City, Harbor officials clash over clean air: lobbying dispute ups tension in Long Beach.

The Long Beach City Council and its Board of Harbor Commissioners generally see eye to eye on most port issues.

But the two bodies have drawn their political muskets over a bill that was on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk last week that would mandate no net increase in 2004 pollution levels for the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports--a measure the council endorses and harbor commissioners oppose.

The debate has grown so intense that councilmembers want to amend the City Charter to strip the port of its authority to lobby in Sacramento or to endorse bills without the council's approval.

"When you have the Harbor Department and the city taking conflicting positions on a state legislative matter, then you have a responsibility to the state to adopt port policies," said Ray Pok, chief of staff for City Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga. "The City Council would have exclusive authority to adopt legislative policies for the city."

He pointed out that the state Tidelines Trust, which ownsthe port's land, grants the city, not the port, authority over the harbor district.

The Long Beach Harbor Department spends about $6,450 on state lobbying and $25,000 on federal lobbying. The charter would place restrictions on all lobbying.

If approved, Long Beach would be more in line with the lobbying methods of L.A., which relies on Mayor James Hahn and the Los Angeles City Council to state the city's position on legislative issues.

"We don't have a lobbyist in Sacramento," said Arley Baker, spokesman for the L.A. port.

Pok said most of Long Beach's nine councilmembers would support a special referendum that would give voters the final say. "They would still have lobbying money but it wouldn't (be spent in) conflict with policies adopted by the council," he said.

Cutting emissions

The skirmish was touched off early this year, when state Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, introduced a bill that would force the ports of Long Beach and L.A. to complete a baseline emissions inventory under the direction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

By Jan. 1, 2006, the ports must have programs to ensure the level of pollution doesn't get any worse. However, the bill doesn't include penalties for failure to meet the air-quality standards.

Harbor commissioners say their opposition was misunderstood as a lack of concern about public health. (Two studies documenting the adverse health impact of pollution in Long Beach have gained wide attention in the media.)

Instead, they say they don't have the authority to implement anti-emission rules that could be enforced against steamship lines, trucking and railroad companies and terminal operators.

"It wasn't the intent of the bill that we had any disagreement with," said Gus Hein, the port's government affairs director and executive officer to the harbor commissioners. "We all are working very hard--both the council and the Harbor Commission--to improve the air quality."

Councilmembers also want the Harbor Department to present more detailed annual budgets for final approval. Currently, the budgets do not break out specific expenditures, such as lobbying funds, so councilmembers don't know how much commissioners are spending.

Commissioners in July approved a $450.8 million budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The 13 percent increase broke out areas such as general operating expenses, capital, environmental and security projects and the staff payroll. (The port is fiscally autonomous and does not require appropriations from the city's general fund.)

The City Council opted to table any action pertaining to the city charter at its Sept. 7 meeting, instead voting only to reaffirm its endorsement of Lowenthal's bill, which the Assembly and Senate passed this summer. (Schwarzenegger has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the measure.)

"I'm disappointed the harbor commissioners actively oppose the bill," said Lowenthal. "I don't think they should be actively opposing legislation when they are appointed by elected officials and those same elected officials have supported the bill. It is not allowed in Los Angeles and it shouldn't be allowed in Long Beach."

In Los Angeles, harbor commissioners submit resolutions to the City Council, which then votes to affirm or oppose the document. When the council disagrees with the harbor commission, the resolution is dropped.

The two sides in Long Beach are planning to meet next month to improve communication and coordination on legislative matters.

"It would be impractical to think the board of directors overseeing one of the busiest and most economically important port facilities in the nation shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion on port-related matters," said Hein. "We're best qualified to speak on behalf of how the port facilities should be governed."