The underlying motion (Lowenthal) sought to pass ordinance text that she and one other member (Johnson) of the Environmental Committee she chairs sent to the Council via a March 2013 Committee vote. However at the full Council meeting, it spawned a substitute motion by Councilman O'Donnell, who is also a member of the Environmental Committee where he had previously voiced unease with some of the proposal's provisions.

Following sharply split public testimony, O'Donnell moved to approve the proposal's provisions regarding chickens but not regarding goats and bees. Faced with O'Donnell's substitute motion (which Johnson first broached in Council colloquy in hopes of reaching a five vote compromise), Garcia instead made a substitute-substitute motion that was the same as Lowenthal's motion but with a proviso to examine the ordinance results in six months [which the Council could do any time without the proviso.]

All three motions came up one vote short, with O'Donnell's substitute (approving measures for chickens only) failing 4-3 (Yes; O'Donnell, Johnson, Austin, Neal; No: Garcia, Lowenthal, Andrews) and the other two motions (to enact the full ordinance) failing by the same margin (Yes: Garcia, Lowenthal, Andrews, Johnson; No: O'Donnell, Austin, Neal).

Long Beach residents are already allowed to keep chickens, goats and bees but with a number of restrictions, including properly line set-backs, making it especially difficult to comply with the restrictions in some densely populated parts of the city.

In Council public testimony, opponents of the measure included veteran animal advocates (including several active in Friends of Long Beach Animals), some citing the workload for Long Beach Animal Care services staff. Asked by Councilmembers about current agency resources and funding, ACS chief Ted Stevens and Parks & Rec. Dir George Chapjian indicated that they believe that any additional workload could be managed with current resources and if new costs resulted, those could be brought back to the Council and revisited.

Other public speakers cited odors, flies and other nuisance issues. Some noted that some people can be allergic to bee stings but not know it. One speaker said bluntly she was against turning the city into farm land, and if people want farming they should move to the country. Others rhetorically asked how the city could handle nuisances from livestock when it couldn't handle visible and audible illegal conduct from fireworks.

One Cal Hts resident argued against bringing in livestock when the city already has a coyote problem (offering a new food to predators.) Another opponent said a CEQA examination hadn't been conducted on the proposal's potential impacts.

Urban agriculture supporters urged equality in how City ordinances treat chickens and goats compared to dogs and cats. Several advocates said noises, odors, flies and bites from dogs and cats are more of a problem than with chickens and goats. Others cited the benefits of having the public, and especially children, see from where their food comes, and Long Beach residents should have non-corporate sources for their food (some citing non-genetically-modified foods.)

Supporters said odors and nuisances shouldn't result if animals are properly kept and added that other cities had enacted urban agriculture measures without experiencing cost and additional workload (some experiencing less workload).

Regarding bees stings (with up to four hives proposed), Councilman Johnson asked City Hall's Health Officer, Dr. Mitchell Kushner, for his view on the risks of serious reactions by some to bee stings [some people may experience potentially life threatening reacions]. Dr. Kushner said the risk was very small...but declined to say it was zero.

Two Councilmembers were absent on the measure: Councilwoman Schipske was out for the entire meeting (pre-planned trip in part for a Sacramento meeting of the state Medical Board on which she serves) and Councilman DeLong -- who had been present earlier -- exited the Council Chamber as the agenda item came up.

The "urban agriculture" ordinance was first brought to the City Council's advisory Sustainability Commission roughly two and a half years ago by Long Beach Grows, a grassroots non-profit whose leader Donna Marykwas is a 2nd district, resident. The group initially proposed easing restrictions on chickens and goats; bee keeping provisions were initially supported by local beekeepers but have since been supported by Long Beach Grows, which cites supporters citywide.

The proposal was then taken up by the Council's Environmental Committee chaired by 2nd dist. Councilmember Suja Lowenthal. The Committee, which includes vice chair Patrick O'Donnell and Committee member James Johnson, discussed the proposal the Committee's quarterly meetings for roughly two years where it often produced polarizing public testimony. It advanced to full Council discussion on a March 2013 affirmative vote by Lowenthal and Johnson, with O'Donnell (who'd expressed unease with some proposed provisions) absent on that action. .

At the July 16 full City Council meeting, Councilman O'Donnell a motion to approve the proposed ordinance provisions regarding chickens but to withhold action on provisions regarding goats and bees. Moments earlier, Councilman Johnson was first to raise this possible compromise, effectively signaling that the full measure might not have five supportive Council votes.

Councilman Austin cited possible unintended consequences with the proposal and Councilman Neal was even more blunt, saying he'd received uniformly negative responses from his NLB district, including a petition urging him to vote "no."

Addressing opposition from animal advocates, Vice Mayor Garcia said he too was an animal lover, had pets at home but said his internet research indicated urban agriculture was growing in popularity. He also cited the benefits of non-corporate local food sources (and said he'd enjoyed neighborhood produced eggs)...and said he didn't support addressing the issue in a piecemeal fashion (chickens only).

In a plea to enact her Committee's proposal as a package, Councilwoman Lowenthal said [paraphrase] that people have become separated from food production and how food ends up on our tables. She said people are increasingly interested in food security and support for the measure reflects a yearning to return to community, to feel part of a group, as part of a tribe no matter how advanced we are; it's who we inherently are, she said. Councilwoman Lowenthal cited growing health awareness and said the proposal also offered community connections...and concluded by pointedly recommending voting "no" on the "chickens only" compromise.

The net result was only four affirmative votes, meaning nothing passed on July 16. However, the measure, with or without amendments, could be brought back to the Council on any Tuesday.