Recommendation to respectfully request City Council approval of the 2015 Federal Legislative Agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee.
Item ten. Yeah. Item number ten. Communications from Council Member Rex Richardson, Chair of the Federal Legislation Committee, but recommendation for approval of the 2015 federal legislative agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee. Okay. I think I'm to turn this over to do I turn this over to Ms.. Tang or Councilman Richardson. First, their staff report. Let's do this. Let's do it. Do the staff report. Yes. We'll give this over to Diana Tang. Okay. Mayor, members of the city council. Back in January, January we January 27th, the Federal Legislative Committee had a hearing and we took up the 2015 proposed federal legislative agenda. There was a robust discussion among the committee, and the committee recommended several changes which. Have been reflected in the stock report that you see today. And so with that, I'm available to answer questions. Okay. Councilman Richardson. Thanks. I thought there was going to be a little bit more of a staff report. I'll tell I'll tell folks what's what's in this legislative agenda. There are a number of things and some of that. Some of them have been high profile. One of them was the AH expressing support for federal legislative changes to ensure that Petco products were covered as they train, as they come in from out of state. So we went ahead and added that to the federal legislative agenda. The committee added a number of other things, like support for the minimum wage increase as proposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors two 1010 an hour paid maternity leave. Federal legislation for that comprehensive immigration reform. Some business friendly policies. Some language on a holistic approach to gun control. So there were quite a few things here. So there are. So it seems like on a number of these, there seems to be some uncertainty on on readiness on behalf of the council to move forward. So I would add one change that we not make changes to for different items and keep the original language so that we can rework these in committee. It just seems like they're not ready to go yet. So one of them is that we want to change, remove the changes from fire protection, medical marijuana, affordable housing and airport passenger facility charges, and just keep the original language in the original Fed led agenda and so that we can rework those because it seems like there's a lot more discussion and to be made in the committee. So that's my motion. Okay. There's a second by Councilman Councilmember. Would you just one more time repeat those sections again? So you said. So it's the Fire Protection Directive. So we're going to keep original language and send that in that back to committee to rework medical marijuana. We're going to do the same on that council directive on affordable housing. We're going to do the same. And on airport passenger facility charges, we're going to keep we're not going to make any changes there and rework those in committee. Okay. And so just so I'm clear, so those items we sent will be removed from the federal committee and then sent back to committee, and then your proposal would move forward. The agenda minus those items? Yeah. Minus those changes. Okay. Okay. I have a motion and a second. I'm going to do public comment and then I have some speakers. Any public comment on the item? Please. Diana LA genes again. Hi. I actually have a little bit of a question. I'm not quite understanding where the medical marijuana you're asking that to be removed from the from the federal pledge or some changes that are that. I would hate to see that particular item totally removed because that's really at the forefront right now. And we do need to continue with that. Is I misunderstanding something? I think I believe the the motion is to have these items be taken up at committee so they can be retrieved and stopped. So my understanding is that the Fed ledge agenda exists. We update it once a year. Right. So we proposed the commission. The committee proposed a certain number of changes to certain elements. I want to hold off on those changes and rework those changes in committee. So. The changes are what we're holding back on. Oh, okay. I was not quite sure. Okay. So fine. As long as it's not totally on is. I know it's coming back. It's a very, very important issue. I mean, it's at the forefront right now. So. So then the next thing that I would say is, is there a way that we can prioritize certain items, like, for instance, because it is so much in the forefront right now that really does need to be addressed very strongly. And I know it was put on the Fed, uh, federal legislation, um, before, but I'm just wondering how strongly that is going forward. And perhaps if there is a way to prioritize these items, that that should be one of the priorities. So that's what I'm I'm saying that perhaps there should be some items that you prioritize in your dealings with the with the feds that certain items should come forward with more priority. Okay. So that's what I'm proposing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. And Cantrell. And I'd like a clarification also. I haven't seen a new staff report. It sounded like maybe there was one out today in the old staff reports for this item, I could not find anything that reflected. Council member Mungo's amendment at the last Fed ledge committee meeting, where she said that instead of just saying you wanted to have the Petroleum Coke railroad cars covered, that she you add all products that pollute during transport be covered. And is is has that change been made in your. Staff. Recommendations. I'm going to have a answer that. Sure many members of the city council. That change was not made in the staff's report. Councilman Mungo had requested that all products be covered during transport. I believe there was a robust discussion on the importance of these these statements before his position on matters to be specific, so that we know exactly what it is that the city of Miami is taking a position on. Councilmember Mongo then said that she could go either way on that item, and for that reason it is not included in that report. Well, as I watched the tapes, I saw that she made the amendment. It was accepted by Councilmember Gonzalez as a friendly amendment, and it was never withdrawn. You voted to pass this when she says she can go either way? I would say that that means that she wasn't jetting to having any change me. I hope you all understand that when you're saying you're going to cover the pet coke cars, you are not saying you're going to cover the coal cars. There is a difference between these and you definitely need to add. If you're not going to say all products. Add Cole to this because Councilmember Richardson indicated that that was what he wanted to happen. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next week, please. Evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. I'm Eric Boyd, deputy district director for Congresswoman Janice Hahn. And let me first of. All say that we greatly appreciate receiving the information about this committee's work. It's good for us to keep abreast of what you're doing and support of the congresswoman's work. And in particular, she wanted to say thank you to the committee for your support of the minimum wage, the proposed minimum wage hike, and then also. For the. Committee's support of comprehensive immigration reform. If you've read any of her comments over the course of the last year and a half or so, you know that the congresswoman is a little less than pleased with the glacial pace of legislative movement and progress in this particular Congress and in 114, for that matter. So any any pressure that can be that can be applied, particularly from local governments, we think is is important and it will not be ignored. So what you've done here is is very important. And she's very appreciative of that. I understood you to say that the committee is going to be discussing a few more items in the course of that discussion if you've not already done so. We would encourage you also to consider making some kind of recommendation to the president in his budgetary proposals this year. You know, there's a there's a provision that's going to possibly reduce some of the harbor maintenance tax gains that have been made for the expenditure that the Harbor Maintenance Tax Fund. And we think that's particularly important to the two ports here. The San Pedro Bay Ports complex, as you know, is the largest in the country. For years, the Harbor Maintenance Tax Fund, we believe, has been has been administered in a way that is disadvantageous to larger ports and our two in particular. So we would ask the committee to take up that that issue as well, and maybe perhaps make a recommendation or and or a or and or take a stance in that regard as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, I'm Susan Dombrowski. I live in Long Beach. I wanted to address the the two issues of the trains, one carrying the Coke coal and I agree about. I would like to see that the however it is handled here, but just want to express my interest in having Councilwoman Mungo's request that all products that pollute during transit be covered. I did listen several times and I wasn't present at that meeting, and it really did sound like she was not going to go either way, that she really wanted that in there. So please consider that. Also the issue of the the health department has requested the notification of system of notification and response. When crude oil is in transit through our city. That is has been a recommendation in these in these recommendations seeking federal legislation. However, the original recommendations included the word funding for that which the health department has requested funding if the city does need to response to an incident, an accident or related situations when because crude oil is rail shipments of crude oil are generally contain a more flammable product compared to regular refined crude and present an increased risk to vulnerable populations in sensitive environments. So funding for that is, I think, a very important part, not just to know that these trains are coming through, but what can be done with them. And then one of the things about assuming that you do vote for these recommendations regarding the trains and other forms of transit of these. Pollutants that you not just seek federal legislation. I was not able to go to the state committee meeting, today's state committee meeting today, but I have not seen anything I haven't been aware of . Look for it that there has been anything regarding these items. The trains and the pollutants and the crude oil. Seeking state regulation, if and when that comes up. And any other methods you might use in places, you might try to get something done about regulating these. I hope there's a serious commitment and not just saying we did our part by recommending that it go for federal legislation. I hope you will persevere until these trains and other polluting vehicles are covered. And this is an environmental justice issue which you can easily picture if you look at the map and who lives around these communities . And the I've been to Long Beach Association of children with asthma and seen the. Amount me I'm sorry time is all up thank you thank you so much for coming in speaking. I see no other public comment. We're going to go back and turn over to the council. I have Councilman Ringo who made the second. Well, first of all, I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for and and the federal legislative committee for bringing this forward. I think it's a very thoughtful and comprehensive agenda that we're presenting and that we will be looking at. The initiatives are are broad based economic development, public safety, sustainable, livable cities and local control. And I hope that these will keep our Long Beach at the forefront of our new and positive changes that we're doing. I also am particularly supportive of legislation that helped with business development, and I look forward to working with our representatives to create a new living wage jobs and particularly here in Long Beach. In regard to the last topic of our coverage of Petroleum Coke. I am very, very supportive of that, and I hope that we move forward with that as well. Perhaps, given that we do have some other products that might be transported through our city that are not covered, that we might want to look and revisit that. However, in the interest of moving this forward, I suggest that we keep the worrying as it is presently and perhaps look at another way of adding other petroleum products as a whole. But other than that, I want to congratulate the committee. It's a it's a it's a broad and it's comprehensive. And it's certainly something that we can look forward to in the future. And it's also inclusive of housing, which is another big issue that we'll be dealing with the very near future as well. So we're very, very pleased with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. I have Councilmember Mongo Councilwoman Munger. I'd like to make the motion to approve the federal legislative agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislative Committee with the addition of my intended motion of covering pollutant products. Do have a second. Thank you. There's no buttons to put this stuff. Actually, I'm going to ask. So, Madam Clerk, if there's a. A substantive motion that wants to be made. You would just push motion again or what would you push? Yes. Once they voice it, then we will activate it here and then you will have the option to motion in second. Okay. So just to be clear, since where we all have new technology screens you've been using for a few weeks here now. So just to be clear, Councilwoman Mongeau just made a substitute motion and Councilman Price at seconded that motion, and that is to go back to the Fed alleged committee as presented by staff in the memo . Is that correct, Councilwoman? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. And one point of clarification, I just wanted to make also, it was my impression that in the original motion. Which is presented, the issue on the covered trains was addressed. I thought it was Coke products, Petco products call. So that was my impression. But I'm not sure. Absolutely. So I don't think that we need to like. I wanted to wait to the appropriate time to state it. But the intent of what came out of this commission is that all Petco products will be covered, not necessarily cold. All Petco products are covered. That's not what I said. So in the in the committee, we. Talked to the original motion. If that helps to clarify, then that's the intent. I don't think we wanted to select like one particular type of coal versus another type of coal. I think the idea was, you know, we want to cover those products as they come in. And even more so like we there was another question about, you know, whether state or federal. So we already have assumed rule 1158. That requires all coal and petroleum products to be covered. So all we're saying is there's an exemption for trains that come in from out of state. So this already lists coal and petroleum products. We're saying we want to extend this to federal right so that it includes trains that come in from out of state. So hopefully that clear that helps to clarify. Thank you, Councilmember. I'm going to go. The city attorney wants to say a comment and I'm going to go to the maker of the motion. I was just a question on the substitute motion. If it included the recommendation by the original maker of the motion of CD nine to refer those proposed changes back to the committee on the four items he identified. She's going to speak to it right now. And. Okay. Okay. Councilman Michaels. Specifically, several weeks ago, I came to the federal legislative committee meeting prepared to talk about almost 50 different items listed in our several hundred items that the federal legislative committee is going to be advocating for over the next year. One of the things that I was very passionate about is prioritizing. We have certain amounts of resources, and it's important that we prioritize the things that are good for the economic growth and development of Long Beach, things that bring jobs. We are very supportive of Congresswoman Horn's item in bringing that money back to Long Beach. And with regard to the comment about medical marijuana. The item that was presented in the Fed pledged by a previous council was for us to advocate for other states policies and procedures and in discussions with the marijuana community. Some of the procedures and policies that other states have. Aren't things that I believe Long Beach should be advocating for because we have a difference of opinion and it needs to be debated as well. And so what we decided to do at that time, which councilmember. Gonzalez received the friendly amendment was that we made a couple of changes to the original Fed led agenda as presented to us by our predecessors. We added in immigration reform, we added in maternity leave advocacy, we added in living wage advocacy. We built in business friendly policies. We added in understanding of the mental health issue as it relates to gun control. We added in. Finding funding to help businesses when they need to put in fire protection. For those of you who don't remember, there was a particular city who had a very sticky lobbyist who went around and got enforcement of fire protection sprinklers without providing that grant funding. And he was a a family member of an elected official. And all of a sudden, every house in the city had fire protection sprinklers in them. We are looking to do the right thing for residents of Long Beach. And that's why when it talked about homeland security grants and affordable housing, we want to be able to open up those affordable housing units. If someone who no longer qualifies for affordable housing won't leave. We want to give landlords the opportunity to increase the rent on the individual who doesn't qualify and open up another room, another unit in the same building or in their same vicinity so that those individuals who need affordable housing are not suffering. Additionally, we wanted local and direct control over our airport passenger facility charges. Local control is a way that we as a community can ensure that those funds are spent appropriately and so respectfully. I hope that I will gain the support of my colleagues to approve the Fed large agenda as discussed in committee and vetted in committee. Otherwise, I would hope that there would be a substitute substitute to send the whole thing back to committee because that's where the work really needs to be done. But I advocate for us passing this motion as brought to us today, as we do need to get to work for the good citizens of Long Beach. Councilwoman Price was the second on that substitute. Did you want to speak? Because I didn't see you cued up, but you speak to the second? No, I just wanted to say that I support what Councilwoman Domingo has said. And I know that the committee spent a lot of time on this. I know that she's personally considered these issues. And I think that I'm supportive of the substitute motion. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the substitute motion. Councilmember Austin. Yes. I need a point of clarification now on your motion councilmember Mongo. Your substitute substitute. What are you trying to accomplish with that? And can you just read restate it for me. So. So presented in the council packet this week is the memo from the Fed Ledge Committee, which outlines a couple of key things that we're changing to the federal legislative agenda as brought forward by our predecessors. And while we as a committee agreed that there's still much work to do, this was a starting point for what we can do for the citizens of Long Beach and our D.C. trip in March. And so I would like the work of the committee and the changes as proposed to be accepted. My colleague, the chair of the committee, came forth today after previously voting yes on these items and would like to remove fire protection, supporting states procedures and regulations related to medical marijuana, which, as I mentioned, we did not have a list of what those procedures would be that we would be supporting, which was a scary idea, affordable housing, which would open up other units for those who are in need of affordable housing and just general local control of our passenger facility charges. Okay. I'm trying to figure out what the motion was to. To pass what was originally presented. The original motion made by my colleague came with amendments right out the gate. So I'm going back to the original. Okay. And I'd just like to express my support for for the local control, for airport passenger facility charges, I think. I mean, what was what was our what was the on the agenda or the the part of the PED legenda and the proposed changes are not much different in terms of the wording. I mean, I think it means the same thing that we support local control. Bottom line, I was looking for to to some more clarity on the matter in terms of what I believe the intent of this council was when the the issue of petroleum, coke and coal came through here and the commitment we made as a as a body. To me, petroleum Coke products are different than coal and other products. And so I think we need to be a little bit more specific in calling out what we want to see covered coming through our city petroleum, coke, coal and petroleum products, transportation. I think that is important to that. We specify that because if we just say petcoke products, it's going to be open ended. And, you know, we didn't really mean that. And it's going to be interpreted differently, you know, by by federal legislators in the future, city councils. And so I think that needs to be tightened up. And so I would would hope that you are open to a friendly amendment to specify that language in your intent. I will have more the second on the motion. Absolutely. And that's been like nice. I think I'm good. I think I just want to commend the federal pledge committee. I want to commend staff for their work. And then to the the the woman who who I offer public comment around the state legislative committee. We had a state legislative committee meeting earlier this afternoon. I chaired that committee. And yes, we did offer a similar language. We may need to go and tighten that up as well. But your point was well-taken. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So. So I think just as a matter of education, this this agenda helps to guide our lobbying efforts in and in D.C. for federal legislation that we think might be beneficial to the city of Long Beach. And a number of things have been added over the years, some of which have had a lot of discussion here in the city of Long Beach. So. My original motion was to send some of the changes back. So that doesn't mean we're not going to take on some of them, but take send some of the changes back to the committee and just a few of them to note like what the difference between a change in the original language. If we were to look at City Council directive on affordable housing. Now this change says support of federal a change in federation federal laws to prohibit tenants who no longer meet income requirements from continuing to leave , to leave and live in units that are dedicated for affordable housing. And then the change would be to provide landlord options to increase rent for people who had originally been living in affordable housing units and reduce the rent for another unit. So we still have the number of affordable housing units available more quickly in the environment. Now, that process is not something that we can like distinctly just do as a city. Just say, Hey, this unit or that unit is affordable or not affordable. There are more considerations here that need to be vetted through the housing community. And so that's why I say some of this is is I'm not prepared to move forward on some of these. But another thing is there's no particular rush. We have a very thorough, very comprehensive Fed led agenda that city staff has done a great job at honing into different categories and putting things together that help us to prioritize our lobbying efforts. So it so my thought is that moving forward on some of these may may put us in a larger predicament with the communities that we actually serve by not checking with them and working with them on some of these particularly like the one on affordable housing. And that's my that's what gives me pause about moving forward on a number of these. So that said, I'd like to I want to move something forward tonight. I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to read it. But at the same time, I really want to dig in in this committee. And I know there are members on this committee who want to dig in. And I think some of these need to be vetted out with some of the partners and stakeholders. And nine experts right now don't need to make all the decisions on every single policy. So that said, I'd like to offer a substitute substitute motion, and I would hope that my colleagues can support this. That is, to go back to the substitute. Substitute motion is to go back and remove the change on fire protection, remove the change on affordable housing, remove the airport passenger facility charges. We want to we we want to be clear on the position on Coke and petroleum products to read support federal legislation to require that coal and petroleum products from outside California in railcars be covered during transport to the port of Long Beach for export. And as it relates to the the one to medical marijuana, the debate tonight was actually pretty good about the original language that was in there might not fit today. I mean, in 2016, there might be a ballot initiative that changes everything. So I would say that we don't move forward with this one at all, like what's in there existing or what the changes. So those are my changes. So that would be we we keep original language on fire protection, affordable housing, Air Force, airport, passenger facility charges. We add the clarity on petroleum Coke products and our medical marijuana. We strike that all together. Okay. Can you is there is there a second on that motion? Point of clarification. Yes. I mean, I'm I want to second this, but I want some clarification as to why we need to go back in and deal with the airport passenger facility charges and local control on that. Okay. And just so you know, someone did chime in in second it. So but we can get clarification. So just again, just to clarify, there's already language in the Fed ledger agenda on this. And there were there was a request to change that language from the original language. Words support federal authorization to allow local governments to increase airport passenger facility charges. And the proposed changes support legislation that increases airport passenger facility charges or gives direct local, local control. Now, it sounds like there that might be just those three extra words, might just be a nuance. But I want to check with the airport community. I want to check with the our department. I want to check with our stakeholders and see like what the impact is if we do that. So why make a change if we're just adding three words? But I'm actually okay if if like I'm okay figuring out. You know, if we got to get do if we have to make some changes to this to make it pass tonight, I'm okay. But I think that that in those three words, we can just take our time and have a discussion with the airport community. Okay. There's a there's a motion by Councilmember Richardson and a second about Councilman Gonzalez. Councilman, do you want to speak to your second or do you want to continue on the speaker's list? Sure. I'll just I'll speak. I would say the same thing. I mean, we had maybe an hour to go through many of these these items. And so it leaves me with feeling like I need to make better informed decisions with more information. And so I do have a lot of questions in particular about the airport. I mean, does that affect our grant funding locally? I mean, there's a lot of different questions. I mean, the affordable housing, does that give landlords more power? I don't know. I mean, these are information. This is more information that we need. And I think that we need to go back and discuss this a little bit further with what we can. So that's why I'm seconding that motion. Okay. And next up on the speakers list, I have Vice Mayor Lowenthal. And just as we move forward, this is a reminder, what we have right now is a substitute substitute motion by Richardson. GONZALES Vice Mayor LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to understand from Councilmember Mongeau or Councilmember Richardson or the city attorney, whomever can tell me. The substitute substitute motion, removing the four items and sending them back to discussion. Three items. Sorry. Sending them. That's right. Three items and sending them back to discussion and eliminating the medical marijuana piece. How many items are remaining from the original discussion at committee where Councilmember Mongeau had asked for additions? Are these all of her additions that you're sending back? I wouldn't know the answer to that, but no. So of the additions, we have minimum wage, no business friendly policies and the addition of gun control. Those to I believe originated it from as well as homeland security grants. So those were all originated by council member Mongo minimum wage. Paid maternity leave were initiated by myself. I believe immigration reform was initiated by by Councilmember Gonzalez. But at the same time, you know, we all we all had a discussion we on a number of these, I think, as a matter of policy, matter of process, toward the end of the meeting with about five, you know, five or six meetings, minutes left, there were about seven or eight amendments that were added in that no one had more than 2 minutes to really hear as a friendly. And that friendly was accepted by Councilmember Gonzalez. And that's how these things arrived here. And none of us have had any time to even look at them. Okay. Okay. Actually, so sorry. Mr. Mayor. In response to both Mayor Lowe and those question and Council Member Richardson's response, this federal legislative agenda was presented to council in November, and as a member of this Council, I take it very seriously before I vote, even at the committee level, to meet with the mental health community, landlords and actual member of the low income community who specifically told me that they couldn't get into a unit because the landlord couldn't evict the low income tenant who didn't qualify anymore so that they could move into the building. Each and every one of these amendments was made. Quickly. And I appreciate that in my family to speak, you'd only get a few seconds, so you got to say it quick. And so, yes, those were quickly given off at the end of the federal legislative agenda item because there was such an. A rush to get through that meeting and get into closed session. We were already behind in all these other issues. But that does not mean that I would ever propose something where I was not informed about the communities and in discussion with those communities as well. This federal legislative agenda was presented in advance of this meeting with time for consideration of the public and the council members. And specifically, I do not see that the substitute substitute is different from the original motion. If I could get a point of clarification from the City Attorney as the original motion removed council directive on medical marijuana and the new motion while it now leaves it out. The original motion was a removal of it anyway, so I feel as though they're almost the same. Vice mayor, members of the council. I think you're right, they are almost the same. My understanding of the difference between the first motion and the substitute substitute does strike the medical marijuana, but it also adds additional language regarding the coal and petroleum products, which wasn't in his first motion. So when I made my substitute motion, someone had said that it was in there. And so that's where I got the point of confusion. I didn't have that additional language that the councilmember from the ninth District added to the substitute substitute. So that's an additional change that I think has enough substance to create. Understood. And then the last component was to answer Councilmember Austin's question. In the original version, three words do make a big difference where a comma is and where an end is, is, is very crucial in determining what we support or we don't support the way that this will read. Should we support it today is that we will support legislation that increases airport passenger facility charges and or legislation that gives direct local control over passenger facility charges. Even if that legislation does not propose an increase in the original language for us to get there, it had to include an increase. Now we're supporting legislation on either front, and so it's broadened the amount of support that we can have in the airport community. Okay. Thank you. Vice President So that you have anything additional and your comment. You know, I know we have a timeline where we'd like to have a federal agenda so that when our committee members do go on behalf of the city of Long Beach to D.C., we have an agenda. And so in the interest of passing the most crucial aspects of these items or of the entire agenda, but while also giving credence to the issues that Councilmember Mungo brings up, I'm trying to find where that balance is, and I don't know. So I'm really looking to my colleagues to collaborate on this and understand that what Councilmember Mongo brings forward, they're really important. These are items that we have as a city have evolved, whether it addresses airport issues, medical marijuana, any of these items that she brings up. And I worry that sending it back to committee with an acknowledged, without an acknowledgment of how significant they are and how important they are to that would almost assure that they don't get discussed. And so I'm feeling I'm feeling concerned about that. And that's not very scientific. It's just a gut feeling that I have. And so if you can help me where I honor my call, our colleagues interest in advancing an agenda that's right for Long Beach while also approving an agenda that you three can go to D.C. with . That would help me. If I could just respond as the maker of the motion. So when we discussed it in committee, what I suggest it was, rather than having two meetings a year, how Fiddler's did in the past, I'm okay going to meetings bi monthly so we can spend more time to evaluate these issues. And I asked that if there were a lot like major changes to hold them off. And Councilmember Gonzalez only submitted one or two. I submitted one or two with the expectation that moving forward, we're going to meet more often, more frequently to tackle this robust policy agenda. Now, I'm going to put that back on the table today. I'm willing to meet more often so that we can tackle some of these issues and give it the thought and consideration that it needs. And I think that I think that my colleagues should take it seriously when we say we'll discuss a number of these issues and others at the committee level. And just one more thing. This committee met twice and for a total total of an hour and a half to get where we are, it's going to take a lot of time. This is not a process we need to rush. So if there are things that people have concerns about, I'm okay taking it back and discussing them. Okay, I'm gonna make a comment and then I'm going to go back to the speaker's list here. I just want to confirm the that the members of the public are watching. I want to just first say that this agenda is actually really important to the city. And so this conversation and discussion is healthy. That's why we should have these conversations. It's this is the agenda that we will take to D.C. once this body passes it as a major document. And you can imagine that when you're talking about everything from immigration reform to medical marijuana to port products to gun control, there's a lot of opinions and a lot of discussion that happens. And so to put an agenda forward that we all agree on, I think is always significant for us to move forward. And so I want to start by thanking all three members of the committee, because they've actually put in a lot of work. All three of them have, and I think that's important to note. What I'm wondering about also is clearly what I what I'm hearing is there's an interest and I share this interest of getting an agenda done so we can have something in front of us as we move forward. But I think there's also clearly some concerns, particularly Councilmember Councilwoman Mungo has some concerns about a series of items that she wants to have to be considered discussed. And so she wants some of the verbiage. She's not comfortable with others she feels she wants to have not in bit discussed. So I'm wondering is if if the motion on the floor passes, I think it would be appropriate that those items as listed and I'm not sure what they all are would be on the agenda hopefully in the next couple of weeks so that those can be discussed thoroughly. And on any given committee day, this agenda can be changed and then brought back to the council. So we have a meeting that this needs to be done by in March. And so this process wouldn't would need to be completed over the course of the next 30 days. A committee meeting would do these items and then come back to the council. So if we move forward with the motion. I'd like to ask that Councilman Mangos items be on the agenda. Councilman Richardson And I'm not sure if that's going to fly with everyone or not, but I'm just saying that that would be my my request . I'm going to keep going down the speaker's list. Councilmember Andrew. Yes. And I want to thank you for that, because listening to, you know, all of our colleagues, you know, which is very concerned about what they're speaking out. But, you know, we talked about low income, but, you know, in my district, we have low, low income. And I really think you should really take that in consideration when you do take these things, because I'm on the committee with Councilman Austin and this is what I'm hearing tonight. It just seems like every one of these you and I mean Councilman go and Mr. Richardson, you guys are very close and I think is no relation any of these things. We have to get this and get it right because we're going to take it to a body that really will make some decisions that we really need to be very, you know, entrenched and understanding. So I would really thank both of you, you know, for you bringing two forward. And I will consider my voting, but I will. I'm listening to and I think we're close. We're very close. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mango. I hope that before us or 130 items of which I made 25 recommendations at Fed Ledge. Yes, we only spoke for an hour and a half and there were multiple things before the committee. And. If we are not clear on what we are speaking on, then we should not be voting today. We should not be voting on a policy that hasn't been discussed and vetted. I'm comfortable with. This with my emotion because I've done my research and I'm clear on understanding what I believe we can do to improve advocacy for the mental health community, for our low income community, and for our business community. Through the amendments that I made and I hope that I can receive the support of my colleagues both on the committee that voted with me before and today, to get back to the second motion, which is to approve the items as amended and to continue to have discussion because. We shouldn't approve things that we have at least know. And if we'd like to go item by item through them, I'd be more than happy to. There are serious concerns on the original language. We don't only want to support local control of our airport fees if it includes an increase and it sounds like a small change. But these small changes are pivotal to the way that we advocate as a city. And one of the things that if you watch the video from several weeks ago, you will notice is I am for a significantly reduced federal legislative agenda. We have a certain amount of resources and we as a city, we need to prioritize how we spend those. So I asked my council colleagues today to vote no on the motion on the floor and stand with me on the amended, the second motion, the substitute motion to go back to the original item as proposed. Council member, Ringo. Thank you, Mary. And in actuality, you touched upon something that that I that I originally stated. I see this as a live document. It it's due to change. It has been changed. It came to the legislative committee with recommendations already there from previous councils, from our previous colleagues, because they felt they were important. And what we've done or what the legislative committee has done was review those and either affirmed or made a effort to adjust them, change them, and, as you say, add some. So I see this as a living document. And what I'm saying, when I when I did my original comments in support of the original motion, was that for the purpose of getting these things forward and before our legislative committee, when we all go do go to DC, that we have something in front of us to present to our legislators that that would be supportive of our positions. Now I'm saying that with the knowledge that it's a living document, it's going to change. We're going to be revisiting some of these items here. We're going to be tweaking them a little more. And we can go that go there with that message that what we're giving you here is our agenda items are directives for Long Beach in principle. This is what we this is what we want to do. This is what we can talk about. This is a direction that we want to take. So I'm still I'm still with my original motion from the beginning that we move ahead with the agenda as presented by the legislative committee. Okay. Next, I have Councilwoman Pryce. Can I inquire of Councilmember Richardson what the detriment or negatives would be of accepting Councilwoman Mango's substitute motion? What do you see as the negatives of that? I think the distinct difference between my motion and Councilmember Mango's motion are the elements that we pointed out have some changes to them that have not been thought through and vetted out. Someone just said a moment ago, if you're not comfortable voting on something that you're not entirely clear on, then you want to support the substitute motion or the original motion, which was to exclude these things that folks have questions about. So the original motion was to send the things that have that we have uncertainty about back to committee. We made a commitment to vet them. The only. So it really comes down to whether you want to approve this Fed led agenda with all these changes where two of the three committee members have expressed their concerns. We've sat through all of the 90 minutes of the two committee meetings, and we've expressed our concerns and we're okay in due diligence. We will step forward and vet those in a more timely manner so we can have a healthy discussion. But I have to tell you, a number of these items, a number of these issues in a lot of these changes, if we vote on them, they are changing our legislative agenda. Right. We haven't done any significant outreach, particularly on housing, with the housing community, with the apartment association, with any of these folks, about what it distinctly means to play around with the way that we designate what is considered affordable housing. That is something sacred in this city. People take it very seriously, and I do not think that we should rush into this. That's why my motion is not to strike down these items out of the agenda. I don't want include some of these changes until they're very that's that's really the basis of my motion. Now, I'm again, I'm okay pursuing this, looking into it again. I'll take more time out of my schedule to vet, you know, 25 more of these these suggestions. And I do think we need to figure out a way to tailor them and streamline them. But the reality is a significant amount of work has been done on this agenda. A few things were slated at the last minute. I'm uncomfortable with them, and I'm not the only one that's uncomfortable with in my office, particularly on housing and a number of these issues. My office has been contacted and so I'm putting forth what I think is the best direction for this council if if folks want to move forward with these changes tonight. By all means, utilize your vote. But I would encourage folks to support the substitute substitute on the table, which allows us to meet the concerns needed. Concerns expressed about meeting a timetable to potentially get these back in before the Fed large trip, as well as approving this. This Fed led agenda tonight so that we have what we need to move forward. On that note, regardless of how the vote turns out tonight, I do want to thank the members of the Fed Ledge Committee, because I think this is really important work for our city. I agree with Councilwoman Mongo that our resources are limited and we really have to be advocating for the things that impact our citizens and our businesses directly and really try to stay out of collateral things that don't involve our city directly. So I want to thank you guys for the work that you've done. I know you're going to do great work for us when you are in DC. Regardless of how this vote turns out tonight, I want to have an opportunity to thank you guys for the work you've you've done. And regardless of where we go, we've come a long way. So. Absolutely. Counts. Councilmember actually. Councilman Richardson, you're cued up. You're going to pass. Councilmember Austin. Well, I'm glad I go to the concerns and the plotting, the Fair Logic Committee. This is this is pretty, pretty extensive work. On the bright side, you'll have the office holder accounts to be able to travel to D.C.. I could run the meeting on all these items and have time for fundraising. All of. Yes, indeed. I'm I'm going to go ahead and support the substitute substitute motion in effort to move the debate. It has been mentioned over and over that this is a living document. And if the substitute substitute motion actually holds back some of these items and sends it to committee two to allow you to to rework that, I think that's the best thing here. I think we have had a very exhaustive debate on this matter. And and if we can agree on agreeing on, you know, most of the federal alleged agenda and then allowing the committee to go back to work on some of those other issues, I think we're great. I just think it's important that we get out of here and have a clear understanding and and delineation, particularly on the the petcoke coal and petroleum products. And I think that is in. Mr. Councilmember Richardson Richardson's substitute substitute motion. But thank you. We have a final final comment from Councilman Mongo, and then we'll go to a vote. Charlie, I think that there's a misunderstanding of the substitute substitute, because when I understand that that my changes are being removed, it means that this council is voting for the. The policies that were written. It is not saying that we are going silent on the matter. It means that we are voting on something where specifically we have discussed that the wording is disadvantageous to residents in our committee. So just be clear that if you vote yes on the substitute substitute you're voting that when you want local control, you're also voting for increases when you vote on affordable housing. You're stating that when people are continuing to live in those units that instead of giving landlords options to find other livable units for low income housing, they must evict the person who's in there to make that available. You're also voting for requiring businesses to spend money on sprinkler systems without partner grant funding. And again, these are some of the very small wins that we got out of federal ledge versus the 25 of the 130 items that I was passionate about discussing that I had done my research on, that I had come prepared and talked to advocacy, advocacy groups. And so I strongly encourage that my colleagues support the substitute motion with a friendly amendment from my colleague, Mr. Austin, Councilmember Austin with the Petroleum Coke. I think we have one more comment and then we're going to go to a vote. Councilwoman Gonzales. I just also want to add a point of clarity to this. So just to get us all on the same page, I guess. But Councilmember Mongeau, I think when you're when you're saying all these things, it's it's you know, we're we're not voting on these items that you're mentioning right now. We're voting to bring it back to council, to I'm sorry, to committee to to get this out further. And so I think that's what we're we're intending to do with the majority of these, because there's still so many questions to be asked and so many answers that we don't have. So maybe I need a point of clarification, which is how I started my comment. Charlie and or Diana, do you now see that the motion as it stands would remove item 17 and six and 26 and four from the legislative agenda completely, or it would remove my changes and restore it to the original. Mr. City Attorney. Mayor and members of the council. I believe it's the latter. It removes the changed language that and refers those items back to committee for further discussion. We're going to work. But they're still in the motion being. So we do have we do have a speaker. So first, Councilman Gonzales, you were cued up. Do you have any further. Comments to say the substitute substitute will allow us to discuss this further? So that, I think, is the general consensus, it seems like, from the council, who knows? But I think that's the better route to go because we do need more answers to our questions and especially with affordable housing, with fire protection. I mean, there are a lot of things here that are heavy items that we don't have answers to. And this council does not seem to have consensus on moving forward at this time. So I just want to support the substitute substitute for that specific reason. Okay. With that members, please go and cast your votes. There is a substitute substitute on the floor. Public comment. We took public comment. Yes. No one can. Know. We had speakers at the beginning. It was just a long time ago. That's my OC. Please cast your vote. Councilman Austin. I'm sorry, Londo, please. Vice Mayor Valentine. Motion carries six two. Okay. Thank you. We're going to now go. Those were the four items that we had for Councilwoman Gonzalez. Let's wish her well. Thank you. Good luck. Well, next time, she'll be another mommy. So next time we see her. So thank you. And we're we're going to we're going to take a one minute break, get set up for our presentations. You guys have been very patient. So just a one minute break and we'll start our presentations. You know? Yeah. Mr. Clarke, I'm going to go ahead and restart the council meeting here. Please do a quick roll call. Started a quorum. Councilwoman Gonzales. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Pryce. Councilman. Councilwoman. Mango. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Ranga. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. I'm here. Thank you very well. We're going to go and begin with our presentations. We've been very patient in this unusual moving of presentations tonight. So thank you for that. Normally right on the agenda. I want to we probably all know we read about it in the community and in the news that community hospital is celebrating its 90th anniversary, which is very exciting. When you talk about the hospital, it's been a part of Long Beach for for a very long time. I will be the first also to admit it's it's the one hospital that when I've had to go that's where I've gone is to is to community.