• John DiBernardo, SSA terminals: "As one of your larger tenants, I urge you to oppose AB 2042...I think there's no other body out there that has the standing that the [Harbor] Commission has here today to oppose AB 2042...The Port is already taking the leadership role in reducing air emissions through its air quality improvement program...I think you have the high ground because of that. Therefore I encourage you to send a message to Mr. Lowenthal that he must abandon this reckless bill and instead follow your example of a more positive, constructive and more effective approach..."

• Michelle Grubbs, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association: "PMSA currently opposes AB 2042...The bill is still anti-competitive. It establishes a more stringent air emission policy for the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles than it does in any other port in California, and it still creates a vague, prohibitive obstacle to growth, and especially how would you handle...cargo demands during peak seasons..."

• Roger Holman, NLB resident: "I'm currently president of the Coolidge Triangle Association, approximately 550 homes in North Long Beach, although I'm not representing them directly here, we have talked about the Lowenthal bills in our meetings...I urge this body to support the Alan Lowenthal bill...This bill makes sense...I have spoken to the Long Beach City Council about my concerns with increasing pollution and the effects it has on the community, especially children and senior citizens..."

Commissioner Hankla: One of the things I like to do most in life is support Alan Lowenthal. We have supported each other on many issues...I have to say that in my forty-two years in government I have watched the legislature do many things, and many of those things had unintended consequences. Electrical deregulation for one. It wasn't sufficiently studied, to allow a reasonable analysis as to probable outcomes. I happen to believe that this is one of the more complex pieces of legislation the legislature will undertake in this particular legislative session. I believe that it needs more time, and more study, to determine what those unintended consequences might be. An "unintended consequence analysis" might be something that would be appropriate for legislation like an environmental impact analysis. I would recommend that for Sacramento.

At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I'm really not in a position to be able to support the legislation, although I fondly hope to be able to do so in the future, and I think the roadway to that is careful work and analysis with Assemblyman Lowenthal's staff, and other knowledgeable, port industries, but I don't think we should do something because at the moment it is politically correct."

Commissioner Cordero: ...If I heard [the Assemblyman's office representative] correctly, the bill as proposed is in the midst of changes...Right now I feel that there is ongoing discussions, there is an ongoing amendment process in which some of these concerns can be addressed unless I'm told differently, because if that's the case, then I don't see why we should take an action one way or the other this afternoon, as opposed to perhaps further studying this issue but more importantly going to the table with the parties...

[after intervening colloquy]

Commissioner Hankla: ...If I read this correctly the way it currently stands, with this baseline that would be established, which would include emissions from trucks as well as locomotives, and of course one of our major efforts is to improve the productivity of our current terminals by increasing ondock rail. And in increasing ondock rail we improve not only the economics but the air quality responsiveness of the Alameda Corridor. My recollection is that every locomotive which is evolving to cleaner locomotives, would replace 250 trucks on the freeway. Now how that would balance out in terms of this legislation is one of these unknowables at this point that I believe is a reasonable subject for intense analysis.

And I get back to my call for an "unintended consequence analysis" of this, because I think there are pieces and parts of this that may not be consistent with even what the Assemblyman wants to accomplish...

[Motion] Commissioner Calhoun: I'll make a motion to oppose [the bill] as presently written with the understanding that we will continue to work with the author and hopefully the author this time will work with us as opposed to the last time we tried to work on 2056 [means AB 2650, truck idling bill] in trying to sort out what concerns we have, and what the concerns our tenants and so forth have, so I would make a motion to oppose it as written with that understanding. (seconded by Hankla)

Commission president Hancock: (restates motion)...that the Board of Harbor Commissioners formally oppose AB 2042 as it is currently written and work with the author toward a more prudent and acceptable bill in the future.

[intervening colloquy]

Commissioner Cordero: ...I wasn't addressing the question of whether we should oppose it or we should support it. I'm just saying that because of the issues that are being addressed as we speak apparently, we should refrain from taking a posture at this point until we've had the opportunity to discuss further with staff, and if in fact the Assemblyman is willing to come to the table with us to discuss some of these amendments, and if we're able to do that, then of course I think we're meeting our obligation to really work intricately with the parties concerned to address this legislation...

Commissioner Hankla: ...I think the nature of the legislative process in Sacramento is worth noting. It is frequently necessary to take a position in opposition to secure the interchange that is needed to perfect a piece of legislation. So my view in opposing a bill in its current form at any given time is exercising part of the positive process of formulating legislation as it passes through Sacramento. To not take a position risks unintended consequences.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LONG BEACH URGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE
LEGISLATURE TO ENACT ASSEMBLY BILL 2042

WHEREAS, Harbor Departments of the Cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach predict that truck traffic to and from the ports of San Pedro Bay will more than double in the next 20 years from roughly 35,000 trucks to nearly 83,000 trucks per day; and

WHEREAS, ships and trucks emit air contaminants, including oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter; and

WHEREAS, state air regulators have stated that diesel engine exhaust poses a serious health risk, that it increases chances of lung cancer, intensifies asthma attacks and in some studies has been linked to infant mortality; and

WHEREAS, a landmark study conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District entitled, "Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study" or MATES 11, attributed 70% of all health risks from mobile sources in the South Coast Basin to diesel engine exhaust;

WHEREAS, AB 2042 would require a zero net increase in air pollution as the ports of San Pedro Bay grow and expand.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows:

Section 1. That the City Council supports AB 2042 in order to protect public health and safety by avoiding an increase in air pollution from the ports of San Pedro Bay.

Sec. 2. That the City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Governor, to the members of the California Legislature representing the Long Beach and Los Angeles areas, and any other officials, agencies, entities, and individuals as may be deemed appropriate.

Sec. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution.