(January 14, 2008) -- With LB Mayor Bob Foster and Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal speaking in support -- but with no LB neighborhood groups testifying -- LB & L.A.'s Harbor Commissions (at a special joint meeting at the Port of LB) approved assessing a container fee to fund port-desired infrastructure capacity expansion projects.

Among the Port of LB's highest priority projects is replacement of the Gerald Desmond bridge...which would allow new megasize container ships to bring larger container volumes into LB.

LBReport.com provides on-demand audio coverage of salient portions of the meeting below. Our summarized audio (roughly thirty minutes total) begins with Harbor Commission President Mario Cordero's introduction of LB Mayor Bob Foster. Staff materials are also linked below for background.

At today's meeting, Port staff acknowledged that it intends to use the infrastructure container fee to amplify (leverage) Congressional allocations and state taxpayer money to replace the Desmond and Heim bridges, build new freeway connectors and port-area rail projects.

Although rebuilding the Desmond Bridge (completed less than fifty years ago) would bring larger container volumes into LB -- which would have to be moved by trucks or trains -- the Ports say the bridge and other infrastructure projects will help reduce pollution under the Ports' "Clean Air Action Plan" by reducing congestion and speeding cargo.

Other projects include constructing an interchange that would remove a traffic light at Navy Way and Seaside Avenue, improved access from the Harbor Freeway to the Port of L.A., replacing the Heim drawbridge with a four-lane, elevated expressway between Ocean Blvd and Alameda Street at PCH...and a highway-railroad grade separation in south Wilmington.

The infrastructure container fee will be assessed on every loaded 20-foot equivalent (TEU) cargo container entering or leaving any terminal by truck or train beginning January 1, 2009 in an amount varying based on the amount required for projects (when combined with federal and state taxpayer dollars). PoLB says in a release that the charge is expected to be $15 per loaded TEU for seven years, but that could change depending on the amount of taxpayer funds and timing of environmental approvals.

The Ports announced the proposed infrastructure-expansion container fee in a Jan. 10 press release...and Jan. 14 was the first [and to our knowledge only] opportunity for public to testify specifically to the Harbor Commisions on the infrastructure-related container fee before its adoption.

The infrastructure container fee is in addition to a separate "cleaner-truck" container fee approved by both Ports in December, whose revenue will help fund replacement of older, higher polluting trucks with new, lower polluting models as part of a Port plan to phase out entirely older trucks calling at the Ports.

Some industry interests have complained to the Federal Maritime Commission that the Ports' "cleaner truck" container fee oversteps federal law...and implied the possibility of litigation over the issue.

In his Jan. 14 testimony to the Harbor Commissions, Mayor Foster urged inclusion of a provision withholding the infrastructure container fee revenue if [due to opposition by some industry interests] the "cleaner truck" container fee is suspended, stayed or overturned.

PoLB webcast

Mayor Foster: I have said for a long time that it was important, I think an important policy to link, the environmental improvement with infrastructure enhancement. I'm one who does not believe that you have to stop and wait to make sure that you clean up everything in the environment before you allow these ports to grow. They are in fact an important economic engine for economic and commercial activity in southern California. They need to grow but they need to grow clean, and we need to make sure that that growth is linked to that environmental improvement.

...I want to make sure that nothing impairs the environmental clean-up. And that in fact, if there are economic interests out there that would love to see the infrastructure enhanced but somehow not pay enough attention to the environment, that simply does not happen.

So I'm going to ask both Commissions to give serious thought, and I strongly urge you to do this, to have a provision in this tariff, or somehow linked to it, that says something [like] the following:

That if in fact the fee for enhancement of the environment that you passed last year, that that somehow is suspended, stayed or overturned by a court, any court in this country, that this ICF tariff becomes suspended as well automatically.

...I want to make sure -- it's my view, and I hope it's yours -- that every economic interest out there understands that in order for their commercial activity to flourish, that they have to -- we have to -- spend the appropriate resources on the environment, and that the improvements that you're contemplating that are going to have greater volumes of goods at greater velocities through these ports will not happen unless we clean up the air...

So I would urge you strongly to please put a provision in here that makes that connection, makes that link as a matter of regulation and I'd be happy to try to provide any language or any assistance to the Commissions and their counsel on that issue.

LB Harbor Commissioner Jim Hankla made a motion to adopt the tariff "as provided with the proviso that the staff of both Ports will return to us an appropriate linking tariff that will link the two together because if we start fiddling with this language I think we could get caught up in some legal underwear here."

Commission Hankla added: "We have previously discussed and had planned to include as a part of this tariff infrastructure improvements for the Alameda Corridor East and elsewhere but in respect to the Senator Lowenthal, basically that was taken out of this with the expectation that it would be included in his SB 974...So we are sensitive and I think we should as part of the motion, I would like to say that we send a message to our brother and sister authorities and entities in Los Angeles County and the state of California that we are cognizant of that, and if for some reason the Lowenthal legislation fails, we would be happy to revisit the issue."

LB Harbor Commissioner Doris Topsy-Elvord seconded the motion.

Noting that inland areas were seeing infrastructure impacts (e.g. additional trains) as a result of Port growth, Mayor Foster also recommended that if Sen. Alan Lowenthal's SB 974 "Port Investment"/container fee bill (currently in discussion with the Governor's office) fails to advance, then the Ports should increase their infrastructure container fees to pay for inland goods-movement projects.

"I would urge both these Commissions to strongly support [SB 974]...and I would urge you also to contemplate that if for some reason, the Alan Lowenthal legislation is not adopted, that you indicate a willingness to probably, or almost a certainty, that you will expand this ICF tariff to include projects east of the Port that are part of the Port system. I think that those jurisdictions that are outside of the Port that have those impacts need to have some indication from these two Ports that they understand the problem and are willing to deal with it."

Prior to the vote, LB Harbor Commission President Mario Cordero spoke at length...and said the infrastructure container fee is meant to create a sustainable and responsible system.

LB Harbor Commission President Cordero: ...It's extremely important that as we move forward with these steps implementing the Clean Air Action Plan, we consider that very important element of sustainability, the system is sustainable...a system that's accountable, a system that's reliable and a system that's responsible. And I think in addressing the issue of public health, as it relates to harbor dreyage [short haul trucking], we must address the root of the problem. In this regard, we should be careful as we move forward [that] we're not simply establishing a generous subsidy program as opposed to addressing the problem that created the environmental issue to begin with...

LB Harbor Commissioner Dr. Mike Walter said:

Harbor Commissioner Walter: [M]any people talk about the growth and growth at the Port. I see these projects that we're doing...ideally they should have been completed before the volume that we're serving reached the level that it has. We're playing catch-up in my judgment and it's only through an investment like the making of these projects that we can truly move toward reducing the environment [pollution]...[I]f we're sure that the growth would not increase, would stay where it is now, these are the projects that we should do to clean up the environment...

Although the recommendations urged by Mayor Foster weren't discussed previously by LB City Hall's policy-setting City Council, the Council is on record as supporting the Desmond bridge replacement (for years including it in the Council-approved federal legislative agenda). The Council also supported voter passage of Prop 1-B in Nov. 2006, which was supported by Sen. Lowenthal and Mayor Foster (whose proceeds the Port intends to seek to fund the Desmond bridge and other projects).

Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal testified in support of the Port's infrastructure container fee, calling the Harbor Commissioners' action a "momentous occasion." She said, "I'm very supportive of the additional fees, but I hope that you will continue to consider the concession model for the dreyage trucks" [supports the concession model to assist independent truckers in complying with the Ports' clean truck program].

Angelo Logan with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice urged that infrastructure projects selected under the fee be fully mitigated for environmental impacts and coupled with the Ports' "Clean Air Action Plan." Former LB City Councilman Ray Grabinski also spoke, indicating he supported Mayor Foster's position and that of the Port on the container fee.

The L.A. Harbor Commission's approval of the infrastructure container fee goes to the L.A. City Council for approval. Under the current City Charter, the LB Harbor Commission's action isn't reviewable by the LB City Council.

LB and L.A. Harbor Commissioners aren't recallable by voters, but in May 2007, LB voters approved a Charter Amendment change giving LB's Mayor and Council the power to remove LB Harbor Commissioners for basically any reason...a power L.A.'s Mayor has had over L.A. Harbor Commissioners for some time.

To launch MP3 audio of salient portions of the meeting, click the link below. Audio edits are indicated with a "whoosh" sound.

Caveat: the audio quality in the original live webcast was a bit distorted (it's not your system). It's a large audio file (about 26 MB) and may take a minute or two (perhaps more) to launch on your system, even on a high speed line.

Click to launch: Salient portions Jan. 14, 2008 LB/L.A. Harbor Commissions adopt Infrastructure Container Fee

Related materials via Port of LB: