10062026-Ordinance-29-Online PC — Long Beach City Council, October 6, 2026

ORDINANCE

29.Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Long Beach Municipal Code Subsection 2.03.020 (G); Sections 2.03.030 and 2.03.040; Subsection 2.03.050(A); Sections 2.03.060, 2.03.070, 2.03.075, 2.03.076,

2.03.100, and 2.03.120; and repealing Section 2.03.090, related to Chapter 2.03 City Council, Article I. Rules of the Council, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide) Name
Elaine Garcia
Comment 09/29/2026 08:50 AM : (Against)
NO VOTE. SB 707 / Gov. Code § 54953.4 requires a twoway remote option for the entire open session — not just the early public comment period. If you shut down Zoom after that, remote residents can no longer comment on hearings, regular agenda items, ordinances, etc., which also violates the Brown Act’s itembyitem comment requirement. The claimed $150k savings is illusory: staff still must monitor and support the platform while it is live, and a Brown Act violation risks invalidating actions and paying attorney’s fees. Keep the twoway remote option open for the whole meeting. Please vote NO. I request this be read into the record.

ORDINANCE

2.03.100, and 2.03.120; and repealing Section 2.03.090, related to Chapter 2.03 City Council, Article I. Rules of the Council, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide) Name
Skyler Dorsett
Comment 09/29/2026 01:14 PM : (Against)
This is an outright ATTACK on the People’s ability and Right to have meaningful engagement in our local City Council Meetings!!! The Recommendation doesn’t even state what changes are being proposed or even what the general subject they pertain to. And this is a final reading of the ordinance? I believe that a change of this magnitude warrants a Public Hearing before the nine Council members vote on this. You all were elected by and work for the People... not the Mayor. It’s time to LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE.

The proposed changes move all Public Comment to the beginning of the meeting before even the Consent Items are read. This will limit who is able to participate due to time constraints (such as myself) and remove the ability to speak on specific agenda items. Additionally, each person will be limited to speaking one time to address any item that is important to them, instead of being able to speak to each item separately in detail.

How are the People supposed to share their opinions on the important matters being discussed and voted on at these meetings, if the only opportunity that they are given to speak is before hearing the details or seeing the presentations?
At the last meeting, I spoke regarding the lines of credit that were about to be voted on and City Manager Modica suggested to pause Public Comment on these items because there was a presentation that hadn’t been shared, supporting the fact that speaking and sharing an informed opinion is in everyone’s best interest. Some argument presented in by council in favor of this item stated that the information is available online prior to the meeting and suggested that the Public should be expected to review them beforehand. But then, my counterargument to this is why share the presentations at the meetings at all? If we are expected to prepare in advance, the same expectation should apply to the PAID City representatives.

Also please note (as it is buried) that the verbiage in Section 10 – Decorum was changed from ”No person shall be permitted to use lewd, vicious, or personal language which disrupts the meeting...” to “No person shall be permitted to use any language or engage in any conduct that disrupts the meeting...” This transition from specific (lewd, vicious, or personal) to general (any) gives the Mayor and Council permission to silence any language that they don’t approve of.

It writes suppression of Free Speech into the official City ordinances that DICTATE how OUR City Council Meetings will be conducted going forward.

WthPlkhthMflbtthi
It writes suppression of Free Speech into the official City ordinances that DICTATE how OUR City Council Meetings will be conducted going forward.

We, the People, know how the Mayor feels about this.

But to you, Our Elected Representatives, I ask you to remember who it is you are Representing and Vote NO on this item.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Skyler Dorsett
5 th District

ORDINANCE

2.03.100, and 2.03.120; and repealing Section 2.03.090, related to Chapter 2.03 City Council, Article I. Rules of the Council, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide) Name
Brice Hartman
Comment 09/30/2026 01:15 PM : (Against)
Oppose and urge NO vote. Gov. Code § 54953.4 requires an eligible legislative body to provide a twoway telephonic or audiovisual platform for all open and public meetings. Terminating the twoway feed after general public comment leaves only oneway viewing, which does not satisfy the statute. Brown Act § 54954.3 also requires comment on each agenda item. This proposal is legally vulnerable. Vote NO.

ORDINANCE

One of the best ways the People of Long Beach have to communicate their lawful preferences to the full Council is during Council meetings. They should be allowed to speak on each regular item before the Council, item by item, and have their comments considered before each vote on each item.

Restricting this capability unreasonably is to restrict the effectiveness of our City government.

Please vote “no” on this item.

Respectfully,
John Greet
Resident, Council District 3

ORDINANCE

I am a Long Beach constituent and the founder of the California Coalition for PANS/PANDAS Advocacy. Through my advocacy, I have raised serious concerns involving access to medical care and the experiences of families seeking care in our community. I have also raised concerns based on my own experiences, which I have documented.

Despite my efforts to bring these matters to City leadership, I have not been able to establish meaningful communication or engagement regarding these concerns. I have asked for documentation to be placed into the public record, including through Councilwoman Lowenthal's office, yet I am still left asking where a constituent goes when serious concerns are not meaningfully addressed.

That is why public comment matters.

Public comment is not merely a procedural part of a City Council meeting. For some residents, it may be the only opportunity they have to speak directly, publicly, and on the record to the people elected to represent them.

When phone calls and emails do not result in meaningful engagement, when requests for meetings go unanswered, or when constituents believe their documented concerns have not been addressed, the public record becomes even more important.

Parents, patients, caregivers, people with disabilities, advocates, and other residents should not have to possess political connections or an existing relationship with City leadership in order to be heard by their local government.

Government accountability requires more than allowing people to speak when it is convenient. It requires preserving meaningful avenues for the public to raise difficult questions, criticize government decisions, document concerns, and ask elected officials for answers.

I understand that the Council has an obligation to conduct its business and manage its meetings. But efficiency and public participation should not be treated as competing values. Any changes to public comment should preserve meaningful access, particularly for residents who already struggle to have their voices heard through other channels.

My experience has shown me why this matters.

Public comment matters most when the normal channels of communication have failed.

I respectfully ask you to protect it.

April Ronay
2074 E. 3rd St.

Long Beach, California

ORDINANCE

2.03.100, and 2.03.120; and repealing Section 2.03.090, related to Chapter 2.03 City Council, Article I. Rules of the Council, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide) Name Comment 10/01/2026 09:42 AM : (No Vote)
As a parent of two young children, I don’t have the flexibility to come in person or stay glued to a screen all evening waiting to find out when I can comment. Please make it easier for working parents to share our views at a civilized, predictable time. Thank you.

ORDINANCE

On behalf of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce (The Chamber), representing over 1,100 regional members, I am writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed amendments to City Council meeting procedures contained in Agenda Item 29 and respectfully urge the City Council to reject the ordinance.

As previously stated in our letters of opposition submitted on June 9, 2026, and June 16, 2026, when the City Council first considered the restructuring of public comment, The Chamber remains concerned that the proposed changes would reduce meaningful public participation in City Council meetings and create additional barriers for residents, business owners, and community stakeholders seeking to engage in the legislative process.

Most significantly, the proposal would require public comment on agendized items to occur before the Council's discussion of those items. Under the current structure, public testimony occurs alongside Council consideration, allowing speakers to respond directly to staff reports, Council questions, and information presented during consideration of an agenda item. Moving all testimony to the beginning of a meeting would eliminate that connection and require the public to comment on matters hours before those items may ultimately be considered.

This change would also prevent members of the public from responding to inaccuracies, misunderstandings, or new information that emerges during Council discussion. Public participation is most valuable when stakeholders can engage with the actual debate occurring before elected officials, not when comments must be delivered in a vacuum before deliberation begins.

The proposed aggregate cap on public comment and reduced speaking times present additional concerns. While intended to improve meeting efficiency, these restrictions risk producing the opposite result by creating competition among agenda items for limited speaking opportunities. A single controversial item could consume a substantial portion of the available public comment period, leaving businesses and stakeholders seeking to address unrelated matters with little or no opportunity to speak before Council action is taken.

Importantly, the ordinance also provides that no person may speak more than once during public comment. A business seeking to address several agenda items would therefore need to cover each of those matters within a single speaking opportunity rather than speaking separately as each item is considered. This poses a particular challenge for The Chamber, which regularly takes formal positions on multiple matters before the City Council. Even under the best circumstances, three minutes would need to be divided among those items and that time could be reduced further at the presiding officer's discretion. The result could be official comments that are difficult to follow, unnecessarily compressed, and significantly less useful to the Council.

For many business owners, City Council meetings provide one of the few opportunities to address the full Council directly and publicly on matters affecting their businesses. While written comments and participation in advisory bodies remain important, they are not substitutes for live testimony before the City Council on matters that directly affect the business community.

The Chamber recognizes the legitimate need to conduct City Council meetings efficiently and to avoid meetings that extend unnecessarily late into the evening. However, meeting efficiency should not come at the expense of meaningful public participation. If increasingly lengthy meetings are driving these proposed changes, we respectfully encourage the Council to address the underlying issue through more deliberate agenda management. Major policy matters, controversial proposals, and items expected to generate substantial public interest should, where practicable, be distributed across meetings rather than concentrated onto agendas that predictably extend late into the evening.

The Council should also consider greater use of its committee structure and other lawful tools available to manage its workload before restricting opportunities for public participation. The proposed ordinance itself preserves the presiding officer's discretion to take agenda items out of order as needed to ensure the efficient flow of a meeting, demonstrating that tools remain available to manage lengthy agendas without fundamentally restructuring public participation.

For these reasons, The Chamber respectfully urges the City Council to reject the proposed amendments contained in Agenda Item 29 and instead pursue meeting efficiencies that preserve meaningful and accessible public participation.

Sincerely,
Jeremy Harris
President & CEO
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

ORDINANCE

2.03.100, and 2.03.120; and repealing Section 2.03.090, related to Chapter 2.03 City Council, Article I. Rules of the Council, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide) Name
Eugenie Young
Comment 10/05/2026 02:26 PM : (Against)
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Long Beach
Re: Opposition to Agenda Item 29– Changes Reduce Public Comment Dear Mayor and Council Members,
At Long Beach City Council meetings, public comment on agenda items happens near or during the item — exactly as the Brown Act requires. All parties can hear the council and public discussion of an item.

Proposed item 29 flips that with these changes:
• Creates one 60minute block for ALL agenda item comments. This comment block could occur hours before items are considered and one hot topic could consume the entire hour, derailing the intentions of the Brown Act. • Decouples public comments from the actual discussion. How does this make for a more understanding and engaged populus?
Perhaps this was sold as “streamlining meetings," but in reality, it treats public input as an obstacle not a right. Your job is to stay as long as it takes to hear everyone out.

That’s what you signed up for when you became a City Council member. No excuses – like your mother told you – bring snacks and water. Move items as you wish.

Residents can stay late. What they can’t do is leave work early.

Do not vote in the worst muzzling of public input and real time engagement ever seen in Long Beach!
Please reject Item 29.

Sincerely,
Jean Young
D5 Long Beach

ORDINANCE

I would like to state my objection to agenda item number 29 of the scheduled October 6 meeting.

I hope you know what the item entails, because as written, the item is an attempt to completely cloak the council's desire to stifle public comment.

It is my right, as a citizen of this country and city to voice my opinion on agenda items after I have heard them discussed. You tell me, how many people would know what item 29's intention is as it is written on the agenda?
You speak of transparency when the reality is that you hide your intentions and want to omit the public.

I ask why you sought the office you now hold? Was it to do as you please and leave the people of the city behind? You are there to listen to our concerns and act upon them. Your position requires that you listen to your constituents. If you do not like spending long hours in session on any given Tuesday and do not want to hear from the public, then I respectfully ask you to step down from your position.

VOTE NO ON ITEM 29.

Do not follow the example of a spineless United States congress that fears the President.

You have the power to stand up against "King Rex".

Carmen Valdés
Long Beach Resident, District 8

ORDINANCE

We respectfully urge the Council to evaluate the proposed modifications to meeting agendas and the management of public comment. We encourage the Council to consider whether these adjustments truly maximize citizen involvement in local governance. Additionally, how will the Council assure community members that comments submitted outside the designated agenda discussion time remain fully integrated into Council deliberations and final decisionmaking? Maggie Drazil, President
LWV Long Beach Area
[email protected]

Long Beach City CouncilOctober 6, 2026

Long Beach City Council
October 6, 2026