Transitional Age Youth

The community input process in the Port of Los Angeles community has degraded and does not have the organizational strength to be effective. Status of the Port Community Advisory Committee (PCAC) PCAC exists and operates today though there have been several changes made in its funding and organization. The biggest changes occurred in 2009 when the Port (not BOHC) eliminated staff support for five (5) of the nine (9) original PCAC subcommittees. This was accomplished by reducing the overtime budget that allowed Port staff to attend PCAC subcommittees in the evening. The Port also eliminated the funding of private consultants that formerly had performed work on behalf of PCAC and its subcommittees. Finally, the Port eliminated funding for renting space at a hotel in San Pedro for PCAC meetings. The rationale for these changes was that Port revenues had decreased due to the economic recession, and operating expenses were cut as a result. Also, many subcommittee meetings were lightly attended, often by the same people; and their scopes tended to overlap with other subcommittees. PCAC now has four (4) subcommittees: Steering, Wilmington Waterfront, San Pedro Coordinated Plan and EIR/Aesthetic Mitigation. The scopes of defunded subcommittees that dealt with specific 160 2010 – 2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY environmental issues such as water, air, and noise have been rolled into the EIR/Aesthetic subcommittee. Though PCAC is a standing committee of BOHC, these changes were never formally vetted nor approved by BOHC. Another issue with PCAC is the composition of membership. As originally envisioned, PCAC was to include a broad representation of constituents in the harbor community including neighborhood and residential associations, labor and business groups, educational institutions, representatives from local government and economic development agencies. As it has unfolded in the last ten (10) years, certain groups have failed to appoint members and some appointed members have failed to consistently attend. This has resulted in PCAC being dominated by members from the Neighborhood Councils and residential groups. Business groups have been under- represented. Several constituent organizations either no longer exist or they lack any legal structure as a registered corporation with the State. Lack of a legal structure makes it more difficult to ensure that an organization has bylaws, elects officers, conducts periodic meetings and maintains a legitimate address for notices and agendas. Some of the existing PCAC constituent organizations are reportedly nothing more than a small, informal group of neighbors. Table 2 shows the status of some of these organizations: Table 2. PCAC Member Organization Status Organization Current Status # of votes Wilmington Community Advisory No legal structure 3 Committee Harbor City/Harbor Gateway Chamber Suspended 1 of Commerce Pacific Avenue Corridor Task Force No legal structure 1 Wilmington Commercial Dissolved 1 District/Business Improvement District Crescent Area Residents Association No legal structure 1 Dana Strand Residents Association No legal structure; 1 No appointed member Point Fermin Residents Association No legal structure 1 Rancho San Pedro Residents No legal structure; 1 Association No appointed member San Pedro & Peninsula Homeowners Suspended 3 Coalition Wilmington Citizens Committee No legal structure 1 At large member from Council Dist 15 No appointed 1 member Education at large – LA Harbor College No appointed 1 member Total 16 2010 – 2011 Some of these organizations such as Point Fermin and Crescent are, in fact, active but do not meet regularly lack bylaws. Dana Strand and Rancho San Pedro Residents have not appointed a representative. Representatives from Council District 15 and Los Angeles Harbor College have resigned and have not been replaced. In total, sixteen (16) out of thirty-six (36) voting seats are unfilled, have never been filled, or represent organizations that no longer exist or lack a legal structure. It may be time to address the composition of PCAC to ensure that it has equitable representation from legitimate organizations that have a stake in Port operations and appoint active members. Existing PCAC bylaws provide for no term limits for PCAC members. This is left up to the appointing organizations. The voting Co-Chair of PCAC is elected for a one-year term but can be re-elected with no term limit. This has resulted in institutional memory among PCAC membership. It has also led to domination by entrenched interests, particularly among representatives of homeowner groups which form the largest constituency within PCAC. Attendance has been an issue for PCAC for years. PCAC bylaws require a quorum of 50% of the voting membership of eighteen (18) members. Beginning in late 2008, attendance began to decline at the monthly PCAC meetings. In late 2009, attendance declined to the point that a quorum was not present at three (3) consecutive meetings. Meetings that did have quorums were razor thin. The last time a PCAC meeting had twenty (20) or more members attend was in June 2009, a standard that formerly was often achieved. The sub-committees have been meeting sporadically. The EIR Sub-Committee has met only once since July 2010. The Wilmington Waterfront and San Pedro Planning Sub- Committees have been meeting fairly regularly but sometimes miss a month or two. Along with declining attendance is the problem of light agendas. Meetings in recent months have featured agendas that were light on substance or major action items. Agendas are often light at the Sub-Committee meetings as well, with agendas featuring more status reports than action items. In 2010 only three (3) motions were approved by PCAC for referral to BOHC, two (2) of those dealing with the Battleship USS Iowa. In contrast, in 2007, twelve (12) motions were approved by PCAC for referral to BOHC. In 2008, fourteen (14) motions were approved. In 2009, nine (9) were approved. Clearly, PCAC is running out of things to do. This paucity of substantive business is partially the price of success. Many of the projects and mitigation measures that were the focus of PCAC deliberations in earlier years have been completed. As mentioned above, PCAC has notched many successes in how these projects have been shaped or influenced. Many of these projects such as the Wilmington Buffer, San Pedro Waterfront, Pier 300/400, the Plan, etc. are now completed, in development or nearing construction. In recent years, there have not been as many projects with EIRs that required debate. This may change in the future as the Port contemplates a new generation of major projects such as Pier 300 expansion, main channel deepening and development of near-dock intermodal rail facilities. This last project, in particular, may produce new community relation challenges as the rail facilities will be close to residential areas. However, until these new EIRs are at the point where PCAC can review them, monthly meetings may be too often. Another factor in the declining PCAC agendas is that the Port staff is bypassing PCAC and transferring the Committee’s mission of organizing community input and working on environmental mitigation projects either to itself or to newly created entities. The Port has taken upon itself the task of organizing community input related to the development of the San Pedro waterfront. Port staff have successfully organized several workshops to present 162 2010 – 2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY the project and gather input, something that PCAC may not be set up to do. But whereas PCAC had a role in collecting and shaping community input and presenting

The Clean Air Action Plan Is Not Analytically Sound Clean Air Action Plan The Plan was originally prepared and approved by the governing boards of both San Pedro bay ports in 2006 and then updated in 2010. The Plan sets emission reduction goals for three (3) types of pollutants a. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) b. NOx or Oxides of Nitrogen c. SOx or Oxides of Sulfur 2010 – 2011 The Plan also sets a goal of reducing of Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM ) but assumes that DPM reductions will also result in reductions in PM . 2.5 2.5 rather than setting a specific target. The Plan establishes a baseline of 2005 emission levels and emission reduction goals for the years 2014 and 2023. The goals are expressed as percentage reductions such as 77% reduction for DPM, 59% reduction for NOx and 93% reduction for SOx by the year 2023. These goals are not controlled for cargo growth so the reductions have to be achieved irrespective of cargo volumes. These goals also dovetail with overall basin- wide air quality goals established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Plan, if implemented successfully, will achieve the Port’s “fair share” of emission reduction as required by the SCAQMD. By far the major polluters are ocean going vessels and heavy duty trucks. Technologies and capital investments for achieving reduction goals are heavily weighted toward these polluters. These strategies include: d. Reducing vessel speeds up to 40 nautical miles from Point Fermin, thereby burning less fuel as they approach the ports e. Setting emission standards for heavy duty trucks that exceed EPA standards, along with incentives for truck operators to replace older trucks with those running cleaner burning engines f. Switching fuels on ocean going vessels with cleaner burning fuels g. Setting standards for cleaner burning engines for ocean going vessels h. Using shore-based power sources for ocean going vessels when docked at berth, instead of running heavily polluting auxiliary engines i. Establishing an Emission Control Area (nationwide) that sets pollution standards for ocean going vessels up to two hundred (200) nautical miles off the coast Table 3 shows the emission reduction targets vs. current emission levels vs. the emissions forecast given the current cargo volume forecast through the year 2023. Table 3 Emission Reduction Standards and Forecasts (Figures are annual tons of emissions. Deficit number in parentheses means that target reduction is not met.) 2005 2009 2014 2014 2014 2023 2023 2023 Pollutant Baseline Actual Target Forecast Deficit Target Forecast Deficit DPM 2,025 1,004 567 576 (9) 459 527 (68) NOx 34,444 21,755 26,866 27,865 (999) 14,286 28,244 (13,958) SOx 12,421 6,358 869 890 (21) 1,010 994 16 As shown in the Table 3, the combined Port effort is forecast to nearly meet the targeted emission reduction standards for each pollutant. A major exception to this is NOx in the year 2023. There is less confidence in the forecast for NOx reductions because of uncertainties regarding the reduction strategies and technologies, particularly for improvements in ocean going vessel engines. As these technologies are tested and proven, the ports may be more confident in upgrading the forecast in future updates to the Plan. 164 2010 – 2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY The Plan shows a serious commitment on the part of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to limit the environmental impacts of port operations. The Plan includes ambitious goals for emission reductions and wide ranging and controversial strategies for achieving those reductions. No doubt, implementation of the Plan will result in cleaner air and increased health status for area residents. The Plan expresses a goal to reduce health risk from Port operations. Increased health risk is assumed to be positively correlated with exposure to DPM, which is considered to be a carcinogen. The Plan further assumes that reducing DPM will reduce the risk of cancer and improve the health status of nearby residents, as cancer is a reliable proxy for many health risks. In fact, health risks are impacted by all particulate matter, not just DPM. Particulate matter in general is highly correlated with respiratory disease and impaired lung development. Most of the emission sources at the Port are diesel engines which explain the reliance on DPM as a marker for particulate matter in the Plan. However, given the enormous costs associated with implementing the Plan, the Port may want to take the extra step of targeting and measuring total particulate matter (PM and PM ) in addition to DPM. 2.5 10

Los Angeles County could benefit from a Regional Port Authority consolidating the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Existing Coordination Between Ports The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are both municipally controlled by their respective cities. Each port is governed by a Board of Harbor Commissioners. The two (2) ports are adjacent to each other and are roughly the same size both in terms of area and workload. The ports also share much of the same infrastructure, including the outer harbor (the waterways between the breakwater and the piers). The transportation infrastructure such as freeways, railways and rail yards are also shared by the customers of both ports. Both ports are financial guarantors for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) which operates a major rail corridor between the ports and the rail yards in east Los Angeles. In the past few years, the two (2) ports have widely coordinated on environmental programs. This is a recognition that the ports have to implement similar mitigation programs to ensure that costs are shared equitably, and neither port can benefit by foregoing participation. For example, the ports have coordinated in producing a joint Plan. Specific programs from this Plan are implemented jointly. For example, both ports have enacted similar regulations on vessel speed reductions and cleaner fuels, powering ships with shore based power when they are in port and replacing older truck engines with newer, cleaner burning engines. The ports are now working on a joint WRAP that will require the same type of joint effort and coordination. Both ports are dominated by container terminals. In the past, both ports also served other types of shippers such as liquid bulk, autos, break bulk, and cruise ship operators. In recent years, there has been some consolidation. The Port of Los Angeles has largely gotten out of the liquid bulk; e.g., petroleum business: and this type of cargo has consolidated in Long Beach. Wood products have largely consolidated at the Port of Long Beach as well. 2010 – 2011 Detriments of Current Port Structure In the past, the ports did not often compete for shipping traffic. Usually, there was little excess terminal capacity so steamship lines and terminal operators would have little choice in properties. In other cases, the steamship line or terminal operator worked with one port to develop a facility specifically for their requirements. Terminals were never built without a tenant in mind. In the past two (2) or three (3) years as cargo growth has trailed off and even decreased, the ports have started to compete for shipping traffic. For example, Hyundai Merchant Marine recently moved from Long Beach to Los Angeles. This is a concern since both ports serve the same market, use the same landside transportation infrastructure; and longshoremen are covered by the same collective bargaining agreement. The ports do not have many ways differentiating themselves other than lease rates or the configuration of a specific property. Should the ports engage in rate-based competition, it would result in a transfer of economic value from the publicly owned ports to privately held lessees, contrary to sound public policy goals which should preclude this type of subsidy. This may become a larger problem when the Panama Canal expansion is completed in three (3) years as shipping traffic potentially bypasses the West Coast altogether. There is duplication in some specialized facilities. For example, both ports operate cruise ship terminals (though the Port of Long Beach cruise terminal is technically leased out by another city department). Los Angeles is planning to open yet a third cruise ship terminal at Kaiser Point in the next few years. Should the cruise ship business lessen, there may be temptation to compete for this business resulting in a transfer of economic value from the publicly owned ports to private cruise ship lines. Finally, the ports compete for the same staff which theoretically increases personnel costs. There are duplicative administrative structures at both ports which precludes the ability to economize by sharing management positions. Potential Benefits of Consolidation Consolidating the control and governance of the two (2) ports could realize significant benefits. One major benefit is already being realized. As mentioned earlier, the two (2) ports are coordinating on environmental mitigation efforts such as the Plan and WRAP. This coordination requires negotiations between the environmental management units of each port as well as the approval of the two (2) governing boards. Consolidation would eliminate the need for these negotiations and the potential tradeoffs, compromises and uncertainty that undoubtedly occur with these negotiations. Consolidation would also be an explicit recognition that the two (2) ports share the same ecosystem and the source of pollutants is difficult to trace from one port or another. Consolidated ports would remove temptation for the two (2) ports to compete for shipping traffic on financial terms. This would ensure that private shipping interests are not being subsidized by publicly owned agencies through favorable lease terms. The consolidated port would still have to compete for shipping traffic with other port authorities in North America; but due to its location, sheer size and access to a vast local market, it could still compete effectively with other 166 2010 – 2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY West Coast ports. The distraction of competing with a nearby port authority would be removed. The combined port authority could compete as a united front. A consolidated port could benefit from a streamlined management structure including a consolidated governing board. This would result in unified decision making over port operations and development. In addition to more streamlined decision making, it would realize economies by reducing the number of management positions needed to staff the consolidated management structure. Infrastructure decisions may be streamlined through consolidation of ensuring that all facilities are used optimally throughout the port. For example, cruise ship operations could be consolidated at one or two facilities rather than the three that are either in operation or in the construction stage. Challenges to Consolidation Port consolidation faces some serious challenges. A major legal hurdle is that the two ports are located on separate land grants from the State. These grants would have to undergo some sort of consolidation which would require an act of the State Legislature. All existing lease contracts would also have to be assigned to the new port entity. Depending on the lease terms, some tenants may want to negotiate new terms. The consolidated port would most likely be governed through a port authority, a special district dedicated to operating the port. This would also require an act of the Legislature to create this special district. The region has precedents for a special district of this magnitude. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California or the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is successful examples of regional special districts. The role of the two (2) cities (Los Angeles and Long Beach) would have to be determined. The two (2) mayors might have appointment powers over the authority’s governing board, or the board might be elected region wide. Consolidation would also require consolidating, assuming or refinancing the existing port revenue bonds that each city has issued. It is conceivable that the bond markets may perceive less financial risk in a consolidated port authority than in the current city controlled structure. This would result in less debt service, reduced financing costs and more rate flexibility. Perhaps the most serious hurdle would be the loss of local control. A consolidated port authority would mean less control for the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach unless they retained appointment powers for the governing board. A hybrid structure for the governing board where the mayors appoint some portion of the board while the remaining seats are elected region wide may make the most sense. In any scenario, amendments would have to be made to both city charters. 2010 – 2011

The Port of Los Angeles is adequately secured from external threats. Current Security Mandates and Level of Compliance The mandate for security of Port facilities is divided by jurisdiction. The Federal government has jurisdiction for ensuring security in all cargo and cruise terminals. This jurisdiction is further divided as follows: The U.S. Coast Guard has authority for securing the terminal facilities. This authority is granted by the Maritime Transportation Security Act (as enabled by the Code of Federal Regulations 33 CFR 105). These regulations require operators of deep draft; e.g., container terminals and cruise terminals to prepare a Facilities Security Plan which is approved by the Coast Guard. Each terminal lessee has a plan for their terminal property. The Coast Guard is responsible for enforcing the terms of these plans at the Port and has a small force of armed security staff to respond to violations of the plans. The Coast Guard has the authority to shut down a terminal in the event of a serious violation. A primary enforcement tool for the Coast Guard is the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) which is required for access to any Coast Guard secured areas such as container terminals. The Port Police does not have access to the terminals unless requested by the Coast Guard or the terminal operator. The Coast Guard also has shared jurisdiction over the waterways with the Port. The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has jurisdiction over the actual cargo. They monitor incoming containers through examination of records and will inspect certain high risk cargoes and containers such as those originating in the Middle East. Customs and Border Patrol also operates gamma radiation detection equipment at the exit gates of all container terminals. This equipment detects the presence of radiation and flags containers for more extensive inspection including opening the container and examining the contents. Security for other leased facilities at the Port, other than cargo and cruise terminals, is the responsibility of the individual lessees, which can include restaurant and hotel operators, warehouse operators and other industrial property lessees. This responsibility is established in the terms of individual leases and is similar to those found in standard commercial leases. Security for non-leased Port property is the responsibility of the Port Police. This includes waterways, roadways, common areas, parks and Port operated facilities. The Port Police have no mandate or responsibility for Homeland Security or counter terrorism. Instead, the Port Police is responsible for enforcing the Port Tariff; i.e., rules promulgated by BOHC for Port users, the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the State Penal and Vehicle Codes. The Port Police have a staff of 217, including 131 sworn police officers. The Port Police use an array of cameras, water-born sonar devices and patrol craft to monitor Port property. The Port Police augments the capabilities of the Federal authorities for certain functions such as water patrol and inspections using divers. Port divers inspect the hulls of ships if warranted. Drugs have been found hidden in hull cavities in the past. Water craft will provide a protective screen around cruise ships as they enter and exit the Port. 168 2010 – 2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY History of Security Incidents at the Port Since 2006, there have been only two (2) security breaches on Port property. Both involved fake TWICs and were investigated by the Coast Guard and prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department. No further details are available. The Port Police tracks crimes and arrests on Port property involving violations of State or local laws. Reported crimes are approximately two hundred (200) per year with about two-thirds of these classified as Part I crimes; e.g., violent and property crimes. Theft and vandalism are frequent crimes reported at the Port in addition to traffic infractions. Port Police also make 400-500 arrests each year. About half of these arrests involve apprehending persons with outstanding warrants or for failure to appear. Rather than Homeland Security related issues, Port Police workload is similar to that of a municipal police force with the addition of a sizeable surveillance function.