Speaker 4: Motion carries.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. We're now at item 14.
Speaker 4: Communication from council member your INGO Councilwoman Price council member super non recommendation to request the city manager to prepare a study session for the Customs facility to be heard at the City Council meeting on December 13, 2016.
Speaker 3: Councilor Maria Ringo.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank my council colleagues, Suzy Price and Councilmember Gareth O'Connell, for staying on to this item. Thank you for your support. And I want to thank the residents who are here this evening and those who are not here who but sent in emails and phone calls communicating their ideas on this issue. I have been listening to your concerns about the timing of this issue and also about the fact that they want their voices heard and they're not here because of the holiday season. I strongly believe that we should not be voting on this item this week or next week, that we should hear it first as a study session. It's always important that when we deal with items such important, such as this, that we have a study session. First, give the opportunity for our public to state their case, to give their ideas and voice their concerns about any project, whether it's this one or that we did with the Civic Center and other items that come before us that they should have an opportunity to to share their thoughts. I would also like to say that we had four community meetings to commission meetings, and we had a great extensive dialog on this. However, it has not been presented as a study session to the City Council as a whole, and that's important. Given the large community interest. I encourage and ask that my colleagues discuss this item as a study session in lieu of hearing it as an action item next week. Please give this item the opportunity to be heard, to have questions answered, and to receive additional testimony prior to a vote of the City Council. I had an opportunity to review the report. I still have many questions regarding the report and the recommendations that are made in it. And I also want to ensure that my council colleagues do the same and that they all should be given the opportunity to hear the staff report as we study session, develop the questions and then come back in January for further consideration. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The second there was councilman.
Speaker 1: So I. I read the item a bit differently, and I'm in support of this motion because under the way that I read it, while I had hoped we would have a study session tonight so that we would have that time and that gap, I know that originally there was some concern that there might be a council member who admits, and then there were some back and forth. So I appreciate that this item was scheduled. But does the motion currently say anything about and supportive of a study session? And my understanding of the item is that we're going to do it next Tuesday. Wonderful. I'm supportive of that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman asked the.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Urunga and the rest of the council Price and Supernova for bringing this item forward. And I will just say that I will be in support of this item. I think it's a it makes a good, logical sense to to hear the study session or have a study session before the city council. I know we had at least two other study sessions from Jacobs Engineering, one before the Airport Advisory Commission and the other before the Economic Development Commission. I attended at least one of those study sessions, and I know at least a couple of my colleagues were able to do it. But I'm not sure and I'm pretty sure that all nine city council members did not have that opportunity. I think it's from a from a fairness process, due process standpoint. It makes a lot of good sense for us to have a study session here, more for the council to make sure that, you know, we get the the the information and we are making informed decisions. The Jacobs engineering study was close to 700 pages. I have toiled through most of that, actually, the entire study, and I'm on going on my second pass at this point. I would encourage all my colleagues to look at that. And if the public has not had an opportunity to read that full study, to read that as well, I want to make sure that this council and I think your council member, you his motion actually accomplishes that. Make sure that we are we are fully informed before we make a very, very critical decision. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Ranga, for bringing this forward. I know that it's very important to him that the community have an opportunity to weigh in and also that council make this decision completely mindful of all the questions that might be raised by members of the community or our fellow council colleagues. I appreciate that. I have to read the report. I haven't read all of the appendices, although I did read Appendix H and I've worked closely with staff to answer several of the questions that I have. We've also been inundated in terms of our council office with telephone calls and emails over the last two weeks. It looks like we received 69 emails in favor of moving forward to asking that we not vote immediately or vote no on it and for asking for a delay. So we've definitely engaged our community. I signed on to this item because as my colleagues now, and I think it's just inherent in my nature, I probably would never object to an opportunity to be educated further on something and learn more. So I think having a study session is good. And and also the way I read the item is that we can have a study session and that we need to have a study session before we're to vote on this item. Whether that happens at the next meeting or in the future. That is up to the council. But that's how I read the item and that's how I read it. When I signed on to it. So I appreciate the intent behind the item and look forward to hearing from my colleagues.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Mongo.
Speaker 1: And just to get a point of clarification, I know that I was able to watch the economic development presentation related to the Jacobson study. Is that still available online for any member of the city council to watch and including the public comment and community input?
Speaker 5: Yes, it should be on the register.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I know it had been. And so I encourage people to watch it immediately because I also think that if you have those questions, are we able to submit those questions to Mr. Mayes so that we would be able to have answers to our questions at any time? Because I know you answer my questions any time a resident brings up a an idea that I think we need to explore that I hadn't yet heard a response on.
Speaker 10: As Councilwoman Mongo, we try to answer all those questions as soon as we can, and if we can't answer them, we work with airport staff to get answers for you.
Speaker 1: So people can continue to ask questions. The comment is not open for next Tuesday. I'm sorry. Yes, for next Tuesday. Yet I hear it's only open 72 hours in advance. But that's our standard policy.
Speaker 5: I think that simply looked at the city clerk who runs that system to give us some input on that.
Speaker 1: So the agenda item.
Speaker 5: At 72 hours to go as he comments is enabled Friday around Friday at 430. So Monday, Tuesday at 4:00.
Speaker 1: I would like to add a friendly as a second day of the motion.
Speaker 3: She's got a friendly.
Speaker 1: As a friendly to this item because I'm supportive of additional public input. Would you be open to opening public comment as soon as feasibly possible from the city clerk's office so that people who are emailing our offices could engage with each comment? So it's all part of the public record and available to all of us at the dais during the night. So should those questions need to be answered on the standard policy that maybe we need to look at as a city is only 72 hours in advance, but I think that this item is of great importance. And I'd like to ask that we ask the city clerk to open that you comment if this item passes.
Speaker 6: I was back when I was talking to my chief of staff. I was asking that very question. Perfect. And in regards to making availability for access to two comments, there have been many, many emails already that are available for you to review on the website, if I'm not mistaken, with the airport airtight. So that's already there and I would certainly agree to that. Mean, I think it's important that that individuals who will not be able to here to be here, but are viewing it and would want to comment on it. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And then look on our legislator, typically it seems like there's a back end where it says the number of items that have come in for against.
Speaker 2: Or.
Speaker 1: General comment, those are not typically activated. Is there a reason why that could not be activated for this item?
Speaker 3: We don't use that feature.
Speaker 1: Do we? Paid for it. Is it available.
Speaker 3: That. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: Okay. Then I will wait and hear how that works because I see it on my register, but I see 15 public comments on an item or two and the little green and the little red don't ever change. So just a thought. If we're paying for a service we should utilize.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And next up, I have Councilmember Supernova, please.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I have a history on this particular issue. It goes back to last summer. I've been on the public record as opposing anything that comes to city council during the holiday season. Ironically, the press telegram, who I believe supports the office, agrees with me on that issue. So I'd like to quote Press Telegram editorial board from August 18th. Says Supervisor, right, in wanting enough time to have quality committee meetings before final action is taken by the council. The timetable should work as long as there aren't delays, which would push the issue into the busy November December holiday season when decisions on major issues like this are difficult to make. That's from a supporter of the FISA. So I would like to introduce a substitute motion. That we put off both the study session and the vote until after the new year.
Speaker 3: There is a substitute motion to put off both the study session and the issue coming before council, the one that comes from staff till after the holiday season. That was at the last part after the first of the year.
Speaker 7: I'll second.
Speaker 3: That. So there's a motion and a second to put them both off after the first of the year. That's the motion on the floor. I'm going to continue going down the line, councilman, or anything else.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'd like to reserve further comment till after we hear public comment.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Councilman, do you want to go now or you want to go to a public comment first? Okay. Why don't. Clarifying question. Sure. Councilor McGovern.
Speaker 1: City attorney. The vote today is on when we do a study session. Or it was, but now it's not. But if we approved the study session. Well, I guess they should go back a step. If Councilmember Supernova's item was not approved. The vote next Tuesday would only be. Could you clarify what the vote? It's the scoping, which is not the yes or no on whether or not we're going international. I guess I just want people to know that the vote that we're taking either tonight or next Tuesday, depending on what series of items fail or succeed, tonight is not the final vote on whether or not we're having an international terminal. I think that that. Could you provide some clarity that.
Speaker 10: That's absolutely correct, as I understand it. And if there are no further substitute motions, if Councilman Supernova's motion were to pass the entire matter, that is the study session and any vote up or down on CFIUS would be postponed until after the first of the year. That is until January or until sometime in 2017. If that motion fails, we go back to the original motion, which is to conduct a study session next Tuesday in front of the Council regarding the FISA.
Speaker 1: And currently on the agenda.
Speaker 6: I want to clarify though, if there will be a study session, but no vote taken that evening.
Speaker 1: I don't read the item that way.
Speaker 10: Well, almost the motion.
Speaker 3: Let's hold on 1/2. So let me just just I just want to get a lot of people lighting up here. Okay. I want to clarify where we are. It's very important. So just to be very clear where we are right now. There's a substitute motion on the floor by Councilmember Supernova, and the substitute motion essentially postpones any study session or initial staff discussion or and or vote on the FISA issue until after the first of the year. That's the study session that that is that is a substitute motion currently on the floor. Correct. Okay. And if if that motion were to move forward, then that happens after the first of the year, if it were to fail. Let me go back to the original motion, which is the motion by Councilmember Durango, seconded by Councilwoman Stacy Mango, which is to have a study session next Tuesday, which still does not preclude the council from moving forward on the staff driven motion on Tuesday night, or it could be postponed next would depend on the council decision then and of the friendly amendment that you made about allowing the comments to open up as soon as possible. So those are the two motions on the floor. Are there any other clarifying questions on that?
Speaker 1: So so just so we're clear, as I read the press telegram, which I support, Councilmember Supernova and that opinion that the vote shouldn't be taken during the holidays, that vote is not being taken during the holidays because we as a council cannot vote on the international terminal right now because we have a current currently we don't have enough information. We don't know the size, scope, cost, any of those things because several months ago, this council made an action to not allow the city staff to talk to any tenants about anything. And so. We don't have the information to take that vote. And that vote would take place in January. Correct. After staff, should you get direction? Potentially next week. You would then bring that back. Sometime in the new year, not even necessarily in January, but potentially January, February, March? Who knows? I'm confused.
Speaker 3: Mr. Mays, do you want me to explain it or do you want to go ahead?
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm clear. I'm hoping Mr. Mays will explain what he explained very clearly in my office earlier to the public and other members of the council. But thank you.
Speaker 3: Mr. Mays.
Speaker 10: So as it stands right now, we have a motion on the floor that would continue the entire matter until January of next year or after January, but no sooner than January of next year. That would be a study session and an action item to direct city staff to take next steps that would be put off until after the first of the year. If that motion were to fail, we go back to the original motion, which is to conduct a study session next Tuesday. And as I understood the motion from Councilmember Durango, as he explained it, his intent is only to have a study session session next Tuesday. I think possibly some of the confusion is that already submitted to the city clerk is an additional staff driven item also set for December 13, which actually would, if it were, if the staff recommendation were passed that evening, would direct city staff to take next steps. And that next step would not be to approve the office facility. It would be to, in essence, direct staff to engage with the applicant, JetBlue, to get more details on what their proposed project would actually look like and what the financial ramifications of that project would be, both for JetBlue and the city. So conceivably, if we end up with the original motion, the study session could take place. And as long as that city staff driven council letter remains in place, an action item would be on the agenda that would direct if past staff to move forward with a next step, but not approval of the office.
Speaker 1: Wonderful. Thank you. That's exactly what I needed to hear.
Speaker 3: Great. Thank you. Let me go back to Councilman Pearce. Do you want to go to do you want to go ahead and go or go? Do you want to go now? I'm sorry. No, absolutely. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: I just want to echo something that you said that's very important. If we did take a vote next Tuesday. That vote is not. We're opening up a customs facility tomorrow. That vote is to have staff work with the applicant. And that that itself is not necessarily a final approval of a start of a terminal. I mean.
Speaker 10: That that's absolutely correct, because even if you direct staff to take the next steps before the city council could approve any office facility, there'll also have to be a lot of other work done, including an environmental analysis that would be necessary for any final approval by the City Council.
Speaker 9: Thank you so very much for that. And I will hold my grandstanding for later.
Speaker 0: Thanks for your announcement.
Speaker 3: Okay. So let me let me go. So request to go to the public comment on this. So please come forward. Everyone, if you're going to speak, please come forward to the podium. Thank you. My goal is working with. There was two motions on the floor right now, the substitute and the original Reykjavik.
Speaker 1: I am I am so angry right now. I had 3 minutes of comments and suggestions to make to you. But Mike, I can't believe that you just shared that with them. And I cannot believe that you're falling for the emotion next week. If you pass this, this will be the same thing that happened with the Civic Center when you were just coming into office on Don't Look at me like that, Stacy and Mock Me. Shame on you. You know you're supposed to be representing your people, don't.
Speaker 3: You, Councilwoman? Let's please continue with the public comment. Oh, thank you.
Speaker 4: Okay, so question Susie, you.
Speaker 1: Said you had 69 for 22 against it and four to delay it. I'm going to guess only guessing that the 69 four came from the JetBlue club members. I don't know if you know that or you don't know that. And to say the next steps, again, I have to say to say the next steps means that that plane has left the gate. Okay. Please do not do that. Please move this to the other side of the holidays so that all of your constituents, those for it and opposed to it, will be part of this most serious development in this city. You are about to impact so many neighborhoods that have been fought for for decades. I'd also like you to include, if you will, that the that the study session when if and when you do have it or when you do have it. That includes the invited testimony of former Long Beach Airport Advisory Commissioner Doug Halbert. Doug is our elected city prosecutor, and he previously served as a contracted city attorney for multiple area cities. He deserves an invited opportunity to be heard and to speak more than 180 seconds to answer your questions. Based on his very important testimony in February 2015 that he gave to the Airport Advisory Commission, Mr. Halbert told the AEC that, in his opinion, allowing international flights could increase the risk of a potentially catastrophic challenge to our noise ordinance. Yes, the city attorney's office holds a different opinion. That's fine. It simply means that both you, as our decision makers and the impacted public, should hear and be subject to some scrutiny. Both sides and opinion being heard. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: John Slattery. Addresses on file. I think the big hope here and I think it was Councilman Price said, is I myself have not even had a chance to get through this thing. It's it's big. I don't know how many of you have you guys have staff? I don't. I think the ability for us to actually have a true study session, that's for the public. And I would also hope that you guys have a true study session. I was at the economic development. That's not a study session. That was just basically a presentation just from the stuff I've seen within there. This document is not complete. And I think really when you look at it, you know, it's already been said is if we didn't do this feasibility study, we're going to be sued. And now I'm starting to hear also that even if we say no after the feasibility study, we'll probably be sued. I think the city needs to take a stand. This is our airport. We're going to set up the way we want to set it up and that we should not be kowtowing to one business or I should say one customer. In 2001, I think was when they came in, they promised, hey, we gave them all these slots and they promised, we're going to fill it up to this day. They have yet to be able to utilize all those slots. Why are we going to put our the airport itself at financial risk when they can't fill up those international slots? But I so again, I just hope that you guys move this into the next year so that we as a public have a chance for a true study session with questions and answers and that you guys look at this as a true study session with questions and answers, not just a presentation of what's there. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please. Is there any other public comment or just my last one, please? Your last one for the night? Gerald Meneghini. No. I'm presently sitting on the Long Beach Airport Advisory Commission and have as such for eight years now. I was there when Doug Halbert made his presentation to us and I did hear what he had to say. As I have heard what's been said over and over for 20 some years, that we are always going to be facing a threat of somebody coming in to challenge it for one reason or the other. What I'm hearing from everybody so far tonight and gee, it was a short line was is that. I think rather than delay we're talking about. They don't want it. They don't want it. Please, not in our neighborhoods, please. No international service for Long Beach. And I think that's an unfair assessment of the situation. I think at this point that what we need to do is carefully listen to everything. And and I take real umbrage with the fact that the information in that 679 page book, that presentation has been available since October. It's been out there. So when are we going to finish reading it and when are we going to get down to studying it? And that's all I ask tonight, is that you consider studying it because what better thing to do on that holiday weekend than to curl up with 700 pages of a FISA feasibility study? So again, I said I am a sitting member of that commission. But tonight what you're hearing are strictly the rants of a citizen and a resident of Roberto around his council district. I thank you for your service. I think you'll always do the right thing, and I think we owe it at this point to make a make a choice to go forward and to learn more. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 2: Hi. Laurie Smith, third district. I do not I'm not impacted by the airplanes coming in to the airport, as Jerry mentioned. And I attended the airport advisory commission meetings. I'm concerned, as I spoke to you early about the airport advisory chair and vice chair and their conflict of interest issues that have been filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission and the L.A. County DA's office head Deputy Public Integrity Division. The Airport Advisory Commission is seeking to recommend to City Council to build a customs facility at the airport where they have a financial interest. And this could possibly impair the motivation of the entire commission. As I mentioned you, the city council have appointed the Airport Advisory Commission members and advise you and they advise you regarding airport related issues so that if there is a conflict of interest that is found with the two entities I mentioned earlier, when you the council, the city council itself will then be in jeopardy of your integrity . I requested the city council study session be postponed until the matters of impropriety involving the chair and the vice chair of the Airport Advisory Commission members. The business, which involved their financial dealings, which also include the city of Long Beach and JetBlue, have been addressed and resolved. These issues are currently under consideration by both the DA's office and the CAA, APC, and therefore I ask you to postpone the study session. The Long Beach, the city of Long Beach manages the airport and is ultimately responsible for the decisions made regarding it. I'm shocked that you don't know the things that I know. I only saw three of you. Austin, your Ranga and Supernova Community Meetings regarding this topic when a multitude of residents attended and there has been a limited amount of time to engage the residents. As these conflict of interest issues impact the City Council study session i. I would it would be prudent for you to withhold any further scheduling of the city session and vote until the conflict of interest issues are investigated. Furthermore, I'm confused and confused about allowing council members request about allowing the council members request about your comments. How do you know that the people that are commenting live in the city? There is a JetBlue email that was sent to anyone about sending emails to the city council to approve the fire study session. I only reporting this to you tomorrow. How do you know that the commenters live in the city? Do you require address and name of people? Are only residents allowed to make comments and are they checked? These are questions I would like you to answer tonight. And also, I don't think it's necessary that, you know how many people are voting, whether to approve it or not approve it. That just lets me know that JetBlue marketing staff needs to work harder to spam people to to get you guys to vote the way they want you to. So I appreciate you allowing our comments and I look forward to your vote.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Next speaker, please.
Speaker 5: Joe Sopko fifth District kept my address and file a mayor, city council members and staff. When you all were elected, you swore to protect the noise ordinance. I think I heard it out of all your mouths. That includes the city attorney and certainly the mayor. But what does that mean? Protect the noise ordinance. One thing you haven't done is stop the late night flights. This comes out public information. It's just obvious. Picked up August 2016. And you haven't stopped the homeless from the planes from coming in over the neighborhoods between 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. That's the most sensitive time. You haven't stopped that. And the worst violator is paying the city thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that money's going to the library. Now, that's a hell of a way to run the general budget, to rely on fines to pay for the library. But we're getting it. And it seems that you're all happy because no one's changing anything. I mean, the money should go to the library. That's where it's set up. But those flights should not be taking place. This August 2016 was from the airport, and it said that the month of August, JetBlue flew in between 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. over your house, let's say. How would you like it? 19 times between ten and 11. The the approved time that we give him a break. 22 times. Uh, 2015. They flew over and they and they got 15 or 15 penalties. They paid thousands of dollars in fines for our libraries. And then the same thing. From 10 to 11, there was 2014, 20. They're not going to stop flying over the top of the house. JetBlue is the biggest violator of our noise ordinance. And here we're talking about giving them our airport, giving the international flights. This is real basic. How would you train your children if you had children to raise? Hear, hear. Don't do that. Don't do that. Oh, let me reward you for it. That's what we're doing. Rewarding JetBlue. And what do you think is going to happen when you reward them with that FISA of the international flights? You think they're going to stop coming in late? You guys are, you're on this issue. You're terrible representatives. And if these were your children, you're terrible parents. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next speaker, please. I was born, Joy. I live at 4620 Virginia Avenue in Long Beach. In 2001, the city.
Speaker 5: Attorney's office was proven wrong after it told the council and the public.
Speaker 3: That it wouldn't risk our airport ordinance to change the airport's flight slot allocation rules. The exact opposite happened when the council made the change to suit JetBlue. It triggered a 2002 FAA inquiry, and we were nearly sued by American Airlines for that.
Speaker 5: For the record, Mr. Harvard among members.
Speaker 3: Of the of the ATC along with Long Beach US to who saved our airport from permanent destruction from bad.
Speaker 5: Advice recommended by another hired consultant.
Speaker 3: That consultant advised expanding our permanent terminal facilities to over 30% larger than they are today. That would have destroyed the airports, boutique right size, the travelers love and wins awards. Thankfully, a former council body didn't rubberstamp what a consultant recommended, which is why we have the right to size the airport we have today. It seems clear to me, as.
Speaker 5: Just a resident listening to the comments here tonight, that there are multiple issues that are.
Speaker 3: Influencing this decision that are not very well known or understood by the constituents in your districts and perhaps by some council members. It stands to reason that the public and your constituents are not going to have time to learn very much about some of these issues between now and this time a week from now. I urge you to postpone this vote until we can all figure out all the things that are influencing your vote. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Mr. Last Speaker, I want to close the speaker's list. Looks like it. I'm going. There are other speakers. Please come forward so I can see who's left. So two other speakers. Okay. The lady in the back will be our last speaker. I'm closing the speaker's list now. Others. Okay, so the next three and then we're close. Speakers, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council. I'm Robert Land represent. I am a member of the executive team at JetBlue Airways, 44 100 Donald Douglas Drive at the airport. I want to remind the council that this isn't just been a two year delay thus far to get to where we are tonight. Prior to the two years it's taken, just to get to the point of where do we go from here? JetBlue worked for at least two years and was urged by a prior airport director and a prior member of this council to postpone our asking. That led us to this two years. So we're in year four of this, the study, the exhaustive study that the city paid good money for that I think answered all the questions the council directed it to ask. Has been out for more than two months. During that more than two month period, there have been two exhaustive sessions. I attended both camps. When you Ringo. I saw you at both. It was terrific. And we support your motion this evening to have another study session for the council itself. But this is not an issue that's being, you know, ramrod it through. This is moving at a turtle's pace. Everyone's getting their chance to get questions answered. As far as the comment earlier about the councilwoman raised the number of emails she received. JetBlue doesn't tell its customers what to do. They tell us what to do. We respond to their needs. We informed them of the council's deliberations. We informed them of the Jacobs study. And we said, If you support this, here's a link to let members of your council know if they've responded in kind, then that's democracy. JetBlue didn't force anybody to do anything. You Council members in making this decision need to be informed and fully supports that, including next week's study session that I hope passes and is held in this chamber. But you can't be informed fully until Blue can work closely, which we were prohibited from 18 months ago to work closely with the airport staff and the city manager's office to provide all of the details and work an exchange of ideas and information on what this project would look like. So you can then make an informed decision. We pledged to do that immediately upon a vote that allows us to interact that way. We think the time for delays is over. I think earlier this evening you saw that the quote unquote holiday periods hardly stop this city from getting engaged and involved on issues of importance. And I applaud the city for taking up the Dakota pipeline issue. This room was full and passionate and you had to shorten the time. People got to speak because of it. And it's the holiday period. So in closing, JetBlue reiterates its support for the ordinance, the noise ordinance that we have defended, that we have given up assets to defend. And I remind the council that the FAA, as recently as October of this year, stated that proceeding with the FISA facility will in no way, no way whatsoever jeopardize the ordinance. Thank you very. Thank you very much. Last two speakers. Please come forward.
Speaker 4: Hi. Lavon Miller, eighth district. I'm confused as to why we're even talking about this, frankly, but to have something that I paid for, $350,000 for a study that contradicts itself in the appendices and the body. And, um, it's very confusing to me.
Speaker 9: I was very.
Speaker 4: Proud of Long Beach today when you stood with the against the Dakota Access Pipeline. You voted as one. And I'd really like to see you stand behind the neighborhoods in Long Beach and vote as one against this facility. And one last thing. When we're talking and when we have a study session and we come before you, especially when someone like Ray Gavlak, who has worked in this body herself.
Speaker 9: And comes up.
Speaker 4: To share something and is totally disrespected. I had to speak out against that. Stacey Mungo, you sat in the audience and talked to someone else while she was speaking. I think that's disrespectful. So anyway, I urge you all to put this off until after the holidays, because, quite frankly, I'd like to be home decorating my Christmas tree right now. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you. On our last speaker.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. Completely out of my comfort zone. I'm forcing myself to stand here and address you. I am a homeowner. I live on Studebaker. This is the first I'm hearing of this other than seeing a couple of signs in people's front yards. I don't even know what this means. I'm assuming that there hasn't been a lot of public outreach, so I just wanted to point that out. I'm thankful for the people who have spoken before me to bring this to my attention. How will I hear about this in the public? What do I need to know? Is if there's something happening with the airport. How will I know this as a resident of Long Beach? Anybody. Should I look in the local paper? What is the public outreach? I haven't heard about this, so I'm asking.
Speaker 3: Any of you where we go. What? I certainly I mean, besides obviously being in the press, which is there coverage of it, I'm certain, if you will, give us your email with the clerk at a minimum. And there's other information out there that's not city information. But at a minimum, we can send you everything that the city has that's online and that we have sent out on the issue. But I would also encourage you, there are other groups and there are other organizations have done their own research and other work. And those are will be available to you as well. But if you if you leave your email, we will get you everything that the city has and all the presentations.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I will look into that and I will give you my email. But the point is that I think I'm pretty well informed. I've been in this city for 20 years. My point is that there's probably not enough public outreach on this issue. And the other thing I would like to say is I agree with the woman before me sitting here in the audience tonight. It's so distracting to watch. Many of you have side conversations to move around, to sit back there, talk to people, come over here, talk to people, be on your phones, be on your tablets, taking care of other business. We're in the audience. We hear you whispering and talking. It's completely distracting and it's disrespectful to the people that come up here and and and speak to you about important issues. I'm I'm surprised by this. When we come into these chambers, I'm sure you demand a certain amount of respect. And I don't think that many of you are giving that same respect by not paying attention to the people that are at this podium saying very important things to you on very important issues. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Okay. That closes public comment. We're going to go back to the council. I have some speakers here. So Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think that what we need to do is gain more information. So what I'd like to do is make a substitute substitute motion and I'm open to additional input or friendlies from my colleagues to bring the study session and additional information sought after by the staff in engaging with the tenants back to this Council January 24th . So in the spirit of Mr. Councilmember Supernova's substitute motion, it would move the study session and the vote until after the holidays. Including but not limited to Martin Luther King Day. And it would also give the city staff the appropriate amount of time to engage with our tenants so we know what we're voting on. So I would be interested in knowing information related to. What are we specifically looking at? Where would it go? How many flights would we anticipate would utilize the facility? How much would the facility cost? How big would the facility be? All the things that I think we need to know before making a decision to move forward or not to move forward. And so I'd like to with that here from my colleagues. And when I say tenants, I don't just mean one tenant who put in an application. I'd like to know impact on all of our tenants. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. There isn't a second yet, so I'm just going to keep going down the list. Count some Boston.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And I believe there. There is a second to the motion on the floor. I am obviously supportive of. I'll wait. I'm I'm obviously supportive of of moving the the conversation until after the holidays. I can remember 2015 being a very tough December for for this council. We took a lot of very serious votes. And, you know, the holiday was certainly impacted by that. And so I think in the spirit of just, you know, making sure that we have a of a warm holiday season or holiday season that we can celebrate not only the council, but this entire city and community. I think it's the spirit of your motion. Is is is something that I'm willing to support after the holidays. However, I do have some concerns about opening up this this conversation and getting such information in advance of us truly studying the issue as a council. Right. We're on your own, almost on a dual track, right? You're on a dual track to say, yes, we want we're we're interested and we want to know more. And we we want to free our staff up to to have the conversations and get information in advance of the city council's really getting behind the idea. Right. And so if you were to modify your motion to have this study session in January and have the actual vote after we we actually have an opportunity to start to study the issue. The whole idea behind the study session is that this city council makes an informed decision. Right. And. I to your point, I know you're trying to get there, but but I just think it's it doesn't come off as genuine, right. In terms of really, really understanding and having a due process here.
Speaker 1: So I know you and I both experienced multiple study sessions and that our entire council had access to prior presentations online. And our entire council has access to the city staff, city attorneys to continue to do individual exploration including but not limited to just. Romo has come to community meetings in the fifth District and answered several questions that are on point. I'd be open to a couple of things. I'm not saying that we're interested. I'm saying we don't know what we're interested in. And so let me. I don't want to. I guess I could do an analogy, but I'm not saying. We're saying we're interested. I'm saying. We might want to go get a Christmas tree this year. And this is a debate in my family. Do we get a real Christmas tree or do we get an artificial Christmas tree? We don't even know what store to go to yet. And so within that context, I'd like them to come back. If you are hoping that this council has a study session in advance. I'm I am open to still having the study session next week and then having. All the information come back at a date certain in January so that we all know when to be here, what to expect. My residents want to know when is the vote going to really happen because they want to put it on their calendar and plan to come downtown. And we know how coming downtown is. And right now there's parking issues and other things. They want to plan. They want to carpool. They want to be a part of it, both yes and no sides. And what I don't want to do is leverage my neighbors to come two and three and four times. I want them to know that when they come. That we're going to have all the information because I think it's a very different story to say where we're going to move forward. But no one knows if we're talking about. $1,000,000 or 25 million. I mean, we really don't have anything in between. So are you open to do you still want to study session on the 13th and then everything in January or I will.
Speaker 7: I think we all came here prepared to do a study session on the 13th. Right. And I'm okay with doing a study session on the 13th. I've notified residents that the study session would happen on the 13th. So if you want a major motion, you're substitute substitute to say the 13th for a study session and then come back in January for a full consideration of this this issue. That's something that I can get behind and support. I think that's due process that I'm talking about. It gives this council an opportunity to get the information from the regarding the feasibility study, digest that information, develop questions, get do research based on questions that were may have come up then and then allow us all to have a nice holiday season as well.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to leave the floor open to listen to my colleagues because this might substitute substitute came from the. The information, both from councilmembers. Super Noor And to your point, when I had a community meeting last Monday, they wanted to know what's happening on the 13th. And I said, Quite honestly, I don't know because you don't know until you the sixth passes to what I can tell you what's gonna be on the agenda and posted because the staff report will be coming but I agree so but.
Speaker 7: I still have the floor, by the.
Speaker 0: Way. Thank you.
Speaker 7: I would, um. I know you put forth a substitute. Substitute? I would just ask as a friendly amendment that you direct staff to remove their item from from the 13th, from consideration until after we've had such study session. And that item comes back in January.
Speaker 1: So the way I currently have my motion worded, I may have not done it so eloquently, but the item would be the study session and the item that's currently agenda is for the 13th, all moved to the 25th with an additional component of information from the stuff through engagement with the tenants. That's where I am right now.
Speaker 7: I'll support Down.
Speaker 3: All right, somebody lingo.
Speaker 6: Okay. A lot of discussion here. Perhaps some confusion. And, you know, this last motion that was made right now, it's still not acceptable to me. Simple reason. Any studies say any item that includes a study session that ends in a vote is not acceptable. We can't do both at the same time. That that's my issue. You can't study something, say you're studying something, and then get a vote on it. It's like being in school. You studied and you take the test right away. You're not even given an opportunity to to go home and do some homework on it. I mean, that just doesn't work that way. A lot of people get, you know, failing grades because they cram. Then they before they call that set, they call that studying. That's not that's not studying. Studying is getting a report, getting all the information you you they have to give you asking questions. Having staff go back, researched a little more, coming back with the information that you requested via the study session that you had. I want more information on on the feasibility study. I want more, more, more information on the sequence issues, on the cost. I want all of that. Those are questions that those are questions that I have questions that are already being brought up but that we don't have answers to. We have some. Preliminary response to that, but not as a whole. And I'm not I'm sure that there's a lot more information out there. So any any motion at this point that puts both together as a as a study session and a vote I cannot support. And then we have the additional item that Councilmember Austin just brought up is that this debate is because we already have an agenda item for the 13th that says a staff report and then a vote. And I think that what my intent was with the original motion that I made was to remove the the the. The staff report portion of it. Do have to have a social study session and then move the vote to January. It'll give us a month or so. January 24th seems to be the appropriate date, or at least a close date when we're all here as a full city council. So I could see I could see that studying that on on on the next week and then going into the vote in January. But any item right now, as I see it, that does both will not will not work for me. Supernova's substitute motion would work if he were to separate the two but but it's not it's a it's it's just moving the such and about to a future date which would be what Stacey I think is recommending here. And I'm I can't support that. So at this point, you know, it's you know, I can I can come up with a question, but I see one councilmember hasn't spoken a lot yet. So I'm going to let her give her an opportunity to to chime in at this point as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And before I go to the next two speakers, I think it's important we do have a clarification because I want to make sure that everyone understands what the actual motions are and then what the processes that Mr. Mays described, because then we can maybe see some clarification on the motion on the floor. So and please correct me if I'm wrong here, so let me know. Okay, from the way the way I understand the current the process that needs to happen, as you've explained it right now, regardless of the study session aside, the vote on the FISA process essentially is, as you've explained, it, is a two step process. The first the first vote would be a request to direct management to begin engaging with JetBlue and or partners that are interested in the FISA and develop, I'm assuming, the framework for a plan to develop an FAA terminal that would then that vote on the FAA terminal, I'm assuming it would include specs and size and variety of different questions that could be answered. Then that would then come back to the city council for a second vote to actually move the FISA terminal forward. Is that correct or incorrect?
Speaker 10: Mayor. That's correct. What you essentially would be doing in the first step is actually defining a project, a real project that has, you know, the size of the building, the financial structure. And once that is defined, the project is defined. It would come back to the city council for a vote and approval of whatever environmental document was approved appropriate to to finalize it.
Speaker 3: I believe that staff's intent then is when placing it on the agenda on the 13th, is that that would be the first part of that. What you described in the second component of that would come back at a later date whenever that date was in 2017.
Speaker 10: The way that letters fashion. That's correct.
Speaker 3: So I just want to clarify, could I believe Councilwoman Mango's substitute substitute motion puts all puts all of those the study session the direction to work with JetBlue and. The actual vote. All on one day. So I just want to clarify that that that we're all that we understand what the motion is and maybe I'm incorrect there , but I just want to clarify with Councilman Mongo.
Speaker 10: Mayor, if I can add to that, as I understood the motion that would include, if it were passed, the staff's ability to immediately engage with tenants at the airport, which of course would include JetBlue to discuss items such as what a project would look like, what the financing would be. I think that's what I heard the motion to be correct.
Speaker 1: HILTON Yes, and I would be most interested if all of those were wrapped into one agenda item. It doesn't need to be three agenda items on the council. If it's you're the legal expert on what's possible, but I would like a member of the public to be able to come forward and speak on all three items. Because I think that as you and I have experience at community meetings, there's not speaking to one, just the Jacobson study or just this or just that. It's a very intertwined discussion. So I'd like it to be. One item for everyone to be able to engage on. And potentially, depending on what my colleagues say, I might move the study session up. Depending on if that seems like the call to the council.
Speaker 3: So can you clarify for me also it's part of that response because I think clearly the study session and the and those those votes can certainly be the same day, different days depending on the council's direction. But I'm also I'd like clarification for myself and maybe other members. Could the other two actions be on the same vote, which I think is what's currently being proposed? Is that possible?
Speaker 10: I'm sorry, Mia. Which other two actions?
Speaker 3: I think with the current substitute substitute and I could be completely interpreting this wrong, but I believe that the substitute substitute puts the. The. Giving direction to staff to work with JetBlue and then the approval of the office into one vote versus the initial separation of the votes. Staff at plant is well and.
Speaker 10: Maybe I'm not completely understand you, but as I understand the motion, what it would do, it would move the FIA study session to January 24th and it would also direct city staff to have the ability to make contact with interested tenants at the airport, including JetBlue, between now and January 24th and that on January 24th, Council would have a study session and the potential it wouldn't have to do it, but the potential for voting to take. The next step. And if that next step, if they've already talked with JetBlue and gotten a commitment, the next step might be to commence whatever appropriate environmental was needed.
Speaker 3: Okay, Councilman, do you want to make anything else? Want to add to that?
Speaker 1: You know, I would like to hear the rest of my colleagues comments.
Speaker 7: Point of information, though, because I'm really thoroughly confused now. I understood the process to be the very first step in this process would be to to send a letter to Homeland Security and then to the governor before we even get to that point.
Speaker 1: So I'm happy to add that in as a friendly.
Speaker 7: No, that's not a friendly. I'm just saying. It seems like you're putting the cart before the horse here.
Speaker 3: Let's get the process. Let's get that question. Let's get that one question clarified. I'm going to go through the speakers. Listen, I've got three of the council members, including Mr. Austin, at the end of the day.
Speaker 7: At what point does the council request that that this project even be approved by Homeland Security? So in the letter, the governors of the state of California are supposed to send a letter requesting a search.
Speaker 10: That's exactly right. The federal government will not move forward with approval of the office until they have a letter from the governor indicating that they the state is supportive of it. So it's kind of a dual process. One of the directions to staff would be to or could be to move forward with outreach to the state government . And that, you're correct, is part of the December 13th letter that is, you know, already on your agenda for December 13th, which is to direct staff to contact the governor's office to see if they are interested in allowing Long Beach to become international terminal.
Speaker 3: We go to the speaker's list and then we'll circle back around. Councilman Schubert on.
Speaker 5: Somehow I am reminded of the phrase snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. What I'd like to add is possibly a compromise here. Let's see if we can work this out. We have the date of January 24th that has been mentioned for my original idea to move the thing after the first. So if we looked at the Tuesday prior of January 17th anyway, the Tuesday prior to the 24th, yea 17th. Let's get a hard date for January 17th for the study session for council then. Okay. Then let's use January 24th as the hard date for the study session, with the vote to be taken at some point after but not taken that night. So would that be a sub subs? I'm not sure. Or a friendly.
Speaker 3: They'd have to be a friendly. There's no more motions like. Do you want to just keep going down the list? Okay. Council Member Pearce.
Speaker 9: Thank you and thank you for the clarity on what we would actually be voting on and the clarity that. First let me let me just back up and say that it's bothered me that the conversation has said, well, because we haven't seen you at a study session, you haven't been paying attention. I've read the binder. I've read the study. I've paid attention. I've watched the videos. They're still out there. And we're trying to get as much information and ask as many questions as possible. And so I just want to put that out there, and I commend my colleagues for trying to ensure that there's a good, transparent process that everybody can engage in. And it's my commitment that in between now and January that I'll also engage in Second District residents to make sure that they're a part of the process. You know, on top of of JetBlue or airport or constituents that are trying to come out, council is also trying to plan what things they put on the agenda as well. And so while we continually move dates, it affects everybody else as well. And so I'm supportive of moving a date to January, even though I was very much at the beginning of this meeting concerned about moving a date to January. I would hope that if we move the date to the 24th, that we would be able to have a meaningful study session and a vote at that time, knowing that we still a very far away from actually getting a. A solid vote on having an additional. Services there. So I guess my my question is the last proposal is to do it on the 24th and then put a date in February for the vote. If that comes back up. And that's a friendly I really want us to try to push ourselves to just have this first vote. It's just a direction to kind of move forward with actually understanding what it would look like and all the details. And so I would urge us to not move past January. If my colleagues if I hear different from colleagues, then I'll be there. But I really would want to see this vote happen on the 24th with the study session, if possible. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman. Awesome.
Speaker 7: Thank you. And once again, I want to appreciate everybody's dialog here. I know we're working to get somewhere to make some movement. I think the the ideal is to to be fair to to make sure that we don't minimize the concerns of the residents in the impacted communities, recognizing that their homes are their primary investments and their connection to the city is very, very important. They've asked for us to move this past the holidays. I think that's a fair ask. And it sounds like there's there's consensus here there. Right. Councilmember Mongo, your motion is like I said, it's it's my appetite is there to support it. I just have a problem with engaging the stakeholders and moving an agenda on a, on a, on a dual track right before we've actually had this study session. And to your point, Councilmember Pearce, I don't doubt that other council members have looked at video and read emails and read studies. That's what we do and that's what we were elected to do. But this is the forum for the city, right? We had the forum at the Airport Advisory Commission. It's not televised. The ABC. It's not televised. The city council was televised. And this this is the broad forum for for the city. And ultimately it's the call is on us. The responsibility is on this body. Right. And so I would just implore upon Ms.. Mongeau to amend your motion, drop that portion of your motion that that that that puts us in a position where we are. Giving giving a subtle, subtle nod to to a process that we haven't had a chance to vote on. Right. Let's let's let the process be what it is. Let's have a have due diligence, I hope. Oh, wait. I'm hoping that that we can we can do our due diligence here, have the study session. And if the body decides that we're going to do both, then on January 24th, it is going to be a very, very long meeting. Right. And I hope you're prepared for that. This is a meeting that will require I mean, nine city council members all will have questions. Some will have more than others. This could go into the wee hours of the morning. Right. And so if that's what you want to do, that's I don't I don't think that's good form for the council. But that is something that that that's a compromise I'm willing to make to to get us past the holiday season.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Next is Councilmember Ringa.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mayor. Healthy discussion. We need to continue this. But the bottom line is, again, if it's doing. As a motion that stands right now is having all these different nationalizations taking place on one city council meeting. I cannot support that. We're good. We're going to be here till, you know, till midnight, if not beyond that, if we if we accept that motion. So I just can't get support that. What I can support is having a study session, which is the original motion that I had and taking a vote at a different date so that we can do our due diligence in between the study session and when the vote takes place so that we can have all the information, including that which which. Ms.. Mongeau Councilmember Mongeau identified. But. The other cautionary note that I have on this is that there's an implied agreement to move forward with that piece. If we send a letter to the governor saying, we want to pass, we want you, we want your approval on it. It would I would have to see what that letter looks like first and what it's asking for in actuality, because there is no way I want to imply that the city of Long Beach is ready to move forward, and we need their blessing or his blessing at this point. That is not the point of sending a letter to him. The point would be there's there has been a request. There's an intent. We're studying it. What do you think, Governor? Can we move forward? Should we move forward? Do you have concerns? What are those issues with concerns that you have? Let us know what those are so that we can include it in a study session. Rather, maybe that's what should be done. First is that is is the city of Long Beach is considering being the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, whatever airport we are to be international in California. Is that workable with him? Is it workable to have three, four international airports within a 25 mile radius? Does that work? Because that's what's happened. That that is what exactly what happened with Alex, Ontario, John Wayne. And I think Burbank is already there or heading in that direction. I mean, there's a lot of other stuff that needs to be done beforehand. And that's why having a study session. Would make sense. Let's get all the questions out there. Let's study it. Let's get it. Let's get it addressed. That way when we do have the time, when it comes to a vote, we have the staff report. Staff will be making that report, giving us all of the information that we've asked for, and then we can take that vote. But being prepared and knowledgeable and fully vetted, as far as I'm concerned, fully vetted in regards to the feasibility of having this bias. So I'm sticking to my original motion at this point, although I like the possibility of of putting that out to the 24th as a study session, and then we will vote then moving it into maybe the first week or second week of February to take the vote. Something like this requires patience, and I know there's some impatience out there, but it requires us doing our diligence to make sure that we're going to do this and do it right. And if it takes time for us to do it right, then so be it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay, I have a long list of folks, so. Which is fine. We got it. It's an important issue. So let me just go down the all the comments. So remember, we have a subsidy subsidy on the motion council member super non.
Speaker 5: Okay. Just as a courtesy, the audience. I want to bring him up to date on what's going on here with the dates. Jan, can't we can't meet. That's a state of the city address. So that council meeting is out of the question. The 17th council member, Turanga, has a Coastal Commission meeting, so in deference to his schedule, that would be out of the mix. So that takes us to the 24th, that magical date. And so what I'd like to propose now is then let's look at the 24th and either have a special meeting on the 31st. I'll gladly give up my community meeting, which I don't want to have that night or February 7th. Bingo.
Speaker 3: Well, we have a subsidy subject to keep going through the speaker's list and then come back around to Councilman Mongo, who's at the end of this list here. So Councilmember Pearce.
Speaker 9: Can we call the question?
Speaker 3: I've only got two more, so I think maybe we'll get these last two. And unless there's any objection to that, I.
Speaker 4: I mean. I like the dates. I like.
Speaker 1: So. So I'm happy. I'm trying to accommodate everyone. I want to respect Council Member Supernova's intent not to have the study session or anything during the holidays, though I would be very supportive of the study session next week with all information coming back on the 24th so that all of that works. I'm also amenable to the 17th with the study session with the vote on the 24th. Councilmember Turanga has attended all of the study sessions and one of the things that I think would be pretty amazing for all of our residents is if that meeting would be potentially at Long Beach City College, closer to the residents. That won't have to trek themselves downtown to engage in this dialog. So I'll put that out there. I know it's not a decision that this council would be able to make at this dais, because we have no idea of the rooms available, any of the things of that. But I'll put it out to the city staff that if there is the will to make that happen, I believe that that would be something meaningful.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I wanted to make sure I still had the.
Speaker 1: You still have the floor. But in agreeing to I'm going to have to let down either Councilmember Turanga or Councilmember Super not at this point with either the options or I'm going to have to let down my other colleagues who are not going to have so good either.
Speaker 9: Could I call the question on.
Speaker 3: Let me go let me go back to the calling of the question then. Okay.
Speaker 9: So calling the question on the last dates that were proposed, which was the 24th.
Speaker 3: You have to call the question on on ending discussion on the motion.
Speaker 9: I would like to call the question to end the discussion.
Speaker 1: Does that mean I can accept Friendly's or. No.
Speaker 3: It's okay. It's okay. So let's just hold on 1/2. So there's the.
Speaker 9: Way I see that, Lina, Councilmember Gonzalez has not spoken yet on this item. I'm just trying to help move us along. So I'm.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'm going to keep going down the line because we've got a couple folks. Vice Mayor Richardson.
Speaker 8: So. Well, number one, when you call for the question is not the bit not debatable. If anybody seconds, you got to vote on the question. That's just a point of order. And then what I would say is. You know, sometimes you step back and let other council members step up and kind of work it out if they're more sort of engaged on that issue. My district's not in the flight path. I've paid attention to this issue since I was chief of staff for seven years. So I follow it. I'm up to speed on this issue. What I would say is the original item that prompted this discussion tonight was by council uranium. That actually made sense to me. It said, you know, let's have a study session before we make a decision that I'm just on a basic stamp. It just made sense. You know, we are if this doesn't happen on the 13th or whatever date, we're still coming to a council meeting on 13th. The my daughter's birthday is or second birthdays on Thursday. I'm still planning to be at a council meeting on the 13th to make that happen. And so I think we need to just put a reality check out there. The basis of this is and I understand both sides. Do we play the delay game? And I don't want to play that game if we're going to have a discussion. We're going to make a decision. We need to make a decision if if we want to give the public adequate time to study it. And if the council is requesting adequate time, study it. I support that as well. So what I'm saying is that, you know, I'm going to be in a position to have to vote down every measure until we get to council member wrangles or the motion that we're on right now, which this is very, very different. You just adjust the dates to where you have the study session on the 13th and you vote on the 24th. I think we keep it simple. It does not have to be all that extra stuff if that happens as a as. And mind you, I'm going to leave here tonight and sleep well one way or the other. So I'm okay. But I but I think that is the path to a compromise, if that's on the main on the main motion. It just it just makes make sense. And I hope we can just get to that.
Speaker 3: I'm going to go to Councilwoman Gonzalez.
Speaker 2: Yes, I wanted to kind of sit back and listen to everything. I, too, have been up to speed with everything I've I've read as much as I could on this issue. Of course, my residents feel very differently, but I completely understand this is a citywide issue. I want to hear all of my colleagues and of course, the public and make sure that I'm making the best decision. And I would have to agree with Vice Mayor Richardson as well. I think that we originated this whole discussion on the premise that the 13th we would have some more information and the FAA study would provide us that information or the study would provide us some more information on on what direction we can we can go. And then in January, I think that's also fair to to have a month to to kind of dig into this a little bit more, even more than we already have and then possibly make a vote in January . I think that's a good compromise between all of these discussions that I'm hearing. And it allows us, the council members, to continue working on these on this issue and have some more information, get some more information in the next month, after the holidays. As Vice Mayor Richardson alluded to. We're going to still hear this this whether opposed for we still get the emails constantly. We get calls constantly about this issue. We are studying it as much as possible among all of our daily lives that we all have, whether public, elected, office, whatever. So I would say that if we can get to a 13th and 24th schedule, that I would be amenable to that. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman. I have Councilmember Mongo. 1/2.
Speaker 6: Point of order, Mayor. Yes. So we are going to be voting on the motions.
Speaker 1: I'm going to accept a friendly.
Speaker 6: As as they go.
Speaker 3: Correct the sub sub, because.
Speaker 6: I would like to amend my original motion if I can. But, you know, when it comes right down to it, I will make that amendment. Okay.
Speaker 3: So we're going to start we're going to start with the sub sub. And I'm going to allow I think Councilman Mongo also wants to kind of clarify our motion and so that we all know what we're going to do that each step of the way. So if this goes further, so we know so everyone knows what the each vote is. Okay, so councilman mongo.
Speaker 1: So my motion will be accepting the a part of the friendly from Councilmember Turanga that we move forward with the study session on. 1213. Is that next. Next Tuesday that staff engage and get info from the state and tenants etc. and bring back all the information for a date certain of January 24th for this Council to have a informed packet of information and a vote. Great.
Speaker 7: What did. Excuse me. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: I don't think you have the floor, sir.
Speaker 3: Well, actually, hold on one sec. Well, I need 1/2. So there is. There's a motion on the floor. So Councilmember Austin is asking for clarification.
Speaker 7: And point of clarification. What you mean was.
Speaker 3: Hold on 1/2. Let me let me let me figure this out 1/2. Councilman Austin, looking for clarification on the motion. So a part of the motion or the whole motion? Councilmember.
Speaker 7: I understood the dates. I understood a study session on the 13th. I understood bringing it back for a vote to determine our direction. Correct. On the 21st. 24th. But I don't understand is directing staff to engage in stakeholders and with the governor's office to do something that we haven't made a decision on doing since.
Speaker 1: So while I appreciate your perspective, sir, I don't know. That's what any of the scope will be. It's not disingenuous. I don't know that the governor is going to say yes or no. If he's not even going to say yes, why are we having the discussion at all? I don't know what the scope would look like. We don't know any of those components yet. Those are the components neighbors ask me regularly so respectfully, and I'm I'm hoping that we'll pass the floor to the next person and please queue up and ask those questions of whomever at that time. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay, hold on, everyone. So. Council member Supernormal.
Speaker 5: A couple of comments were made here, admittedly by council members who are not in airport impacted districts. The vice mayor characterized this as the DeLay game, and that is the furthest thing from my mind. I won't hold him to that particular verbiage. I don't think he was accusing me of playing the DeLay game, but I just like to explain the psyche of the residents who are in the airport impacted districts. Okay. They are cynical. And I hope that didn't have to bring this up tonight. But why didn't I know back last summer that this wasn't going to work if we brought it here during the holiday season? I'll go back to December 18th, 2007. That's when the Schroeder Hall vote was taken. That took over five years to resolve that. I don't know how many committee meetings we had. There were dozens. But I'll tell you one thing. At every one of those meetings the audience brought up and they tried to sneak it byas the meeting before Christmas. That's what I was trying to avoid. We had it here a few minutes ago and now it's gone again. So I'm going to employ, I implore my colleagues to consider moving the study session until after the first of the year. So whatever we do is not tainted by that, by the residents who live in the airport back impacted district. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Council member, Austin.
Speaker 7: So the intent of the item before us this evening was to have a study session, and I think it was articulated a lot down the line that we want to respect, that we want to respect the having a process. We want to have more information as a as a as a council before we make this decision by instructing staff to go in and start negotiating the deal points before we've actually made a decision is is wrong, right? We didn't do that with the Civic Center. We didn't tell staff to go in and start, you know, setting up negotiations before we made a decision to move forward with that process. Right. We don't do that with anything else. This is something that I'm employing upon Councilmember McGill to drop that portion of her motion. I could support everything else. Otherwise, I have to vote against this motion and encourage the rest of the council to do the same.
Speaker 3: Mr. Mays.
Speaker 10: Mayor, members of the City Council. Since we're getting close to voting on the substitute substitute, I need to make sure exactly what direction you are giving staff. And as I understand the motion, it includes a study session next week on the 13th and potential action item on the January 24th. And if it were to pass, it would also allow and direct city staff to engage with tenants at the airport, which would include the preliminary negotiations with, for instance, JetBlue, to determine actually what size of project that they are interested in, what financial arrangements they would be willing to make in connection with the office facility. And it would also allow staff to at least reach out to the governor's office and start the process of determining whether or not the governor's office would sign a letter to Customs and Border Protection indicating support of an office facility in Long Beach.
Speaker 3: Okay. There's a we have the substitute. Substitute motion on the floor. Looks like there is no other questions ready for the vote. Councilman Mango. Councilmember Austin.
Speaker 7: So I'm hearing two different things, right? I think Councilmember Mango's motion, what I heard was that should we do this? Staff would immediately begin those steps in terms of engagement. What I heard from the city attorney was something altogether different. If the city attorney's.
Speaker 4: Know.
Speaker 7: If his version of this is what we are voting on, I could I could I could support that. But was that a question of clarification or not? From the city attorney.
Speaker 10: I was trying to clarify what Councilman Mango's substitute substitute motion was as I understood it, which is to make sure that all of us are on the same page. As we move forward tonight, whatever the direction is, so that everybody knows exactly what they're voting on.
Speaker 1: So it sounded slightly different. Will you repeat it one piece at a time? Sure. This is what real making policy means to get everyone on the same ship going in the same direction.
Speaker 10: So one step at a time. Step one would be to set a study session for next Tuesday night, December 13.
Speaker 1: Everyone's clear on that one.
Speaker 10: Step two direct city staff to immediately begin engagement with JetBlue and any other interested.
Speaker 3: Until Mr. City Attorney and.
Speaker 10: Any other interested tenant at the airport that has an interest in the office and also engage with the government, governor's office and CBP if necessary. And the third step is to set an item on January 24th, 2017, for a potential vote by the City Council. That's the way I understood the motion.
Speaker 7: Okay. So I heard it different the second time. The first time you said a study session on December 13th. Then come back to a vote on the 14th, on the 21st, 24th of January. And then should we vote in support, we would engage with stakeholders at the airport and governor's office and move the process. That's what I thought I heard.
Speaker 10: Well, that's not what I said. I was just trying to articulate what I believe Councilwoman Mongeau said in her motion, and I think she stated it twice. And my understanding was that she wanted staff to initially engage with tenants, including JetBlue, as to things such as the size of the potential financing and all that.
Speaker 7: Thanks for clarifying. I think that that.
Speaker 1: Is putting.
Speaker 7: The cart before the horse.
Speaker 3: Okay. So I think this now the I think Mr. Mays has explained what the substitute substitute motion is that is on the floor, which is has those three different components in it, which is well, you describe them. I won't describe them again. You just you just went through all three of them. And so please go ahead and cast your votes on the substitute substitute motion.
Speaker 4: Motion carries.
Speaker 3: Okay. Motion carries. We are now moving on to the next item, Madam Clerk.
Recommendation to request City Manager to prepare a study session for the FIS Customs Facility to be heard at the City Council Meeting on December 13, 2016.