Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute Amendment Number 1 to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and any subsequent amendments thereto, between the City of Long Beach and AES Alamitos, LLC, to extend the term, accept a one-time cash payment of $150,000, and amend Section 5 “Term and Renegotiation.” to support the Alamitos Bay Water Quality Enhancement Project; and Increase appropriations in the Tidelands Operating Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $150,000 offset by an MOU cash payment from AES Alamitos, LLC, for engineering and due diligence efforts. (District 3)
Two. Thank you. Item 16, please. On the consent calendar. Item 16 is a report from Public Works recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an amendment to the MRU and and any subsequent amendments between the City of Long Beach and 80 Alamitos LLC to extend the term except a one time cash payment of $150,000 and amend Section five term and renegotiation to support the Alimentos Bay Water Quality Enhancement Project and increase the appropriation in the Thailand Operating Fund Group. In the public works department by $150,000, offset by an employee cash payment from the AEC Alamitos LLC for the Engineering and Due Diligence Effort District three. Councilman Premiere Pro comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If it's if it's all right with you, I'd like to have a short staff report. I see Josh Hickman here. And this is a really important project for the water quality in Alamitos Bay. And I would like just a brief staff report, please. Thank you very much. Absolutely. So this is a huge project and it really is an important one to really address the water quality issues that will we expect to come when A ceases to do their current pumping. And so Eric Lopez is actually on the phone with us today. So he will get part of it. And Josh is here to answer questions as well. So, Eric. Thanks. And we have the PowerPoint on the screen and we can go to the next slide. So the Alamitos Bay Water Quality Enhancement Project. We've made some progress since. In the last ten years, though, we've we've had the opportunity to refine our engineering design concept and really lay the foundation for the additional engineering and technical analysis of of water quality data that will help inform our, our proposed design as it is well known the as and at h g as our power plants have been pumping water through through cooling pumps for over 55 years and that the water flow and the circulation patterns within the bay have grown accustomed to this activity there. There is a phase out of the current pumping systems are in place at both A and each test. And so this project is meant to find ways to for us to maintain our good water quality in and throughout Alamitos Bay, we're looking at a pumping system that's more fish friendly, that's more environmentally friendly, and that helps us achieve our main goals of maintaining our water quality. Our next slide. We. There is currently a series of pumps and outfall structures that are shown on this slide. The there are different different pumps are operate at different times and at different rates. But overall, the pumps and the gas pumps do provide a substantial pool of water and assist with with that with circulation. Next slide. They were out of focus area for for this project this is the south and take us to now it's near six which as a has retired they've actually retired punch one two and six and the are other three pumps are still operational. The current date that we have for when those will be retired is around December 2023. That is subject to change. And where we're just we're we're following that very, very closely. There are some additional pumps that will continue working throughout that time and that would be retired later this decade. And but right now, we're focused in the area of I retired a number six next like. So for the last couple of years, we've looked at a couple of conceptual designs and we've looked at different alternatives out four to be exact, and really trying to come up with a with a system around at this unit six, we were initially looking at using the existing structures there. But then have you can we go to the next slide? As you can see in this next slide, we found some some substantial deterioration. And our engineers are recommending a new structure as part of this effort. So we've been focused and kind of what that new structure could look like. And we've come up with a concept that would allow us to achieve the original goals of the project. And, you know, while continuing to use the the same area the unit takes existing and take area and achieve the project goals next line. What we're looking at is maintaining the existing intake canal, using the existing underground pipes that exist, potentially constructing a new pump house with fish friendly pumps and then using the existing outdoor structure. So the water will continue to circulate through through the bay to the San Diego River and continues that similar pattern. To help maintain water clarity, water quality. Next line. And this this is just a site plan that shows where the plants will be located. The electrical services are the discharge pipes and then the existing outfalls into the San Diego River. Next slide. Our tentative schedule is to complete our 30% design this year. That will allow us to go through the environmental entitlements process and to take our regulatory permitting. And then we are going to be fine tuning the financial and operational needs so that we have a really clear sense of what this project is going to require and what the budget, what the what the target budgets are going to be, the budget requirements we next line. The conceptual design process estimated. We don't have the funding in place. The proposed contribution from A is going to be a big help in allowing us to continue the engineering and cycle force that is required for this project . It is early to put a budget or a cost number to this effort, but it is expected to be substantial and we will be providing that as part of the next phase of this project. And same with the operations, maintenance and monitoring costs, ongoing cost. That's something that we're we're trying to solidify. Next slide. And that concludes that presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions. Gentlemen. Thank you. I have no additional questions other than just some hopefully direction to staff that. We are looking forward to the funding gap and identifying ways to meet that. It's going to be a huge financial burden for us and I think this item shows that ACE is the willing partner. And hopefully that partnership continues to the next phase of this project with us. But this is a major priority project for the city of Long Beach. To to scale down that entire presentation into the following, I think would be accurate. If we do not replace those pumps, that water will collect bacteria and will not provide an opportunity for recreation and swimming as it does currently. And it will become a source of liability and blight for the city as opposed to an opportunity for recreation and outdoor enjoyment of a city asset. So it's imperative and I think it's a critical environmental project and I think staff are being involved in and I know it's a highly technical project and I think you're doing a great job having recently got it back on track. So thank you. Councilman. Also, any comments? As public comment, I believe. Elizabeth LAMB and Dave Chappelle. Thank you, council members. My name is Elizabeth LAMB and I'm executive. Director of the Low. Street US Wetlands Land Trust, and I appreciate this opportunity to comment. We completely agree there are problems with pollution in. Alamitos Bay that need to be resolved. We just want to make sure that the solution is consistent with the ongoing efforts to restore low cerritos wetlands. We do thank Mr. Modica and Mr. Lopez for providing us with several studies that were prepared by Moffitt and Nicole about the project. And on its face, it does seem reasonable that the continued operation of the pumps would help to maintain. Water quality in the bay. But experts that we have reviewed these studies. With raised concerns about some of the baselines and assumptions used to support the conclusions about the fact that there would be no significant impacts to marine biology. Because of that, we are glad to see that the latest report does include mention of environmental review. Our concern right now is that the project is moving into agreements about access to the. Property and final. Construction design. We are concerned there is so much momentum behind the city's preferred. Alternative that the city has. Already precluded an objective discussion. Of alternatives that would come through something. Like a square review. We want to suggest to you that the city engage in something similar to a secure scoping process. Before going any further with planning and expenditures for the bay pumping. Plan. The process that would include interesting interest in interested parties like the Lowe's through the Wetlands Land Trust and the Low Street. US Wetlands Authority, who are the restoration planners for the area, and of course state. And local agencies. Council members. I know we. Want the same thing. We want water quality in the bay that protects recreational uses and is consistent with wetlands restoration. And we understand that that is a complex problem. But perhaps there is more than one way to resolve that problem. So we hope the city will share with us that they have fully conceived and investigated all the alternatives and share that. Specific information. With us. I hope you can see how getting input from public, from the public and the several agencies with expertize on water pollution would not only ensure a thorough consideration of potential alternatives, it would pave the. Way. For a smoother adoption of the permits required. I thank you for your time. Dave Shukla Third District and in specific, I grew up and my house is directly across the street from this project, from the water intakes one, two, three and four. First of all, the energy content necessary to run the pumps does not necessitate continuing to keep the power plant open. The basic argument that this facility has made over time has been that, well, you know, bad things will happen, you won't have reliability, you won't have, you know, water quality, you won't have all the good things if you don't have us. And the fact of the matter is, you don't need to burn gas at that facility to charge up and run the pumping stations. Moreover, there's a lot about this facility that we just don't really talk about. Like, for instance, it's one of the facilities in the coastal zone that is literally over time changed the actual line of the coastal zone. The coastal zone line is going to have to be increased, you know, more inland because of the climate change that this facility over time has created. Uh, according to Energy Information Agency data from 1968 to 2000, uh, this was the third most polluting facility by electricity generation in North America. And, you know, the combined point source right across the street from my from my backyard, it's chiffonade. Yes. These are both kind of legacy facilities. And they're two of maybe four or five of the last holdouts in the state. Um, the state has a commitment not only to water quality, but also to ensuring a livable future. And we know per the carbon scoping plan that a lot of people have disagreements about where, where, what direction that may be. Um, it's been proposed that three or more of these facilities need to be created to meet our energy needs at a time when solar, wind, geothermal or oil cheaper, when the offshore wind permits for the entire West Coast are about to go live, it's an industry that is holding on with a death grasp. And, you know, we may not be able to escape it. It may be one of the reasons why, you know, our family leaves before things get too bad, you know, I mean, we have this on our conscience. Well, I'd be continuing to be. I mean, I come here every week trying to see if there's any possibility of getting out from under the system of dirty energy and a lot of the, uh, economies of dependency created. And I honestly, you know, I don't think there has been concrete proof that the water quality issue in specific, let alone the more general issue of burning natural gas to meet our energy needs, has ever been shown that, you know, we need that specific facility or we need the city's preferred alternative. I think it needs to go through sequent. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second by Councilman Austin, and Pryce comes from Pryce and an Austin. I just this is that was up on the board, but I think that was from the last one. Did you just clear the. We have the same the same. The same motions and the same mover in secondary. Okay, great. So then it got clear to my board for whatever reason. Could you put those back in, please? Yeah. Just. Just put the motion back in. It wasn't. It wasn't on mine for whatever reason, so. Okay, great. Now it's gone again. Okay, that's okay. So we have a motion in a second. Members, please go and cast your votes. Castleman said he has. The motion is. Carried. Thank you. We're going to do we have we have two presentations and some items we need to get to pretty quickly. And so unless there's any objection on the funds transfer, hopefully get through this very, very quickly. Let's read those into the record and just get these voted on, please.