02-04-2002 Port of Houston Expansion Review Committee Minutes

Browse Search

• MINUTES OF THE BAYPORT EXPANSION OPPOSITION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 4, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Engelken at 5:00 p.m. Members of the Committee Present: Councilpersons Guy Sutherland, Chuck Engelken, Howard Ebow, and Peter Griffiths. Members Absent: None Members of City Executive Staff and Cit~ployees Present: City Manager Robert T. Herrera, Assistant City Manager John Joerns, and City Secretary Martha Gillett. 2. DISCUSS PROPOSED DRAFT PORT OF HOUSTON EXPANSION OPPOSITION LETTER AND OTHER POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LETTER Councilperson Guy Sutherland questioned whether it is better, more forceful, to have a complete document with everything included in it; or a cover letter with attachments, like the draft attached to the agenda. He raised this as a point of discussion. When he receives comments, he prefers it be one continuous letter. The draft has two parts, the letter and a more detailed objection attached. He feels when letters are submitted with attachments, some may take the cover letter and file it separately from the attachment, being the bulk of the document. We have a lot of information in the cover letter that needs to be included with the attachment, or made as one document. Unless it's a continuous writing, we have no way to be certain it will be kept as one document. There is no reference in the letter of additional comments, an attachment. He suggests the letter go out under the Mayor's signature. There was some discussion reviewing the information from Shore Acres and including any needed information. Councilperson Peter Griffiths would like strong comments added regarding the lowering of EPA standards; particles, microns, ozone, etc. There was further discussion on this. The Assistant City Manager John Joerns emphasized the region is "sight specific". At our sight it cannot be dispersed as it could be in Texas City; there's concentrated loading in a part of the County that already has concentrated loading. They look at the eight county mandate and assume it would be the same for all sights, which he does not feel is an appropriate way to look at this. The mandate is for an eight county region. This bullet point was directly lifted from the Executive Summary and it has the point Councilman Sutherland made in the meeting. They summarized it; they provided a certain impact in the Houston/Galveston Attainment Plan. Stating the impact on the regions plan to attain the ozone standard is long term, but a less than significant adverse impact when you look on the chart. It's the same comment all the way across on each of the different sites. Now the Port has stated that La Porte is the only sight they want; this was in the newspaper. The EPA standards are going to be an immediate impact here in