HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 LEGISLATIVE REPORT SB 974 09-02-08Agenda Item 18
•
~ ' ~ Reviewed:
AGENDA REPORT City Manager
~_=_'~`~'' Finance Director NIA
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORT - SB 974 PORTS: CONGESTION RELIEF: AIR
POLLUTION MITIGATION: REGULATORY FEE
SUMMARY
SB 974 is intended to provide a funding mechanism for various traffic and air pollution
mitigations measures related to port operations at the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and
Oakland. Staff is recommending that the City Council send a letter of support to the Governor.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council send a letter of support for Senate Bill 974 to the
Governor urging the Governor to sign the legislation into law.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
BACKGROUND
SB 974 (Lowenthal, D-Long Beach) proposes to levy a $30 per container user fee on each 20-
foot equivalent unit (TEU) moving through the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland.
Revenue generated by this fee must be allocated to projects in the region where the fee was
collected and establishes the Southern California Goods Movement Authority and identifies the
Orange County Transit Authority as a member agency. 50% of revenue generated will fund
projects that improve the movement of goods and the other 50% of revenue generated will fund
projects which mitigate air pollution caused by the movement of all cargo. The collection of fees
would be discontinued upon the completion of all listed projects. Eligible projects that are
specifically identified in the legislation include the Red Hill Grade Separation project.
Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter of support to
the Governor urging the Governor to sign the legislation into law.
Tim D. Serlet
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Attachment: SB 974
Draft Letter of Support
TDS: Legislation Senate Bill 974
September 3, 2008
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Office of the Governor
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SUPPORT FOR SB 974
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
On behalf of the City of Tustin, I respectfully ask for your signature on SB 974 (Lowenthal,
D-Long Beach). SB 974 levy's a $30 fee per loaded twenty-foot equivalent container on
goods transported through the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland and will help
to mitigate transportation congestion and air quality impacts related to goods movement.
The City of Tustin is particularly impacted by goods movement traffic as Tustin is host to the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway lines between Orange and San Diego
Counties. SB 974 contains funding for constructing a grade separation project for a Major
North-South Arterial in Tustin, Red Hill Avenue and 18 other grade separation projects
totaling $910 million that are critical to Orange County.
The City of Tustin appreciates your consideration and again requests your signature.
Sincerely,
Jerry Amante
Mayor
OCTA
80ARD OF DIRECTORS ~
Chris Norby
L'hairman
Peter Bulla
Lice Chairman
Jc-rry Amante
Drrector
Pnnruu riates
t )hector
,lrf ~ srcwrr
i~iracax
~7d; i:,arr~t%c
~.rioryn V ~::.ivi~~°:;n~
rsr~~har'cr Di:;,'n
Dirr~cror
rr~:r i,. c,11:,~
Director
Cathy Freer.
Drrector
Allan ,tifansoor
%~rr~r;lor
Jong Moorlarn
Director
JanF't Nguyen
Director
Curt Pringle
Director
Miguel F'undo
Dirrrto~
,ti1ari; F7axan
Drector
Greycry' Winrerhoftorn
Direriar
C)nCy Uua;
Govr~rnor'~
E_;:-Othcu; lv9rmor.~r
<',rliuc 7. i.earr,
CYN:i ~,rri:urnr~ =%r'ricr';
~. ~sy' 1
~~~i~,Ee~v~,`f ;:
jUL ~ g ` ,
'~~~~I~E
July 25, 2008
The Honorable Jerry Amante
Mayor
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Dear Mayor Amante:
RE: SB 974
On behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board of
Directors, I respectfully ask for your support for SB 974 (Lowenthal,
D-Long Beach). SB ~ould levy a $30 fee per loaded twenty-foot equivalent
container of goods coming through the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and
Oakland to address transportation congestion and air quality impacts related to
goods movement.
As a bridge between Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire, Orange
County is particularly impacted by goods movement traffic. Currently, the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway mainline between Los Angeles
and San Bernardino counties carries an estimated 70 daily freight trains through
the northern Orange County cities of, Anaheim, Buena Park, Fullerton,
Placentia, and Yorba Linda. By 2025, this line will carry an estimated 150 daily
freight trains, and over $910 million in grade separation projects is needed to
mitigate freight train volume countywide.
Over the past year, OCTA has worked diligently with Senator Lowenthal's office
to ensure Orange County's needs are fully considered. In the bill's most recent
amendments, OCTA was able to include 19 grade separation projects which will
qualify for revenue generated from container fees. In Tustin, one grade
separation project included in SB 974 will be Red Hill Avenue (LOSSAN
Corridor).
We appreciate your consideration and again request your support. As the
legislative session comes to a close, we recommend that all support letters be
addressed to the Governor's office requesting a signature on SB 974 and be
mailed to the following address:
The Honorable Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Office of the Governor
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
1~
~ ~
`t
The Honorable Jerry Amante
July 25, 2008
Page 2
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Wendy Villa, State
Relations Manager, at (714) 560-5595.
~~
Chris Norby
Chairman
CN:mI
c: William Huston, City Manager
SB 974 Senate Bill - History
COMPLETE BILL HISTORY
BILL NUMBER S.B. No. 974
AUTHOR Lowenthal
TOPIC Ports: congestion relief: air pollution mitigation: regulatory
fee.
TYPE OF BILL
BILL HISTORY
2008
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
Aug. 5 Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 22. Noes 10. Page
4787.) To enrollment.
Aug. 4 In Senate. To unfinished business.
July 15 Assembly Rule 69(d) suspended. (Ayes 45. Noes 31. Page 6119.)
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 46. Noes 24. Page 6120.) To
Senate.
July 14 Read third time. Amended. To third reading.
Feb. 26 From inactive file to third reading file.
Feb. 25 Notice of motion to remove from inactive file given by Assembly
Member Bass.
2007
Sept. 10 Placed on inactive file on request of Assembly Member Bass.
Sept. 6 Read second time. To third reading.
Sept. 5 Read second time. Amended. To second reading.
Sept. 4 From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.)
Aug. 22 Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
July 10 From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR.
(Ayes 8. Noes 6.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
July 2 Hearing postponed by committee.
June 26 From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on
TRANS. (Ayes 5. Noes 3.) Re-referred to Com. on TRANS.
June 19 To Coms. on NAT. RES. and TRANS.
June 6 In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
June 6 Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 22. Noes 12. Page 1279.) To
Assembly.
May 3 1 From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 6. Page 1224.) Read
second time. To third reading.
May 2 5 Set for hearing May 31.
May 2 4 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time.
Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
May 1 4 Placed on APPR. suspense file.
May 2 Set for hearing May 14.
Apr. 30 Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Apr. 26 From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-re fer
to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 710.)
Apr. 18 From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on E.Q.
(Ayes 6. Noes 4. Page 628.) Re-referred to Com. on E.Q. Set
for hearing April 23.
Apr. 9 From committee with author's amendments. Read second time.
Amended. Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.
Mar. 21 Set for hearing April 17.
Mar. 15 To Coms. on T. & H. and E.Q.
Feb. 26 Read first time.
Feb. 24 From print. May be acted upon on or after March 26.
Feb. 23 Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Page 1 of 1
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_974 bill_20080805_histor... 8/13/2008
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY NLY 14, 2008
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
AMENDED 1N SENATE MAY 24, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 30, 2007
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2007
SENATE BILL
No. 974
Introduced by Senator Lowenthal
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member De La Torre)
(Coauthors: Senators Kehoe, Kuehl, Migden, and Steinberg)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Carter, DeSaulnier, Eng, Furutani,
Hancock, Karnette, and Solorio)
February 23, 2007
An act to amend and renumber Section 1760 of, to add a heading to
Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of, and to add Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 1740) to, Part 2 of Division 6 of, the Harbors
and Navigation Code, relating to ports.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 974, as amended, Lowenthal. Ports: congestion relief: air pollution
mitigation: regulatory fee.
(1) Existing law regulates the operation of ports and harbors.
This bill would require the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and
Oakland to collect a user fee-e~ from the owner of container cargo
moving through the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, or
the Port of Oakland at a rate of $30 per twenty-foot equivalent unit
(TEU).
94
SB 974 - 2
The bill would require the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (San
Pedro Bay Ports) to transmit %Z~€ the funds derived from imposition
of the fee to the San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Trust Fund and
%Z to the San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Trust Fund, which
funds the San Pedro Bay Ports would be required to establish. The bill
would require the Port of Oakland to transmit}f~~€ the funds derived
from imposition of the fee to the Port of Oakland~e
~.,.~ r.___a .._a +f
~ ,
POYt
Revenue Fund established pursuant to the City of Oakland City Charter.
E
This bill would require the moneys transmitted to the San Pedro Bay
Ports Congestion Relief Trust Fund to be available for expenditure by
the Southern California Goods MovementAuthority exclusively for the
purpose of funding projects that improve the flow and efJ~iciency of
container cargo to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
and for funding the administrative costs of this program. The bill would
prohibit moneys deposited in that fund from being loaned or transferred
to the general fund of specked local entities.
The bill would require the moneys transmitted to the San Pedro Bay
Ports Mitigation Relief Trust Fund to be available for expenditure by
94
- 3 - SB 974
the South Coast Air Quality Management District to mitigate air
pollution caused by the movement of container cargo to and from the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach by commercial motor vehicles,
oceangoing vessels, and rail, and to fund the administrative costs of
the program. The bill would prohibit moneys deposited in that fund
from being loaned or transferred to the general fund of specked local
entities.
The bill would require the moneys transmitted to the Port of Oakland
Port Revenue Fund to be available for expenditure by the Port of
Oakland for funding projects that improve the flow and ejficiency of
container cargo to and from the Port of Oakland, to mitigate
errvironmental air pollution caused by the movement of container cargo
to and from the port by commercial motor vehicles, oceangoing vessels,
cargo handling equipment, and rail, and to fund the administrative
costs of the program. The bill would prohibit moneys deposited in that
fund from being.loaned or transferred to the general fund of the City
of Oakland.
The bill would establish astate-mandated local program by imposing
these additional duties upon the ports.
The bill would authorize the San Pedro Bay Ports and the Port of
Oakland, through the City of Oakland, to enter into financing agreements
with participating parties to finance or refinance San Pedro Bay Ports
and Port of Oakland congestion and mitigation relief projects. The San
Pedro Bay Ports and the Port of Oakland would be authorized to issue
revenue bonds to fund these projects, and user fees assessed on container
cargo from the San Pedro Bay Ports °-a "--` -`^-'-'-°a Congestion
Relief Truster Fund, the San Pedro Bay Ports -°-~
6d Mitigation Relief Trusts Fund, and the Port of Oakland
Port Revenue Fund would be used to secure any revenue bonds.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
94
SB 974
-4-
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The heading of Chapter 1 (commencing with
2 Section 1720) is added to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Harbors and
3 Navigation Code, immediately preceding Section 1720, to read:
4
S CHAPTER 1. PORT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
6
7 SEC. 2. Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1740) is added
8 to Part 2 of Division 6 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, to
9 read:
10
11 CHAPTER 2. PORT CONGESTION RELIEF AND PORT MITIGATION
12 RELIEF
13
14 Article 1. General Provisions
15
16 1740. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
17 following:
18 (a) There is a need to mitigate the enormous burden imposed
19 on the highway transportation system serving the Ports of Los
20 Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland by the overland movement of
21 container cargo shipped to and from those ports.
22 (b) The operation of the ports and trains, ships, and trucks that
23 move cargo containers to and from the ports cause air pollution
24 that requires mitigation.
25 (c) The improvement of goods movement infrastructure would
26 benefit the owners of container cargo moving through the ports
27 by allowing the owners of the cargo to move container cargo more
28 efficiently and reliably, and to move more cargo through those
29 ports.
30 (d) It is vital to the movement ofgoods in California, especially
31 in southern California, to resolve the road and rail conflicts of
32 locomotives carrying container cargo and automobile traffic by
33 building grade separations. This infrastructure will reduce air
34 pollution and provide benefits to the owners of container cargo
35 by mitigating rail expansion. Without these grade separations, the
36 rail expansion may not happen, and California could lose valuable
37 goods movement jobs.
3 8 (~
94
- 5 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(e) The reduction of goods movement air pollution would benefit
the owners of container cargo moving through the ports by~g
contributing to the achievement or maintenance of federal air
quality standards, which will allow for continued federal funding
of goods movement infrastructure projects.
(~ The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the Port of
Oakland operate in unique communities, environments, and
markets that require infrastructure improvements and air pollution
reduction measures tailored to the nature and degree of need in
each port of each community.
f~
(~ Accordingly, it is the intent of the Legislature to alleviate
these burdens by imposing a fee on shipping containers processed
through those ports and using the funds derived from that fee to
do both of the following:
(1) Improve the rail system that serves as an alternative to
shipping on the highway by commercial vehicle, including, but
not limited to, the ondock rail facilities at those ports.
(2) Mitigate the air pollution resulting from port operations
moving container cargo.
1741. (a) There is hereby established the Southern California
Goods Movement Authority. The authority shall be composed of
one representative from each of the following:
(1) The Port of Los Angeles, appointed by the Los Angeles
Board of Harbor Commissioners.
(2) The Port of Long Beach, appointed by the Long Beach Board
of Harbor Commissioners.
(3) The City of Los Angeles, appointed by the Mayor of Los
Angeles.
(4) The City of Long Beach, appointed by the Mayor of Long
Beach.
(S) The City of Anaheim, appointed by the Mayor of Anaheim.
(6) The City ofRiverside, appointed by the Mayor ofRiverside.
(7) The City of San Bernardino, appointed by the Mayor of San
Bernardino.
(8) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, appointed by the board of directors of the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
94
SB 974
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
-6-
(9) The Orange County Transportation Authority, appointed by
the board of directors of the Orange County Transportation
Authority.
(10) The Riverside County Transportation Commission.
f~
(I1) The San Bernardino Associated Governments.
(12) The Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority.
(b) The authority shall be organized solely for the purpose of
establishing a priority list of projects pursuant to Section 1750.
Each representative shall have one vote when determining the list
of projects. When deciding on a list of projects, the authority shall
have at least a majority of its members supporting the list that is
transmitted to the California Transportation Commission.
(c) For organization and meeting purposes, the Alameda
Corridor Transportation Authority shall provide staff and meeting
space for the authority and shall be reimbursed for these
administrative expenses pursuant to Sections 1745 and 1746. All
public meeting laws that apply to the City of Long Beach and the
City of Los Angeles shall apply to the authority.
1743. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
apply:
(a) "Authority" means the Southern California Goods Movement
Authority.
(b) "Board" means the State Air Resources Board.
(c) "Commission" means the California Transportation
Commission.
(d) "District" means the Executive O,~cer of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District or the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, as appropriate.
(e) "MTC" means the Executive Director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.
(f) "Port" means the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long
Beach, or the Port of Oakland, otherwise known as the City of
Oakland acting by and through its Board of Port Commissioners,
as appropriate.
94
- 7 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(g) "Port Revenue Fund " means the fund created and
designated pursuant to the City of Oakland City Charter for deposit
of City of Oakland container cargo fee revenue.
(h) "Port of Oakland container cargo fee revenue " means
income and receipts derived by that port from Port of Oakland
container cargo fees.
(i) "Port of Oakland container cargo fee revenue bonds "means
revenue bonds issued pursuant to the City of Oakland City Charter
that are payable from Port of Oakland container cargo fee revenue.
(j) "Port of Oakland container cargo fees "means all user fees
that are imposed pursuant to Section 1747.
(k) "Port of Oakland congestion relief project" means each
project for public development facilities and economic facilities
for which the expenditure of funds has been approved by the
commission pursuant to Section 1751.
(1) "Port of Oakland mitigation relief project" means each project
for public development facilities and economic development
94
SB 974
-8-
1 facilities for which the expenditure of funds has been approved by
2 the State Air Resources Board pursuant to Section 1753.
3 (m) "Port of Oakland stakeholder group "means representatives
4 of the community, port tenants, port users and operators, port
5 customers, environmental and environmental justice groups, and
6 neighborhoods designated by the Port of Oakland commissioners
7 to advise and provide input to the Port of Oakland commissioners
8 relating to projects to be funded with Port of Oakland container
9 cargo fee revenues.
10 ~
11 (n) "San Pedro Bay Ports" means the Ports of Los Angeles and
12 Long Beach.
13 ~
14 (o) "San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Fund" means the San
15 Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Trust Fund.
16 f sj
17 (p) "San Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief container fee
18 revenue" means income and receipts derived by the San Pedro
19 Bay Ports from San Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief container
20 fees.
21 (~
22 (q) "San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Container Fee
23 Revenue Bonds" means revenue bonds issued~by the San Pedro
24 Bay Ports that are payable from San Pedro Bay Ports congestion
25 relief container fee revenue.
26 (~
27 (r) "San Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief container fees" means
28 all user fees that are imposed pursuant to Sections 1745 and 1746
29 and remitted to the San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Fund.
30 (-~
31 (s) "San Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief project" means each
32 project for public development facilities and economic
33 development facilities for which the expenditure of funds has been
34 approved by the authority pursuant to Section 1750.
35 ~
36 (t) "San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Fund" means the San Pedro
37 Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Trust Fund.
38 {~
94
9 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
(u) "San Pedro Bay Ports mitigation relief container fee revenue"
means income and receipts derived by the San Pedro Bay Ports
from San Pedro Bay Ports mitigation relief container fees.
f~
(v) "San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Container Fee
Revenue Bonds" means revenue bonds issued by the San Pedro
Bay Ports that are payable from San Pedro Bay Ports mitigation
relief container fee revenue.
(w) "San Pedro Bay Ports mitigation relief container fees" means
all user fees that are imposed pursuant to Sections 1745 and 1746
and remitted to the San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Fund.
(x) "San Pedro Bay Ports mitigation relief project" means each
project for public development facilities and economic
development facilities for which the expenditure of funds has been
approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
pursuant to Section 1752.
(y) For purposes of subdivision (c) of Sections 1745, 1746, and
1747, "container cargo " means a loaded container.
1744. The provisions of this chapter are severable. If any
provision of this chapter or its application is held invalid, that
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can
be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
Article 2. User Fee
1745. (a) Beginning January 1,-2A~8 2009, the Port of Los
Angeles shall develop a process for notifying the owner of, and
collecting a user fee from the owner of, container cargo moving
through the port.
(b) No later than-J~'~28(~ March 1, 2009, the port shall
notify the owner of cargo moving through the port that it will be
assessed a user fee not to exceed thirty dollars ($30) per 20-foot
equivalent unit (TEU). The notice shall include, but not be limited
to, the process for payment of the user fee, the frequency for
payment of the user fee, and that the user fee is being assessed to
improve the goods movement infrastructure serving the port, to
reduce air pollution from all forms of equipment, vehicles,
94
SB 974
10
1 locomotives, and ships that operate at the port and bring containers
2 to and from the port.
3 (c) Beginning3a~ July 1, 2009, the port shall assess a user
4 fee on the owner of container cargo moving through the port not
5 to exceed thirty dollars ($30) per TEU. The port shall collect the
6 fee at least twice a year.
7 (1) The San Pedro Bay Ports shall establish and maintain a
8 special purpose trust fund named the San Pedro Bay Ports
9 Congestion Relief Trust Fund. The port shall remit one-half of the
10 user fee to the San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Fund. Moneys
11 deposited in that fund shall be available for expenditure by the
12 authority exclusively for the purposes of funding projects that
13 improve the flow and efficiency of container cargo to and from
14 the Port of Los Angeles, and to fund the administrative costs of
15 this program. Moneys deposited in that fund shall not be loaned
16 or transferred to the general fund of the Port or City of Los Angeles
17 or the Port or City or Long Beach.
18 (2) The San Pedro Bay Ports shall establish and maintain a
19 special purpose trust fund named the San Pedro Bay Ports
20 Mitigation Relief Trust Fund. The port shall remit one-half of the
21 user fee to the San Pedro Bay Ports
22 Mitigation Fund. Moneys deposited in that fund shall be available
23 for expenditure by the South Coast Air Quality Management
24 District to mitigate air pollution caused by the movement of
25 container cargo to and from the Port of Los Angeles by commercial
26 motor vehicles, oceangoing vessels, and rail, and to fund the
27 administrative costs of this program. Moneys deposited in that
28 fund shall not be loaned or transferred to the general fund of the
29 Port or City of Los Angeles or the Port or City of Long Beach.
30 (d) The port may contract with PierPass for the collection of
31 the user fee authorized pursuant to this section.
32 (e) The fee authorized pursuant to this section shall be separate
33 from, and in addition to, any fee established by the Port of Los
34 Angeles for any purpose.
35 1746. (a) Beginning January 1,99$ 2009, the Port of Long
36 Beach shall develop a process for notifying the owner of, and
37 collecting a user fee from the owner of, container cargo moving
38 through the port.
39 (b) No later than a ~n't90Q March 1, 2009, the port shall
40 notify the owner of cargo moving through the port that it will be
94
11- SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
assessed a user fee not to exceed thirty dollars ($30) per 20-foot
equivalent unit (TEU). The notice shall include, but not be limited
to, the process for payment of the user fee, the frequency for
payment of the user fee, and that the user fee is being assessed to
improve the goods movement infrastructure serving the port, to
reduce air pollution from all forms of equipment, vehicles,
locomotives, and ships that operate at the port and bring containers
to and from the port.
(c) Beginnings July 1, 2009, the port shall assess a user
fee on the owner of container cargo moving through the port not
to exceed thirty dollars ($30) per TEU. The port shall collect the
fee at least twice a year.
(1) The San Pedro Bay Ports shall establish and maintain a
special purpose trust fund named the San Pedro Bay Ports
Congestion Relief Trust Fund. The port shall remit one-half of the
user fee to the San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Fund. Moneys
deposited in that fund shall be available for expenditure by the
authority exclusively for the purposes of funding projects that
improve the flow and efficiency of container cargo to and from
the Port of Long Beach, and to fund the administrative costs of
this program. Moneys deposited in that fund shall not be loaned
or transferred to the general fund of the Port or City of Los Angeles
or the Port or City of Long Beach.
(2) The San Pedro Bay Ports shall establish and maintain a
special purpose trust fund named the San Pedro Bay Ports
E~~gestiea Mitigation Relief Trust Fund. The port shall remit
one-half of the user fee to the San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation
Fund. Moneys deposited in that fund shall be available for
expenditure by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
to mitigate air pollution caused by the movement of container
cargo to and from the Port of Long Beach by commercial motor
vehicles, oceangoing vessels, and rail, and to fund the
administrative costs of this program. Moneys deposited in that
fund shall not be loaned or transferred to the general fund of the
Port or City of Los Angeles or the Port or City of Long Beach.
(d) The port may contract with PierPass for the collection of
the user fee authorized pursuant to this section.
94
SB 974
-12-
1 (e) The fee authorized pursuant to this section shall be separate
2 from, and in addition to, any fee established by the Port of Long
3 Beach for any purpose.
4 1747. (a) Beginning January 1,~89g 2009, the Port of Oakland
5 shall develop a process for notifying the owner of, and collecting
6 a user fee from the owner of, container cargo moving through the
7 port.
8 (b) No later than~~z'~9(~ March 1, 2009, the port shall
9 notify the owner of container cargo moving through the port that
10 it will be assessed a user fee not to exceed thirty dollars ($30) per
11 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) or the amount ident~ed pursuant
12 to subdivision (d). The notice shall include, but not be limited to,
13 the process for payment of the user fee, the frequency for payment
14 of the user fee, and that the user fee is being assessed to improve
15 the goods movement infrastructure serving the port, to reduce air
16 pollution from all forms of equipment, vehicles, locomotives, and
17 ships that operate at the port and bring containers to and from the
18 port.
19 (c) Beginning~a~rnarg July 1, 2009, the port shall assess a user
20 fee on the owner of container cargo moving through the port not
21 to exceed thirty dollars ($30) per TEU or the amount ident~ed
22 pursuant to subdivision (d). The port shall collect the fee at least
23 twice a year.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 a-te--~e,°~`'-.. n_~ _€-6~rk~rad~u `~-~-fin,
31
32
33 .
34
35 fir»rl rFt~~ar~ra tl,~i1~L.¢ ~,r~ i i + *.r•4• 4• n i• r-r ~ r a a
V VLL1l1GL11L1 lYll L1~QLIVI
36
37
38
39
40 ~~r~~e~e~-eeea~A}7~ *ae~~e~~ Anri ~;Ts-.a-' ~ 1'
94
13 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(1) The port shall account for the user fees collected pursuant
to this section as the Port of Oakland container cargo fee revenue.
Container cargo fee revenue shall be deposited in the Port Revenue
Fund as provided under the City of Oakland City Charter and
shall not be loaned or transferred to the general fund of the City
of Oakland. Revenue collected by the Port of Oakland pursuant
to this section shall only be used for the purposes authorized in
Sections 1751 and 1753.
(2) The Port of Oakland container cargo fee revenues shall be
available for expenditure by the Port of Oakland for purposes of
funding projects that improve the, flow and efficiency of container
cargo to and from the Port of Oakland, to mitigate environmental
air pollution caused by the movement of container cargo to and
from the port by commercial motor vehicles, oceangoing vessels,
cargo handling equipment, and rail, and to fund the administrative
costs of this program.
(3) No less than SO percent of the aggregate amount of the Port
of Oakland container cargo fee revenue shall be used to fund Port
of Oakland mitigation reliefprojects authorized pursuant to Section
1753 over the first 10 years that the fee, established pursuant to
Section 1747, is collected, with at least 100 percent of the fee
revenue dedicated to Port of Oakland mitigation relief projects
for the first three years the fee is collected.
(d) The fee identified in subdivision (a) shall be the amount
specked by a resolution adopted by the Port of Oakland in 2008,
if the port adopts a fee on container cargo prior to December 31,
2008.
Article 3. Congestion Relief and Mitigation Relief Projects
• >
94
SB 974
14
1 1750. (a) Beginning.lanuary 1, 2009, the authority shall list
2 the projects described in subdivision (~ in priority order. The
3 authority shall prioritize the order of the projects by giving the
4 highest priority to those projects nearest in time to being
5 constructed. In the process for establishing the projects in priority
6 order, the authority shall consult with the commission and the
7 Southern California Association of Governments. The authority
8 shall hold public hearings to seek further input on developing~hese
9 prejeets this priority list, including at least one hearing at or near
10 the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. The authority
11 shall compile this list, in priority order, and submit it to the
12 commission no later than April 1,-~8~8 2009. If the commission
13 rejects the list, the authority shall compile a new list and submit
14 it to the commission.
15 ,
16 ,
17
18
19
20
21 ,
22 prajee~s
23 (b) No later than September 1, 2009, the commission, at a public
24 hearing, shall approve a priority list submitted by the authority
25 from the projects described in subdivision (~. This will be the
26 final list, of infrastructure projects at the Ports of Los Angeles and
27 Long Beach, eligible to be funded by the user fee authorized
28 pursuant to this chapter. The commission shall not change the list
29 of projects submitted by the authority. The commission may only
30 accept or reject the entire list of projects. If the commission has
31 not approved a list of projects by September 1,~SA$ 2009, the
32 most recent list of projects submitted to the commission by the
33 authority shall become the final list of projects.
34 (c) Funds from the San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Fund shall
35 be used only for projects that improve the movement of container
36 cargo by rail, or for projects that construct, maintain, or improve
37 a road or highway that is part of a road or highway rail grade
38 separation. A rail grade separation does not include a road or
39 highway going above or beneath another road or highway. To
40 qualify, a rail grade separation project shall reduce conflicts
94
-15 - SB 974
1 between trains carrying container cargo and motor vehicles, or
2 reduce conflicts between trains carrying container cargo and other
3 trains carrying container cargo.
4 (d) In determining
5 arm-~n-~a~ the order of priority, the authority shall give priority
6 to those projects that have been designed to measurably reduce air
7 pollution impacts to local communities, and to assist in achieving
8 and maintaining state and federal air quality standards, while
9 addressing the overall efficiency of container cargo movement.
10 (e) Beginning January 1, 2010, the board shall evaluate the
11 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, container cargo handling
12 equipment, harbor craft, and locomotives at the Ports of Los
13 Angeles and Long Beach, and shall determine if these ports have
14 reduced emissions from those sources to meet the goals of the
15 board's Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement.
16 No later than July 1, 2010, and no later than January 1, 2015, and
17 January 1, 2020, the board shall notify the commission as to
18 whether or not the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have met
19 these goals. If these goals, as determined by the board, have not
20 been met, the commission shall not award funding to a project,
21 other than forte-daelf ondock rail and rail and road or highway
22 grade separations, until the board determines that these goals have
23 been met.
24 (f) For all construction projects funded pursuant to this section,
25 a contractor shall ensure that all mobile nonroad equipment used
26 on the project will be equipped with a California Air Resources
27 Board (GARB) verified Level 3 emission control device diesel
28 particulate filter that obtains at least an 85-percent reduction in
29 emissions, unless any of the following circumstances exists, and
30 the contractor is able to provide proof that any of these
31 circumstances exists:
32 (1) A piece of specialized equipment is unavailable in a
33 controlled form within the state, including through a leasing
34 arrangement.
35 (2) A contractor has applied for incentive funds to put controls
36 on a piece of uncontrolled equipment planned for use on the
37 project, but the application is not yet approved, or the application
38 has been approved, but funds are not yet available.
39 (3) A contractor has ordered a control device for a piece of
40 equipment planned for use on the project, or has ordered a new
94
SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-16-
piece of controlled equipment to replace the uncontrolled
equipment, but that order has not been completed by the
manufacturer or dealer, and the contractor has attempted to lease
controlled equipment, but no dealer within 200 miles of the project
has the controlled equipment available for lease.
.____»..._, .,»....., ~ ............... ~.., .... ..~ ~..., ..,a..,...~.b .
l~=
~d -
a °.._ n..._....a:_ ~ ~
} i
`
ers e;
m~ e a~tn~ t
es;-t-
s~- ~vov~z~-
~
(~ Notwithstanding any other provision of law, grade
separation projects eligible to be funded from the San Pedro Bay
Congestion Relief Fund are all of the following:
(1) Grade separation projects in Los Angeles County: San Pablo
Street/SP-City of Los Angeles; Vineburn Avenue/SP-City of Los
Angeles; N. Boca Avenue/SP-City of Los Angeles; San Gabriel
Trench/SP-City of San Gabriel; Walnut Grove Avenue/SP-County
of Los Angeles; Encinita Avenue/SP- City of Temple City; Lower
Asuza Road/SP-City of Temple City; Temple City
Boulevard/SP-City of EI Monte; Baldwin Avenue/SP-City of El
Monte; Arden Drive/SP-City of El Monte; Tyler Avenue/SP-City
of El Monte; Cogswell/SP-City of El Monte; Temple
Avenue/SP-City oflndustry; Vineland Avenue/SP-City oflndustry;
Puente Avenue/SP-City of Industry; California Avenue/SP-City of
EZ Monte; Fullerton Road/SP-City of Industry; Fairway
Drive/SP-City of Industry; Lemon Avenue/SP-City of Industry;
Brea Canyon Road/SP-City of Industry; Park Avenue/SP and
UP-City ofPomona; Palomares Street/SP and UP-City ofPomona;
S. Yail Avenue/UP-City of Montebello; S. Maple Avenue/UP-City
of Montebello; S. Greenwood Avenue/UP-City of Montebello;
Montebello Boulevard/UP-City of Montebello; Durfee Road/UP-
94
17 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
City of Pico Rivera; Rose Hills/UP-City of Industry; Mission Mill
Road/UP-City of Industry; Workman Mill Road/UP-City of
Industry; Turnbull Canyon Road/UP-County of Los Angeles;
Stimson Avenue/UP-City of Industry; Bixby Drive/UP-City of
Industry; Fullerton Road/UP-City of Industry; Nogales
Street/UP-City of Industry; Fairway Drive/UP-City of Industry;
LemonAvenue/UP-CountyofLosAngeles; HamiltonBoulevard/SP
and UP-City of Pomona; Main Street/SP and UP-City of Pomona;
San Antonio Avenue/SP and UP-City of Pomona; Passons
Boulevard/BNSF-City of Pico Rivera; Palley View
Avenue/BNSF-City of Santa Fe Springs; Rosecrans
Avenue/BNSF-City of Santa Fe Springs; Norwalk
Boulevard/BNSF-City of Santa Fe Springs/Gateway; and
Wilmington Street/SP and BNSF-City of Los Angeles.
(2) Grade separation projects in Orange County: Acacia Avenue
(Fullerton), Grand Avenue (Santa Ana), State College Boulevard
(Fullerton), State College Boulevard (Anaheim), PZacentiaAvenue
(Placentia and Fullerton), Kraemer Boulevard (Placentia),
Orangethorpe Avenue (Placentia and Anaheim), Tustin
Avenue/Rose Drive (Placentia and Anaheim), Jefferson Street
(Placentia and Anaheim), Yan Buren Avenue (Placentia), Richfield
Road (Placentia), Lakeview Avenue (Placentia and Anaheim),
Kellogg Drive (Anaheim), Raymond Avenue (Fullerton), San
Canyon Avenue (Irvine), Red Hill Avenue (Tustin), 17th Street
(Santa Ana), Santa Ana Boulevard (Santa Ana), and Ball Road
(Anaheim).
(3) Grade separation projects in Riverside County: Jurupa
Road/UP-Riverside County; Magnolia Avenue/UP-City of
Riverside; Riverside Avenue/UP-City of Riverside; McKinley
Street/BNSF-City of Corona; Magnolia Avenue/BNSF-Riverside
County; 3rd Street/BNSF-City of Riverside; Chicago
Avenue/BNSF-City of Riverside; Columbia Avenue/BNSF-City of
Riverside; Iowa Avenue/BNSF-City of Riverside; Sunset
Avenue/UP-City of Banning; Clay Street/UP-Riverside County;
Jurupa Avenue/UP-City of Riverside, Streeter Avenue/UP-City of
Riverside; Brockton Avenue/UP-City of Riverside; Auto Center
Drive/BNSF-City of Corona; Smith Avenue/BNSF-City of Corona;
Tyler Street/BNSF-City of Riverside; Adams Street/BNSF-City of
Riverside; Madison Street/BNSF-City of Riverside; Mary
Street/BNSF-City of Riverside; 7th Street/BNSF-City ofRiverside;
94
SB 974
18-
1 Spruce Street/BNSF-City ofRiverside; PalmyritaAvenue/UP-City
2 of Riverside; Center Street/BNSF-Riverside County; 22nd
3 Street/UP-City of Banning; San Gorgonio Avenue/UP-City of
4 Banning; Hargrave Street/UP-City of Banning; Avenue 48/Dillon
5 Road/UP-City of Coachella/City of Indio; Bellgrave
6 Avenue/UP-Riverside County; Palm Avenue/UP-City ofRiverside;
7 Panorama Road/UP-City of Riverside; Railroad Street/BNSF-City
8 of Corona; Buchanan Street/BNSF-City of Riverside; Pierce
9 Street/BNSF-City ofRiverside; San 7imoteo Canyon Road/UP-City
10 of Calimesa; California Avenue/UP-City of Beaumont; Avenue
11 S2/UP-City of Coachella; Avenue 62/UP-City of Coachella;
12 Avenue 66/UP-City of Coachella.
13 (4) Grade separation projects in San Bernardino County: Grove
14 Avenue on the UPAlhambra Line, Grove Avenue on the UP Los
15 Angeles Line, Ramona Avenue on the UP Alhambra and Los
16 Angeles Lines, Monte Vista Avenue on the UPAlhambra and Los
17 Angeles Lines, State/University on the BNSF Cajon Line, Hunts
18 Lane on the UP Yuma Line, Milliken Avenue on the UPAlhambra
19 Line, Central Avenue on the UPAlhambra and Los Angeles Lines,
20 San Antonio Avenue on the UPAlhambra and Los Angeles Lines,
21 Sultana Avenue on the UP Alhambra and Los Angeles Lines,
22 Campus Avenue on the UPAlhambra and Los Angeles Lines, State
23 Street (Ontario) between the UPAlhambra and LosAngeles Lines,
24 Vineyard Avenue on the UPAlhambra Line, Vineyard Avenue on
25 the UP Los Angeles Line, Mt. Vernon Avenue on the UP Yuma
26 Line, Vine Avenue on the UP Los Angeles Line, Bon View Avenue
27 on the UP Los Angeles Line, Archibald Avenue on the UP Los
28 Angeles Line, Milliken Avenue on the UP Los Angeles Line, Palley
29 Boulevard on the BNSF San Bernardino Line, Laurel Street on
30 the BNSF San Bernardino Line, Main Street on the BNSF San
31 Bernardino Line, Olive Street on the BNSF San Bernardino Line,
32 Palm Avenue on the BNSF Cajon Line, Glen Helen Parkway on
33 the BNSF Cajon Line, Ranchero Road on the BNSF Cajon Line,
34 Ranchero Road on the UP Cutoff Line, Vista Road on the BNSF
35 Cajon Line, Hinkley Road on the BNSF Cajon Line, Lenwood
36 Road on the BNSF Cajon Line, Oro Grande on the BNSF Cajon
37 Line, Indian Trail on the BNSF Cajon Line, E Street on the BNSF
38 San Bernardino Line, HStreet on the BNSF San Bernardino Line,
39 Phelan Road on the UP Cutoff Line, Johnson Road on the UP
40 Cutoff Line, Whittier Avenue on the UP Yuma Line, Beaumont
94
19 - SB 974
1 Avenue on the UP Yuma Line, Alessandro Road on the UP Yuma
2 Line, and San Timoteo Canyon Road on the UP Yuma Line.
3 (5) A project to separate the at-grade rail crossings between
4 the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads
5 in San Bernardino County, also known as the Colton crossing.
6 (6) A project to improve ondock rail infrastructure at the Port
7 of Los Angeles or the Port of Long Beach (Ports Rail Program -
8 Phase II).
9 (7) A project that would move containers to and from the Port
10 of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach using electricity,
11 magnetic levitation, or other similar zero-emission technology.
12 (h) In determining which projects to select for the list, the
13 authority shall also take into account the entire rail and trade
14 corridor servicing the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
15
16
17
18 (i) Once the commission has approved the final list of priority
19 projects submitted by the authority, the commission shall transmit
20 the approved list to the authority. A project proponent shall submit
21 an application to the authority. Once the application has been
22 approved using the priority list adopted by the authority and
23 approved by the commission, the authority shall notify the Ports
24 of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and the Ports of Los Angeles and
25 Long Beach shall release funds from the San Pedro Bay Ports
26 Congestion Fund to the project applicant accordingly.
27 (j) A project receiving funding pursuant to this section may also
28 receive funding from other sources, including, but not limited to,
29 local agencies, state sources, federal sources, and private sources.
30 (k) Once the projects on the final list are completed and fully
31 funded, the commission shall notify the Ports of Los Angeles and
32 Long Beach that the infrastructure projects are completed and the
33 ports shall no longer collect the one-half of the user fee for
34 infrastructure projects. The commission may also make a finding
35 that a project on the final list has either been funded by another
36 source or is no longer worthy of funding.
37 (IJ Beginning January 1, 2009, and annually thereafter, the Ports
38 of Los Angeles and Long Beach shall report to the commission
39 and the transportation committees of the Senate and Assembly on
40 the status of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan.
94
SB 974
- 20
1 (m) The commission may approve in advance a project described
2 in subdivision (~ for advance construction authority.
3 (n) If a project is proposed and is not identical to a project
4 described in subdivision (~ but is similar, the authority may
5 approve the project if it concludes that the project is similar to
6 one listed in subdivision (~.
7 (o) The authority may remove a project described in subdivision
8 (~ if it determines that the project does not directly relate to the
9 movement of container cargo to and from the Port of Los Angeles
10 or the Port of Long Beach.
11 (p) This section does not prevent a project applicant of a project
12 described in subdivision (~ from using funds received pursuant
13 to this section as a match to other programs, including, but not
14 limited to, the program described in paragraph (1) of subdivision
15 (c) of Section 8879.23 of the Government Code.
16 (q) Where a project is identified in subdivision (~ and is
17 receiving funds, or may be using funds, pursuant to paragraph (1)
18 of subdivision (c) of Section 8879.23 of the Government Code, the
19 funds from Sections 1745 and 1746 shall be used to supplement,
20 but not supplant, the funds from paragraph (1) of subdivision (c)
21 of Section 8879.23 of the Government Code.
22 1751. (a) Beginning January 1, ''^^°, `'--"~''''~ 2009, the M7'C
23 and the Port of Oakland shall jointly develop a list of projects that
24 would improve the overall efficiency of container cargo movement
25 to and from the Port of Oakland by improving the rail and container
26 transportation systems that transport container cargo to and from
27 that port and the ondock and near-dock rail facilities at that port.
28 In the process for selecting projects, the MTC and the Port of
29 Dakland shall consult with th~ --------=--_°~,''-~ "---4 _r^--'-'°---',
30
31
32 commission, the Port of
33 Oakland stakeholder group, and the Sacramento Area Council of
34 Governments. The MTC and the Port of Oakland shall hold public
35 hearings to seek further input on developing these projects,
36 including at least one hearing in the City of Oakland. The MTC
37 and the Port of Oakland shall compile this list, in priority order,
38 and submit it to the commission no later than April 1,~8 2009.
39 If the commission rejects the list, the MTC and the Port of Oakland
40 shall compile a new list and submit it to the commission.
94
- 21- SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
(b) No later than September 1,~8r 2009, the commission, at
a public hearing, shall approve a project list submitted jointly by
the MTC and the Port of Oakland that would improve the overall
efficiency of container cargo movement to and from the Port of
Oakland by improving the rail and container transportation systems
that transport container cargo to and from that port and the ondock
and near-dock rail facilities at that port. This will be the final list;
of infrastructure projects at the Port of Oakland; eligible to be
funded by the user fee authorized pursuant to this chapter. The
commission shall not change the list of projects submitted by the
MTC and the Port of Oakland. The commission may only accept
or reject the entire list of projects. If the commission has not
approved a list of projects by September 1,99$ 2009, the most
recent list of projects submitted to the commission by the MTC
and the Port of Oakland shall become the final list of projects.
used-e~-€er
(c) The final list of Port of Oakland congestion relief projects
shall include projects that improve the movement of container.
cargo by rail, or for projects that construct, maintain, or improve
a road or highway that is on port property or that is part of a road
or highway rail grade separation. To qualify, a rail grade separation
project shall reduce conflicts between trains carrying container
cargo from or to the port and motor vehicles.
(d) In determining which projects to include in the list of projects
and in what order of priority, the MTC and the Port of Oakland
shall give priority to those projects that have been designed to
measurably reduce air pollution impacts to local communities, and
to assist in achieving and maintaining state and federal air quality
standards, while addressing the overall efficiency of container
cargo movement.
(e) Beginning January 1, 2010, the board shall evaluate the
emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, container cargo handling
equipment, harbor craft, and locomotives at the Port of Oakland,
and shall determine if the port has reduced emissions from those
sources to meet the goals of the board's Emission Reduction Plan
for Ports and Goods Movement. No later than July 1, 2010, and
on no later than January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020, the board
shall notify the commission as to whether or not the port has met
these goals. If these goals, as determined by the board, have not
94
SB 974
22 -
1 been met, the commission shall not ,
2 approve projects, other than for-e~eelf ondock or near-dock rail,
3 rail improvements on port property, and rail and road or highway
4 grade separations, until the board determines that these goals have
5 been met.
6 (~ Beginning July 1, 2011, and every two years thereafter, the
7 MTC and the Port of Oakland, in consultation with the Port of
8 Oakland stakeholder group, may evaluate the list of Port of
9 Oakland congestion relief projects and may revise that list, taking
10 into consideration whether the projects are legally, technologically,
11 and economically feasible, and whether circumstances have
12 changed to affect the feasibility or priority of, or need for, the
13 projects. The MTC and the Port of Oakland shall approve the
14 revised list only if there are any revisions at a public meeting and
15 submit the revised list to the commission. No later than 90 days
16 after the initial submission by the MTC and the Port of Oakland
17 of the revised list, the commission, at a public hearing, shall
18 approve the revised project list submitted by the MTC and the Port
19 of Oakland. The commission shall not change the revised list of
20 projects submitted by the MTC and the Port of Oakland. The
21 commission may only accept or reject the entire list of projects. If
22 the commission has not approved a revised list of projects by 90
23 days after the initial submission by the MTC and the Port of
24 Oakland, the most recent revised list of projects submitted to the
25 commission by the MTC and the Port of Oakland shall become
26 the final list of projects.
27 {~}
28 (~ For all construction projects funded pursuant to this section,
29 a contractor shall ensure that all mobile nonroad equipment used
30 on the project will be equipped with a California Air Resources
31 Board (GARB) verified Level 3 emission control device diesel
32 particulate filter that obtains at least an 85 percent reduction in
33 emissions, unless any of the following circumstances exists, and
34 the contractor is able to provide proof that any of these
35 circumstances exists:
36 (1) A piece of specialized equipment is unavailable in a
37 controlled form within the state, including through a leasing
38 arrangement.
39 (2) A contractor has applied for incentive funds to put controls
40 on a piece of uncontrolled equipment planned for use on the
94
- 23 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
project, but the application is not yet approved, or the application
has been approved, but funds are not yet available.
(3) A contractor has ordered a control device for a piece of
equipment planned for use on the project, or has ordered a new
piece of controlled equipment to replace the uncontrolled
equipment, but that order has not been completed by the
manufacturer or dealer, and the contractor has attempted to lease
controlled equipment, but no dealer within 200 miles of the prof ect
has the controlled equipment available for lease.
(4) The equipment is compliant with requirements set forth in
the boards regulation for In-Use O,fj`-Road Diesel Vehicles
(Sections 2449, 2449.1, 2449.2, and 2449.3 of Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations).
(h) Projects eligible to be considered by the MTC and the Port
of Oakland include, but are not limited to, projects to separate
at-grade crossings to reduce conflicts between trains carrying
container cargo and motor vehicles or increase mainline rail
capacity for moving cargo containers, and-e~-deelf ondock and
near-dock rail improvements at the Port of Oakland.
(i) In determining which projects to select, the MTC and the
Port of Oakland shall also take into account the entire rail and
trade corridor across northern and central California servicing the
Port of Oakland.
(j) The Port of Oakland shall use the Port of Oakland container
cargo fee revenues to fund only projects authorized pursuant to
this section and Section 1753.
(k) A project receiving funding pursuant to this section may
also receive funding from other sources, including, but not limited
to, local agencies, state sources, federal sources, and private
sources.
(1) Once the projects on the final list are completed and fully
funded, the Port of~~ Oakland
shall make a finding that the infrastructure projects are completed,
94
SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
- 24 -
to the extent feasible, and the port shall no longer collect the
one-half of the user fee for infrastructure projects. The commission
may also make a finding that a project on the final list has either
been funded by another source or is no longer worthy of funding.
(m) Beginning January 1, 2009, and annually thereafter, the
Port of Oakland shall report to the commission and the
transportation committees of the Senate and Assembly on the status
of the port's-elear~-~~:e~ienpla~-maritime air quality improvement
plan.
(n) When developing the list ofprojects pursuant to subdivision
(a), the MTC and the Port of Oakland shall ensure that any projects
selected are not inconsistent with the City Charter of the City of
Oakland.
(o) The commission may approve, in advance, a project selected
pursuant to subdivision (a) for advance construction authority.
(p) This section does not prevent a project applicant of a project
selected pursuant to subdivision (a) from using funds received
pursuant to this section as a match to other programs, including,
but not limited to, the program described in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (c) of Section 8879.23 of the Government Code.
(q) Where a project is selected pursuant to subdivision (a) and
is receiving funds, or may be using funds, pursuant to paragraph
(1) of subdivision (c) of Section 8879.23 of the Government Code,
the funds from Section 1747 shall be used to supplement, but not
supplant, the funds from paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section
8879.23 of the Government Code.
1752. (a) Beginning January l,~S 2009, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (district) and the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach shall jointly develop a list of projects that
reduce air pollution caused by the movement of container cargo
to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The projects
on the list shall be consistent with the Emission Reduction Plan
(ERP) adopted April 2006, and shall be designed to reduce air
pollution at those ports in order to achieve and maintain state and
federal air quality standards and to meet the ERP's goals for 2010,
2015, and 2020, as well as the goals for the Air Quality
Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, and the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action
Plan. In developing the list, the district and the Ports ofLos Angeles
94
- 25 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
and Long Beach shall jointly consult with the board; and the
Gateway Council of Governments,
~-Be~tek. Th~ a=-`-=~` -''°" district and the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach shall jointly hold public hearings before
developing the list ofprojects, including at least one hearing being
held at or near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The
district and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach shall jointly
compile this list, in priority order, and submit it the board no later
than April 1,-~9~gr. 2009. When compiling the project list, the
district and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach shall give
the highest priority for the list and for funding for the projects
described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 1752.
(b) The district and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
shall jointly work with the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of
Long Beach to ensure that projects within the Air Quality
Management Plan prepared by the district and within the San Pedro
Bay Clean Air Action Plan are completed or implemented.
(c) Projects, in the form of grants, revolving loans, loan
guarantees, loans, or other funding measures, eligible to be
considered by the district and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The replacement, repowering, or retrofitting of heavy-duty
diesel vehicles that move cargo containers to and from the Port of
Los Angeles or the Port of Long Beach, not otherwise required by
any federal or state law or regulation.
(2) The replacement, repowering, or retrofitting of locomotive
engines that move cargo containers to and from the Port of Los
Angeles or the Port of Long Beach, not otherwise required by any
federal or state law or regulation.
(3) Funding through grants of the incremental cost of using a
low-sulfur fuel, not otherwise required by statute or regulation, on
oceangoing vessels that carry cargo containers to and from the
Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Long Beach.
(4) The provision of mobile or portabl~~~~ shoreside
distributed power generation to oceangoing cargo container vessels
that eliminates the need to use the electricity grid at the Port of
Los Angeles or the Port of Long Beach, and that has been tested
and verified by the board or a local air quality management district.
94
SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
- 26
(5) The electrification of the rail infrastructure used to move
cargo containers to and from the Port of Los Angeles or the Port
of Long Beach.
(6) The provision of sn~~ shoreside electrical power
generation to oceangoing cargo container vessels, moving cargo
containers to and from the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Long
Beach, not otherwise required by any federal or state law or
regulation.
(7) Container cargo-handling equipment, handling cargo
containers at the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Long Beach,
not otherwise required by any federal or state law or regulation.
(d) No later than September 1,~5 2009, the board, at a public
hearing, shall accept a list of projects from the district and the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that meets the ERP's goals
for 2010, 2015, and 2020, in order to meet or maintain federal air
quality attainment standards. If the board has not approved a list
of projects by September 1,-~~ 2009, the most recent list of
projects submitted to the board by the district shall become the
final list of projects.
(e) The board may determine, at a public hearing, that the
emission reduction goals for 2020 have been met or exceeded and
that projects that reduce emissions from the movement of cargo
containers to and from the Port of Los Angeles that are designed
to achieve federal air quality standards have been implemented,
including full implementation of projects that reduce emissions
from the movement of cargo containers to and from the Port of
Los Angeles contained within the Air Quality Management Plan
prepared by the district. Once the determination is made, and
ensuring that all approved projects have been funded, the board
shall notify the Port of Los Angeles of this determination, and the
Port of Los Angeles shall no longer collect the one-half of the user
fee for air quality projects meant to reach these goals and federal
air quality attainment standards.
(f) The board may determine, at a public hearing, that the
emission reduction goals for 2020 have been met or exceeded and
that projects that reduce emissions from the movement of cargo
containers to and from the Port of Long Beach that are designed
to achieve federal air quality standards have been implemented,
including full implementation of projects that reduce emissions
from the movement of cargo containers to and from the Port of
94
27 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Long Beach contained within the Air Quality Management Plan
prepared by the district. Once the determination is made, and
ensuring that all approved projects have been funded, the board
shall notify the Port of Long Beach of this determination, and the
Port of Long Beach shall no longer collect the one-half of the user
fee for air quality projects meant to reach these goals and federal
air quality attainment standards.
(~ Once the board has approved the final list of priority projects
submitted by the district and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, the board may begin approving applications for funding,
in the form of grants, revolving loans, loan guarantees, loans, or
other funding measures. A project proponent shall submit an
application to the board. Once the application has been approved
using the priority list adopted by the district and the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach and approved by the board, the board
shall notes the Ports ofLos Angeles and Long Beach and the Ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach shall release the funds from the
San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Fund to the project applicant
accordingly.
(h) A project receiving funding pursuant to this section may
also receive funding from other sources, including, but not limited
to, local agencies, state sources, federal sources, and private
sources.
1753. (a) Beginning January 1,~8 2009, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (district) and the Port of Oakland
shall jointly develop a list of projects that reduce air pollution
caused by the movement of container cargo to and from the Port
of Oakland. The projects on the list shall be consistent with the
Emission Reduction Plan (ERP) adopted Apri12006, and shall be
designed to reduce air pollution at the port in order to achieve and
maintain state and federal air quality standards and to meet the
ERP's goals for 2010, 2015, and 2020. In developing the list, the
district and the Port of Oakland shall jointly consult with the~eRrc~
~ board and the Port of Oakland stakeholder group. The
district and the Port of Oakland shall jointly compile this list, in
94
SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
28
priority order, and submit it to the board no later than April I,-29(}8
2009. If the board rejects the list, the district and the Port of
Oakland shall jointly compile a new list and submit it to the board.
f~ .
(b) Projects, in the form of grants, revolving loans, loan
guarantees, loans, or other funding measures, eligible to be
considered by the district and the Port of Oakland include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(1) The replacement, repowering, or retrofitting of heavy-duty
diesel vehicles that move cargo containers to and from the Port of
Oakland, not otherwise required by any federal or state law or
regulation.
(2) The replacement, repowering, or retrofitting of locomotive
engines that move cargo containers to and from the Port of
Oakland, not otherwise required by any federal or state law or
regulation.
(3) Funding through grants of the incremental cost of using a
low-sulfur fuel, not otherwise required by statute or regulation, on
eeea~-geiirg oceangoing vessels that carry cargo containers to and
from the Port of Oakland.
(4) The provision of mobile or portabl~~~ shoreside
distributed power generation to~e~ea~-ge~~rg oceangoing cargo
container vessels that eliminates the need to use the electricity grid
at the Port of Oakland, and that has been tested and verified by the
board or a local air quality management district.
(5) The electrification of infrastructure used within a marine
terminal that handles cargo containers in the Port of Oakland.
(6) The provision of~~~ shoreside electrical power
generation to~eem~-ge~g oceangoing cargo container vessels,
moving cargo containers to and from the Port of Oakland, not
otherwise required by any federal or state law or regulation.
(7) Container cargo-handling equipment, handling cargo
containers at the Port of Oakland, not otherwise required by any
federal or state law or regulation.
94
- 29 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
f~1
(c) No later than September 1,895 2009, the board, at a public
hearing, shall approve a list of projects that meet the ERP's goals
for 2010, 2015, and 2020 that are consistent with the plan
developed pursuant to subdivision (c), to meet or maintain federal
air quality standards. If the board has not approved a list of prof ects
by September 1,898 2009, the most recent list of projects
submitted to the board by the district shall become the final list of
projects.
(d) Beginning July 1, 2011, and every two years thereafter, the
district and the Port of Oakland, in consultation with the Port of
Oakland stakeholder group, may evaluate the list of Port of
Oakland mitigation relief projects and may revise that list, taking
into consideration whether the projects are legally, technologically,
and economically feasible, and whether circumstances have
changed to affect the feasibility or priority of, or need for, the
projects. The district and the Port of Oakland shall approve the
revised list only if there are any revisions at a public meeting and
submit the revised list to the board. No later than 90 days after
the initial submission by the district and the Port of Oakland of
the revised list, the board, at a public hearing, shall approve the
revised project list submitted by the district and the Port of
Oakland. The board shall not change the revised list of projects
submitted by the district and the Port of Oakland. The board may
only accept or reject the entire list of projects. If the board has
not approved a revised list of projects by 90 days after the initial
submission by the district and the Port of Oakland, the most recent
revised list of projects submitted to the board by the district and
the Port of Oakland shall become the final list of projects.
(e) The board may determine, at a public hearing, that the
emission reduction goals for 2020 have been met or exceeded and
that projects that reduce emissions from the movement of cargo
containers to and from the port and are designed to achieve federal
air quality standards have been implemented, and once the
determination is made, and ensuring that all approved projects
have been funded, notice shall be given to
the Port of Oakland of this determination, and the Port of Oakland
shall no longer collect the one-half of the user fee for air quality
projects meant to reach these goals and federal air quality
attainment standards.
94
SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
30 -
~L7.. .. _~]_~
inrs-~vir.
(~ The Port of Oakland shall use the Port of Oakland container
cargo fee revenues to fund only projects authorized pursuant to
this section and Section 1751.
(g) A project receiving funding pursuant to this section may
also receive funding from other sources, including, but not limited
to, local agencies, state sources, federal sources, and private
sources.
1754. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Ports
of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland are authorized to impose
a user fee on cargo moving through the respective ports, with
revenue proceeds to be used to construct and maintain
infrastructure improvements and implement mitigation programs.
Article 4. Financing Provisions
1760. (a) Pursuant to the authority of the San Pedro Bay Ports,
the San Pedro Bay Ports may enter into financing agreements with
participating parties for the purpose of financing or refinancing
San Pedro Bay Ports congestion reliefprojects and San Pedro Ports
mitigation relief projects.
(b) As authorized, the San Pedro Bay Ports may issue bonds as
San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Container Fee Revenue
Bonds to finance or refinance San Pedro Bay Ports congestion
relief projects and as San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Relief
Container Fee Revenue Bonds to finance or refinance San Pedro
Bay Ports mitigation relief projects.
(c) The principal of and interest and redemption premiums on
San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Container Fee Revenue
Bonds and San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Container Fee
Revenue Bonds shall be payable from, and secured by, San Pedro
Bay Ports congestion relief container fee revenue and San Pedro
Bay Ports mitigation relief container fee revenue, respectively, as
and to the extent provided in the constituent instruments defining
the rights of the holders of the bonds.
1761. (a) Pursuant to the procedures in the City of Oakland
City Charter and subject to any applicable pledges, liens,
covenants, or obligations of the port's bonds, debt instruments,
94
31- SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
indentures, or other indebtedness, the Port of Oakland may enter
into financing agreements with participating parties for the purpose
of financing or refinancing Port of Oakland congestion relief
projects and Port of Oakland mitigation relief projects.
> >
......b»...... .....~.............~. ~..~ .~. ~..»~, ....Y..... ~.J, ».. »........ ...~
....C aL ,. L...1.7.._,. ..l aL .. L..~.7..
(b) As authorized by the City of Oakland City Charter, the Port
of Oakland may issue bonds as the Port of Oakland container
cargo fee revenue bonds to finance or refinance Port of Oakland
congestion relief projects or the Port of Oakland mitigation relief
projects.
(c) The principal of and interest and redemption premiums on
the Port of Oakland container cargo fee revenue bonds shall be
payable from, and secured by, the Port of Oakland container cargo
fee revenue as, and to the extent, provided in the constituent
instruments defining the rights of the holders of the bonds.
1762. The San Pedro Bay Ports may pledge all or any portion
of the San Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief container fees to
secure San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Container Fee
Revenue Bonds, and credit facilities for these bonds, and all or
any portion of the San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Container
Fee Revenue Bonds, and credit facilities for these bonds. All San
Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief container fees and San Pedro
Bay Ports mitigation relief container fees so pledged shall be paid
to the indenture trustee for these bonds each month, from the San
Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Trust Fund and the San Pedro
Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Trust Fund for so long as any of the
bonds are outstanding. Any San Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief
container fees and San Pedro Bay Ports mitigation relief container
94
SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-32-
fees that are not required to be retained by the indenture trustee
pursuant to the constituent instruments defining the rights of the
holders of the bonds shall be remitted by the indenture trustee to
the San Pedro Bay Ports Congestion Relief Trust Fund and the
San Pedro Bay Ports Mitigation Relief Trust Fund and shall be
disbursed at the request of the authority and the district,
respectively, for San Pedro Bay Ports congestion relief projects
and San Pedro Bay Ports mitigation relief projects.
1763. Pursuant to the procedures in the City of Oakland City
Charter and subject to any applicable pledges, liens, covenants,
or obligations of the port's bonds, debt instruments, indentures,
or other indebtedness, the Port of Oakland may pledge all or any
portion of the Port of Oakland container cargo fees to secure Port
of Oakland container cargo fee revenue bonds, and credit facilities
for these bonds. All Port of Oakland container cargo fees so
pledged shall be paid to the indenture trustee for these bonds each
month for so long as any of the bonds are outstanding. Pursuant
to the procedures in the City of Oakland City Charter and subject
to any applicable pledges, liens, covenants, or obligations of the
port's bonds, debt instruments, indentures, or other indebtedness,
94
- 33 - SB 974
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
any Port of Oakland container cargo fees that are not required to
be retained by the indenture trustee pursuant to the constituent
instruments defining the rights of the holders of the bonds shall
be remitted by the indenture trustee and be disbursed at the request
of the Port of Oakland to pay for Port of Oakland congestion relief
projects and Port of Oakland mitigation relief projects.
SEC. 3. Section 1760 of the Harbors and Navigation Code is
amended and renumbered to read:
1730. (a) For purposes of this section, "council" means the
California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory
Council, a regional subunit of the Marine Transportation System
National Advisory Council chartered by the federal Secretary of
Transportation under the Federal Advisory Council Act (P.L.
92-463).
(b) The council is requested to do all of the following:
(1) Meet, hold public hearings, and compile data on issues that
include, but need not be limited to, all of the following:
(A) The projected growth of each maritime port in the state.
(B) The costs and benefits of developing a coordinated state
program to obtain federal funding for maritime port growth,
security, and congestion relief.
(C) Impacts of maritime port growth on the state's transportation
system. °
• (D) Air pollution caused by movement of goods through the
state's maritime ports, and proposed methods of mitigating or
alleviating that pollution.
(E) Maritime port security, including, but not limited to, training,
readiness, certification of port personnel, exercise planning and
conduct, and critical marine transportation system infrastructure
protection.
(F) A statewide plan for continuing operation of maritime ports
in cooperation with the United States Coast Guard, the federal
Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Emergency
Services, the state Office of Homeland Security, and the California
National Guard, consistent with the state's emergency management
system and the national emergency management system, in the
event of a major incident or disruption of port operations in one
or more of the state's maritime ports.
(G) State marine transportation policy, legislation, and planning;
regional infrastructure project funding; competitiveness;
94
SB 974
-34-
1 environmental impacts; port safety and security; and any other
2 matters affecting the marine transportation system of the United
3 States within, or affecting, the state.
4 (2) Identify all state agencies that are involved with the
5 development, planning, or coordination of maritime ports in the
6 state.
7 (3) Identify other states that have a statewide port master plan
8 and determine whether that plan has assisted those states in
9 improving their maritime ports.
10 (4) Compile all information obtained pursuant to paragraphs
11 (1) to (3), inclusive, and submit its findings in a report to the
12 Legislature not later than January 1, 2006. The report should
13 include, but need not be limited to, recommendations on methods
14 to better manage the growth of maritime ports and address the
15 environmental impacts of moving goods through those ports.
16 (c) The activities of the council pursuant to this section shall
17 not be funded with appropriations from the General Fund.
18 SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
19 Section 6 ofArticle XIIIB of the California Constitution because
20 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
21 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
22 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section.
23 17556 of the Government Code.
O
94