Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and consider an appeal (APL 19-006) by Jerilyn Lopez Mendoza (Coalition for Clean Air), Ann Cantrell, Joe Weinstein and Corliss Lee (Citizens About Responsible Planning), Ann Cantrell and Anna Christiansen (Sierra Club Los Cerritos Wetlands Task Force); Jesse N. Marquez (Coalition For A Safe Environment), and Andrea Hricko (Concerned Faculty of USC and UCLA); Adopt resolution approving and certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (MND 08-19) for the Long Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project, consisting of onshore and maritime improvements in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and local Guidelines; making certain CEQA Findings and Determinations relative thereto; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in accordance with those measures set forth in the MND; and Approve a Site Plan Review (SPR 19-026) for the onshore improvements to the Long Beach Cruise Terminal, consisting 
Thank you. And those will be the next two items ahead of us. So if I can also ask if we can just please close those doors so we can and that would be appreciated. If you'd like to take a seat, you are welcome. And so with that, I'm going to begin by having the clerk read Hearing Item 19. Report from Development Services Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and consider an appeal. Adopt resolution approving and certifying the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact for the Long Beach Cruise Terminal Improvement Project and approve a site plan review for the onshore improvements of the Long Beach cruise terminal District two. Thank you. And with that, if I can, please do we have an oath for this that we did administer? If you're a witness in this hearing, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Please be seated. Thank you. With that, we're going to have the staff report by city staff. Thank you. Mayor Linda Tatum, director of development services. We'll be providing the staff report. I'd like to introduce the project team for this item that is our our event or current planning officer Alexis or a peso. And the staff planner is Amy Harbin. She will be making the presentation for this item. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and fellow Council Members before you this evening is a request to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude this public hearing and consider an appeal for a project consisting of an approval of improvements to the Long Beach cruise terminal in the Queensway Bay planned development zoning district. Although there are numerous assertions throughout the appeals, the most significant assertions are that the city did not consult with the Port of Long Beach on the project and that the baseline used in the study is faulty. The project site is located south of downtown, adjacent to the port of Long Beach, and within about one half mile to the 710 freeway. Zoning on the property is planned development PD 21 and consistent with the general plan. Louis Number seven Mixed use district primary access to the site is from Queens Highway and South Harbor Scenic Drive. Overall, the property is 103 acres, however. The city owned portion located on the east side of South Harbor Scenic Drive, is approximately 45 acres in size. The site is developed with the Arms Queen Mary Hotel and tourist attraction. Catalina Classic Cruises. City of Long Beach. Aqua Link Island Express. Helicopters. A Surface Parking Lot. A six story parking structure. Harry Bridges Memorial Park and the Long Beach cruise terminal. The former Spurs custom Long Beach Fire Department station number six is also located on Pier H along the southwest side of South Harbor. Scenic Drive is Pier Gee, which includes a rail yard, truck, container storage, liquid storage tanks and refinery equipment. Included for context relating to the mitigated negative declaration. The maritime improvements include dredging the existing berth to a deeper depth and the proposed expansion of the leasehold area. Also included as part of the maritime improvements are the construction of two mooring dolphins and associated catwalks, the extension of the passenger walkway, bridge and fender replacements. Onshore improvements include the expansion of the parking structure to the south. A total of 417 new spaces. This area has been designed to accommodate vertical clearance for emergency vehicles per the US Department of Transportation Standards, as well as the city's public works department. The third through fifth floors part of the north expansion will include 240 spaces. The bus parking area to the north will be reconfigured along with the interior reconfigured drop off traffic lanes to allow for improved pedestrian access from the structure and drop off area to the check in area at the dome. Each of the expanded floors has been designed to integrate seamlessly with the existing structure, and once completed, all levels will be accessible as one continuous structure. The existing tunnel will also be filled in order to accommodate the expanded structure and reconfigure traffic lanes. The Planning Commission found that the project is compatible in design, character and scale with its surroundings, which include the adjacent recreational and tourism uses. The project's form and massing are designed to be consistent with the existing structure so that when finished will be one cohesive structure. Additionally, the Planning Commission considered and approved the mitigated negative declaration which analyzed both the maritime and landside improvements. The required findings can be made in the affirmative. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Sequoia and the State Sequoia guidelines, an initial study was prepared which determined the preparation of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. MDO 8-19 would be appropriate. The mitigated negative declaration indicated that no significant impacts would result from the project with the incorporation of an implementation of the stated mitigation measures. The City has been in ongoing communication and consultation with the Port of Long Beach staff since the project was originally submitted, as well as concurrently reviewing the project secret documentation to ensure adequate analysis of the whole action. The California Supreme Court has indicated that existing conditions will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. Selection of a baseline period at any other time would constitute the cherry picking of either lower or higher values than the current baseline . The piece mealing of a project occurs when a project is broken up into smaller pieces to avoid environmental review of all the impacts of the project as a whole. Staff recommends that the City Council receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, consider the appeal and adopt the resolution approving and certifying the mitigated negative declaration and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve a site plan review. And this concludes staff's presentation. Thank you. With that, we do have some appellants. So because we have five appellants, we are going to be giving each of the appellants starting off 5 minutes. And then I think we have the we do have a coalition of some faculty, so they might get some longer at the last. Appellant But if I can please have a Jeralyn Mendoza Please come up first. And then after Jerry Mendoza, I'm going to have citizens about responsible planning. They'll be second. Please come forward. He's Geralyn Mendoza here. Mr. Mayor, city councilmembers. My name is Chris Chavez. Obviously not Geralyn Mendoza. She had a medical procedure. Done today, so I'm speaking in her place. I am the deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. I am also a resident of the City of Long Beach. Coalition for Clean Air filed this appeal because our concerns are the organization of the merit mitigated negative declaration seemed like inappropriate piece mealing of the project such that landside improvements were under the Planning Commission in water site improvements were under the Port of Long Beach. However, the city of Long Beach, through the Planning Commission and Planning Bureau, is the lead agency for Sequa for all purposes. The city cannot make the Port of Long Beach in charge of water related. Issues for the purposes of the terminal expansion. Project. Additionally, the Port of Long Beach has not formally considered the expansion project or contributed to the city as a responsible agency under sequel. The Planning Commission made its decision without a written report, written briefing or any other contribution in writing from the Port of Long Beach. And nobody from the Port of Long Beach. Spoke at the. November 7th Planning Commission meeting or to our knowledge, attended the meeting. The Commission made its decision without any deliberate port of Long Beach expertize on the water related improvements and its potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the Commission's decision was premature and based on incomplete information. We therefore request that the mitigated non mitigated negative declaration be revoked in the Port of Long Beach, be allowed to appropriate time to review and. Analyze the environmental impacts of the project. Before a final decision is made by the Planning Commission. As secure as a secret lead agency, it's important to note for Coalition for Clean Air part, we do not. Oppose this project, nor are we trying to stop this project. However, we want to make sure that. Seep was adhered to. As strictly as possible. Long Beach, as we know, has some of the most polluted air in California and in the United States. There's a lot of efforts going on at the state level, the local level, to try to mitigate some of those longstanding air quality concerns by ensuring appropriate adherence to the secret process will help build and reinforce the trust between local agencies and the constituents that those agencies serve. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next up is our citizens about responsible planning. Before I begin, Mayor, I am going to be speaking for both carp and. The Sierra Club was Cerritos Wetlands Task Force. So may I have 10 minutes? Yeah. Have you down for both? You're going to be that. Are you going to be the sole speaker for both? No. Coral Inslee is also speaking for carp. So carp in total only has 5 minutes. And so. Is control if you want to speak. And I'll let Ms.. Ms.. Lee also speak. But it needs to be within 10 minutes. Within the 10 minutes, correct. All right. I do have you down for both. Thank you. Citizens about responsible planning. Caap and the Sierra Club Most Serious Wetlands Task Force are appealing the Carnival Cruise Expansion Project as we contend it needs a full environmental impact report to address the inadequately mitigated environmental issues. These include air quality kelp forests, marine mammals, birds, fish habitat, noise, light toxic materials, disposal of dredge materials and adverse environmental impacts. The Carnival cruise ships have not only on our port and the city of Long Beach, but on the entire ocean. The staff report base its recommendation to deny or appeal on a claim that evidence on the record does not support our appeals. However, to support. This claim staff provides only one letter attachment K in your packet, which was not written by the city as lead agency nor by the negative declaration preparer, but by attorneys for the party of interests. Carnival Cruise. Perhaps this utterly unprofessional and biased approach. Besides this utterly unprofessional and biased approach the staffs report claim is quite mistaken in substance. At the Planning Commission on November seven three, submitted on the record many substantive reasons why statements in the negative declaration are inadequate and therefore a full environmental Empower Pack report is needed . Both Carp and Sierra Club Task Force agree with all the concerns of the other appellants. But because of shortage of time, I will address only a few. The conclusion to the negative declaration states The project area is within one of the busiest ports on the West Coast, within highly modified habitat. In spite of the generally degraded habitat, a few special status or sensitive species are present or potentially present. The small number of sensitive species lists 16 different birds from pelicans to herons to terns, nor known to forage and nest in the project area. Six listed or special statue marine mammals from whales to dolphins to sea lions have a moderate to high potential to occur on site, according to the noise study. Unmitigated underwater noise impacts to marine mammals may occur during pile diving, driving and dredging activities. And what is the mitigation for these endangered birds and mammals? From the negative declaration. I quote, during pile driving activities, the construction contractor shall utilize a soft start initiation of the pile driving equipment at the beginning of each day, or following a 30 minute or longer break in pile driving. Driving to give nearby wildlife a chance to vacate immediate construction area before full force pile driving is initiated, unquote. Chasing birds and mammals away from their nesting and foraging area is not mitigation. Another concern are the kelp forests. The negative dex states quote, The major species of brown algae or kelp in the Long Beach Harbor are giant kelp and feather boa kelp. Surveys in 2013 and 2014 identified kelp beds growing along the outer faces of pure j and both faces of the breakwater just south west of the project's existing berth and docking area. As such, it is possible that kelp beds in the project would be impacted by the present project. Constructive activities. According to Dr. Rogers Bennett of UC Davis Bodega Marine Labs, the long time relative stable northern kelp forests have essentially been almost completely wiped. Out of control employment. Over the last decade and will take many decades, if ever, to recover. Mr. Centralia, if I know if I'm into next Christmas, you know you're going to be the next I'm sorry. I was given 10 minutes. That you do five for you and five for Mrs. Christensen. That's what the mayor was telling me. No. As I understand it. Let me. Clarify. Thank you. So I think we have 10 minutes total for both groups and so. Ms. Control anything you don't use in the next few minutes? Mr.. Well, I would like my clock to be stopped while we discuss this. We'll give you that. Those, those time to worry. So just continue. But whatever is left over is what Ms.. Lee will be able to use for the rest of the time. May I ask a question? Isn't it true that at appeal hearing are the appellants are allowed to present all of their arguments in case there is a lawsuit? You're absolutely able to continue, and I'm not going to cut you off, but I'm trying to, because we have so many appellants. I'm asking folks if they can stay within 5 minutes. Please. There lies a reasonable amount of time. And so please continue. And and hopefully within that amount of time, you can also hear. Ms.. Lee so just please continue. I'm not going to cut you off. Am I getting my time back? No. Cost over. $100. Kelp forests anywhere are a relative rare and precious resource. One study found that along with removing carbon dioxide from the water, kelp is creating a defense against acidification. Mitigation measures? Incredibly, no mitigation measures are required for the kelp forests. Another big concern are the hazardous materials lurking in the dredged materials. I won't go into all of these that are there, but they include. Zinc. Arsenic. Copper. Nickel. Cadmium. Mercury. Dee dee dee dee dee ni and they were all elevated above the Los Angeles port reference sediments. Conclusion of the report states. Therefore, there is a moderate chance that the carnival sediments would cause significant toxicity to marine amphipods. The conclusion of the negative declaration appears to ignore the results of the study and are willing to submit marine life to the dangers of multiple toxic materials. For this reason alone, this project should not be approved. However, there is more and carelessly will tell you. What comes next. Okay. So in this negative declaration, they talk about being able to safely moor the larger cruise ship at the existing berth to improve safety at that berth related to ocean swells. But if you go online, you'll find that they have been advertising tickets for these sailings up to a year and a half ago starting this month. It's been confirmed with Matthew Armes, the environmental director of the Port of Long Beach, that they will dock the panorama at the same location as the other cruise ships. Either there isn't a safety issue or they are disregarding the safety issue. Also, if you look at the environmental issues in this city, if you look at that chart I had put up there, that's the coal enviro screen scores. And over on the left side, you'll see the port and going north, going up the 710 freeway. And you see all that red and all that red is basically saying that we have very we have the worst air quality in any city in the state. So shouldn't be carefully consider a project that brings with it additional pollution. According to USA Today, a study of four cruise ships, including two of Carnival's ship exhaust, contains her harmful constituents, including metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, many of which have toxic, mutagenic or carcinogenic properties. Do we really expect the people on the west side of Long Beach to live with that? They don't deserve it. Moving on, it says that there are speed requirements going into in and out of Mexico. And once again, if you look at the staff report, it's saying that that they use that for schedule issues. So is the schedule more important than our air? Also in terms of shore power, they are required to use shore power when they're inside the the port here. But the problem being that Stefano Barzani's spokesman for Carmel Carnival, admitted that of the five ships currently coming to Long Beach each week, only four are equipped with shore power . And I'm going to summarize here that at the end that, yes, money will increase, more taxes will come to the city if you approve this, but weighed against our residents health, we ask that you choose to support city residents their health and quality of life. Thank you. As Christians say that you have. Okay. Then we're moving on to our next speaker, which is Mr. Marquez. And I want to just make sure mislead. I know your time was up because I also told this control. Did you complete everything you wanted to say? Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes, go ahead. Good evening. My name is Jesse Marcus. I'm the co-founder. And secretary to the Coalition for Safe Alignment. And if you've seen our documentation, I also represent nine other. Groups which represent a wide spectrum. Of society and members of the public. What I want to speak. With you about and describe with you is what's not being told to you. For some reason, this is a project that's been put on a super fast track. It is already behind schedule. But then here's what's not being told to you as an addition to that. Both the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District submitted public comments in July and in September, both of them describing in detail the inadequacies of assumptions of the assessments and estimates of the emissions and the mitigation. City staff ignored them. So here we have. The two predominant. Regulatory agencies saying there's things wrong with this and yet it moved forward without that. That's what's not being told to you. You heard just mentioned about the shore power. Yes, it's in there that they will be short powered and they will hook up and plug in. But not today. Not tomorrow. A terminal cannot do it. Today or tomorrow, it will be a while before they get to it. You could give me a year or two before they even get to it. Those are concerns. In talking about mitigation. We have come to all agree, as appellants and many of our members, that city staff did not have an ongoing, continuous, in-depth discussion with the Port of Long Beach about this negative, negative declaration. Because when it comes to the subject of mitigating impacts, they did a very poor job. Both CARB and IT Committee also stated that our organization publishes a document which is a survey of all zero emissions transportation vehicles, cargo handling equipment, construction equipment, and we provide it to at least five six executive management at the Port of Long Beach. So they are fully aware of what is available. Yet city staff. Claiming that, you know, they need to be able to purchase pushing credit somewhere else to offset impacts is not true. Even though it mentions they will be using electric dredging, Carnival already mentioned that there's a probability that the dredger will not be available. Even the attorneys Piper LP said, Oh, well, the three dredger manufacturers la la la la. Well, actually there's five. And this project is not a new project. It's been on the books. Port of Long Beach, City of LA could have gotten a cap and trade grant, Proposition one grant. They could have gotten a Carmelo grant, they could. Have gotten a deer grant and several other grants. And worked with a dredger service provider provider to be able to have it available when you needed it. We all signed contracts to deliver services. You're behind already now. So come the time that you need to use it. It may not be available because you have no contract with them to do that. And since the ship cannot plug in today, tomorrow, or maybe even for a year or more, there is a technology. It's called Inec's Advanced Maritime Emissions Control Technology. It has already been used on over 300 ships at the Port of Long Beach alone. It is certified by CARB. So it's not unknown. It is feasible. It is cost effective. And it is readily available right here at the ports. And they use it all the time. But yet there is no contract to use them. To protect the public from emissions. There are also we claim that there are underestimates of the emissions. Well, yes, if you read the CARB letter and the and the Archimedes letter, they describe the areas where it's missing. But in addition to that, there are other things that you don't know and city staff would not necessarily know, for example. When a cruise ship comes here, there's trash. Well, you don't see the barge going to the ship to unload the trash. You don't see the emissions from the lift to take it off the ship. You don't see the fuel barge and its emissions as part of that. So we're saying we're not against the project. We're asking to delay and redo the air as required under sequel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marquez. And then I have Andrea Ricco, I believe. Yes. Please come forward. And I know if you want to go beyond the 5 minutes, you're. Welcome to do so. Thank you very much. I'm Andrea Ricco. Professor emerita from USC Keck School of Medicine, representing concerned academics from USC and UCLA. I would like to raise a number of issues and I'm sorry, I've had a cold for two weeks, so. See if I can do this. Despite claims and several others have raised this city of Long Beach, staff did not appropriately consult with the Port of Long Beach on strategy for the sequel analysis. I've had multiple conversations with port staff over the last six months. They personally told me that the city of Long Beach was handling the environmental review differently than the port would have handled it. For example, the Port of Long Beach said there was no need for a secure baseline analysis, which is the main thrust of the thrust of what the Port of Long, Long Beach planning staff did. So the public and government agencies, including Axiom D and A or B and dozens of community groups that signed on to a letter that the faculty at USC wrote spent weeks analyzing that secure baseline when the Port of Long Beach later said, That's not the way to have done the sequence analysis. That's a really horrible thing to do to the public. To publish a document that required that was so faulty in its analysis. That required has always been weeks analyzing it. And then the Port of Long Beach and Carnival later says, Well, we didn't really need to do that. We just did that or whatever. So the Port of Long Beach said that that was not an appropriate way to do that. So they were not consulted by the port of by the city of Long Beach staff. I forwarded the Planning Commission hearing notice to the Port of Long Beach top environmental management staff, and asked for a call about it. And they told me that my forwarding them, the Planning Commission notice was the first they had heard about it and that they had not seen the Planning Commission notice that talked about the Harbor Commission having a meeting. That is not what I would call proper consultation and it resulted in no in an opaque process and lack of ability to engage on this issue with the Port of Long Beach. Secondly, we argue that the analysis that the psychoanalysis that the Long Beach staff did City of Long Beach about the comparing the new panorama with the polluting Carnival Splendor was completely faulty. First, Carnival brought the Splendor back to Long Beach after I'd been gone for four years. Why do they bring it back? Do they think that that would be a good comparison with a ship that plugged into electricity so you could prove that the new ship was going to reduce emissions? There's no reason why Carnival brought the polluting Splendor back to the port of Long Beach. So again, we spent hours and hours and weeks analyzing all of the analysis presented by all of the environmental consultants to the city staff. And the Port of Long Beach later said there was no need to have done that. Third Carnival refuse planning staff for months by saying that Panorama had a Tier three engine, which has the cleanest engines that are currently available. I did a Public Records Act request and I received 1500 pages of city documents. So I've seen some communications back and forth that probably you have not seen. On May 28th, after months and months of emails going back and forth, consultants told us, I'm sorry. Pan Carnival told City staff that the Panorama was actually a Tier two engine, not a Tier three May 28. That's three weeks before this MMD was published. So one of the consultants wrote an email to the city staff saying, We don't know what to do here. All of our all of our emission calculations are based on this cleaner tier miraculously cleaner tier three engine. And all I know is that that was three weeks before the Mandi was published. And I find it hard to believe that after working six or eight months on their document, that the consultants revised all of their emission calculations in those next three weeks in time to publish it. Part of the confusion is when it is a way that you can get around the International Maritime Organization rules. They starting January 1st, 2016, they require that all new Marine oceangoing ships have a Tier three engine if they were going to enter North American waters like here in Long Beach. And so that started on January 1st, 2016. But Carnival bought this keel ten days before January 1st, 2016, so that they could get the grandfathered rules and have the Tier two dirtier engine. To me, this raises questions about whether Carnival Cruise Line really cares about public health in the environment. And you know, I have a PowerPoint. I'm sorry. It's not being shown. I submitted this. We have the one we have in front of us. Can you can we go through the slides really quick? Ones that we. I probably like on slides eight or something. Just go through it. I'll tell you. Okay. Who's going to do that? Oh. Okay. The Port of Long Beach should have known about this issue, that the tier that this was a tier two ship because in the 2017 update for the camp, the port said they were well aware of this method that the cruise that ships were using, ocean going vessels were using to use the earlier keels that were laid before 2016 to get to grandfather in these old keels and be able to use tier two engines instead of Tier three. So get this, in December of 2015, the carnival puts this keel on the ship, says it's starting to be constructed. Ten days later, the new rules start. Two years later, Carnival starts manufacturing the ship. And again, I say, you know, were the calculations about whether it was tier two or two or three really considered by the consultants? With regard to mitigation measures. There's a failure to demand that tug, that two or three tugboats be used, two or three engine tugboats and the visas were not available. So you can't make Carnival have to use something that's not available. And it's clear. I've got notice if you go through my comments that I gave you, there's notes from staff that says from Carnival, it says, we will not commit to tag three. Two or three tugboats. So then, as mentioned earlier, someone from the Piper law firm representing Carnival criticized me for demanding that Carnival use Tier three tugboats for dredging. And they said they're not available. And if they're not available, you can use emission credits. I found in the Public Records Act and an email to staff from that same person, Marshall Taylor from the Piper Law Firm saying emission reduction credits are not feasible. It would cost Carnival $30 million to buy emission reduction credits. So here we are. Tug three engines are not available, can't be mandated. Let's use emission credits, but emission credits are not feasible either. Behind the scenes, there's not a word about this in the in the Mandi, nor is there a word in the media about the fact that it's a tier two engine instead of a Tier three. And finally the end that there were a lot of dredged materials and sediment that ended up being dug up from doing all the dredging that's required to bring in a big ship like the panorama, which is the biggest cruise ship in the world. The analysis in 2018 showed that the dredged materials had moderate contamination. So the question is, where do you dispose of them? Where do you dispose of that dredge material? There also had been analysis from the cruise terminal in 2009, and that's in the document that's in the M. And it's not like I found it and some crazy places in the mandate, so everybody had access to it. If you look at 29 to 2018, the the contaminants are dramatically higher in 2018 than they were in 2009. In 2018, the decision by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers was that it's okay to dump this stuff in the ocean in 2009 when the levels were a lot lower. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers said it's too toxic to dump in the ocean. So I just would raise questions about whether we should have some kind of neutral person evaluate these dredging contaminants or whether there might be something going on. You know, with the current administration, which recently revoked the National Oceans policy, is there something going on that's saying let's let the more contaminated stuff just go ahead, we don't have to worry about it like we did ten years ago. And I've got examples of those metals in here. And I say arsenic level found arsenic levels. You know, you have this ocean dumping site called L.A. two. And so the analysis shows what are the chemicals like? What are the contaminants like at the L.A. two ocean dumping site? And what are the contaminants like that you're finding right now? So arsenic was 1.5 to 4 times higher. Lead was 14 to 16 times higher. So I'm going I mean. Let my last sentence. Okay. Why aren't you. Continually and there were no there were currently no detectable PCBs at L.A. two. And the levels of PCBs in the Carnival Cruise terminal sample exceed the the threshold, the lower threshold limits for what is okay to dispose of. So I think some neutral party really has to look at what's happening with that dredged material. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going we're continuing on the on the hearing. We do have both public comment and of course, the carnival is here. Also who they get or they're making it seem as if they like up to ten or 15 minutes since there's one person and the five appellants is a representative from Carnival wants to make any comments or any rebuttals. Good evening. Honorable Mario Garcia, member of City Council, city manager and staff we. My name is Stefano Bersani. I do global development for Carnival Corporation. We are proud to be here tonight in front of you to represent our company in doing so, in full respect of the appeal process in front of us. I would like to introduce executives from Carnival. They are joining me today and partners. We are working messe commercial director, head of long beach operations. We have Vicky Ray, vice president of Guest Care and communications. We have Terry Taunton, senior vice president of nautical and port operations. Right behind here, I have John Africa, senior Vice President of Maritime Policy and Analysis, former US Navy officer. And then I have Andrew Brady right behind me and Marcia Taylor from DLA Piper. At this point, I'd like to ask Andrew Brady to please come up and address the legal brief we have prepared. Thank you. Good evening. Honorable members of the Council. My name is Andrew Brady of DLA Piper on behalf of the project applicant Carnival. First, I want to note that we did submit a as a reference. Before a detailed comment letter that addresses the appeals. Point by point. I'm not going to address the full detail of those comment letters, but I do want to go through a few key points. First, in order legally to demonstrate that a mitigated negative declaration is invalid under SEQUA. The California Environmental Quality. Act, the appeals would have to show that there is substantial evidence in the record and a fair argument, a fair argument of significant environmental impacts supported. By substantial evidence in the record that despite. All of the detailed analysis in the media, that this project would nonetheless result in significant, unmitigated impacts on the environment. The appeals filed before the Council do not meet that standard. They fail to meet that burden. They, rather than address the substance of the amend its supporting expert technical reports or any of the evidence in the record, the appeals merely criticize in cursory fashion with no citations to the record and zero evidence that they want the city to have done the analysis differently. That is not nearly enough to establish a square violation. And now here tonight and at the 11th hour, the appellants have submitted new information and arguments that address a number of issues that are simply not relevant to the scope of this fairly modest and limited project. I will briefly address some of the germane issues that were addressed. First, with respect to hazardous materials. I would note that the M.A. has in support as an appendix, a detailed dredging soils report that includes analysis of the soils that are to be dredged and disposed of here. The city staff. The city's expert, circuit consultant, the United States EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Port of Long Beach, all determined that these contaminants were at levels that were safe for disposal at a designated disposal site. That is that is more than enough for the city to have correctly concluded that in Mandi is appropriate and that these impacts would be less than significant. And it is supported by the conclusions of a number of different expert agencies on the issue of school piecemeal. The comment respectfully misapprehension would seek what piecemeal actually is. They say that because there are separate approvals from the port in the city, that constitutes piecemeal. That is not what piecemeal as piecemeal relates to the analysis of the whole of the project itself. Many projects require approvals from different government agencies. That does not render cycle analysis invalid. A cycle analysis is supposed to analyze the entirety of the project itself, and that is what this analysis does. Staff did briefly address the baseline question. I will just say that the standard under Sequoia is to analyze as the baseline, the currently existing conditions at the time the environmental analysis is conducted. That is what this memo does. That is the standard under secure and the mandate here follows that standard. Beyond that raised the issue of emissions reductions credits. That is a mandatory mitigation measure of this project and statements that it is going to be prohibitively expensive or actually incorrect. Carnival's taking on that as a mandatory condition for this project that it must meet in order to get the permits. Finally, the use of two or three tugboats, it is it is analyzed and determined in the manner that two or three tugboats of the size required for the work here, maybe, maybe unavailable, but where available? The project is mandated to use them. That analysis is in the Mandi. It accounts for it and the Amandi concludes, including that analysis, that the impacts of the project will still be less than significant. Finally, just to correct the record, the statement that the MMD does not analyze the engines that are used in the ship is incorrect . The MEHNDI was revised and recirculated. The remedy does a properly account for the type of engine that is used in the Panorama ship. So, you know, there's there were there's a wide variety of other claims and issues raised in the appeal. Happy to address any questions the Council may have regarding those additional issues. I would just note that, you know, an M&A is eminently appropriate for this project. This is a project that actually results in substantial environmental benefits insofar as it enables Carnival to bring in the use of a new, more efficient ship that's going to be able to connect 100% to shore power, and it will be able to connect 100% to shore power on day one. There is no delay. The project only involves approximately seven weeks, only seven weeks of berth, modifications and dredging, while still allowing vessels to be safely handled during construction. Based on these facts, we concur with the conclusion of the staff and the Planning Commission that the MMD is appropriate and fully complies with the requirements of sequel. On that basis, we recommend that this Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission in denying the appeals. And I will now turn the presentation back to Mr. Barroso. Thank you very much. Thank you. Don't steal my paper. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew, with regard to our commitment to sustainability and the specifics of a carnival panorama, I'd like to ask John Heffernan to please join me and approach that element of the presentation. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Thanks for the opportunity to say a few words. My name is John Heffelfinger. I'm senior vice president of Maritime Policy, and I also oversee our corporate sustainability efforts for the corporation. And I'd like to just provide a little bit of context, if I could. I'll keep it brief. For context, Carnival Corporation currently operates 104 ships around the world. We call on over 700 ports annually. Long Beach is obviously a very important one of those. We operate nine brands. Carnival Cruise Line is the largest of our nine brands, operating 27 of those 104 ships. As a going concern. We fully recognize that our future depends on operating safely, obviously, and on the health of the world's oceans. So it's important for us to employ solutions that manage our impacts. Our approach to sustainability has really been about continuous improvement and I'll explain a bit more. In 2015, for the first time, we went public with a series of sustainability goals for 2020, and next year we expect to attain or achieve all of them. One of our top priorities is ongoing improvement in energy efficiency, and associated with that is air emissions. Obviously, since 2005 as an entity, we've achieved an efficiency gain of more than 27%. We've invested over $500 million in advanced air quality systems designed to reduce sulfur and particulate emissions. We were the first cruise company in the industry to make an investment and it's an ongoing investment in LNG powered cruise ships. We took delivery of our first cruise ship recently. We have ten more being built. We're also investing looking forward to a carbon neutral future at some point in low or zero carbon fuel potential. Right now. That includes a large scale battery potential, as well as fuel cell and other new fuels. But there is no silver bullet here. As a few other examples of our sustainability efforts, we've committed to reducing the purchase and use of single use items, including single use plastics, and we have a goal to achieve at least a 50% reduction by the end of 2021. We're also investing in new food waste processing technologies, and we have comprehensive recycling programs on board. And every ship in our fleet has a full time environmental officer employed. Lastly, I'd like to mention that we also lead the cruise industry. In the percentage of our fleet that is shore power capable. And that leads me to Panorama. As already mentioned, Panorama will connect to shore power while in Long Beach. And she has the newest technologies in many areas, including advanced wastewater treatment systems, food waste treatment systems, heating and air conditioning, efficient systems, lighting technologies and hydrodynamics. Compared to the ships she is replacing. She's more than 40% more efficient on a per person basis despite being larger. She also has an absolute lower carbon footprint. We're excited and proud to have called Long Beach home for many years, almost 20. And we look forward to continuing the positive relationship. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anything else to add. I just wanted to close very quickly in again stating we look at Long Beach is on a top three ports globally. It is a huge and critically important hub. We believe the partnership we have had for over two decades has been nothing short of amazing. We look forward to that. Continuing well into the future. We're bringing our very best ship, our newest ship just built in Italy a month ago. Coming straight here. We are very excited about the arrival of Panorama. We're very proud of the introduction of this new ship. As far as we are concerned, the arrival of Panorama represents a 100% improvement from the ship it replaces from all vantage points in all areas of of review. We also like to underscore is it is unique to bring a ship that is so much larger and so much more efficient. Therefore, bringing this win win of a of a major economic impact resulting from the scale of the vessel, more jobs, more of all the activities that surround the vessel, while diminishing the footprint from an environmental viewpoint. So we are proud of it. We thank you very much for your attention tonight. Thank you very much. We're happy to answer any questions, of course. Thank you very much. Let me just continue on the hearing. I do have some members of the public that signed up to speak, many of whom actually were were appellants. I mean, if I read your name and you still want to say something for public comment, please come forward. Vicky. Ray. Terry Thornton. Ernie Chavez and Angel and Andrew Brady. Tommy for Bay and Janet West. So if you please line up to the podium. I'm only going to take the speakers that are lined at the podium. And then we're going to go to the motion in front of us. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Vicky Ray. I'm the vice. President of Guest Care and Communications. Hello, everyone. Thank you. I'm the vice president of guest care and communications for Carnival Cruise Lines. And thank you for your time this evening. I just want to take a few moments to share with you a little bit about my history with Carnival. I actually started with Carnival 38 years ago when I was 19 years old. I was a college student going to University of Miami and looking for part time work. And those of you who are my age may remember that this was the time when the Love Boat was very popular and I wanted to be the next Julie . So working for a cruise ship on the weekend seemed like the right first step after working part time at the Port of Miami as a checking agent. Very similar job as what our Long Beach team does here in the terminal. I went into the reservations department at the Miami headquarters to be a call center agent. And over the years, I have to say that I've had the opportunity to not only do meaningful work that I think has really impacted the quality of the vacations that we deliver to our over 5 million guests a year. But I've had the opportunity to grow professionally and personally to try to work with an amazing, talented group of individuals and to travel the world. I have led a contact center that has over 800 representatives and answers over 5 million calls from our customers every year. I've established the first industry care team, which is a group of carnival volunteers who take care of guests that have bereavement or medical emergencies when they have to disembark their voyage. Midship Our Mid Voyage. Most recently, I led the company's effort to become the first sensory, inclusive certified cruise line. As the company's ADR officer, it's my responsibility to make sure that we provide finding memorable vacations to guests of all abilities. So, you know, to say that it's been the best 38 years of my life is an understatement. I is a single mother and an immigrant here in the United States. Carnival has provided I've been able to provide opportunities for my family that I never thought possible. I was part of the team of leaders that first worked on bringing our first ship to Long Beach 20 years ago. So it's exciting times back then and it was exciting times now as we look forward to welcoming Carnival Panorama on Sunday. I'm very impressed with the work that has been done to bring up the city to the level that it is today. And I'm pretty proud of our commitment to the city, and we look forward to continuing to partner with you to bring not only more economic growth, but greater jobs opportunities for your community. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. Terry. 330. No, no. Ernie Chavez. Yes. Good evening. My name is Ernie Chavez. I'm speaking in support of Carnival's Project. I have been a member of the International Longshore Warehouse Union. Also known as ILWU for the past 25. Plus years. I'm currently the operations. Foreman in charge of the Carnival Long Beach terminal. It's my job to oversee all the loading and unloading of Carnival cruise ships, so I have a unique perspective. On what really goes on. I have held this position for the past 15 years. Tonight I represent my union brothers and sisters, as well as all workers that are employed in the Carnival Cruise Terminal here in the beautiful port of Long Beach. Carnival Cruise Terminal is a vital source of jobs and local revenue. And I'd like to give you some facts explaining just how important this terminal and its future growth is, not to just those. Working here, but the entire city of Long Beach and all the surrounding. Areas. The terminal currently provides over 15,000 ILWU jobs, union jobs per year. This equates to over 120,000 ILWU man hours per year. That doesn't include the 2600 plus security jobs. 2600 plus embarkation staff jobs. It's a total of over. 20,000 jobs per year that rely directly. On this terminal to continue to grow and maintain its presence here in Long. Beach. Indirectly, there are countless other jobs that rely on this terminal. Carnival's terminal currently. Brings in over 820,000 passengers per year and is projected to. Increase that number to over 1.2 million passengers per year. These passengers are not only spending money on the cruise, they spend money. At local hotels, restaurants, taxis, Uber, Lyft. And of course, our iconic Queen. Mary. All the people that work in those industries directly and indirectly rely on Carnival to bring those passengers into town to support their businesses and jobs. Speaking of the Queen Mary. Carnival is a major supporter of the Queen Mary's Improvement Project. And in fact, Carnival's lease payments go directly to supporting those improvements. This shows that we're really talking about a much bigger picture than this for the city of Long Beach as a whole. As operations. Foreman, I can. Assure you that the carnival cares about our local environment and is leading the industry in creating a green terminal. Each new ship the carnival builds is greener and more environmentally. Sound than the one before it. Every ship the carnival brings in the port line, which plugs in and stays plugged in until it sails. Every ship every time. There's a gentleman spoke earlier and said that they don't they're not ready. That is incorrect. Every ship plugs in and every time they stay plugged in the whole time. Carnival also allows only clean burning propane tir for forklifts. Or electric. Forklifts to operate on its Long Beach facility. Even the trucks and busses are not. Allowed to sit and idle. Due to our stringent. Rules and focus on environmentally friendly. Terminal. In closing, I'd like to remind you that there are tens of thousands of workers and the entire city of Long Beach itself that relies not only on this terminal's presence, but also on its ability to stay modern and to grow, to meet the needs of a larger and greener ship. Carnival is bringing the green to the economy, but it's also bringing the green to our environment. Through these facts, I urge you to approve this project for Carnival. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Next speaker, please. This west. West. Miami Carnival Corp. reached a settlement earlier this year with federal prosecutors in which the world's largest cruise line agreed to pay $20 million penalty because its ships continued to pollute the ocean despite a previous criminal conviction aimed at curbing similar conduct. Senior U.S. District Judge Patricia seitz approved the agreement after Carnival CEO Arnold Donald stood up in open court and admitted the company's responsibility for probation violations stemming from the previous environmental case. The company pleads guilty, Arnold said six times in a packed courtroom that include other senior Carnival executives, including company chairman and Miami Heat owner Micky Arison . We acknowledge the shortcomings. I am here today to formulate a plan to fix them, Arnold added. The company also admitted falsifying compliance documents and other administrative violations, such as having cleanup teams visit the ships just before scheduled inspections. The company also admitted falsifying. Also repeat cites at an earlier hearing threaten to bar carnival from docking at US ports because of the violations and said she might hold the executives individually liable for the probation. Three people who claim they were victims of Carnival's environmental violations attended the hearing. Their attorney? No. Loney expressed skepticism that Carnival will keep its word this time. Time and time again, Carnival has shown its contempt of environmental laws and the rule of law, he said. Here we are again. Please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and fellow council members. And newly elected mayors in Dallas. Congratulations. My name is Tom five. I represent IBEW Local 11 and we wholeheartedly. Support the Long Beach Long Beach cruise terminal. Redevelopment of the carnival. And we look forward to. The good jobs that that is going to create. As mentioned by the Carnival folks, they mentioned above our ship to shore power. We love to we love to. Build the infrastructure for that. We've done it in the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. We know that. It's a it's a viable technology for the new ships that are coming in into the city of Long Beach and the city of San Pedro. So we look forward to. These good construction jobs and building a redevelopment. Green terminal for Long Beach cruise terminal. Thank you. Thank you. It's great to hear. Oh, that's right. In. Actually, you thought you were one of the appellants. No, I'm one of the appellants. But you just gave 3 minutes extra to Carnival. The first woman wasn't a Carnival employee. May I have one minute? Actually, ma'am, because you are you are an appellant. If you sign up for public comment, anyone can send it for public comment. Miss Christianson? Well, I was told I could not sign up for public comment. Why can Carnival sign up for public comment when they just gave a ten minute presentation for five minute presentation? Member of the public can sign up. I was told I could not sign up for public comment. I think, ma'am, because you know, what I'm going to do is I'm going to have this question to speak and then I'll have you say a few more words. Thank you, ma'am. You could just. Go ahead and screen. And control gave our presentation. So I'm not going to speak for the language. I'm sorry. Most freedoms, wetlands task force. I am going to speak, though, for the Long Beach Area Group of Sierra Club. You can speak the sample, have you? Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to explain. I'm not trying to. So I think what we have here is an issue of trust. The that's what he said for environmental impact reports. Why do we have sequel? To find out. Mr. Richardson. Just saying. Mr. Richardson, please. Please, please. I mean, your time is going to have to. I know, but really. I would use your time in these questions. Okay. So why we have secure California Environmental Quality Act is simply to figure out what are the impacts on our environment. Are the people who are here, the animals, the plants, the air, the water? Right. Good or bad impacts? That's why we have it. And under what we have environmental impact reports. We get a report, we get to analyze it, really look at it. Why do we have mitigated negative declarations to keep things moving a little bit faster, to avoid having to do all those reports, to avoid having to have public comments and public hearings? So if you are really concerned as Sierra Club is, as some of these other organizations formed to protect the environment. Right, formed to protect public health like this organization for Clean Air, we're asking for an environmental impact report. We're not asking for the moon. We're asking to really find out what's going on. Do we trust Carnival Cruise lawyers? No. You know, and we shouldn't have to. We shouldn't have to have them come up here and explain to you how all the appellants got it wrong. You don't have to do that. You can ask for an environmental impact report. And we deserve it. Our port deserves it. Our city deserves it. Because this is a big and powerful company that has priors. They're convicted. They're convicted criminals. And, you know, I mean, I'm not I haven't I'm I'm all for second chances, you know. But please, let's do our own study and let's allow our our whole community, not just the port workers, bused in by Carnival Cruise. You know, and I with all due respect, you know, I don't I think there's a conflict of interest there. So I just beg you from the standpoint of of your community, let us do our own environmental impact reports as a community. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. That concludes public comment, but I'm going to. You were one of the appellants. Please come forward. Actually, Mr. Goodhew, do you want to speak? Okay. No, no, no, no. Do you want to speak first? I'd be doing public comment. She was one of the appellants. Mr. Good, who are you speaking to in public comment? You speak now. You're up. Observe your. Larry, you you although I had was aware of some of the details. So some of the overall project, I certainly was shocked and amazed of the details relative to the negative impact. It seems to be ignored and people want to run right over it. And I was. Good. Can't help think of what an individual would. Years ago. I had a opportunity to interface with him a number of times. Yeah. It was the mansion before. Overturned. Much of this country's thinking related to the environment. With. Her two books, the first The Silent Spring. And then there's the second book. And I would suggest that you read those books of Rachel Carson before you vote. But I sat here and listen, I haven't had the time to get inside of all those issues. But this is a disaster. The first order. This cannot be approved. Is it going now? It will be a tremendous disaster to this environmental area. Thank you. He concludes. Public comment. We're going to go ahead. I know you're one of the appellants. If you want to make some closing remarks, you can you can make. So I asked the city attorney, but please brief. Thank you very much, Andrew Ricco from USC. Just in regard to two issues that were raised by Carnival and the gentleman from the law firm. First, he said that the MMD was revised, recirculated to show that the engine and the emissions calculations were redone, to show that the engine was tier two instead of Tier three. I looked I tried to compare them. And the major charts that show Panorama versus Splendor, they're identical in the first MMD and the Recirculated One. If I were you on this panel of City Council people, I would not approve the Ndee without evidence that those emission calculations were redone between the MMD and the mitigated neg dac and the recirculated neg because I don't think they were done. And there is not a word in the recirculated volume that says that they had made a mistake on the first one and that they weren't wasn't a tier three engine, it was a tier two engine. So I think that you need to have evidence of that before you decide to vote on this tonight. Secondly, there is an email you have in your the back of your documents. In the appendices, there is an email from Piper saying that it would cost $30 million for Carnival to buy emission reduction credits. It's much too expensive. It it's not feasible. So Piper gets up here and says the emission reductions are mandated. I would like to know how they're mandated. When he representing Carnival says it's not possible for Carnival to pay those emission reduction so they can't use Tier three tugboats and they can't use machinery credits. What are the mitigation measures? I think you need to understand what that is before you vote in favor of this project. Thank you. Thank you. With that concludes, I'm going to bring this back to Mr. Modica and then we have the motion in front of us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I believe staff have a couple of things you want to clarify for the record. Mayor and council. I'd like to introduce William Walters. He's with Aspen Engineering and can speak to the air quality questions that have been raised. Okay. To quickly answer the Tier two versus Tier three issue. The attorney for Carnival misspoke. The Tier two Tier three issue is related to the tugboat engines that are going to be used for 20 days during the dredging operation. And we did make a correction. Or not a. Correction. But in addition to show both Tier two and Tier three emissions for tugs, depending on which tug may be available. And that was in response to S.E. Committee comments. The emission estimate for the panorama always assumed Tier two. The issue in regards to some of the discovery period we were discussing in emails, the the ship, we were trying to do our due diligence to make sure that the ship shouldn't have been a Tier three ship based on the IMO requirements that started in 2016. We got information from Carnival. It showed that that the the hole was in fact completed prior to the date that would have required the ship to be tier three. So that was where we were trying to get that issue. The difference in the calculations is 20 minutes. So it wasn't very hard for me to go back from Tier two to Tier three in my initial calculations. But what was actually presented on the record in the very first A.D. and in the restricted Mandi was always Tier two. I'm sorry. That's. That's it's done for the audience. Anything else, Mr. Mays? That like to have the Port of Long Beach make a brief comment as well. Mayor and council, I'd like to introduce Matthew Arms, acting environmental director for the Port of Long Beach. Thank you, Mayor and council members. I want to make a couple clarifications. The harbor department, the Port of Long Beach, has been actively involved with our partners and development services as a responsible agency since the beginning of this project. Our involvement has included both consultation on strategy, selection of baseline. Our team, our environmental team in their respective resource areas reviewed all of the technical documents, commented on it with the city, and all of our comments were addressed to our satisfaction. In addition, we connected with the city on comments to the document, including things such as the carbon letter and we working with the City Development Services agreed that doing additional analysis to show that even if we would have used the baseline that CARB had identified that the Panorama has emissions reductions. Additionally, I want to make one clarification on the sediments. Sediment disposal within Southern California are approved by the Southern California Dredge Management Team. It's a team of local and state and federal regulatory agencies and we participate the harbor department as a member of that team, but we are not an approval authority. The people that actually approve disposal of sediments were not only these settlements, but all dredging projects within Southern California are those state and federal agencies that have expertize in that area. Thank you. So we have a motion in front of us. There is a motion and a second. And I'm sorry, ma'am. No, no, that's we're we're no, we are done with that, ma'am. Thank you. We have a motion any second on the floor, and that is the motion of the second is to deny the appeal. And of course, that moves the project forward, which was the Planning Commission's recommendation. And so there's a motion for second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. We're now moving on to the next item. And the next item is item 25. Madam Clerk.