the city of Long Beach and the LC, the trade of about five acres of CWA land near the project for the hundred and 50 plus acres in the synergy oil field and the commitment of Synergy and its partners to consolidate the oil operations into two parcels totaling approximately ten acres is a trade that must be completed. The air adequately addresses the concerns of the opponents regarding air pollution, fracking and pipeline leakage. Upon approval from the City Council and all the permitting authorities, the blight now seen on both sides of Second Street between Studebaker and Pacific Coast Highway will be eliminated over time. Just imagine the beautification of the site and the return of the native wildlife. The low cerritos wetlands will become one of long beaches, most treasured assets enjoyed for years to come by residents and visitors alike. This is a tremendous opportunity to ensure the future of the Lo Cerritos wetlands and one that the city of Long Beach cannot afford to pass up. I therefore urge the members of the City Council to unanimously approved the staff's recommendations for permitting and to deny the appeals. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Thank you. And Speaker, please. Good evening. My name is John Burchill. I'm a senior vice president with Wells Fargo Bank. I'm based in Bakersfield. Hey, guys. Everyone gets respect to have their time at the mic, regardless of your position. So please continue, sir. I'm here as the lender of record to synergy oil. I have over 40 years of experience in commercial lending, including real estate, agriculture and oil and gas lending. But we can get into the economics of the oil and the underwriting and all that. But one of the most important things that we do as a commercial lender, first of all, is who are the people behind the project? I first met John McEuen and his team at Synergy in 2012. Every negotiation we've had with them, everything we've asked them to do, everything they told us they would do, they have done. And that's the first thing. Any type of a project like this, as extensive as this project is. You've got to look at the people behind it and their ability and willingness and desire to complete it. So those are my comments. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yeah. Hi, I'm Marsha Lisowski and. I'm the on the stand committee of Long Beach Area Peace. Network. And we come from this from a kind of a different perspective. We are come from the idea that we would like. To prevent global warming. One of the things that happened in the last couple of years, of course. Is that there was a huge drought in Syria. The drought was caused by global warming. It caused. A civil war, a civil war that we're. Involved in that has taken thousands of lives and. Displaced millions of people. We say that we want this world to be left. In the ground. There's 200 million barrels is not worth the damage that it's going to do to our environment. So we would urge you to reject this whole project. Obviously, we support restoration of the wetlands, but we don't think that this project is really it's undercover project. For oil drilling, which is I think there's. Other ways to fund this. You know, one of the things is this. Is there enough pollution on the to make this a Superfund site? Nobody's looked into that. Is there money from the port. That could be swapped. For restoration? You know, we don't have to drill. Baby, drill. And Long Beach is supposed to be a green city. We're all talking about the port. We're talking about all the. Trucks and everybody, you know. Cutting the emissions and using gas and stuff like. That and electricity. But this project definitely goes. Against everything I think that our city really should stand for. So I want to thank you for. Allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you. Next speaker, please. So, hi. My name is Ines Educate. I'm the vice president of the Ridgewood Heights Neighborhood Association, the eighth District. I'm also partial one, Tony and I. I want you to really consider the appeals, because all. We're asking for is for due diligence. To have happened. And I'm not going to focus on all the environmental things that you've heard tonight. I'm going to focus. On just one aspect of the environment Environmental Impact. Report, and that's the cultural impact and that. The and supposed due diligence that happen there. Now we've heard from one and I know you guys invited the guy rellenos to come here and talk about it and I appreciate the government perspective. Yet there are Tonko and Hatch women local, truly local that live here that grew here. And there was no outreach to those people. None. And there still isn't. And though and you know, I know Mr. Christiansen came up here and explained to you how things have been found on the site. And instead of like actually having a tribal representative out there to actually do the due diligence, nobody's trying to stop the the the overall order of what you are trying to accomplish in hopefully mindfully addressing this this area. But just from a cultural perspective, I just want to point out to you how profoundly racist that is, because when you are when you are ignoring what you know, what you know, the due diligence is supposed to be, you know, what it's supposed to be. And instead, you're creating a situation where indigenous people have to sue an oil company in order to see justice served. You know, the last line of defense, you cannot let that happen. That is why you have to go for the appeal, because this was not done correctly. The local leadership was not contacted. Two of the 11 and one of them is up there. And you ask them to speak here in favor of this when you have not concluded your due diligence. And we are talking about sacred sites and we are talking about racism, this is systemic racism. If you're wondering what it looks like, this is it, this is it. So when you think about what you're going to do tonight and I urge you to vote for appeal to vote for the appeals, because we're just asking for the you look, there are actually they're scraping the land now, land where you where we found artifacts , land where it's documented and nobody's asked the Native America the I'm sorry, the indigenous Cal State Long Beach representatives. Nobody's asked the local representatives. And you're going all the way the same to San Gabriel Valley. Thank you for San Bernardino. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor garcia and council members. My name is Anne Thompson. I'm a 40 year resident property owner in District three. The description of this project as a restoration and conservation of the low serious wetlands is misleading. Clearly, this project involves the expansion of oil extraction and processing operations at the Synergy Oilfield, the Long Beach Press Telegram newspaper. Yesterday, January 15th, addressed California's Green goals, stating California has earned the right to brag about how much it has clean up its environmental act. Fossil fuels are required to power. The state's economic engine have decreased by a third since their peak in 2001. So why endanger precious wetland area to go after more oil? I am proud of California and I want to also be proud of Long Beach. It's disappointing to me that the Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust supports the oil endeavor. I am also shocked that my council representative, Liz Price, is also supporting this plan. I therefore support the appellants in this project and will also support them before the Coastal Commission. Thank you very much from here. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Mike Murchison. I am a lifelong resident of Long Beach. I've spent the last 52 and a half years. On the east side within a stone's throw of where we're talking about tonight. It was only the last several months when I got married. I moved to I love the eighth. I moved up to Councilman Austin's district. I'm here tonight to tell you that I've represented most of the proposed developments in the last 15 years on the east side of Long Beach. And every single turn, we always went straight ahead and we never brought in the environmental community. This time around, the owners took a different stance. This time around, John McEwen, Peter Zak and Frank Serene took a different approach. They reached out to city staff, they reached out to coastal staff. Never heard of that before. They've talked with Jack Haynesworth on down for the better part of four or five years. So to talk about the fact that we haven't done extensive outreach, it's just a misnomer. We've reached out to everybody we could think of. We held, as you saw earlier with these presentations, three day offering to have the community come out. We had over 200 people come out there. We've reached out to the Native American Indians. We will continue to do so. I'm offering tonight so that you can hear and hear publicly that next week I invite carp, then full board membership, not just joining in their full board membership. I'm asking if Warren wants to come out. I'm asking any other opponents that want to come out next week. We will take them out there. We will sit down with our biologists. We'll sit down with third party biologists will sit down with our greenhouse gas emissions. People will sit down with anybody that wants to come out there to learn about what this wetlands restoration is all about. What it's about is the ownership is putting their money where their mouth is. They're going to restore these wetlands on the front end. That's what this is all about. This site has been a problem eyesore for as long as I've been alive. This is a unique opportunity for the city of Long Beach and for those that enjoy the wetlands. I encourage you to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Evening, Vice Mayor and Fellow Council. My name is Tommy five. I represent IBEW Local 11. We have our members. I wanted to recognize our members that's here tonight. And some of you recognize there are women that's in our trade and some of them that are single mothers that, you know, have come out tonight. And the things the you know, they've got other things better to do. But they come out to a city council. Meeting because they know how important it is. For them to get and create jobs. All right. So this project. And we're wholeheartedly support this Bumpass Energy project. Because we know it's going to create good electrical industrial jobs. You know, we have a commitment with with the developer to do so when it comes to a labor agreement. But, you know, early on when we talked to. Developers and so forth, we like to see job creation. The city wants to see job creation. And that's what exactly what's going to happen here on this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next minute, please. Hey, give an honor to Jesus Christ, the one who deserves it. Okay, let me fix my camera. Okay. I don't know much about. I don't know the history of this. I don't know the biology. I'm sound like Sam Cooke. But I know in 2018, I'm gonna do more praying. I'm going to do more praying. I'm a show myself to be a good Christian, and I'm praying on it. So. Anybody want to pray with me? Pray to Heavenly Father in Jesus name. I thank you for everything you do. You know what's good? I don't. So I ask you to do what's good and right. Amen. Now, that being said, hey, it's a new year working together. Get stuff done. That guy that left out nobody. What he said in the paper. Mitt is not on this today. One on one with me. So I'm but I'm going back for the next one. I'm not going to even mess around. I'm not going to make you have to tell me to stop saying that today. So I said I'm turning off. I'm not turning over to the same person. Right. Take it easy. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Laura Harding, and my parents purchased a home in University Park Estates back in 1971. So that's where I. Grew up and I am excited about the proposal. I received a flier. And went to the open house and from. What they showed me I find it exciting. I've heard it said, you know, growing up there right now, you look at rusted pipe. And so to that's not. Standing up to any kind of code. So if there was some disaster, that's. Going to end up being a huge disaster. So the fact. That it would be re piped or realigned and then brought up to code. I think is a good thing. And I just really look forward to. Being able to go back over there in the wetlands again. Thank you. Thank you. Executables. Hi. My name is Aaron Foley and I'm a resident of Long Beach. I think it has been noted that the lawsuit shows wetlands is one of the most biologically productive places in the world and acts as a sanctuary that possesses an incredible amount of equal I call it ecological value. In fact, it has also been noted that before Spanish settlement on the Pacific coastline, Rosarito was wetlands, was home to the Tonga people. Tonga elders, like the late Lillian Robles, fought to protect sacred sites like the low cerritos, those wetlands, as have many other people here. Only about 7% of the original salt marsh habitat that once existed in Southern California has not been developed, and much of the remaining habitat is measurably degraded. So I definitely agree that restoration of the wetlands with native plants, etc. makes sense and is important. But no new pollution is ever a solution, especially in a city that has terrible air quality already and is on a land that is over a fault line. It feels par for the course of Trump's world to make deals, to get an oil company, to restore the land they desecrated for their own profits and fossil fuels by giving them other land to drill on, not to mention giving them 20 to 40 years to do so. The risks of the current old equipment, the ugly esthetics there are, lack of containment and other dangers that were discussed and admitted to earlier should be the hardest to resolve, especially due to their danger to us. Like if they're not up to code, why aren't they forced to be up to code without us having to give more of our land? How are they allowed to have such outdated equipment? They should be held accountable and made to restore the land because it is the right sustainable thing to do. We should not have to barter with them. To do so. We must let our voices be very loud and very clear in Long Beach and show that we will not perpetuate this backwards oil dependency type of thinking. We must move ourselves forward towards environmentally sound solutions and away from fossil fuels. We are not dinosaurs. We are innovators. We are creators. We are the people of the great city of Long Beach. And we can be better than that. We must do better because we are also humans intrinsically tied to the earth and our environment and our habitat, and we must shift to start acting accordingly, accordingly, any policy or ordinance, etc., that involves giving more land to oil companies to drill on, especially that which is over a fault line is not smart policy. Yes, dependency on this so-called black gold will not disappear overnight. But what if we took this first step, this right step? Let us not just give lip service when it comes to supporting indigenous rights and environmental justice from afar, as we did with the unanimous support for the water protectors of Standing Rock. Let us not only show support when it concerns matters in other states and doesn't require us to change business as usual, doesn't require us to have evolve. No matter the amount of doublespeak used here tonight, the air should not be approved. Thank you. Thank you. Next to the police. Oh, hello. My name is Wayne Murchison. Thank you for holding this and for opening your minds hopefully to what's happening. Man, these guys are selling this so well that they're what they're going to do as a benevolent thing of fixing the wetlands they're holding. Like she said, that is dangling. That is an incentive to do this. We need to divest ourselves of oil and oil extraction. It's going to have to happen in this city anyways eventually. Why not start it now? If you do this, you're culpable in just extending this, this oil extraction. What's killing us? What's killing our planet? These people, the oil extractors, their product is money. And believe it or not, money can be an addiction. So an addict will tell you anything. Bend over backwards. For you to go away and leave them alone. Let them do what they want to do. Any addict will do that. These people are going to fix your wetlands. Well, why weren't they fixed a long time ago? Why aren't the people that did it being held culpable instead of letting these people use it as a dangling good thing that they're doing? How benevolent they're going to even make it look pretty. But it's only pretty on the surface, not underneath. And you've got to stop these addicts from ruining our lives because an addict and heroin addict only ruins their lives. A shoe addict? Well. But these people, not just these people, many corporations. Their bottom line is money. They're addicted to money. And they ruined many people's lives. We have to stop doing. We can't. We can't give them a reason to pull out oil and say it's a good thing. No, it's not going to end tomorrow. But we can start by ending it and looking forward to the things that are going to make stuff for the city, money for this city, and a Greenway Development Research development you want to bring in. Make it a city that's. Third and advanced. Start bringing in research development towards a green city. You can't make speak of these. Homonyms you can always address on file. So I want to talk about something. I looked through the air and there was something that I found highly inadequate. I made an appeal before the Planning Commission. I'm asking the City Council to take this into consideration very seriously. Climate change is not adequately discussed in the air. There is a short, brief paragraph, and what they basically say is that because of all the the the oil and coal and everything else that's being burned everywhere else, what we're doing here in Long Beach is insignificant. You know, if you compare to what's going on in Russia and Iraq and Saudi Arabia, you know, we're just a small sliver. What I don't understand is how you can extract 200 billion barrels of oil and and tell me that somehow. If everything goes right, if there's no earthquake, there's no. Slippage, there's no incident. If everything goes right. We burn this into the air. How that's not going to increase greenhouse gases. I don't think that that is scientifically possible. I think based on what we all know, because none of us are necessarily experts, we got a few experts in the room. But the general public, what our. Understanding of of climate change. Is and this is a city council that accepts climate change, that accepts the truth and the reality of the situation. Climate change is real. It always has been real. Now, despite the. Oil companies big. Campaign to lie to us now that this game or industry is here to tell us more lies. I want us to just take one quick second to ask ourselves if this fossil fuel is extracted, we're not increase greenhouse gas emissions. And I think that that's a fact that we are going to have to deal with. I know that many members, in fact, all of the members of the city council accept money from oil companies. I have looked through all of your almost all day except for Janine Pearce. I look through all of your paperwork's on file and you all get money from Mike merchants and some of the lobbyists are in the room. I know there are a lot of families who have who have their family assets tied to these oil investments. But I'm asking. For you all to to. Think. 1/2 outside of your donors, outside of Mike Murchison and all your. Friends and our friend. The former. Mayor. I'm asking you to think about future generations, because, folks, we're here at California, which was on fire last year. I don't know if you guys caught that. We are a beach city. And the sea level is going to rise. Wall is go is going to raise worldwide. And where we're at right now is our hand is on the thermostat. And we have to ask ourselves the question, how much harder do we want to make it in here? It was 105 degrees last November. That's the earth itself speaking to us, Long Beach, what are you going to do with that? Fossil fuels and so. Are we going to listen to the. Earth or we're going to listen to Mike Murchison and the mayor and all of the investments that are tied up in Wells Fargo, all of the investments that are tied up against our future. I don't know about you all, but I have a future to believe in. And that means that we have to take our money out of fossil fuels. We have to act as if we accept climate change as real. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Next speaker, please. Good evening, city council and mayor. I'm Dr. Wendy Griffin. I'm one of Al Gore's climate reality leaders. I've owned a home and lived in Long Beach in the Rose Park District for 24 years. And I've had the privilege of kayaking through the wetlands. Like probably all climate activists. I want us off of fossil fuels. And when I first read about this proposed project in the press telegram, I had a letter to the editor printed to that effect. Since then, I've had the opportunity to learn more details about this project, and I now support it. And I want to tell you why. Then three reasons. First, much as I want to leave our fossil fuels in the ground immediately tonight. Realistically, I know. That there needs to be a period of transition to clean energy. Ideally, this is going to have to include using low carbon intensive fuel. That's exactly the kind of fuel that we're talking about in the project today. The carbon intensity of this fuel is about half of what the rest of California, the fuel, the oil and the rest of California is. And almost one fifth of what it is in many places in the world. So although no oil is clean oil, this is possibly less dirty oil. Ideally, this transition would also include cogeneration systems that capture and use excess heat generated during electrical production. And this plan also does that. Second, long term, it's estimated the microgrids, like the proposed system, will eventually replace extensions of the current dirty grid because the key advantages they offer in resiliency in response to local conditions. This is 21st technology that we should be encouraging. Third, if the options are to leave the wetlands polluted and riddled with outdated and potentially dangerous pipelines and wells, or have a fully restored wetlands return to the city in exchange for city parasols. Approximately 1/10 of the size that they're talking about being traded. I believe that the only rational choice is trade. The Last Surrender Wetlands Trust Board apparently agrees with me because I got that letter this morning, along with, I understand, the internationally known biologist, Erikson. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Carol Meyer. I am a homeowner and board. Member of the House of. A very little community, often unknown and forgotten sometimes of island village, which is in the very southeastern corner of Long Beach bordering SEAL Beach. We are. Very fortunate that this wetlands is in. Our backyard, literally, and we love it. Many of our homeowners are members of the Wetlands Trust. We participate. In a lot. Of the activities, and we're thrilled if this project gets approved and expands the wetlands. In addition to the fact that it will improve the. Entrance into. That corner of Long Beach, it's a major. Entrance from the south. And frankly, what someone else used a word tonight, an eyesore. And we believe that this will significantly improve that entrance. And I would like to thank our councilwoman. Susie Price, because she does know that island village exists. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and Council Members Vice Mayor Richardson. My name is Melinda Cotton. The project before you. Tonight is incredibly complex. And has a multitude of worrisome elements. You've heard a number of those. However, due to time constraints, I will focus on a serious concern about the financial viability of this project. Some of the corporate realities as it relies on the price of oil remaining at a profitable level for more than 40 years. However, oil prices are extremely volatile, as you've heard. Reliance on oil is fading. Oil prices were down at, I believe. 30 a barrel just in January a year ago. And while I'm sure the applicants. Are sincere in their efforts to combine profit with restored wetlands. What happens if that doesn't work out? What if the. Applicant finds that it is not a profitable endeavor and either abandoned said or worst case declares. Bankruptcy? It seems the area might be left in a worse state than it is today, and we see that the named applicant is not lion management, which owns the pumpkin patch property. Nor wetlands property owner synergy. Oil and gas. But a separate limited liability company, Peach Oil Minerals Partners LLC, which is identified by the Secretary of State as a Delaware entity. We understand limited liability companies are created for different projects to protect the partners and deal with legalities and financial arrangements. But when there are problems, we're also told it's hard to locate them and it's not lion. So that's a concern. I previously ask in letters to the to the attorney, city attorney two to the Planning Commission when I spoke there and to Assistant Manager Tom Mordecai as to shouldn't have this city to protect the taxpayers and the city itself have complete insurance policy performance bond. Something similar of that. Shouldn't there be specific goals, performance goals and measurements of progress? And shouldn't there be a bailout option? I'm a little confused. I never heard back except from Tom Oracle, who said that this was a. Private entity. And that they would look into the question. I've still not received answers. However, the applicant's representative mentioned some type of performance bond. So if the city has some protection, some insurance, some assurance that for 40 years this company is going to exist and be able to fulfill its obligations, I would. Like to know about them because I think it's really important. Thank you for your attention and I. Hope we can understand that situation more fully. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. I'm cautiously and my address is on file and I'm a member of Carp. I'm the secretary of Carp. I'm here to speak on this. As opposing this project, I think we would all like to see the eyesore of the old oil wells removed. That's universal. And restoration is a good thing. And I saw a lot of things up there in that presentation where I thought the vision was good. But the question would be whether the market in place in 40 years is going to bear that out. Reportedly, there are only 3% of our wetlands left on our coast and precious little habitat remains that is natural to the area. As the stewards of this precious resource. It is our grave responsibility to protect it for future generations because of the damage oil does to our environment. We are moving towards solar and wind powered technologies. It seems likely that oil will be less in demand in the near future. The emissions make it not only undesirable as a fuel but damaging to our environment and a chief culprit in global warming. And this brings me to my main concern with respect to this proposal. And it's really the plan that this goes out 44 years. The first five years that I saw presented here looked appealing and looked like that's doable. They are standing up to saying, here's a deliverable and here's a timeframe on it. Now, there's no detail behind that. You know, I managed compliance for years in aerospace. And this is not enough information to judge compliance. You would need a plan, you would need detail, you would need dates, and you would need that commitment before you actually go into investing in this kind of a venture. I would like to see the cleanup front loaded into the schedule, and I did see some of that. Here tonight, although telling me that half of it will be gone and 20 years is way too vague. In 20 years, who knows if we're going to have oil as a major player in the environment? It's a very generous schedule to give someone 40 years to clean up. You know, the the pumpkin patch and the rest of it. A lot can happen in that stretch of time. Oil may become obsolete as a fuel. The price of oil may fluctuate, making it impractical to drill last may be enacted to force us to give up our dependance on oil. Cars may shift to solar power, and that's not a dream. That technology was successfully developed over 30 years ago. Any of these possibilities can lead this company to bankruptcy and abandonment of the site. And it seems there is a risk that the cleanup may never occur or occur. So the other thing I'd like to speak, I don't have no time left. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Mr. Mayor. City council members. Thank you. As a resident of Belmont Shore, I support this project. I attended the open house that was held in October and was impressed with the event and the transparency of the information that was shared. I have recent experience within the oil and gas industry and this project with respect to restoration. New facilities will. Thereby improve the quality of life for residents and wildlife by not only allowing the restoration of these wetlands, but by using newer technology to improve safety. And reliability of current oil operations. Newer technology and industry best practices within the engineering and design phases will improve process and environmental safety. Removal of the existing oil storage tanks and pipelines will drastically improve the esthetics of the area and reduce truck traffic through pipeline transportation. I also like the idea of funding it through private investment, the establishment of a mitigation bank, as well. As continuing oil and gas operations as an. Income stream for the city to hire additional police resources if desired, much like the thumb's facilities. This project will benefit residents and visitors of Long Beach for many years to come. I am excited for the wetlands to. Be restored and be able to walk out on new public access. Trails. As a Belmont Shore resident. I would suggest that a resident be permanently assigned to all has up and. Risk. Assessment activities throughout the design and engineering phase of this project. Please, I strongly support this project. Look forward to participating and hope for quick approval. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Elizabeth LAMB, and I'm executive. Director of the Lost Cerritos. Wetlands Land Trust. It took us a while, but we have come to a place where we support this project. Because it includes comprehensive wetlands and habitat restoration. Provides public access. Opportunities and. Consolidates oil. Operations offsite, and will transfer ownership of a substantial portion of low street US wetlands into the public domain. Those are all things for. Which we have long. Advocated over. The course of our research. The beach. Oil mineral has been a transparent and and. Has been responsive through our review process where we have. Asked them many questions and many detailed questions and. We always got back answers. From them. That helped us understand the project. In addition, as this project has implemented, beach oil Mineral has committed to involving us the land trust. In order to. Ensure we are fully. Updated and involved. As the project moves. Through its review. Process. Furthermore, as a. Result of. Our conversations. With the. Beach Oil Mineral Team and advice from our soil and water consultant, we have been promised a thorough and transparent process regarding the assessment and removal of onsite hazards and contamination. This will ensure there will be no site contamination of the wetlands as the land transitioned from oil. Operations. To conservation. One of the things I want to emphasize is. The role of us as a watchdog. In this process. We've been promised full communication, full. Access. To the information we need. To ensure that this. Project benefits the wetlands. And if I might say to everyone in the room, our role as watchdogs and advocates for the wetlands will never cease. And while there are people in this room that disagree with. How we view this project, we ourselves will. Remain committed to protecting the wetlands and restoring them as habitat for future generations to enjoy. As well as. Fragile endangered species. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Connie Warner and I live at Belmont Shores Mobile Estates. I'm here to support the wetlands restoration. I'm a native, grew up here and lived here 40 years. I moved for work and moved to Atlanta, Georgia, not realizing the importance of wetlands until I established myself a National Wildlife Federation certified backyard wildlife habitat providing food, water and shelter for wildlife in our area and a place to raise their young. When we retired, we came back home. We came back to Long Beach and I was pleased to see our remaining Lazaridis wetlands had not been developed. My husband and myself feel very fortunate to have our home overlooking the wetlands and steam shovel slew. We watch great white egrets knowing egrets, great blue herons, osprey cormorants, pelicans diving, diving for their food and many other types of waterfowl. Wouldn't it be wonderful for the local children and residents or whoever is visiting to be able to see these beautiful birds on a path going around the wetlands and an education center to educate and appreciate how important the wetlands are to our area and wildlife. If it wasn't for the oil production or remaining wetlands would have been lost a long time ago to development. I am a member of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust and would appreciate and support their recommendations and would appreciate a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening, mayor and members of the city council. I thank you all for being here tonight. And I mean all of you. I guess maybe you've had this means you've had your flu shots. Everyone's here. And I appreciate all the audience behind me who is here tonight. So many citizens willing to take the time to come out and talk about and listen to this subject. A lot has come to light just tonight. I want to see the wetlands restored. I guess everybody here does. It's it's a great thing. And I hope that there's a way that it happens. And you've heard some of the concerns tonight. And I hope that this remains an open and transparent process. I hope that some of these concerns actually, all of them I hope all of them are addressed. But as is appropriate now and in the days following, rather than simply approve the plan and just wait for it to go to the Coastal Commission and be addressed there. There's no need to wait. And in waiting that would only invite delays and appeals. And I hate to see a delay. So I hope the openness and transparency continues and that these concerns are addressed. I'm here to report to you a factor that hasn't been mentioned yet tonight, I don't believe and that concerns new information and air deals with all the information presented at the time. But new information that comes after that air needs to be considered. Also, this new information concerns the Newport-Inglewood fault. And this was a report that I read in the L.A. Times in March 21st of last year. If people want to look it up and read it, it's a report of some research that was done by scientists at CSU Fullerton and also the U.S. Geological Survey. They did some research in the wetlands and took core samples and discovered that there was evidence of three earthquakes on this fault, all of which were bigger than the earthquake that struck Long Beach in 1933. These were so violent that they caused the land to subside as much as three feet in just a matter of seconds. Now, these were long ago, of course, these were ancient earthquakes. But as we all read from time to time, we're due for the big one. We don't know when it's going to happen. But their research indicates that really we are due and these large earthquakes can occur with much more frequency than was thought before. Well, this is kind of new information and should be considered, and I think this needs to be factored in again, rather than simply wait for it to get to coastal where it certainly will be considered there. So please address it now. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Dr. Gary Stickle, and I'm not here to talk about the merits of the project. I am here to talk about who the true indigenous people Native Americans are of this area. I got my Bama and to UCLA and I taught there as well. And I've been studying local Indian people for 50 years. So I know what I'm talking about. I've had my research verified by the major archeologists of Europe. Professor Colin Renfrew, University of Cambridge, who got the London Times to announce our discovery of the oldest site in this area, the Farpoint site, which was in the Chumash tribal area on Point Tomb and Malabo. Also the Smithsonian. Our National Museum has verified my research, so I know what I'm talking about. I was asked to speak here tonight by Chief Ernest Salas, who graces this proceeding and is sitting up there. The true indigenous people of this area, called the Keech, spelled cases the age they were first encountered by the Spanish in 1771. What we call Whittier Narrows. And then they established a concrete outpost. Initially, the Spanish call them K'iche because the people call themselves Kage, but they have Spanish sides that you can't keep your nose like Angelina's. Then one day when the mission was washed out, they two years later they moved to five miles north to where it is today and San Gabriel. And initially there they were called Keech, which is verified by a book by a padre there in 1909, fathers who grant us, but eventually they call them gatherer lentils, which is not what the tribe likes because it's the name given to them by their conquerors. And so their name is stuck with them, unfortunately. But the name was first published in 1846 by Horatio Hill, the United States government, and then by the Smithsonian and other major scholars of that century. And what I want to announce to you tonight is that the state of. California only. Recognizes the Keech, and this is because vast areas, the Keech covered vast areas. I want to show you a map. Official tribal map. Investir is the whole top of the map is the San Gabriel Mountains, which is considered sacred. By the new American Areas. Commission. And all this area off your shore here is sacred to the case. It's called a sacred sea of Kish, recently approved by the state of California's Native American Harris Commission. No other tribe. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Mayor. Council members. Thank you for having me tonight. My name's Kyle, sir, and. I'm speaking as vice president of land management. I just wanted to address two comments. Briefly made by Ms.. Cantrell and others. First being the use of pesticides. In 2008, we acquired the property in 2011. So the use of pesticides in 2008 wasn't under our jurisdiction or anything that we had involvement in. Nor are we using pesticides, nor we use them since we acquired the property in 2011. So just wanted to make that you guys aware of that. And second being the use of grading equipment, I believe there was calls made to the city within the last week. I want to just confirm with you guys that there is no band, no work, no grading work done on the pumpkin patch site. And I'm here to speak to that on the record. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. Mr. Mayor, city council people. My name is Pedro Jose. Melendez, and I'm a Pueblo Indian. I've been living here in California for almost 63 years. I'm 70 years old. I went to Cal State, Long Beach, and I'm not here to debate whether you will approve this or not or whether you should or you shouldn't. But please consider the request of Chairman Salas. One of the things that's most important to me is because I've studied our culture and I've been working on the issues of identity theft, is to expose this so called Tribe Called the Tongva. I known for at least 25 years. I've seen the light through the created fake news out of Cal State Long Beach. I live with you are catching them. I am finished near to Kasztner. Yet to hear you. I am from San Juan Capistrano. Where they are catching them gave birth. There's a lot of lies going around. Fake news doesn't exist in Washington, D.C. Fake news exists here at Cal State, Long Beach. And you will see in the future how many of these people will be exposed, because we have a national effort to expose to all these fake betrayers of truth and justice. And one of them is the Tongva. Please vote with your heart as it comes down to this question of whether you should have these wetlands or not. To me, there's an interest because it's healing Mother Earth. But what's most important to me is that you become knowledgeable of what's going on in your own city, in your own Cal State, and act with consciousness. Because one. Thing we know as Pueblos is that we're living in an era of. Truth. This is the six generational text, the soul, where the truth will come above the lies. And you will see it. You will see what. Happens in the next few years. Thank you very much. And I know you have a difficult task before you, but I appreciate you giving us the time. Please, Mr. Mayor, read that folder that Chairman Salazar gave you. You will find all of these so created leaders of this Tonga group. And they can be exposed and they will be. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Message to congratulate Maldonado's Ibarra Karam Jeremie my retire retirement. He Garbarino. Good evening. You know, I saw things going on about the wetlands, and I saw the call to action that was put out there by several people. And at first, my first response or my first thought was to come over here, go to these actions. Say No pipe, no pipelines, keep the oil in the soil. Black snake killers. You know, I've been I I'm a great grandmother. And I answered one of the. First calls to Standing Rock. But I only answered it when we were asked to go there. I didn't take it upon myself. I know my first reaction was, no, this can't happen. And after taking the time to educate myself, read everything, read as much as I could. I have to say, yes, we need this project. We need to clean up those wetlands. And if this is a start, this is a baby step, it needs to happen. All this pollution and desecration of our lands didn't happen overnight, and it's not going to get fixed overnight. But we need to begin that process and we need to work together on it. We need to ask the city of Long Beach. We need to ask the oil companies. We need to ask all related indigenous people of this area and anyone else who has who's involved, who is here to preserve their land for future generations, for their children's and grandchildren's, for everyone to come. We need to work together. We need transparency in what's going on with this project. We need to support each other because if we don't, who's going to support us? We're all we have. This is the only world we have. Protect our mother. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Okay. Let's have a council. Have a mayor. Garcia, thank you for having me. Thank you for having all of us. And also, as one also addressed the audience and saving you, everyone who's here tonight for being here, I think. We can all agree that we really want progress. We really want. Progress in growth for Long Beach. I agree. I'm right there with you. I love my beach. Group in the same district. And I student went to college by high school, great school, great music program, great academic school. Anyway. I also got my B.A.. At UC Irvine and I was before that at Lumberjack City College. And you remember you coming Mayor Garcia. There and speaking. To our policy program there. And I appreciate that. That's great. But I'm not here to speak on behalf of my piece. I'd agree that. But I'm here to speak on behalf of this earth. Right. This Mother Earth. And we're just coming past this three day weekend honoring the great Martin Luther King Jr. And he was. A man that we honor. Why? Why? Why is it. Why is it such a special day to be on of that man? Because he stood up for what's for what's. For what was right in the darkest the. Darkest time in our history. He stood for what was right. And so in that honor and that spirit, I'm. Here to speak on behalf of this. Earth, this earth, this beautiful, sensitive earth. And as we know, this dark time, we're in it. Climate change is real. Thank you, Elliot, for. Everyone who's spoken and and brought that forth. Climate change is happening. We're seeing it in this globally, what's happening and in our nation with oil drilling, it's there so much information out there on the causes and the consequences. So I'm urging a council and mayor to really. And I agree the restoration. Yes, of course. The restoration. Yes. Or pipeline with a pipeline. Let's fix this project. Maybe this is not the project. To do that. Can we? I really I just really want to. Put that put that out there. And I hope that you hear us tonight. I'm with you, though. I'm with much progress. I'm all for that. And I. Plan to continue. Doing my degree in studying nutrition. And health sciences, public health, because. I know that's what's needed in our community. And I look forward to serving our community in that way. But anyway, thank you for listening. And I really hope that. You guys stand with Long. Beach in that light and that progression, that good progress. So thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Yeah, it's a shame Phenix in show. She needs some northern paper shushing, maybe negotiation. Okay. Good evening, everybody. My name is Cheyenne Phenix. I come from the neighboring Northern Paiute Nations. I'm representing the future generations. I am a part of the seven generations that are our native people, are indigenous people have talked about. And I want to ask for forgiveness for speaking in front of my elders who are here tonight. And I ask for the respect from them for what I'm going to say here. And as a the seventh generation who is rising in our stories have been told, but the old ways will will guide us. But at the same time, there needs to be the new the new generation that's going to come and they're going to speak out. And as my sister was saying and acknowledging that Martin Luther King Junior's birthday was yesterday and we celebrated his life. And whatever you all were doing, just know that he was there. He was standing up for our brothers and sisters who are struggling during that time. And one thing he said was that our lives begin to end the day that we become silent about the things that matter. So as you all become silent about these things that matter, the Earth is calling out our children, our great grandchildren that are coming. They're going to be crying out for clean water. They're going to be crying out for that clean air, for all the smog to go away, for the rain to come back, for the temperature to drop back to the way it should be. And as a as a person who who will soon be taking care of my elders, that that will be going on, but will won't be here anymore and that have that sacred knowledge of passing it down to me in our language and our ways. We won't have any of that anymore. We won't have any of that anymore. If there is the continuation of pipelines, if there's a continuation of funding these corporations, these people that only want that money and they don't care about your families, they don't care about this land, they don't care about any other thing but themselves. The money cause houses, things that are only temporary. But what's going to last forever is us as human beings, working together and building a future, building a clean future, a bright future for our children to come, our grandchildren to come. So thank you. Thank you. Next week, the peace. Good evening, everyone. My name is David de la Tierra. I've lived in Long Beach for six years now. And first, I just want to thank the Kitchen Nation for taking the time to dialog with me. Unfortunately, I have to say I disagree with them. I think we cannot trust these oil companies. We've had over 600 oil spills in California since 1984. The Dakota Access pipeline hasn't even been built for a year, and it's already leaked three times, to my knowledge. So we can't trust them. And you all you people sitting here, you're responsible and you're supposed a place of power for hundreds of thousands of people and kids that are being born today, kids that will continue to be born. I know people that are pregnant. You're responsible for their lives. And when that new pipeline and the new oil drilling leaks, you're going to be responsible for their sickness and their cancer, at least partially. So I urge you to vote against it. And in regards to the jobs, how long are you going to have those jobs for and that it's creating? Those are only temporary. If you want a job, as my class has been understaffed for months. No one's come to help us. So yeah, that's what I want to say about it. So I just hope you guys vote with their hearts like my sisters have said. Thank you. We have a we have about 45 minutes of public comment as well as obviously the beginning of the deliberations. So unless there's objection from the council, we're going to go down to 2 minutes. See? No objection. No 2 minutes. Thank you. Thank you, brothers and sisters, for having me here today. And this is my prayer before I speak. Thank you for being with me today and sleeping with me and my ancestors as they would be with me as I speak to these people who hold significantly power on the moon and my family resides in prayer. They may be with me today as I speak. Thank you. So I strongly urge against and I speak on behalf of the American community here in Long Beach. I speak on behalf of of Long Beach. I was born here 20 years and watched this place go and see what's going on. And I speak on behalf of my low income community, the children they were bringing the children to come here, the people that will visit the mental health community, the homeless community of only the minority. My urge I strongly urge against this project and I urge that you analyze, you understand that these risks are not worth taking. They're not not worth it. It's like seeing a bottle of prescription pills and you see all the side effects in extreme IT extremities, like heart attacks and seizures and hives and all this stuff. And you still take them. It makes some sense. And I strongly urge against this project just by having you have to prove you have evidence that is a gas and showing you what what this could do and even if it were to happen or not. And why why would you take that risk? Why would you put hundreds of people's lives at risk? And you have that decision. You have a choice to make. And I can tell you what you're going to do. I am not going to even in the reading to. But I pray that you make a wise decision today. Thank you. Speaker Hey, good day. My name is Matthew Cheatham, as I'm the son of John two, Thomas Elder, the coach, Gavilan O'Bannon, mission ends and muscle nephew to our chief, Ernie Salas. I also act as the biologist for the tribe. We are. The reason why our tribe is involved in this is because we participated through the AB 52 process, the 11 entities that were contacted. It was up to them to participate and it seems that only two responded and we were one of them. So that's some of the reasoning of why there weren't other tribal governments responding at this time. So to clear that up from our perspective, our tribal government perspective being this is our tribal area, we feel that the restoration of the wetlands is a something that we've been wanting for a long time. And we, too, have a distrust of how our land has been treated and how our land is restored. We truthfully don't feel it can be restored because it's already been degraded to a point of of just pretty much it's an example now of a wetland, not an actual functioning wetland where, you know, our tribe feels that we our generation needs to now participate in these actions so that we can provide information such as the Monitor, Pinoys, the Cisco turbines, all the flavonoids, all the components, the phytochemicals that are found in our plants that our families use for the medicines and for our foods, things that heal our land. And we feel that adding these components to the land, the healing components, will also help to heal our community together. So the allowance of the future communities to be able to interact with the creator's creation is something that we promote and then that we support, and that's what we feel is going on with this project. And so that's why we as a tribal government are bound to protect and preserve these natural resources as well as any cultural resources that may be uncovered during the process. Thank you. Next, please. Your Honor, City Council. My name is Jim Beebe. I'm from the Disney Nation. Oh, yeah. To hear you know. I'm not sure. The owner. Of a of the right buffalo film. Studio we. Do documentaries. Can open. Here in regard. To my friends or the Quiche Nation. And I've been hearing. All of this negativity. And what I would. Like to do and I'm saying. This in front of you. I would like. To donate. The cameras, the. Time and everything in regard to creating. A documentary. So that. The truth. Will come out. Oh, yes. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and councilmembers. My name is Eric, guys. I'm a resident here in Long Beach. I'm also a consultant to this project. My company develops and finances clean energy projects, and we were retained for that purpose with this project. I'm also a climate activist. So just to be clear with you guys, there's nobody that wants to control fossil fuel emissions and bring climate change under control more than me in this room. And I imagine many of you before me and certainly behind me. So I want to raise two points for you guys tonight that are worth highlighting here that tend to get glossed over in a project like this. One is the complaint. This is a precursor, but the company coming to us is highly unusual in the industrial corporate world, asking us to design an energy system that reduces pollution to the maximum extent possible. So this is corporate responsibility in an unusual way, and I wanted to highlight that. So how did that manifest? It came about it. It resulted in the microgrid, the design of the microgrid that you guys have heard about a couple of times. Well, what in the world is a microgrid? Why is that important? The end result. Is it reduces. Emissions by tens of thousands of pounds. And it's evidenced by this this book, an international bestseller vetted by experts all over the world, the solar system, the co-generation turbines and the microgrid system itself. The final point I want to make is we're sitting on low carbon oil here in Long Beach. This oil field is at about six. It's these are units of measure grams of carbon dioxide. It's at a six. The average in California is 12. The carbon that comes out of the tar sands in Canada is 24. So what I'm saying to you is the California Air Board has vetted this in great detail with a great deal of environmental input and support from multiple groups, and found that the oil here is substantially less in terms of its carbon intensity. And I apologize for going over my title. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Counsel. My name is Bruce Bullock. I am also a consultant to the Beach Oil Minerals team here. I am currently a professor of energy management at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and also director of the Maguire Energy Institute. But I'm here representing myself tonight. I actually got involved in this support of this project at the encouragement of my students, several of which live here in Long Beach and are very interested in this project. I've been involved in urban drilling issues both in New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma and now California. And I guess one clear message I have is there have been very few projects. That I have been. Involved with or seen that are as well thought out as this one is, and that is on a global basis. First, the eventual footprint of this down to ten acres and the engineering done in terms of the surface equipment to minimize that surface. I haven't seen that virtually anywhere. Second, all of the containment that's done in subsurface structures, that's a best practice that you won't see anywhere outside of California. Those kind of containment structures elsewhere are usually just walls around the wells themselves. Finally, I concur with most of the other speakers here. Of the. Environmental benefits associated with it the low carbon oil. The replacement of all unregulated. Equipment with new equipment that is actually new source performance standards were passed in 2015, all of which will be applied to the new equipment on this project. And I appreciate your listening to me here tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, Nick Speaker. Good evening, counsel. My name is Johnny Bloomberg and I'm actually currently a resident of Los Alamitos, but I'm originally from Long Beach near Long Beach State. And as a kid, I would always ride my bike from the summers area next to the wetlands on the bike path to SEAL Beach. And I also have a small boat and Syria is bigger marina directly across from the Synergy Property. I'm currently a student at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, studying finance and energy management as well. And part of my study is includes understanding the science, economics and operations related to energy management or energy production. And with this education, I have a greater appreciation of the idea of updating infrastructure in order to promote safety and cleanliness. I also think it's a great idea to consolidate existing operations and minimize the impact of producing a resource that allows every single person in this room to live a comfortable and safe life. As there's been a lot of time hiking at the Bolsa Chico Island just south of here, and I would love to have something similarly right in our backyard. I think my whole life, wondering about the theory, those wetlands and the idea of finally bringing them to life really excites me. As a local resident and a student of energy, I strongly believe that the approval of this project will bring numerous benefits for years to come. Thank you for your time. The keynote speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Tina Phifer. I'm the president of Glen Lucas Associates, and our firm has had the privilege of working on this project for over five years with the current landowner. Prior to our involvement with this landowner, we also worked with the prior one, and our unique perspective on this project has always been on how to restore the wetlands. And so our objective was to create a restoration plan that was part of the Environmental Impact Report that looked at how best to do it, what are the best methods, how to restore it in such a way that minimizes the temporary impacts? All of these things went into our restoration plan that has been not only peer reviewed, but is undergoing the current review process with all of the federal and state agencies. And I bring this up because there are a couple of things I want to hit on tonight that were raised by the public as far as concerns go . Number one is. What happens to the restoration of the the funding for the oil operations goes away. And the answer to that is there is a performance bond that has to be posted by this applicant at the outset of the restoration. So whether or not the oil operations carries through as planned or goes away, the performance bond is in place to make sure that once it's kicked off, it doesn't stop. We have to maintain performance standards. We have to report to the IRS for five continuous years in order for the wetlands credits to be released. So that's the answer to that first question. The second one is how is this project going to fund the long term management of those restored wetlands? It's equally important to us to see the implementation. But once we're gone and off the site after five years, we want to make sure that these wetlands also stay in the high functioning habitat that they are once they're signed off. After five years. So the answer to that question is that the applicant also will be establishing and funding an endowment, and that endowment will be given to the low street as wetlands authority for the long term management. And those are just the two things I wanted to address. Thank you. Thanks so much. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council. I'm Tony Blomkamp. I'm senior biologist and wetland. Specialist at Glen Lucas Associates. And I had the great privilege of being part of the team that designed the Wetland Restoration Team and was just speaking about it. I actually want to speak to you. In a different capacity tonight. I'm a I've been an instructor in the Environmental Studies Program at Cal State Fullerton for the last 24 years. So I hope you don't hold being a titan against me. I am teaching at Cal State Fullerton. For the last 24. Years, I've developed three courses for the Graduate Environmental Studies programs. One of them is Conservation of Migratory Birds. I just finished it last semester. It's probably my favorite course to teach. And what you what I've learned in teaching this class is. How are the world population of birds? Continues to decline for many reasons. For many, many reasons. But we do know that the loss of wetland habitat has been a significant issue in that this. Is an incredible. Opportunity, a really unique opportunity to begin the process of restoring the whole Los Cerritos wetland complex. And we're starting off with, you know, the first 75 acres. Then there'll be another 75. And as you as you, you, I'm sure you're aware that it's just a matter of stepping stones. You know, the. Rest of the wetlands are in Long Beach and then over to Hellman, and over time, we're going to end up. With many hundreds of new wetlands that will be. Really important along the Pacific Flyway and will be significant in maintaining the populations of of our of our waterfowl, shorebirds, past rains, raptors, you know, across the entire suite of, of our fauna. So again, I just, just thank you for listening to everyone tonight and please approve this project. Thank you. Next speaker can we say resident of the first district and I've been appointed to speak on behalf of the Gray Panthers tonight who are supporting this project. Wendy Griffith pretty much said everything that we espouse in terms of the preservation of this land and supporting this project. What I'd like to address is the earth when I was little, although I always used to be open, and since when I had children, there became this thing of nature deficit kind of unawareness of their native environment. And the restoration of the. Wetlands is something we desperately need for our young people. I first met Erickson when I took a group of kids from the Boys and Girls Club out to one of his restoration projects. And the kids were so fascinated and engaged in what. Was going on with a natural environment, but many of them who lived in low income housing didn't have access to a yard. Or natural things to explore and parents. Working three jobs. Their parents had no time to take them anywhere. Our youth need a safe place where they can go and explore and learn. About our natural environment so they can grow. Up to protect our earth. And we can have a restful place that protects our birds and our ocean and wildlife that live in that area. So we encourage you to support this project as we do. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Andrew Carroll. I live in Long Beach, California. Thanks. I want to thank the council, the mayor, vice mayor for the time. I want to thank the audience. Everyone's been listening to both sides tonight very silently. I think that's very respectful and it bodes well for our community and our ability and our democracy. And I appreciate that. I think the city council has done a tremendous job in allowing equal time to both sides of divide presentations, and I appreciate that as well. It is in the interest of sort of being consistent with that ethic that I find it a little unfortunate that one native group was invited to speak, that they were given 5 minutes of official time in order to speak in favor of the proposal, and that I'm sure it didn't mean to come across this way, but that did come across as if they were representative of the entire native interest. So I want to speak to that ambiguity. I think that could have mainly been done a little bit better. There might have been some time to find some other native groups who clearly tonight showed up. And I also want to thank individual indigenous people for coming and speaking on both sides of this issue, and I hope to see more of that. And I just wish that there would also been time for maybe 5 minutes of a different group. I had one friend leave actually, because she she deeply felt after hearing the support from the during the 5 minutes that that she felt ethically ambiguous herself about where to stand on this issue. Because for a lot of us, it is a deep issue to hear indigenous people come out in support of this. We really respect that and we don't want to, even if we personally disagree, we give space for that and we want to say, do what you want because we respect that. So to have one group speak in support and make it look, and I'm sure with an intangible the ambiguity was there that it might be indicative of the entire community creates that ambiguity and creates a lot of it for us. A lot of us in this room, some tension. Lastly, I think during the rebuttal phase, there was a comment made by the speaker during her initial rebuttal that came across as very kind of threatening. I'm sure I don't need to recall it. I think we might remember it that if this didn't pass, that they would just keep using defunct equipment to drill and do whatever they wanted. I think that's a regrettable statement. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker. Good evening. My name is Steve Brothers. I'm live in Councilman Councilwoman Price's district, the third district. I want to frame my comments with a quote by a great man. I think you'll all recall excuse me, last June when President Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement. So this is a quote. In a statement released Thursday, Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia called the move a huge step backwards for America. I have joined mayors across the country to work towards adopting the global agreement on our cities, he said in a statement as a coastal city. We must fight for our future and the next generation. I mentioned that just to concede that I do understand that this is a council that cares about the climate crisis in earnest, that you the city does have a sustainable city action plan and tries to act in accord with A, B and SB 32. I acknowledge that my comments, though, are in opposition. I'd like to just point out that the plan's proponents downplay risks and dismiss concerns related to climate as insignificant. But if you read the draft Environmental Impact Report and the concerns put forward and the response by the Coastal Commission and other environmental groups, it becomes clear that this is all a giant and convoluted mitigation scheme. The word mitigation appears. Over and over and. Over again as the emissions from the project equal are the emissions from the project equal to 11,000 cars per day on our roads for the 40 year endurance of the program. The they respond, basically conceding that that's the case and say, yes, but this is they dismiss the issue because of cap and trade schemes. In other words, the problem is real. But they will buy pollution allowances to offset it per the COD procedures and guidelines. So another question, is bump going to finance the restoration with the wetlands mitigation? Well, sort of. It's a way of financing it with this mitigation back. And this allows developers to buy the right to damage or destroy natural functioning wetlands elsewhere. Remember, according to a Cal State University system study, 90% of California's wetlands are already gone. The scheme is a cynical shell game of shuffling destruction around. What about the Newport-Inglewood fault? No problem. Proponents assure us the drilling sites are not in the fault zone. Never mind that the LC site is only 200 feet outside the technical parameters of the fault zone and the Newport Inglewood fault does bisect the project area and they do plan to run a pipeline over it. So what about the spill danger? Well, yes, the worst case for the site would be 61,000 barrel spill. The worst case that the pumpkin patch would be a 5000 barrel spill. Worst case that the pipeline over the city property would be a 30,000 gallons spill. Thank you, sir, so much. In terms of please keep it in mind. Thank you very much. Thanks, Speaker. Thank you. Hi, Mr.. Mayors, the members of city council. Gary Shelton, 27 year resident of Long Beach. My address is on file. I've known all of you for a long time. I've known Ann Cantrell for a long time. I've known Joe Weinstein for a long time. I've known Cat and Chuck Moore for a long time. But I don't know a whole lot about is this project. But I come down here because I know these folks don't come down here on a whim. If Ann Cantrell and Joe Weinstein say there's something wrong with an air, that it has flaws, then you know something? The history at this diocese should tell you that it has flaws. Thank you. I wish I could reiterate what they might be. I don't know. I just trust that what I wish you folks will do tonight is discuss this not only on the merits of the project, which is what they always turn to when there's a flight air. You can discuss that all you want, but talk about the air and its potential flaws or its lack of flaws because we need to hear that from you before we'll trust your decisions and then make your decision wisely, which I know you will do. You're all honorable people. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Sorry it's late. I saw you keyed up, and I just read your name next. We're going to keep. So I. Apologize. Hi. My name is. We're going to we're going to go ahead and keep going. I'm sorry. Please continue. Hi. My name is Cindy Koke. Not related to the brothers, but our planet is worth more than oil company profits. Let me repeat, our planet is worth more than oil company profits. Let's put a Y in front of R. Your planet is more worth. More than oil company profits. Your planet. Our planet. We're all in this together. Do you think you could start making decisions that are environmentally responsible? How is it that you think we don't need clean air and clean water to survive? Our government is our worst enemy. In this country. So sad. All of you say we're here for you. If you have any problems, let us know. Well, we're here for you. We're here now. What are you going to do about this problem? Are you going to help your constituents and the environment or the corporations? Please, please, please stop being puppets for the corporations. They are not people. And they certainly don't need clean air and clean water to survive and they don't vote. I would love to ask each of you why you went into politics. I always thought it would be to make the world a. Better place, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Greed and power have taken over. So if you're hell bent on destroying our environment and cutting your life short, that's your business. Unfortunately, it can't be done without taking us with you. You are responsible for our lives. That's a big responsibility and hopefully not taken lightly. So would you could you please respect your life a little more so we can all live a happy, healthy life? I don't think that's asking too much. Stop this nonsense of trying to get every last drop of oil out of the ground. It's not going to happen. This planet, remember, years and hours won't survive. We will all be gone. I long for the day. We no longer have to fight our government. To save our environment. You live here too. Thank you. Next speaker. And before our next book goes up. So we're going to go and close the speaker's list. So we have three? Nope. Okay. We have one warrant. I'm going to close the speaker's list. If you're not in line, it will be closed. And. Okay, this is your last chance. So. Okay. So after this speaker's list is closed, officially, we have five speakers. Please. Thank you, everybody. Thank you for allowing this space to be shared. And it's time away from your families and other priorities. I want to encourage the Board to vote no without further review from the California Coastal Commission and other further detailed examinations of the Independent Environmental Review. I strongly ask for our future generations, for forgiveness, for what we haven't done to these wetlands, and ask for forgiveness for what we're about to do to these wetlands. This 20 year and this 40 year clean up project is great, but it's nothing that's going to help us now and it's not going to help our descendants. So I ask that everybody rely on the guidance, the wisdom, the fortitude of our ancestors. Black, brown, white, yellow, purple, orange. And then we asked for guidance and lessons from our descendants in whatever form and shape they may come. And so please let all love for this earth and all compassion for our community and let our courage for each other prevail. And you guys, I have a blessed decision. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. Thank you for hearing. Hearing me. My name is Winston. I've lived in Long Beach my whole life. I live in Belmont. Sure. I'd like to apologize. No, I didn't prepare anything. I wasn't planning on speaking tonight. And I'm not going to speak to the merits of the proposal. Other people have done a lot more research. Other people know a lot more than that. And we've heard from them. And we'll say, I'm inclined to trust folks who've done the research, and I'd be more inclined to trust experts who weren't being paid by a party to the to this proposal. I think there's a you know, a question of political principle at stake. I don't believe the public has been adequately informed. I mean, you know, for all that we talk about living in a cynical times and, you know, people joke about about, you know, not trusting politicians or public officials, I think overwhelmingly people do. I think people really believe that. You know, there are public officials with, you know, with state and local agencies. Their elected officials really do want what's best for them and are looking out for them. And so and so. And they trust those folks to frame the issues correctly. And so when they hear that there's this this great environmental restoration project being proposed, most of them will, you know, say, well, that's great news. And the issue I have here is that it doesn't seem to me that this is I think that's a very misleading way of framing this issue. It seems to me that this is a drilling proposal to be compensated by a restoration project. And I think if you told people that, you know, this is a drilling proposal to be compensated by some restoration, that would be having a very different discussion than, you know. Do you support wetlands restoration proposal? Proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Eric Zorn, lifetime Long Beach resident. And for the first 22 years of my life, I did not know those wetlands existed for the last 23 years of my life. I have dedicated it to seeing the wetlands conserved. I'm one of the lucky ones. I have spent tens of thousands of hours in those areas. Wetlands. I know every inch, every nook and cranny. I began to explore a wild land in my own backyard. Lucky me. Now I'm sharing with my two and a half year old. We drive down Second Street and he looked at the oil fields. He goes, wetlands. And he knows that just because I've made him aware. Not everybody else gets to be aware. And I plan to dedicate tens and tens of thousands of hours of my life to making all of us aware. I think what a great success. I haven't heard anybody say they're not in support of seeing the wetlands restored here tonight. So I know I've taken many of you on individual towards the wetlands and share them with you. What a great resource for our community, for our future. And I think this is an incredible debate. And thank you for hosting it tonight. And we hope to see more opportunities for more exploration of wetlands into the future. Thank you. Next figure, please. Hi. I'm from the land of the Tonga. I'm all for restoring the wetlands, but. I don't see how you can do that by putting in 120 oil and water wells. It just. I don't. Get the logic. All right. I'll be straight up. And I'm from a. Community where I'm surrounded by oil refineries. And I. I inhale all that crap. I can heal that crap. They might not inform me that they're having a flare up, but I feel it in my lungs. And I get my asthma inhaler and I just start inhaling in. Hello, Mr. Garcia? Yeah. And anyways. You know, I think you. Owe it to your constituents as well as the people who live outside. Of directly outside of Long Beach to vote against this project. You know. The refineries. I live nearby. There's always some sort of mishap going on. There's an accident, you know? How do you want to put your people in danger? I mean, a bunch of these. Oil drills and oil wells. You know, on an earthquake fault. And not to mention that. Intersection of second and. Of Second and PCH in Studebaker. I mean, it's just so there's already a lot of traffic there already. What's it going to look like when when there's all that construction there? So I so please vote against this. Do it for. The people of Long Beach. Also do it for the. Planet, because you keep saying how green and progressive long beaches show. Show us. Walk the walk, please. Thank you. Thank you. Next and our final speaker. We have too many open. Unanswered questions. They said this is going to happen. That's going to happen. Hey, like it said, 40 years, 40 years. You know what's. Going to happen. Just pleased to see your name for the record, please, Sir Arthur. 40 years. I you know, I'm Native American. I know we want our land clean. We want to do this. We want to renew this. We want to renew that. But we want to do it the right way. We want to do it with everything. Everything answered. Openness. We want openness. I want my grandchildren, my great grandchildren, their children to come out here. And see the wetland. But I don't want the oil. Ha, you know, pumping more oil, pumping more of this, doing this and doing that. How is that helping the land? How is that helping us at all? Yeah, but. Let me. Thank you. That concludes public comment. So we're going to continue the hearing. I want to go ahead and obviously close the public comment period of the hearing tonight. And we're going to be going into the deliberation and closing of the hearing. So to start off. Councilwoman Price, thank you. Well, thank you to everyone for being here this evening, for expressing your views both for and against the project. I appreciate the thoughtful consideration that everyone here has given to the actual proposal, and I appreciate the passions that have been expressed on both sides. I want to give a special note of thanks to our city staff. They have been working with me to understand and frame this project for over three years now, and I appreciate the guidance that that they have provided. And, you know, a lot of times we talk about analyzing the air and what's in the air. And tonight's the focus of of tonight's meeting isn't necessarily to approve or not approve the project. It's to consider the appeals and the merits of the appeals and to make a determination as to whether the Planning Commission's recommendation should be upheld. Having said that, I am very supportive of this project, but there are a few areas that I would like to talk to staff about. And I apologize in advance. I don't think the clicker is working. Unfortunately, I did this presentation during their go. Okay. During the during the comments from staff and the appellants and the public. So I apologize if there are any inadvertent errors or typos. But one of the things that was mentioned in the rebuttal of the appellants was that this is the appellant, the I'm sorry, not the appellants. The applicants are permitted to drill for oil at this site by right. So I'd like to ask staff to elaborate a little bit more on that. Thank you. Councilmember Price I can shed some light on that in terms of this site. So the project has has four pieces and according to the city's oil code of the only, there's a there's a portion of the synergy oil field site that is currently in the in the on the oil map. But quite frankly, the the the leasehold predates that. And so any of the oil drilling on hand is actually legal, non-conforming, and it doesn't meet today's oil code. But are they legally permitted to drill on the CW site? The answer is not right now, not unless a change to the oil code and the oil map are made. And same goes with the the pumpkin patch site. Okay. What about the synergy site? The synergy site, a portion of. Yes. And because they are allowed by the existing lease hold that was put into place prior to the city's oil regulations. Yes, they are. So so the answer to that question really there is there anything the city can do to preclude them from drilling for oil at their site? No. They are currently permitted to drill for oil on this energy oil field. One of the questions we've heard a lot from the appellants and I appreciate them raising this issue with me. I did have a very productive meeting with them yesterday evening. But the question is the esthetics of the area, the city's response. And by the way, I know everyone knows that URS are voluminous documents, but this volume here is just the volume dealing with the comments and the comment letters. And the Coastal Commission letter is in here. And the city's very thorough response to that is also in here. And it talks about a little bit of the esthetic features. And one of the things that we've heard is that the esthetic features will actually be more invasive in terms of the scenic visual that the public will see when they drive around the site. Can you speak to that a little bit? Sure. So the Environmental Impact Report did in a esthetics analysis as well as as well as visual simulations on all four sites. But I'm going to focus primarily on the site and the pumpkin patch site, because those are the sites of the proposed well sellers. So the actual well sellers are underground. But more importantly, the perimeter screening of each site consisting of a substantial landscape setback as well as a screen wall, would prevent passers by on the public right of way from seeing the oil operation. Furthermore, if you are on the site so the well sellers are in the ground, there are storage tanks on the CWA site toward the back. That again, would it be a screened by the wall based on the line of sight from where the person viewing the site would be on the public right of way and in relation to the position of the storage tanks at the rear of the site. And then lastly, I will mention that there are there's obviously oil drilling rigs that will be present on the site primarily during the construction. But there is a collapsible workover rig that would be visible during the maintenance of oil operations. But because it is collapsible, it will not be visible while it is not being used. So those that's a summary of the things that the public would see, essentially a screen wall and landscaping. So the the the rigs that you just mentioned, those would not be a permanent feature of either of these sites. The correct is that during construction, there is one that will be there for for the duration of construction. But the other one that's used for maintenance will not be visible because it is collapsible. Okay. We heard some questions about current risks of oil spills and what safeguards, if any, would be present in the new pipelines and the infrastructure. There's some concerns about that. Can you speak. To whether or. Not and I'm going to talk about this a little bit further, because it's actually very well documented in the staff's comments specifically to the Coastal Commission. But can you speak a little bit to this idea that this allowing this project to move forward will increase our residents and also the habitat to additional danger or risk? Sure. So in terms of when in terms of the proposed oil wells and I just want to make sure I understand the question, so please correct me if I'm going in the wrong direction here. But in terms of the proposed oil wells, there are extensive safety measures that range from whether it's its sensors, it's detectors that would have automatic shut off mechanisms during any kind of an event. So that's part of the modern safety requirements that new oil drilling facilities have to have. And if we need to get a little more technical in terms of detail, I can call on our consultant for that. With regard to the with regard to the existing oil facilities, obviously, I mean, the because they're dated, it would be hard to say what would happen during any kind of a any kind of a seismic event and how much would spill knowing that there are aboveground pipelines that that that would traverse the site that are applicant could probably also speak to the volume. I know there's been a couple of mentions. But in terms of having the new oil facilities constructed, they all have very extensive safety mechanisms built in, if you will. We talked a little bit about improvements and I appreciate Island Village who was here. They have been for years asking for sidewalks in and around their residential community. Can you talk a little bit about the bike lanes and the sidewalks and where those are anticipated to go? Sure. So an overall summary is basically that anywhere that's along a street frontage that does not already have sidewalk improvements and bike lane improvements, the applicant would be required to install those. So for example, along the Second Street frontage of the synergy oil field site, right now there is not a sidewalk, there is a compacted area where people might generally walk if they're not walking in the gutter. But they would that that would be improved. Similarly, on the south side of Second Street, where along the city property site now along the Pacific Coast Highway Frontages, there is in part already sidewalk and already bike lane. But anywhere where that needed to be improved or there was a deficient area, the applicant would basically come in and repair that to make it whole. So any frontage. So on the four sites there's if I count properly, there's eight frontages. Okay. So I just want to make sure that this project, the the approval of this project will include a sidewalk being built on Second Street from the location of the island village residential community to the Marketplace Shopping Center. But what? Because that would be along the synergy and city property. So the boundary of the city property along Second Street goes to right where Studebaker Road currently terminates. So I believe there is a gap on Second Street between that and Island Village, if I'm correct. So it would not extend all the way, but it would go all the way from Shopkeeper Road to the point at which Studebaker Road terminates. Excellent. Thank you. I think we're going to have some new city installed bike lanes that will be going at that location anyway on Second Street, Westminster. That's correct. Are there and this is a question that was raised by the appellants, are there going to be any chemicals injected into the ground as in addition to the water, the groundwater? As part of the applicants project description. The only thing injected into the ground is the waste water from that's pulled out of the ground during the oil extraction and any additional water that would be needed to fill the void of the extracted fluids from the from the production formation. There are no chemicals that are identified as being injected. Now, I know you mentioned or someone mentioned earlier that there are a number of regulatory agencies overseeing a project like this and allow and allowing for a review process before permits are issued. If there were to be an injection methodology used by an oil operation, is there a particular regulatory agency that would have to be notified and made aware of what is actually being injected into the ground? Yes. So the primary regulatory agency would be the California Department of Gas, Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. So Dogger, they require any well permit a well operator to keep monthly reports. They also permit the what it goes into the well they permit the what pressure it goes in and any other materials, if you will. So, yes, they are the primary permitting agency and they do regulate all of those aspects. Right. Is it possible for us to build in any sort of ongoing monitoring to make sure that the Native American archeological assets are identified and preserved should any exist at the site or any of the sites during this project? So, council member, I want to start by saying that's already a mitigation incorporated into this project and present in the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program. But in addition to that, we will be maintaining an ongoing relationship with the tribe that responded to the AB 52 notification and went through the formal consultation process. They will be doing the monitoring on site and then they will also be involved on the operations side because obviously the visitor center needs to give not only sort of European history, but needs to have native history and needs to give the full story of our relationship with this land today and across history. So but the formal monitoring is required within the mitigation monitoring program. But we also have that additional relationship where we're going to be working with those tribal officials on an ongoing basis to make sure that the operations of this location meet all of our our shared needs and expectations. Great. Thank you. And then are there any concerns that the methodology that is going to be used is going to expose the public or the habitat that exists at the location to any risks similar to what happened in Oklahoma. So that's a that's a good question. I'll do my best. So the what happened in Oklahoma was actually the injection of wastewater into a underground reservoir, if you will, that was not a part of the production formation. So basically, in layman's terms, what was happening was wastewater from other drilling sites was being transported to the name of the particular reservoir is is escaping me I'm sorry, but was transported to this location and then injected into the ground in an A in a manner that it wasn't filling the void. In other words, it was basically injected under pressure and creating the imbalance in the undergrounds, in the underground structural integrity. And that was what was documented as causing the induced seismicity activities in this situation. And this particular project, the water re injection, is back into the production formation where the oil came from, thereby restoring the stability in the underground. In other words, you're filling the void where you created the void. And so it's just restoring the imbalance. And so that the two situations are completely different. And based on that, we do not have concerns about this being like Oklahoma. Okay. And then there was a question raised. I don't know if it was raised this evening, but I know it's been raised with me on a prior occasion. And council member Urunga and I sit on the low Cerritos Wetlands Authority. So I think we both feel comfortable with the answer to this question. But there is a question about the ownership of some parts of the land swap properties, including Steam, Shovel, Slew, and whether or not Synergy actually has the right to swap that piece of land with LCA way. Do you have any information on that? So for any application, not just this one, the project applicant has to prove either that they hold title to the property or that they have the expressed permission of whoever holds title to the property. So they demonstrated to us that they do hold title to that property. So that's sufficient for a planning application. But as you mentioned, LCA is engaging and a land transaction and that will involve a title search which I understand has already been done and other representations such to prove the ownership. So the ownership is not in dispute from the from the staff point of view. I know there were public speakers that made other representations, but we don't have any documentation to support it being in dispute. And frankly, I'm definitely not a contract lawyer here, but I would assume that if they're purporting to trade property that doesn't belong to them, it would dramatically change the terms of the contract. So I think that's that's an issue that would be litigated further down the road. So based on what I heard from staff and some of the questions that were asked by some of the points that were made by both the applicant and the appellants, I think there are some undisputed facts that that everyone here can agree to that. First of all, there's multiple. Regulatory permits that are going to be required for this project. It's really an unprecedented project in some ways because the creation of the mitigation bank, the restoration of the wetlands and oil drilling, those three components together are kind of an unprecedented combination of factors to have. And therefore, we're going to have more regulatory agencies involved with the approvals and permitting of this project and oversight than we would with any other project of this of this character, the equipment that's out there now. Oil drilling began at this site in the 1920s. The equipment there is mostly from the 1960s. There are currently zero two little safeguards in place in the event of an oil spill. That is absolutely undisputed in terms of what's going on there. Now, the pipeline that would be installed would be updated and only cross the fault line in one location as to as opposed to multiple locations, which is the reality out there today. And these are undisputed facts. These are not these are not my opinions. These are just undisputed facts. Both the low. Carbon oil. Levels are lower. Than any compared to the California average of oil operations. So I think that is also an undisputed fact. This project does not include fracking. Water is injected into the ground to replace the oil that is removed and created a void, creating a void. The pressure is monitored and will fill the void. And. There is regular reporting on what is injected into the ground by state regulatory agencies. The methodology for water injection here is different than that which was used in Oklahoma in terms of the risks and associated factors. This project includes. A berm to. Guard against the impacts of sea level rise. The response to the Coastal Commission letter from the city covers the height of the levee and the extreme water levels of 5.5 feet in the year 2100. There is always a risk. Of oil spills. With oil drilling. That is a reality. However, the risk of oil spills is less with the alternative project that's being proposed than no project at all because of the safeguards that are in place, say everyone dies. We're going to be respectful of everyone's time. We'll listen. And so now it's time for the council deliberate. Thank you. Because of the new pipeline and the trench that will be built, there is a leak detection methodology and a containment system and an emergency shutdown procedure as part of the new pipeline system. There are also secondary and tertiary containment systems built into the project to contain the spill on site should a spill occur. And in conclusion, in terms of this point that city staff made in the event of a worst case scenario spill, the total spill could be contained within the containment berm and the impacts would be less than significant. And these are the opinions of our experts, and I know some don't agree, and I appreciate and I respect that . But these are the opinions of our experts with whom we work in the city in terms of outreach efforts. This project has worked very closely with the Third District Council office to direct its outreach efforts in the communities that are most impacted by the project. Thus far, we have had meetings with the Alamitos Heights Improvement Association, Belmont Shore Business Association, Belmont Heights Community Association, Belmont Shore Residents Association. Belmont Shore. Mobil Estates. Audubon Island Village. The Chamber of Commerce. Loews Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust. They had nine meetings, which I appreciate very much. Naples Improvement Association, Naples Island Business Association, University Park Estates and the Gray Panthers. In addition, we had open tour. Hours that they hosted for several days. They also did a study session at Planning Commission where many of the people who were at the podium saying that there was not enough outreach that spoke out. So there was an August and an April planning commission study session where some of the speakers who were saying that there was not enough opportunity for public comment actually spoke . And of course there was the LCA way presentation that was done several years ago. Getting private property into public hands through a land swap is one of the goals of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. There are 500 acres of wetlands that we want to get into public hands as best as we can. We have a limited amount of funding with which we can purchase that private land in order for us to be able to get public access and public management of some of these privately owned properties. It's important for us to have a public private partnership, and this presents an opportunity for us to do so through this land swap alone. The Lo Cerritos. Wetlands Authority will acquire 154 acres of private land in exchange for five acres of public land. And if the applicant and I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Aranda, for this, because this is something that that he and I worked very hard on with the low Cerritos Wetlands Authority negotiations, that if the applicant were to change their minds based on the price of oil or some other economic factor making this project unfeasible for them, the public will still retain steam shovels SLU, which is a huge, pristine property for the city of Long Beach. Additional project requirements that I would like to include in this motion are as follows. Within 60 days of receiving permits for this project, the applicant shall erect a decorative perimeter screen around the entire synergy site along Studebaker, Second Street and PCH. The plant. They must plant mature trees along the perimeter of all of the LC waste site along Studebaker and Second Street, where that site. Is located. And they must install hardscape, a decorative hardscape in the median area located immediately across from the LC site on Studebaker. I believe that's roughly a 200 foot or so median that we would like to be enhanced as a beautification project associated with this project. So that is my motion. I ask my colleagues to. Support this project. This is a project that many people in this room have worked for for years. It is a good project. It is our only way to restore these wetlands because they are privately owned. And but for this partnership, the owner of this property has no obligation whatsoever to restore these wetlands ever. And so the fact that they have come forward with this proposal is an opportunity. And will they. Profit? I assume so. I assume they will profit because this is not a charity organization, but the fact that they would profit anyway as an oil company but are willing to work with the city to create a win win situation where both they profit and our youth can appreciate this property as a restored wetlands habitat for generations to come is a huge opportunity for the city of Long Beach. So I thank my colleagues for listening and I ask for your support. Thank you, Councilwoman. The second on the motion was Councilmember Yanga. Thank you, Mayor. And Councilmember Price, as you're as you do an excellent job in terms of not only summarizing all the issues that are before us, but also giving some additional information in regards to the pros and cons of the project as a whole. As you were speaking, I was going down my list of questions and I just kept erasing them. Just kept marking a marker. You did such a thorough job in in describing it. One of the things that you said right near the end was about the steam shovel slew. That's true. What we worked a deal with them on that was that if in the event that they were, they'd be able to continue with the project, that it becomes permanent in perpetuity. It will belong to the lawsuit. Wetlands Authority. This is Mike. This it's going to be my this is my third meeting on this as individuals in the crowd. No, I'm also a member of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, the Wetlands Authority here, and also the Coastal Commission. So there's another opportunity that I'm going to have to listen to this discussion again. At each time that I hear it, it seems like there's is and the councilwoman mentioned it about a win win when you're looking at 154, 159 acres total and you're looking at 154 being transferred to the Wetlands Authority for keeping those wetlands and restoration and five acres remaining with the with the owner. You know what part of that deal does not not fit. Now, I understand during the course of the conversation that we had that there's a great concern about oil. There's a great concern about carbon footprints. And there's a great concern about climate change. That's that's there. That argument is always going to be there. The point is, is that what this project is going to do is that it's going to preserve what we want. Well, it's it's going to preserve that. In fact, it's going to good it's going to have wetlands. And right now, we don't have there is no access to arena. It's not it's not public. It's soon will be. Let's hope. The bottom line is that when we look at talking about our future and our future of our kids and wanting them to enjoy what Mother Earth has to offer, it's it's going to be there. Now, there may be a price. Yes, there will be. But the the overall goal, I think what we have with climate change is to get away from from fossil fuels and to get more electric. And I think that's going to happen. And that's a concern. I could see that that's one of the major concerns that we have, is that if oil loses and it has last couple of years, I mean, it went down from, what, 99 to 100 or even $110. It was at one time went down to 35. That was a major, major hit. And in fact, a lot of our city projects in entitlements had to be put on hold because of that. It's making a comeback, but not as strong as before or as anticipated. So we're still dealing with that issue in terms of price. But what we have here in this landscape opportunity is an opportunity to keep these wetlands forever in perpetuity. There is amount conservancy worked out this deal with with synergy in addition not only to to preserve the wetlands but also the rivers. Miles Conservancy gave the authority an additional $300,000 to be able to develop the wetlands by creating some passages, some walking paths, bicycle paths, and an opportunity for people to enjoy the well as well once it gets restored. So that that's the positive part of it. When it comes down to the Coastal Commission and it is going to go up to the Coastal Commission. Excuse me. Cookie cutter. Mr. Crisp there were several mentions, several references to the council commission and its appeal or what are its looking at it. And there's reference made to a letter that was included in the air. Could you summarize just briefly what that letter says in regards to the city's application? I think you're a councilmember. Your own members of the council said there were several public speakers that referenced a comment letter that was received on the draft environmental impact report from the California Coastal Commission. It came from their energy unit up in San Francisco. Staff member Kate Huckleberry. So that letter was lengthy. It spelled out every conceivable issue that needed to be addressed during the permitting process for this project. So it was helpful both to city staff and to commission staff to lay out what all of those issues were. And those issues were all responded to one by one in the air. But it also gave us an important leg up on the analysis that the commission staff has to do and the city has to assist them with during the coastal permitting process that will continue at the Commission. Some of the public speakers may have mischaracterized that letter because there was not an opposition letter. It was not the Coastal Commission stating that they are in favor or are not in favor of this project. It was them laying out all of the issues that have to be addressed during the permitting of this project. We also received and the clerk included it in your your package and an additional letter from the Coastal Commission dated January 9th of this year from Kate Huckleberry Page. Also, it spells out the process that has occurred thus far and closes with throughout the process of reviewing this proposed project. We have enjoyed a very professional and productive working relationship with your staff and look forward to continuing our coordination as we complete the steps outlined above in the future. So the Coastal Commission is our partner on this project and they will continue to be our partner. They've laid out very thoroughly for us all of the issues that need to be addressed. We've addressed those issues and we'll continue working with the staff at the Commission as it continues. Through this. Process. Thank you. Well, that sounds very encouraging because obviously, as a member of the California Coastal Commission, it is its goal to preserve wetlands and s shape whenever, whenever it can and in all places. We've had a few victories. We've had a few losses. But the bottom line is that the goal of the commission is to preserve the coast and preserve wetlands when when it can. The issue that that it raises, which concerns me, obviously, is, of course, the the increase of sea level rise and what that will do to to not only this project, but actually projects up and down the coast everywhere. It's a it's a major concern. We're looking at the possibility of close to six feet of sea level rise within the next 50 years. The only concern that I would have with that, with this project is the fact that we have the proposal, the proposal to get half of the of the project cleaned up in 20 years and then the rest of it in 40 years. I think that's a little long, frankly, myself, because we're looking at sea level rise, reaching that level in 50 years. I mean, we're almost underwater already when it comes down to, you know, by the time you finish this thing. So I'm I'm hoping that maybe we could talk to the to the applicant making it maybe a little step up the timeline a little bit so it's not as lengthy, perhaps? You know, I would prefer half, but hey, we could do it within the next 30 years. So that would be I think would be wonderful because it would it would shorten the time that we can have people enjoy the wetlands and not be underwater. I'm not being facetious. So, I mean, that's one of the things that I would like to see. And now and I hope that we're able to work that out. But again, that's going to be a discussion that the city will be having with the Coastal Commission, and I'm sure that possibly the Coast Commission will probably bring that up as a as a concern because of the of the timeline. Other than that, I don't have much else at the Councilmember Price did a stellar job in summarizing all our concerns. Like I say, and I just wanted to add a little more and that basically that that the. Three years might be too long. But I can would say one thing about the course commission. There's always it's a barricade. It's just a if you want to call it that, you have the Coastal Commission staff, which works with the applicants, and then you had the Coastal Commission, the the elected, not the elected, but the appointed body that reviews which staff does. So staff's responsibility is to work with the applicant to try to mitigate all the issues involved with any project, trying to make sure that they're addressed, to make sure that if there are concerns regarding environmentally sensitive habitat or there's spills that might be available, I mean, might be happening. That's their job. Their job is to make sure that whatever project that's going to be going before the commission, the body itself is as thoroughly reviewed and and meets all the standards of review that needs to be taken care of before it comes to the commission, so that when the commission reviews it, they make their evaluation and determine whether it's a good project or not. There has been on several occasions where staff recommendations have been overturned or not overturned, but basically opposed by the commission and vice versa, where the commission has imposed even stronger restrictions on a project. So that's still available that might that might still happen. This coastal commission that's there now is is one that's very thorough in its work. There are individuals in there who are very highly sensitive to a lot of the topics that were brought up today. For example, the the the SCA issue, the the wetlands and also about the, the concerns brought up by our by our Native American speakers who came up here in regards to the type of land that's there and the and the concern that there may be some disturbances of some burial grounds. There is, as was mentioned before, some legal considerations for that. And that's going to happen. There will be some somebody there to review that. The only concern that's been raised and I agree with it to to to a great extent, is that the the whole work, if you will, wasn't done beforehand. I mean, there is no study at the present time that indicates whether there is a burial a burial sacred ground in that area or not. And you wouldn't know until you put the shovel to the ground. And you describe you discover any kinds of remains that would determine whether it was this area, a sacred burial ground or not. That's unfortunate. But there's I think at this point, there's no other way to to find out. So there there's of course, there is what, you know, an oral history that that would determine some of that. I understand that totally, completely. But in the long term, I see this project as a again, it's a win win. It was a win win when I heard it. And the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, it was a win win when I heard it with the loss of Edo's Wetlands Authority. And in terms of the city and what we have going here, I think it's a win win for this too. And I would also support that moving the motion forward so that they can continue on its path through the Coastal Commission where it would have another another opportunity to be heard again. So thank you. I would say thank you very much, guys. No, please, no, no. I'll push from the audience. Next up is Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. So I want to thank everybody for being here tonight. We're going on almost 5 hours. So I appreciate everybody's concerns and voice as I've been listening to everything. There's just many questions that I have relative to Coastal Commission discussions overall. E, R and AQ, M.D. memos. All of this, to be quite honest, still seems very unclear to me personally and not comprehensive enough for me to support just because newer technology and oil expansion can be done. I don't believe it should be done. And although I absolutely support a full actual restoration of the wetlands similar to what Bolsa Chica. Did, that actually was a true restoration. That phased the removal and cleanup of oil extraction from wetlands. I agree to half of the project, of course. Yes to bike paths, yes to jobs, yes to walking areas and yes to public opportunities. But again, I'll have. To disagree with the project. Overall. So many questions still remain. Sea level rise analysis seems unclear and incomplete. Our staff report, as it seems, only states that existing out of compliance infrastructure would be a problem for sea level rise, but not new infrastructure, which does not really does not give me clarity personally. And then, of course, as mentioned many times here, Native American outreach was not through enough to include all bands. Senate Bill 18, which includes the traditional tribal cultural places, and requires. Our local planning authorities to connect with California. Native American tribes. Plural and overall scenario. Planning to identify maximum potential impacts for a large earthquake have not been analyzed fully, but rather includes why issues occurred in other states not inclusive of the worst case scenario in our own state, per the Coastal Commission memo. And lastly, the South Coast Air Quality Management Staff Memo per September 2017 includes concerns about air quality and health risks and stated that the air underestimates impacts in both construction and operation, not just construction. Overall, 75% of immediate. Reduction of drilling, not production, will. Actually happen. And that is certainly an issue for me. And I know it's an issue for many of my residents, and this is why I will be voting no on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Got some repairs. Thank you very. Much. And thank you to my colleagues and everyone here for the hours. Of commitment and the time that you've spent leading up to this in the years that have come before this. And I have to be honest, the meetings I've had, I had meetings with the people doing the drilling. We had a very good meeting where they went over all the details with me. I asked lots of questions. I then personally reached out to Elizabeth LAMB and asked Los Arenas Wetlands for a briefing to kind of fill me in on where they were at. Believe my staff met with and of Christiansen, but besides that, I didn't have a lot of outreach from a lot of the people that I saw speak tonight that I consider folks that I would have liked to have heard from. And so my time, I have to say, I went out and I took my entire staff and we did a tour probably six or seven months ago of the Wetlands. And I am somebody that before I even moved to Long Beach, I would go to Bolsa Chica and watch the birds and go on walks and really have enjoyed that. And so the idea of restoring this area to our wetlands and putting in place walkways and a visitor center and lifting up our Native American history is something that, you know, was shiny and exciting to me sitting here tonight listening and really, you know, reviewing all the information that I have in front of me. And also considering that as a city leaders, we have to make sure that we do not have that moment where we see an opportunity to be swayed from our values. And through my campaign and through my time on council, I've always said that I'm committed to seeing us get off oil. And while I believe tonight this item will pass, I will not be supporting this item either and I will make sure that we engage with the Coastal Commission to do the following and let them know that what I would like to see out of the next steps is, is really a commitment, as they've said, to have clear standards for a restoration plan. It does seem like you guys have done a fantastic job and I applaud the work that you have done. It's a it's a fantastic vision and plan to say let's reduce the impact of where our our oil fields are. And I think it took a lot to get to where you are. And so I want to continue to applaud that and continue to applaud the participation you've done with those areas, wetlands. But knowing that if it's going to take 40 years and we still don't know where we're going to be with oil in 40 years, that I definitely have some concerns and the fact that. We have the A.D. letter and a couple of other things that I reviewed tonight just gives me pause. And so for for this. I want to work. With our coastal commission, with city staff, with the community members to reach out to the Coastal Commission and try to make sure that we have some real standards for the time when this potentially could get passed at that level. But it wasn't. It was one of those nights where I came in thinking I was going to vote one way and I'm leaving voting another way. And so I just want to applaud you guys and encourage you not only to do your outreach on the night of, but do your outreach ahead of time. That really helps me get my head around what we're voting on because we definitely have a big agenda tonight. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you very much. And I just want to say, usually when we have several hours of public comment, I'm exhausted. But I will say that, you know, the comment this evening on all sides were were were excellent. I appreciate hearing from everybody. I felt like I learned something not only from our staff's excellent presentation on the air and the merits thereof, but also from from the community, Native Americans, indigenous people here, and and all of the stakeholders. I did not come here this evening with my mind made up. I wanted to listen to public comment. I did review the documents before me and I had a couple of meetings and I will just say that I'm going to support this, this document or this this air and this project, because I think it it is something that is a I believe, a realistic approach. It is an innovative approach to to restoring wetlands, the benefits of getting 100 of, what, 55 acres of 54 acres back to wetlands restoration is is something that you I don't want to want to leave on the table. I believe that the benefits far outweigh the risk here and understanding that if we do nothing, which I've heard that there's favor for, there's still going to be oil drilling. I don't I don't see that that, you know, saying no to a a project that is actually going to add several benefits to the city of Long Beach and the community as a whole is is in our interest. And when I looked at the summary of environmental impacts, most or most, if not not all of them were less than significant with some mitigations. And so with that said, and I want to just say to my colleague, Councilmember Susie Price, and to Roberto, you longer have been involved with this for far longer than most of us. I trust their judgment on this because they have been in the trenches on this issue with most of the stakeholders. I trust the lows of Low Street as well as the authority. I trust the soil loss, widows, wetlands, land trust. I had an opportunity to to to tour that facility with my staff a couple of years ago and saw the great potential for restoration there. The the the neighborhood association came out and spoke in support of this. Our former mayor and the council member who represents the area, who is dealing with stakeholders and residents right there all the time. And so with that, I think, again, I'm going to going to go for a realistic approach. I think supporting this project is is something that that that's a risk that I'm willing to take as a as a city. I think we're going to have to be vigilant in watching this project all the way through, I don't think. But but I also think that the first two years give us tremendous benefits. Right. Again, if we're talking about taking out 95% of pipelines and and which you can see in terms of visibility is is a huge benefit, esthetically, but also to the environment. And so I'll be voting in support. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I wanted to add a couple other things to my motion actually that I forgot to mention regarding the building requirements for the visitor center and a few other things. So I know that once we talk about the wetlands wetlands restoration and this is really a question for staff will be working with LCA ways restoration of the overall restoration plan so that the restoration is consistent with that plan. Is that correct. Yes. Thank you for your question, Councilmember Price. Yes. The staff will continue to remain engaged throughout the applicants refinement of the restoration plan to make sure that it is consistent with the project approvals. Okay. Because there are things in terms of the size of the trials, for example, the number of trails, whether or not there's recreational space there for, you know, picnicking or passive use. All those things I'm assuming will be working with LCA way as we move forward on those details. Yes, that is correct. Although I would like to point out that in terms of the the the intent of the public access trail is to provide but to provide access. But because it's essentially a wetlands, it's a wilderness need native area, there's going to be relatively limited types of actual development for recreation. And I did want to point that out. But yes, we will be working with both the applicant and LCA. Okay. So as part of my motion, I wanted to also add for consideration by my colleagues that the project be required to use native plants and marsh plants for any of the specific areas that are planted as part of this restoration project. I know that's a few years out, but I'm I'm hoping that that's agreeable with my colleagues on the pumpkin patch site for the construction of the office building. I would, as a requirement of this project. Require bird. Friendly building techniques such as. Bird. Safe glass measures, shielded lighting those. The best practices in regards to safeguarding the building from. From bird. Impacts, native tree planting and landscaping are. All of the. Both the LCA site as well as the synergy site. And that's it for me in terms of the additional conditions. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mungo. Yes, good stuff. Talk a little bit. About why the the specific Native American tribe was invited here today. Sure. Thank you for that question, Councilmember Mungo. So Native American consultation is really governed by two specific laws known as AB 52, SB 18. And what happens is at the very beginning of a project, any project, but in this project in particular, letters are sent out to the tribes with information about the proposed project and asking if they'd like to enter into what's called a formal consultation process. And some of the speakers gave reference to the 11 letters that went out. So in this case, there were two responses to that notification that's prescribed under law. So from the Gabrielle, you know, tribe that we heard from at the beginning of today's meeting and from another tribal official which referred us to the Gabriel Llano tribe. So under the those two laws, what happens then as we enter into a formal consultation process with that tribe? And I was the city's officer in that consultation process. And we talked about the project. We talked about the history of the site and what resources may or may not be on the site and how we would do monitoring during the implementation of this project. So those tribes come from two places. They come from the Native American Heritage Commission, which is a state agency that keeps a list of those tribal authorities, or they come from a tribe proactively contacting the city and showing that they're not just an individual, that they're a tribal government, and that they would like to be consulted going forward on land use matters. So we complied with those laws and based on those consultations, prepared the project mitigations and prepared the summary of information that's found in the Environmental Impact Report. And the Environmental Impact Report also talks about tribal cultural resources. And when it does so, it's talking about a specific resource that has been identified on a list. It's not to say that areas are not held sacred or special or valuable or don't have important history to one tribe or many peoples that may associated with it. It's it simply as prescribed under law. Does it exist on a list or has the tribe that we're having formal consultation with identified it as being eligible for that list? So that's the formal, very legally prescribed process that the city is required to comply with. And we continued the relationship and the formal consultation project process with the tribe that. Contacted us and wanted to participate in that, and we asked them to provide clarity about that process at today's meeting. Now, that's contrasted to the secret process and the project review process remains open to any and all. So all of the speakers, many of them attended project meetings. Others did not. But all of the public meetings, the notice of preparation, the Environmental Impact Report, all of those documents and all of that public process commenting and being responded to is open to everyone. So well, the tribe that responded to the Abbey, 52, which is a prescribed legal process, that is the process we followed there, and that's the formal process that doesn't lock anyone else out. Everyone was open and available to participate in this project and comment, and all of those comments were considered and responded to and they were taken into account by the Planning Commission and I'm sure are being taken into account by the council this evening. Yes, they are. Thank you very much. I think that helps considerably in the discussion on whether or not the city continues to do outreach. And I know I look forward to the outreach item that was submitted by my office and three others in looking to formalize and better understand what those processes are. But specifically, I appreciate that there's specific law related to this that really helps guide our our path in ensuring that everyone's included. A lot of great testimony tonight. I really appreciate the level of respect that was here. I know that when this was before the planning commission, there were challenges and I appreciate how everyone is so passionate . This is a very important issue and I've enjoyed reading the many emails and letters that have been put into public comment today. In addition to your your speaking. I. It was great to see that through a process over the weeks that the different communications coming out started moving towards the middle. And I think that in the communication from CWA yesterday, it really showed a movement in where they were and where they came to. And I think that that's a really important thing. In government, it's it's hard to talk about a future. And in everything, there are costs and benefits. And for me, I really appreciated Councilwoman Pryce outlining the undisputed facts and specifically just going back in my mind to gaining 150 acres of protected land. And so for that, I appreciate both Councilmember Urunga and Councilmember Price's work on this for such a long period of time and keeping them engaged in the very minute details of the project. I only have one additional question. In the next few weeks, we're bringing back some ideas on ensuring that we're not going to have a deficit next year. And one of the things that I've been really diving into the details about are those ongoing costs associated with some of the infrastructure that we have. And so with every new sidewalk we add, every new median we add. Councilwoman Price, in your. Addendums. Would those also be covered under the endowment so that they would maintain those going forward as well to ensure that we don't add any additional ongoing maintenance? You know, I hadn't thought about that. That's an interesting idea. I, I would recommend we ask staff about that because I know there's maintenance issues, but then the liability is for the city. So I don't know how that works because if the liability falls with the city, then the city has to ensure a certain level of quality and work that's consistent with the rest of the city. So I defer to two staff. I see we have public works folks here and. Lawyers leaning in and discussing. Yeah, would that be something that the endowment could cover? I think Mr. Mays is going to answer that in a second. That's right. We were just discussing it. Currently, we do not have a procedure for implementing something like. That with hardscape. Typically we have projects that come before you all. The time where there is a requirement for the property owner to maintain soft. Scape plants and those sorts of things on their property. But we don't have anything in place that will allow city staff. To require ongoing. Maintenance. Typically we require an applicant if their requirement is to build a hardscape. To build it, present it to us for inspection and approval, which we do. Public works department does. That and then it becomes the city's for. Ongoing maintenance. Okay. Well, that's something for us to think about in the future and looking for a way that when organizations are looking forward to adding to a essence of a community, by adding in hardscape that we find some methods I which they would be able to take on that ownership. So I still believe that at this time I'm going to be supportive. I look forward to seeing a time where when I kayak through the wetlands, that this is all our land and it's restored because I think it's important for our future and for our children's future. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mayor. So, again, I well, I didn't I don't proclaim to be an expert on this project, but I, you know, took a look at it, you know, follow the Planning Commission project. I really like the structure of our city in terms of being broken in the districts because I proclaim to be an expert on most projects in Council District nine. And this this this project is not in Council District nine, it's in District three. So I would acknowledge the third district councilwoman for really doing her homework in breaking it down on this issue. Now, in speaking with the stakeholders over the last few weeks, listen to the testimonies. I formed some opinions on this. So I do want to just acknowledge. First, I want to acknowledge an effort, a very clear, intentional effort to try to be inclusive. I see nontraditional partners working together on this from business types, environmental types, Audubon Society, labor. It's not often you see bird folks and construction folks both saying the same thing about a project. So it's something that we have to acknowledge. I do want to also acknowledge. So some of the benefits that I see that have been articulated here in terms of that wetlands restoration and in Councilman Alston can attest we've we're working on a wetlands restoration up in North Long Beach and it's and it's amazing thing for our community. So I'm really excited to see that you're you're about to see this this take place in your community is exciting and it does a lot for for our the value that we place on nature in our community. I think it's important to acknowledge the old infrastructure, the outdated infrastructure that has been in place for years, to be able to to reclaim that and take it take it back and restore that. It's a good thing. I like to see that, you know, that the council member has extracted what she thinks is appropriate for her district. I think when projects like this happen, sometimes that's the only chance that you have to really achieve some of your public policy goals or some of the things that the community has wanted for a long time. That's good. I want to thank Councilman Turanga for engaging and helping me to understand, helping the council and the public understand the process with the Coastal Commission. So that takes a lot of work and a lot of time. And so thank you for that. I also want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised today. So we are a city in a state in California who publicly acknowledges things like climate change and the fact that we have a dependency on oil. So when votes like this come up in front of us, it is inconsistent with what people say. It is inconsistent. And I think it's also unfair to expect that projects that have been in the pipeline for so long have to be the burden to have to carry the burden on a project by project based for broader vision and a larger conversation. I think the question, frankly, is and this is a question I'm going to pose to city staff, if we want to be a city that does, you know, does what we say we're going to do and sets a vision to be environmentally responsible and conscious, what document? We're a city who operates and plans, but what document or what plan would help guide the city's decisions in terms of what we do in terms of oil? So I'm going to pose that to maybe our planning staff. Is there a document or are we working on something? Sure. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. So the city has a sustainable city action plan and it's a good plan. But we acknowledged a couple of years ago that are really just wasn't sufficient for the city to reach its green goals. So in the budget that we're now living under the last budget, the Council was good enough to approve a good amount of funding, just under $1,000,000 for a climate action and adaptation plan. That's going to do two things. It's going to allow the city through actionable steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our carbon footprint. And because while our role is important, it is a worldwide phenomenon. And climate change is happening right now and will continue to change and sea level rise is happening and will continue to tend to occur. It will allow us to adapt and change our infrastructure and protect life and property as these changes to our climate and sea level happen. So when I talk about reducing emissions, that's not just drilling less oil. That's the responsibility of you and I and all the residents and all the businesses in this city. It has to do with energy draw within people's homes. It has to do with the energy profile of how we get around and whether we're using a gas powered vehicle that's an efficient or an electric vehicle, which is still powered through a power plant that's most likely run on natural gas, but is still allowing us to lower our our carbon footprint. It involves very hard choices and data analysis, including we all want to. Be. But does that mean, you know, requiring certain energy upgrades on older buildings, does that require some type of punitive steps for for higher emission sources around the city? So that can't really be done, you know, in the blink of an eye. So that's an 18 month process that we're over six months into. And we'd be glad if the council's interested to provide a written update on that effort to the full council in the form of a TFF memo. I think that would make a lot of sense. I mean, so my thought here is no one gets elected to city council to try to do harm to their community. I think when you acknowledge the conditions on the ground and you see the clear benefits in this project, you have to make a gut check, you have to make a decision. And a lot of people have done that. This project, from what you know, what's being presented here, it seems to be something very positive for the community. The larger question is, you know, how do we ask that broader question about the energy ecosystem? How do we begin to sort of measure these decisions we make? It can't be on a project by project basis. We're not going to change climate change on a project by project basis. We have to have a vision and a plan. And I think that's I think that, too, from power is going to go a long way to help put this in perspective. If we were to today ban oil drilling in Long Beach that alone will we were still going to have to purchase purchase oil from other sources because the infrastructure around how we cook is, you know , is on natural gas. So a lot of our cars are still on on petrol. I mean, the reality is there needs to be a larger, broader conversation. So we can sure certainly do what we can and we trust a lot of time city staff and your local council members to place things in the projects. But in reality, we have to have a broader conversation about our vision as a city. So I'm supporting this. I'm going to say congratulations to to the stakeholders here and to Councilwoman Pryce. And I look forward to enjoying those wetlands at some point. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to make a couple closing comments and we're going to go to a vote. We're actually going to take five separate votes. I believe your city attorney, they've got to be separated out. That's correct. Okay. By virtue. Of each of the five. Paragraphs in the staff letter. Great. Thank you. So just just a few things. I'm going to step out so we can put the project site map, I think, on the back there. That'd be great. Thanks. So a few things, I think. First, I think it's important to know, obviously we want to think this is I think the longest hearing I've been in since I've either been mayor or been on the council. So a lot of community interest and input. And so I do want to thank everyone for for being here, particularly folks that represented native peoples and folks and community members that live also just adjacent Lee adjacent to the site. And they're actually impacted by by the site. So I've probably been driving by or biking or walking by that site since I was eight or nine years old. And it has always looked the same as it looks today. If you think about what are the major kind of environmental projects that the city has had for many years, the two that stand out to me as being the most significant has been one around clean air and the ports and the re and to ensuring that we actually clean the air in and around the port complex. And the second has been the restoration and acquisition of the wetlands. Those are two big issues that not just us but before us have been advocating and fighting for for many, many years. I think that the proposal we have before us is an opportunity, obviously, to finally achieve the restoration of what was at one time a incredible and beautiful asset to this region, which were the wetlands. To me, there's no question of some of what the vice mayor said, what the city is doing in regards to the Clean Air Action Plan around the port, electrification of busses and cars, sustainability, solar. It is leading on, I believe, almost every issue around climate change. And I'm really proud of that work. I understand the concerns of the community and some of the concerns that are associated because of the issue around oil. So I do I do understand that. But when I look at this map behind me, what I also see is a once in a lifetime literally opportunity to acquire that parcel that is owned by synergy there in the green in the map above us. This is not an opportunity that we are going to get likely again in in in a generation or more. This is something that has been developed by a team. When I think about the opportunity to take that site, that millions of folks drive by and walk by and actually open it up to the. Public. And to wildlife and to restore that site. I think that's something very, very special and and important. I want to add also that I want to thank Councilwoman Pryce and Councilmember your particularly obviously I mean, the Councilman Price represents the area, but both have served incredibly with incredible distinction on the lottery as wetlands authority. And I think that that work has led them to this point of where we actually are today. So this just didn't happen in the course of a year or two years. It's been a many year conversation and and work to get us to this point. And so I want to thank them. You know, also, I mean, this is from the I've always believed I do believe that the council members within their area do always understand their projects best and obviously are doing their community outreach and talking to their their constituencies as well. Finally, I'll say that when you think about environmental stewardship in Long Beach, there are few groups. There may not be any groups that have more respect and admiration than what the lottery as well as trust does in this community. And so for me, when you look at. At the groups that are doing great work in Long Beach and in great environmental work. The trust has always been at the forefront of of that work. And so for them to come out and support this project in the way that they did, I know. Took. There is no one that provides a more critical lens or asks more questions or is tougher on questions around the wetlands than the trust is, and particularly that Elizabeth LAMB is. And so I have a tremendous amount of respect for her, for the board, for the trust, and for their ability to to evaluate critically this massive proposal that's in front of us. Now, obviously, if we deny the appeals today, there are still a long process ahead of us, including a extensive review by the California Coastal Commission. And having been a former member of that body, they are a different set of of of of critical eyes. And that will also put this project through a different process as well. And so I look forward and I hope that we can get to a point where we can look at that site in addition to the site the city already has acquired and be able to actually open it up to future generations of people in Long Beach and see wildlife flourish there and do something real special for the environment and the community. But I do understand people have different opinions and I respect those different opinions and I respect people's points of view on this topic. And so with that, I clearly look forward to the restoration of the wetlands. We will take the votes. There was a motion second on the floor, so please cast your first vote on the first motion.