1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 2:08 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox; Econdevel Mailbox; Planning; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Subject: Questions Regarding the City's Authority to Enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium
EXTERNAL
Dear City Attorney, City Manager, Mayor, and Council Members, I recently became aware that an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with AEG concerning the future of the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium has been placed on the City Council agenda.
As a Santa Monica stakeholder who has been actively pursuing an alternative vision for the Civic Auditorium site, I respectfully request clarification regarding the City's legal authority and procurement process for entering into such an agreement.
My understanding is that the only official Request for Proposals (RFP) concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium that appeared on the City's Open Procurement portal was issued on January 5, 2024, and closed on February 8, 2024. I have not been able to identify any subsequent publicly advertised RFP or other competitive solicitation relating to the disposition, lease, redevelopment, or exclusive negotiation rights for the property.
Accordingly, I respectfully ask the following:
1. Under what legal authority is the City proposing to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement without first conducting a new publicly advertised Request for Proposals or other competitive procurement process?
2. If the City believes a new public solicitation is not required, please identify the applicable provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, City procurement policies, Council policies, or California law that authorize this course of action.
3. Has the City made a determination that competitive procurement requirements do not apply in this instance? If so, I respectfully request that the legal basis for that determination be made available to the public.
Beyond the legal questions, I am also concerned about the appearance of fairness and transparency.
The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is one of the City's most significant public assets. Decisions regarding its future should, in my view, be made through an open, competitive, and transparent process that affords all qualified parties an equal opportunity to present proposals.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
2 An open solicitation benefits the City by encouraging competition, maximizing potential public value, and reinforcing public confidence that decisions are being made on the merits rather than through a process perceived as favoring a particular party.
As you may know, I have been working with Morphosis Architects and other private-sector partners to explore an alternative vision for transforming the Civic Auditorium into a Santa Monica Global Conference Center. While I certainly recognize that the City may ultimately choose another direction, I believe any significant exclusive negotiation rights concerning this publicly owned property should be preceded by a transparent and competitive public process unless there is a clearly identified legal exception.
I respectfully request that the City provide clarification regarding the legal and procedural basis for proceeding with an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement under these circumstances.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and to continuing a constructive dialogue regarding the future of this important civic asset.
Respectfully,
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.
Santa Monica Global Conference Center Exploration Committee 213-782-4352
[email protected]
Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
213-STAGE-LA
(213-782-4352)
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 4:43 PM
To: Juan Padilla
Cc: info; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Oliver Chi; councilmtgitems; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman; Jose Parra; O'Neil Brian; Brent Thompson; Nada Shamonki; Sarah Devine; [email protected]; [email protected]; meagan westhoven; Oscar de la Torre; Christian Kennel; [email protected]; Katina Metzidakis; James McCoy;
[email protected]; Maria Loya
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 11.C (7/28) - Oppose R1 Upzoning; Return to Option 3
EXTERNAL
Mayor, Councilmembers, and Staff,
Christine Parra has now written twice—thoroughly, specifically, and with direct questions—and there has been no response in this thread. That silence is unacceptable when the physical and living environment of an entire neighborhood is at stake.
I will not repeat the detailed planning and environmental-justice case Christine has already made. I am writing to tell you what the cumulative effect of these decisions looks like from inside one of the homes expected to absorb them.
I have lived on Delaware Avenue for 26 years. I am an artist, and my home has always been both my residence and my working environment—a life built around quiet, concentration, and solitude.
I now live directly beside a twenty-child operation being described as a school. From inside my home, its daily impact is that of a daycare operating immediately beside a private residence. The quiet use of my home and the working life I built here have been destroyed.
That experience is not separate from what Christine is describing. It is part of a broader pattern: laws change, land-use decisions accumulate, and this neighborhood is repeatedly expected to absorb the consequences. We have suffered enough.
I have very little left to lose here. The life I built on Delaware Avenue has already been profoundly damaged. So I am asking you plainly: stop treating this neighborhood and its residents as disposable.
Answer Christine’s questions. Explain how these decisions were made. Put this matter at the front of your agenda before still more irreversible harm is done.
We are not parcels on a map or an administratively convenient solution. These are our homes, our health, our work, and our lives. This neighborhood has been used and abused long enough.
Robert Sturman
26-year Delaware Avenue resident
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
4 ~
Website:
www.RobertSturmanStudio.com
TEDx Talk https://youtu.be/-fpbZReEKlo
Follow the work — Daily Inspiration:
www.instagram.com/robertsturman
https://www.facebook.com/RobertSturmanArtist
"I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free." —Michelangelo
On Aug 4, 2026, at 8:57 PM, Juan Padilla <[email protected]> wrote:
This is crap!! I want to know which council officials voted for this ( I’m sure we know who). They ruined our old little neighborhood with metro maintenance yard, Kite pharma and now this over developed proposal? Many of lots in Montana neighborhood and empty buildings form Colorado.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2026, at 11:16 AM, info <[email protected]> wrote:
<image.png>
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2026, at 11:15 AM, info <[email protected]> wrote:
Mayor, Council and Staff,
I wish I would’ve been able to attend Tuesday’s meeting, but I’m out of the country. However, I have been updated on the devastating decision that was made that will have long-standing impact on my neighborhood of homeowners and renters which you clearly did not care about once again.
What I would like to understand is how the developer (the one that held a fundraiser for Councilmember Hall) that has already demolished one single family home on my street, 2958 Delaware, and had a pending demolition sign on a second property on the same block at 2904 Delaware, was able to post up a development sign of building a 3 story building the day AFTER you, city council, made the decision to upzone only my R-1 neighborhood?
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
5 What does this mean??? From what I, we, understood is that up until that point you cannot beyond three stories. The decision made on Tuesday allowed developers to go beyond three stories. How was this developer able to submit plans for a three story project, get them approved and post a day after it was approved???
Please explain this to my neighbors and I.
Hopefully one of you will respond as no one ever does.
Christine Parra
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 23, 2026, at 10:49 AM, info
<[email protected]> wrote:
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing as a Pico Neighborhood resident,
a former member of this Council, and someone
who has stood before you many times to ask
this body to protect this neighborhood from
exactly what is now on your agenda. I am not
writing to introduce myself or my concerns to
you. You already know who I am and how long
I have fought for this neighborhood. I am
writing because, once again, this neighborhood
is being asked to absorb a burden it did not
create and was never asked about.
At your July 14, 2026 meeting, the item before
you was the Planning Commission's
recommendation, Option 3, targeting the 66
R2/R3 multi-unit parcels in the Expo/Bundy
TOD zone. Instead, this Council went off script.
Without notice to the residents who would be
affected, without outreach to this
neighborhood, and without any apparent
consideration of what this community has
already endured, you directed staff to
instead look at upzoning R1-zoned parcels, our
neighborhood, to satisfy SB 79's exclusion
criteria, because you did not want to risk
displacing renters in multi-unit buildings
elsewhere.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
6 I want to be direct about what that decision
actually did: it protected renters in one part of
this city by placing the burden on a
neighborhood that is itself home to
generational families and renters who were
given no say in the matter. Nearly 20% of
the households on our streets are
renters. Many of our homes hold three
generations under one roof, five to eight
people deep, because this is what has always
been possible here, and because for much of
this city's history, it was one of the only
neighborhoods where our families were
allowed to be. This is not incidental. This is the
same neighborhood where Japanese American
families, upon returning from incarceration
during World War II, were only permitted to
resettle, a history that is not abstract to us,
because a few of those families still live on our
street today. This is the same neighborhood
that has absorbed the I-10 Freeway cutting
through it, that has lived beside a former
dump, and that is now expected to sleep
through squealing brakes and horns from the
Metro rail maintenance yard testing trains at 3
a.m., every night, indefinitely.
This is the neighborhood you have now
targeted for increased density, with less
process, less notice, and less consideration
than was given to the option the Planning
Commission actually recommended.
I also want to raise an environmental impact
this report does not mention at all: the atgrade rail crossing on our streets. At peak traffic hours, cars back up behind the arm,
sometimes two blocks long, idling the entire
time the crossing is down. That is not a minor
inconvenience. That is concentrated vehicle
exhaust, sitting and accumulating, in a
residential neighborhood, on a daily basis.
Before this Council adds density to these
streets, I am asking you to answer a direct
question: how does further densification near
this crossing affect the health and wellbeing of
the families who already live here and already
breathe that air every day? This is just one
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
7 example of cars idling and being backed up. It
also happens consistently on Virginia Avenue
at Centinela. This report analyzes displacement
risk parcel by parcel. It does not analyze
this. It should, before any option is adopted.
I recognize the report before you on July 28
frames Options 1 and 2 as the lowerdisplacement-risk choices because the R1 parcels are largely owner-occupied and SB 79's
displacement protections apply only to sites
with three or more units. But ownership status
is not the same as absence of harm. Renters
in single-family homes in this neighborhood are
just as real, and just as vulnerable, as
renters anywhere else in this city, they are
simply not counted, because SB 79's
protections were not written with this
neighborhood in mind. A policy that avoids
displacement on paper by shifting density onto
a historically overburdened, environmentaljustice community is not a neutral planning choice. It is a continuation of a pattern this
neighborhood has lived through for
generations: when a hard choice has to be
made, it gets made here, quietly, and after the
fact.
I am asking this Council to do the following:
1. Return to Option 3, the Planning
Commission's recommendation, and
give it the genuine consideration it was
owed before this Council redirected staff
away from it.
2. If this Council will not adopt Option 3,
reject Options 1 and 2 outright. Do not
upzone the R1 parcels of this
neighborhood as an alternative simply
because it appeared administratively
convenient.
3. At minimum, before any further
direction is given, conduct real, direct
outreach to the households on these
streets, not a staff report presented
after the fact, but actual engagement
with the families who will live with this
decision.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
8 4. Formally analyze the cumulative
environmental justice burden already
carried by this neighborhood, the
freeway, the former dump, the rail yard
noise, the historical housing
discrimination, as part of any decision to
further increase density here.
Please also be aware that I, we, are in the
process of consulting with an environmental
justice attorney regarding this decision and the
process by which it was reached among all
other injustices this neighborhood has endured
to date. I am doing so because I believe this
neighborhood deserves, at minimum, the same
level of care, analysis, and public process that
was given to every other option in this report,
and because I intend to make sure that
whatever this Council decides on July 28 is
made with full awareness of the history it is
repeating.
This neighborhood has given this city more
than its share already. I am asking you not to
take more from it without so much as asking
first.
I stand in solidarity with my Gandara Park
neighbors on this. We will continue to fight,
together, for our right to equality, to real
investment, and to a quality of life this city has
too often decided we can do without.
Respectfully,
Christine Parra
Pico Neighborhood Resident
Former Santa Monica City Councilmember
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 2:11 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox; Econdevel Mailbox; Planning; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Subject: Santa Monica Civic Auditorium — Request for Legal and Procedural Clarification Regarding Proposed AEG Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Attachments: Re_ Santa Monica Civic Auditorium — Request for Legal and Procedural Clarification Regarding Proposed AEG Exclusive Negotiating Agreement.pdf
EXTERNAL
August 6, 2026
To:
Santa Monica City Attorney
Santa Monica City Manager
Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
Re: Santa Monica Civic Auditorium — Request for Legal and Procedural Clarification Regarding Proposed AEG Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Dear City Attorney, City Manager, Mayor, and Members of the City Council:
I am writing regarding the proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") with AEG concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
After reviewing the City's prior solicitation process, the City's OpenGov/Open Procurement portal, and the provisions governing City procurement, I believe there are two significant procedural and legal questions that should be addressed publicly before the City grants exclusive negotiating rights concerning this important public asset.
1. Did the City's 2024 Letter of Interest process satisfy the requirements of the City Charter and Municipal Code Chapter 2.24?
The City's public procurement portal reflects a solicitation concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium that opened on January 5, 2024 and closed on February 8, 2024. The City has described that process as a Request for Letters of Interest ("LOI").
The City received multiple responses through that process and ultimately selected Revitalization Partners Group ("RPG") to proceed toward exclusive negotiations. The City subsequently entered into an ENA with RPG and later terminated those exclusive negotiations.
I respectfully request clarification regarding the legal status of that 2024 process.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
10 Specifically, did the City determine that the 2024 LOI constituted a competitive solicitation satisfying all applicable requirements of the Santa Monica City Charter, Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, and the City's procurement policies?
If so, I respectfully request that the City identify the specific Charter, Municipal Code, procurement policy, Council resolution, or other authority supporting that determination.
Conversely, if the City's position is that the selection of a party for an ENA concerning City-owned real property is exempt from otherwise applicable competitive procurement requirements, I request that the City identify the legal authority for that exemption.
This distinction is particularly important because the City's procurement framework expressly addresses competitive bidding and selection, impartiality, transparency, and the disposition of City property.
2. What authority permits the City to proceed with an AEG ENA without reopening the public solicitation process?
This presents a separate and, in my view, more immediate question.
The City conducted a publicly announced process in 2024. Interested parties were given a defined period in which to respond. Multiple parties responded. The City evaluated those responses, selected RPG, and ultimately granted RPG exclusive negotiating rights.
Those negotiations subsequently ended.
The City is now considering granting exclusive negotiating rights concerning the same publicly owned Civic Auditorium to AEG.
However, I have been unable to locate any new Request for Proposals, Request for Qualifications, Request for Letters of Interest, or other competitive solicitation concerning the Civic Auditorium on the City's OpenGov/Open Procurement portal following the termination of the RPG negotiations.
Nor have I found any notice on that procurement portal informing potentially interested parties that the City was reopening the opportunity, accepting new proposals, or considering selecting another party for exclusive negotiations.
This raises an important question:
What provision of the City Charter, Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, current Procurement Policy, or other applicable law permits the City to grant AEG exclusive negotiating rights without reopening the competitive process and providing other interested parties an opportunity to submit proposals? If the City instead considers the 2024 LOI process to remain operative, I respectfully request clarification of the following:
Was AEG one of the respondents to the 2024 LOI?
If so, how was AEG evaluated in that process and what authority permits the City to select a different party more than two years after that solicitation closed and after the originally selected party's ENA was terminated?
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
11 If AEG was not a respondent to the 2024 solicitation, what legal and procedural authority permits the City to grant AEG exclusive negotiating rights without providing the same opportunity to other interested parties?
Has the City Attorney determined that a new competitive solicitation is unnecessary? If so, what is the legal basis for thatdetermination?
These are not merely technical procurement questions.
The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is a major publicly owned asset, and granting a private party exclusive negotiating rights may materially affect the ability of other parties to present competing proposals for its future.
I have been actively working with Morphosis Architects and other private-sector participants on an alternative concept for the property: the Santa Monica Global Conference Center. We are prepared to participate in an open and competitive process.
My concern is therefore not that the City must select our proposal—or any particular proposal. My concern is that all interested and qualified parties should have a transparent and equal opportunity to compete for the City's consideration if the City is granting exclusive negotiating rights over the future of this public asset.
If the City's position is that no new solicitation is legally required, the public should be informed of the specific legal authority supporting that position.
Likewise, if the 2024 LOI is being relied upon as the competitive process supporting the proposed 2026 AEG ENA, the City should explain how a solicitation that closed in February 2024 provides the procedural basis for the proposed agreement today.
I therefore respectfully request that the City Attorney and City Manager provide the Council and public with a written explanation of the legal and procedural authority supporting the proposed AEG ENA before the City enters into or authorizes an exclusive agreement.
At a minimum, that explanation should identify:
1. Whether the 2024 LOI complied with all applicable Charter, Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, and procurement requirements;
2. Whether the City considers that solicitation to remain legally operative;
3. Whether AEG participated in that solicitation;
4. Why no new solicitation has been posted through the City's procurement system following the termination of the RPG ENA; and
5. The specific legal authority permitting the City to proceed with exclusive negotiations with AEG without reopening the opportunity to other interested parties.
Transparency and competitive access are particularly important when the City is determining the future of an irreplaceable public property such as the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
I respectfully request that these questions be answered before any exclusive negotiating rights are granted.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
12 Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to the City's response.
Respectfully,
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.
Santa Monica Global Conference Center Exploration Committee 213-782-4352
[email protected]
Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
213-STAGE-LA
(213-782-4352)
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
August 6, 2026
To:
Santa Monica City Attorney
Santa Monica City Manager
Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council
Re: Santa Monica Civic Auditorium — Request for Legal and Procedural Clarification Regarding Proposed AEG Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Dear City Attorney, City Manager, Mayor, and Members of the City Council:
I am writing regarding the proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ("ENA") with AEG concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
After reviewing the City's prior solicitation process, the City's OpenGov/Open Procurement portal, and the provisions governing City procurement, I believe there are two significant procedural and legal questions that should be addressed publicly before the City grants exclusive negotiating rights concerning this important public asset.
1. Did the City's 2024 Letter of Interest process satisfy the requirements of the City Charter and Municipal Code Chapter 2.24?
The City's public procurement portal reflects a solicitation concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium that opened on January 5, 2024 and closed on February 8, 2024. The City has described that process as a Request for Letters of Interest ("LOI").
The City received multiple responses through that process and ultimately selected Revitalization Partners Group ("RPG") to proceed toward exclusive negotiations. The City subsequently entered into an ENA with RPG and later terminated those exclusive negotiations.
I respectfully request clarification regarding the legal status of that 2024 process.
Specifically, did the City determine that the 2024 LOI constituted a competitive solicitation satisfying all applicable requirements of the Santa Monica City Charter, Municipal Code Chapter
2.24, and the City's procurement policies?
If so, I respectfully request that the City identify the specific Charter, Municipal Code, procurement policy, Council resolution, or other authority supporting that determination.
Conversely, if the City's position is that the selection of a party for an ENA concerning City-owned real property is exempt from otherwise applicable competitive procurement requirements, I request that the City identify the legal authority for that exemption.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
This distinction is particularly important because the City's procurement framework expressly addresses competitive bidding and selection, impartiality, transparency, and the disposition of City property.
2. What authority permits the City to proceed with an AEG ENA without reopening the public solicitation process?
This presents a separate and, in my view, more immediate question.
The City conducted a publicly announced process in 2024. Interested parties were given a defined period in which to respond. Multiple parties responded. The City evaluated those responses, selected RPG, and ultimately granted RPG exclusive negotiating rights.
Those negotiations subsequently ended.
The City is now considering granting exclusive negotiating rights concerning the same publicly owned Civic Auditorium to AEG.
However, I have been unable to locate any new Request for Proposals, Request for Qualifications, Request for Letters of Interest, or other competitive solicitation concerning the Civic Auditorium on the City's OpenGov/Open Procurement portal following the termination of the RPG negotiations.
Nor have I found any notice on that procurement portal informing potentially interested parties that the City was reopening the opportunity, accepting new proposals, or considering selecting another party for exclusive negotiations.
This raises an important question:
What provision of the City Charter, Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, current Procurement Policy, or other applicable law permits the City to grant AEG exclusive negotiating rights without reopening the competitive process and providing other interested parties an opportunity to submit proposals?
If the City instead considers the 2024 LOI process to remain operative, I respectfully request clarification of the following:
● Was AEG one of the respondents to the 2024 LOI?
● If so, how was AEG evaluated in that process and what authority permits the City to select a different party more than two years after that solicitation closed and after the originally selected party's ENA was terminated?
● If AEG was not a respondent to the 2024 solicitation, what legal and procedural authority permits the City to grant AEG exclusive negotiating rights without providing the same opportunity to other interested parties?
● Has the City Attorney determined that a new competitive solicitation is unnecessary? If so, what is the legal basis for that determination?
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
These are not merely technical procurement questions.
The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is a major publicly owned asset, and granting a private party exclusive negotiating rights may materially affect the ability of other parties to present competing proposals for its future.
I have been actively working with Morphosis Architects and other private-sector participants on an alternative concept for the property: the Santa Monica Global Conference Center. We are prepared to participate in an open and competitive process.
My concern is therefore not that the City must select our proposal—or any particular proposal.
My concern is that all interested and qualified parties should have a transparent and equal opportunity to compete for the City's consideration if the City is granting exclusive negotiating rights over the future of this public asset.
If the City's position is that no new solicitation is legally required, the public should be informed of the specific legal authority supporting that position.
Likewise, if the 2024 LOI is being relied upon as the competitive process supporting the proposed 2026 AEG ENA, the City should explain how a solicitation that closed in February 2024 provides the procedural basis for the proposed agreement today.
I therefore respectfully request that the City Attorney and City Manager provide the Council and public with a written explanation of the legal and procedural authority supporting the proposed AEG ENA before the City enters into or authorizes an exclusive agreement.
At a minimum, that explanation should identify:
1. Whether the 2024 LOI complied with all applicable Charter, Municipal Code Chapter
2.24, and procurement requirements;
2. Whether the City considers that solicitation to remain legally operative;
3. Whether AEG participated in that solicitation;
4. Why no new solicitation has been posted through the City's procurement system following the termination of the RPG ENA; and
5. The specific legal authority permitting the City to proceed with exclusive negotiations with AEG without reopening the opportunity to other interested parties.
Transparency and competitive access are particularly important when the City is determining the future of an irreplaceable public property such as the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
I respectfully request that these questions be answered before any exclusive negotiating rights are granted.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to the City's response.
Respectfully,
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.
Santa Monica Global Conference Center Exploration Committee 213-782-4352
[email protected]
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
13 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2026 6:35 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox; Econdevel Mailbox; Planning; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Request for Legal Review and Public Explanation Before Any Vote on an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AEG/Goldenvoice for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium
EXTERNAL
August 9, 2026
Via Email and Public Comment
Mayor Caroline Torosis
Members of the Santa Monica City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Request for Legal Review and Public Explanation Before Any Vote on an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AEG/Goldenvoice for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium Dear Mayor Torosis, Members of the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk:
I am writing to formally raise serious procedural and legal questions concerning any proposed vote to grant an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“ENA”) to AEG and/or Goldenvoice concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
I respectfully request that the City Attorney publicly address these issues before the City Council takes any action granting exclusive negotiating rights over this extraordinarily important public property.
1. No New Open LOI or RFP Process Has Been Conducted
The City previously established a public and competitive process for the Civic Auditorium.
In late 2023 and early 2024, the City publicly solicited Letters of Interest from parties interested in redeveloping the Civic. The City's own public statements confirm that four firms submitted proposals Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
14 through that process. The City Council ultimately selected Revitalization Partners Group (“RPG”) from those respondents and authorized negotiations with RPG.
AEG/Goldenvoice was not, to my knowledge, one of the four entities that submitted a proposal through that competitive process.
The City subsequently terminated its exclusive negotiations with RPG. In announcing that decision in October 2025, the City stated that ending RPG's ENA would allow the City to study market conditions and explore other potential partnership opportunities.
However, I am unaware of any subsequent publicly noticed LOI, Request for Proposals, Request for Qualifications, or comparable open process through which AEG/Goldenvoice and other interested parties were invited to compete for exclusive negotiating rights concerning the Civic.
This raises an obvious question:
On what legal and procedural basis can the City now award exclusive negotiating rights to a company that did not participate in the City's previous competitive solicitation without first providing other interested parties an equivalent opportunity to submit proposals? This question is particularly important because circumstances surrounding the Civic have materially changed since the 2024 solicitation. If the City believes that a new proposal from AEG/Goldenvoice deserves consideration, then basic principles of transparency, competition and fairness would appear to favor reopening the opportunity to all qualified parties rather than selecting one party through private negotiations.
2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 and Competitive Selection Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 establishes the City's purchasing and procurement framework.
Among other things, Section 2.24.030 requires the City's Procurement Policy to establish procedures for competitive bidding and selection and standards intended to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.
Section 2.24.100 further provides for competitive bidding and establishes criteria for determining the best bidder or best-qualified person or firm for contractual services and other agreements.
I recognize that there may be distinctions between an ENA, a procurement contract, and a disposition or ground lease of City real property, and that exceptions to competitive procedures may exist.
That is precisely why I believe the City Attorney should provide a public legal explanation before the Council votes.
Specifically:
Does Chapter 2.24 apply to the proposed AEG/Goldenvoice ENA or any transaction contemplated by that ENA?
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
15 If it does, what competitive process satisfies Chapter 2.24? If it does not, what provision of the Municipal Code, City Charter, Procurement Policy, or other applicable law permits the City to bypass a new competitive process and confer exclusive negotiating rights upon AEG/Goldenvoice?
And if the City is relying upon an exception to competitive selection, the City should identify that exception publicly and explain the factual basis for invoking it.
The public should not have to speculate about the City's authority for granting exclusivity over one of Santa Monica's most significant publicly owned properties.
3. The City's Own 2024 Process Demonstrates the Importance of Open Competition The City's handling of the Civic in 2024 provides a useful benchmark.
The City publicly announced the opportunity, established qualifications, provided a deadline, received four proposals, evaluated the respondents and selected a party for exclusive negotiations.
That process provided notice to the marketplace and an opportunity for competing concepts to be considered.
If the City has now determined that the previous process is stale, inadequate or no longer representative of the City's objectives for the Civic, the logical response would appear to be a new open process, not the private selection of a fifth company that did not participate in the original solicitation.
This is especially important because other parties may now be prepared to propose materially different uses, financing structures, development concepts, architectural approaches or economic models for the property.
The City cannot know whether AEG/Goldenvoice represents the best available opportunity for Santa Monica unless the marketplace is given an opportunity to respond.
4. Goldenvoice's Existing Financial Relationship With the City Raises a Separate Oaks Initiative Disclosure Question
I am also requesting an immediate review of the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form submitted in connection with the proposed Civic negotiations.
Goldenvoice already has a significant contractual relationship with the City involving the use of Santa Monica State Beach and related City-controlled property for the Ocean Way Festival.
The City's own Oaks Initiative materials state that a “public benefit” includes the purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City exceeding $25,000 during a twelve-month period.
Accordingly, Goldenvoice's existing arrangement involving City property appears highly relevant to determining the disclosures required under City Charter Article XXII, commonly known as the Taxpayer Protection or Oaks Initiative.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
16 I have reviewed an Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form prepared by Melissa Ormond on behalf of Goldenvoice that appears not to disclose this existing relationship in the manner contemplated by the form.
If Goldenvoice is paying more than $1 million for the right to use or occupy City-controlled beach property, as the relevant agreement appears to provide, that relationship is far beyond the monetary threshold identified in the City's Oaks Initiative materials.
I therefore respectfully request that the City Attorney and City Clerk determine, before any Civic ENA is considered, whether Goldenvoice's Oaks Initiative disclosure is complete and accurate and whether an amended disclosure is required.
This is not a minor administrative issue. The purpose of Article XXII is transparency regarding entities receiving significant public benefits from the City and the persons associated with those entities.
5. Appearance of Preferential Treatment Should Be Avoided There is also a broader public-confidence issue.
Goldenvoice has recently entered into a substantial relationship with the City involving a major commercial festival on Santa Monica's beach. The City is now apparently considering granting Goldenvoice or its affiliated company exclusive negotiating rights over another extremely valuable City asset — the Civic Auditorium — without first conducting a new public solicitation.
Even if City staff believes this procedure is legally permissible, the combination of circumstances creates a reasonable public question about whether Goldenvoice is receiving preferential access to City opportunities.
An open competitive process would substantially eliminate that concern.
It would also protect the City Council by establishing an objective record demonstrating that the proposal ultimately selected represents the best available opportunity for Santa Monica.
6. The City Should Independently Evaluate Goldenvoice's Comparable Indoor Venue Programming and Its Ability to Drive Downtown Economic Activity Separate and apart from the legal and procedural questions described above, the City Council should undertake basic commercial due diligence before determining that an AEG/Goldenvoice-operated music venue represents the highest and best long-term use of the Civic Auditorium.
I respectfully request that City staff and the Council review the current and recent event calendars of Goldenvoice-operated indoor venues that are comparable in size and function to the Civic Auditorium.
The relevant question should not simply be whether Goldenvoice is capable of booking and operating a music venue. Clearly it is. The much more important question for Santa Monica is:
What level, frequency, and quality of programming is actually occurring at Goldenvoice's comparable venues, and is that programming sufficient to justify making such a venue a Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
17 cornerstone of Santa Monica's downtown economic-development strategy for the coming decades?
The Council should examine, at minimum:
1. The number of ticketed events per year at comparable Goldenvoice venues;
2. The number of days each venue is dark or otherwise without publicly scheduled programming;
3. Average attendance and utilization relative to venue capacity;
4. The commercial and cultural prominence of the acts being booked;
5. The percentage of events likely to attract visitors from outside the immediate Los Angeles market rather than simply redistribute existing regional entertainment spending;
6. The amount of hotel-room demand, restaurant spending, retail activity and other measurable economic activity generated by those events;
7. The number of full-time jobs created at the venue as distinguished from temporary event staffing;
8. Whether comparable Goldenvoice venues function as genuine year-round economic anchors for their surrounding districts; and
9. How those results compare with alternative concepts for the Civic property capable of generating economic activity throughout the week and throughout the year.
A review of the actual calendars of comparable venues is particularly important. The Council should see for itself whether those facilities are consistently hosting nationally or internationally significant programming or whether their calendars consist of relatively scattered performances, including many acts with limited ability to independently generate tourism, hotel stays, international visitation or substantial downtown economic activity.
This is not intended as criticism of those artists. Smaller and emerging artists are an important part of Southern California's cultural ecosystem, and there is unquestionably a place for venues that serve them.
The issue is whether Santa Monica should leverage the future of one of its most important public properties — and potentially a significant component of the future of Downtown Santa Monica — on that particular economic model.
The Civic is not merely an entertainment venue. It is approximately ten acres of strategically located publicly owned land near Downtown Santa Monica, the beach, hotels, restaurants and regional transit.
The opportunity cost associated with committing that asset to a predominantly concert-oriented use therefore deserves rigorous analysis.
The City should specifically compare the anticipated annual economic impact of an AEG/Goldenvoice concert venue against alternative uses that could potentially attract conventions, corporate meetings, international conferences, exhibitions, trade events, cultural programming and other activities capable of producing multi-day hotel stays and sustained visitor spending.
If the City intends to conclude that a Goldenvoice music venue represents the best future for the Civic, that conclusion should be supported by measurable evidence rather than the strength or familiarity of the AEG/Goldenvoice brand.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
18 Santa Monica should evaluate the actual performance of the model being proposed, not merely the reputation of the company proposing it.
Accordingly, before granting AEG/Goldenvoice exclusive negotiating rights, I respectfully request that the City publicly identify the comparable Goldenvoice venues it has analyzed, provide their recent programming and utilization data to the extent available, and explain why that operating model is expected to produce sufficient economic benefits to justify its selection over competing visions for the Civic Auditorium property.
The fundamental economic-development question for the Council is straightforward:
Does Santa Monica want to commit one of its most valuable public assets, and potentially leverage a significant part of Downtown Santa Monica's economic future, on an intermittently programmed regional concert venue without first determining whether a more intensive, internationally oriented, year-round use of the Civic property could produce substantially greater economic benefits for residents, businesses and the City itself?
7. Requested Action
Before the City Council votes on an ENA with AEG/Goldenvoice, I respectfully request that the City:
1. Postpone any vote granting exclusive negotiating rights until these procedural and disclosure questions have been publicly addressed.
2. Obtain a written opinion or public explanation from the City Attorney identifying the City's legal authority to award an ENA to AEG/Goldenvoice without conducting a new LOI, RFP, RFQ, or comparable competitive process.
3. Identify whether Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 and the City's Procurement Policy apply to the proposed ENA or contemplated transaction and, if not, explain why.
4. Identify any exception to competitive bidding or selection upon which the City intends to rely.
5. Review Goldenvoice's Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form in light of its existing agreement with the City for the use of Santa Monica beach property and determine whether the disclosure is complete and compliant with City Charter Article XXII.
6. Require a corrected or supplemental Oaks Initiative disclosure before Council action if the existing disclosure is incomplete.
7. Consider opening a new, publicly noticed LOI/RFP process for the Civic Auditorium so that AEG/Goldenvoice, prior respondents, and any new qualified parties can compete on equal terms.
Conclusion
The issue is not whether AEG or Goldenvoice is qualified to submit a proposal for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. They plainly should be free to do so.
The issue is whether they should be granted exclusive negotiating rights without first competing in an open process available to other qualified parties.
Santa Monica previously required interested parties to participate in a public solicitation before granting exclusive negotiating rights over the Civic. If the City intends to abandon that procedure now, particularly Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
19 in favor of an entity that did not participate in the original solicitation and that already maintains a substantial financial relationship with the City, the public deserves a clear explanation of the legal authority and public-policy justification for doing so.
The Civic Auditorium is a public asset. Decisions concerning its long-term future should be made through a process that is transparent, competitive, impartial and beyond reasonable questions of preferential treatment.
I respectfully request that these matters be placed into the public record and addressed before the Council takes any action on an AEG/Goldenvoice ENA.
Sincerely,
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.
Santa Monica Global Conference Center Exploration Committee Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
213-STAGE-LA
(213-782-4352)
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 12:06 AM
To: Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox; Econdevel Mailbox; Planning; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Pritzker Prize - Designed Projects Deliver Extraordinary Value!! 3x More Likely To Receive Public Funding!
EXTERNAL
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
2 Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
3 Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
213-STAGE-LA
(213-782-4352)
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
On Aug 9, 2026, at 6:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
August 9, 2026
Via Email and Public Comment
Mayor Caroline Torosis
Members of the Santa Monica City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Request for Legal Review and Public Explanation Before Any Vote on an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AEG/Goldenvoice for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium Dear Mayor Torosis, Members of the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk:
I am writing to formally raise serious procedural and legal questions concerning any proposed vote to grant an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“ENA”) to AEG and/or Goldenvoice concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
4 I respectfully request that the City Attorney publicly address these issues before the City Council takes any action granting exclusive negotiating rights over this extraordinarily important public property.
1. No New Open LOI or RFP Process Has Been Conducted
The City previously established a public and competitive process for the Civic Auditorium.
In late 2023 and early 2024, the City publicly solicited Letters of Interest from parties interested in redeveloping the Civic. The City's own public statements confirm that four firms submitted proposals through that process. The City Council ultimately selected Revitalization Partners Group (“RPG”) from those respondents and authorized negotiations with RPG.
AEG/Goldenvoice was not, to my knowledge, one of the four entities that submitted a proposal through that competitive process.
The City subsequently terminated its exclusive negotiations with RPG. In announcing that decision in October 2025, the City stated that ending RPG's ENA would allow the City to study market conditions and explore other potential partnership opportunities.
However, I am unaware of any subsequent publicly noticed LOI, Request for Proposals, Request for Qualifications, or comparable open process through which AEG/Goldenvoice and other interested parties were invited to compete for exclusive negotiating rights concerning the Civic.
This raises an obvious question:
On what legal and procedural basis can the City now award exclusive negotiating rights to a company that did not participate in the City's previous competitive solicitation without first providing other interested parties an equivalent opportunity to submit proposals?
This question is particularly important because circumstances surrounding the Civic have materially changed since the 2024 solicitation. If the City believes that a new proposal from AEG/Goldenvoice deserves consideration, then basic principles of transparency, competition and fairness would appear to favor reopening the opportunity to all qualified parties rather than selecting one party through private negotiations.
2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 and Competitive Selection Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 establishes the City's purchasing and procurement framework.
Among other things, Section 2.24.030 requires the City's Procurement Policy to establish procedures for competitive bidding and selection and standards intended to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
5 Section 2.24.100 further provides for competitive bidding and establishes criteria for determining the best bidder or best-qualified person or firm for contractual services and other agreements.
I recognize that there may be distinctions between an ENA, a procurement contract, and a disposition or ground lease of City real property, and that exceptions to competitive procedures may exist.
That is precisely why I believe the City Attorney should provide a public legal explanation before the Council votes.
Specifically:
Does Chapter 2.24 apply to the proposed AEG/Goldenvoice ENA or any transaction contemplated by that ENA?
If it does, what competitive process satisfies Chapter 2.24? If it does not, what provision of the Municipal Code, City Charter, Procurement Policy, or other applicable law permits the City to bypass a new competitive process and confer exclusive negotiating rights upon AEG/Goldenvoice?
And if the City is relying upon an exception to competitive selection, the City should identify that exception publicly and explain the factual basis for invoking it.
The public should not have to speculate about the City's authority for granting exclusivity over one of Santa Monica's most significant publicly owned properties.
3. The City's Own 2024 Process Demonstrates the Importance of Open Competition
The City's handling of the Civic in 2024 provides a useful benchmark.
The City publicly announced the opportunity, established qualifications, provided a deadline, received four proposals, evaluated the respondents and selected a party for exclusive negotiations.
That process provided notice to the marketplace and an opportunity for competing concepts to be considered.
If the City has now determined that the previous process is stale, inadequate or no longer representative of the City's objectives for the Civic, the logical response would appear to be a new open process, not the private selection of a fifth company that did not participate in the original solicitation.
This is especially important because other parties may now be prepared to propose materially different uses, financing structures, development concepts, architectural approaches or economic models for the property.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
6 The City cannot know whether AEG/Goldenvoice represents the best available opportunity for Santa Monica unless the marketplace is given an opportunity to respond.
4. Goldenvoice's Existing Financial Relationship With the City Raises a Separate Oaks Initiative Disclosure Question
I am also requesting an immediate review of the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form submitted in connection with the proposed Civic negotiations.
Goldenvoice already has a significant contractual relationship with the City involving the use of Santa Monica State Beach and related City-controlled property for the Ocean Way Festival.
The City's own Oaks Initiative materials state that a “public benefit” includes the purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City exceeding $25,000 during a twelve-month period.
Accordingly, Goldenvoice's existing arrangement involving City property appears highly relevant to determining the disclosures required under City Charter Article XXII, commonly known as the Taxpayer Protection or Oaks Initiative.
I have reviewed an Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form prepared by Melissa Ormond on behalf of Goldenvoice that appears not to disclose this existing relationship in the manner contemplated by the form.
If Goldenvoice is paying more than $1 million for the right to use or occupy City-controlled beach property, as the relevant agreement appears to provide, that relationship is far beyond the monetary threshold identified in the City's Oaks Initiative materials.
I therefore respectfully request that the City Attorney and City Clerk determine, before any Civic ENA is considered, whether Goldenvoice's Oaks Initiative disclosure is complete and accurate and whether an amended disclosure is required.
This is not a minor administrative issue. The purpose of Article XXII is transparency regarding entities receiving significant public benefits from the City and the persons associated with those entities.
5. Appearance of Preferential Treatment Should Be Avoided There is also a broader public-confidence issue.
Goldenvoice has recently entered into a substantial relationship with the City involving a major commercial festival on Santa Monica's beach. The City is now apparently considering granting Goldenvoice or its affiliated company exclusive negotiating rights over another extremely valuable City asset — the Civic Auditorium — without first conducting a new public solicitation.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
7 Even if City staff believes this procedure is legally permissible, the combination of circumstances creates a reasonable public question about whether Goldenvoice is receiving preferential access to City opportunities.
An open competitive process would substantially eliminate that concern.
It would also protect the City Council by establishing an objective record demonstrating that the proposal ultimately selected represents the best available opportunity for Santa Monica.
6. The City Should Independently Evaluate Goldenvoice's Comparable Indoor Venue Programming and Its Ability to Drive Downtown Economic Activity
Separate and apart from the legal and procedural questions described above, the City Council should undertake basic commercial due diligence before determining that an AEG/Goldenvoice-operated music venue represents the highest and best long-term use of the Civic Auditorium.
I respectfully request that City staff and the Council review the current and recent event calendars of Goldenvoice-operated indoor venues that are comparable in size and function to the Civic Auditorium.
The relevant question should not simply be whether Goldenvoice is capable of booking and operating a music venue. Clearly it is. The much more important question for Santa Monica is:
What level, frequency, and quality of programming is actually occurring at Goldenvoice's comparable venues, and is that programming sufficient to justify making such a venue a cornerstone of Santa Monica's downtown economicdevelopment strategy for the coming decades? The Council should examine, at minimum:
1. The number of ticketed events per year at comparable Goldenvoice venues;
2. The number of days each venue is dark or otherwise without publicly scheduled programming;
3. Average attendance and utilization relative to venue capacity;
4. The commercial and cultural prominence of the acts being booked;
5. The percentage of events likely to attract visitors from outside the immediate Los Angeles market rather than simply redistribute existing regional entertainment spending;
6. The amount of hotel-room demand, restaurant spending, retail activity and other measurable economic activity generated by those events;
7. The number of full-time jobs created at the venue as distinguished from temporary event staffing;
8. Whether comparable Goldenvoice venues function as genuine year-round economic anchors for their surrounding districts; and
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
8 9. How those results compare with alternative concepts for the Civic property capable of generating economic activity throughout the week and throughout the year.
A review of the actual calendars of comparable venues is particularly important. The Council should see for itself whether those facilities are consistently hosting nationally or internationally significant programming or whether their calendars consist of relatively scattered performances, including many acts with limited ability to independently generate tourism, hotel stays, international visitation or substantial downtown economic activity.
This is not intended as criticism of those artists. Smaller and emerging artists are an important part of Southern California's cultural ecosystem, and there is unquestionably a place for venues that serve them.
The issue is whether Santa Monica should leverage the future of one of its most important public properties — and potentially a significant component of the future of Downtown Santa Monica — on that particular economic model.
The Civic is not merely an entertainment venue. It is approximately ten acres of strategically located publicly owned land near Downtown Santa Monica, the beach, hotels, restaurants and regional transit. The opportunity cost associated with committing that asset to a predominantly concert-oriented use therefore deserves rigorous analysis.
The City should specifically compare the anticipated annual economic impact of an AEG/Goldenvoice concert venue against alternative uses that could potentially attract conventions, corporate meetings, international conferences, exhibitions, trade events, cultural programming and other activities capable of producing multi-day hotel stays and sustained visitor spending.
If the City intends to conclude that a Goldenvoice music venue represents the best future for the Civic, that conclusion should be supported by measurable evidence rather than the strength or familiarity of the AEG/Goldenvoice brand.
Santa Monica should evaluate the actual performance of the model being proposed, not merely the reputation of the company proposing it.
Accordingly, before granting AEG/Goldenvoice exclusive negotiating rights, I respectfully request that the City publicly identify the comparable Goldenvoice venues it has analyzed, provide their recent programming and utilization data to the extent available, and explain why that operating model is expected to produce sufficient economic benefits to justify its selection over competing visions for the Civic Auditorium property.
The fundamental economic-development question for the Council is straightforward:
Does Santa Monica want to commit one of its most valuable public assets, and potentially leverage a significant part of Downtown Santa Monica's economic future, on an intermittently programmed regional concert venue without first determining whether a more intensive, internationally oriented, year-round use of the Civic Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
9 property could produce substantially greater economic benefits for residents, businesses and the City itself?
7. Requested Action
Before the City Council votes on an ENA with AEG/Goldenvoice, I respectfully request that the City:
1. Postpone any vote granting exclusive negotiating rights until these procedural and disclosure questions have been publicly addressed.
2. Obtain a written opinion or public explanation from the City Attorney identifying the City's legal authority to award an ENA to AEG/Goldenvoice without conducting a new LOI, RFP, RFQ, or comparable competitive process.
3. Identify whether Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 and the City's Procurement Policy apply to the proposed ENA or contemplated transaction and, if not, explain why.
4. Identify any exception to competitive bidding or selection upon which the City intends to rely.
5. Review Goldenvoice's Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form in light of its existing agreement with the City for the use of Santa Monica beach property and determine whether the disclosure is complete and compliant with City Charter Article XXII.
6. Require a corrected or supplemental Oaks Initiative disclosure before Council action if the existing disclosure is incomplete.
7. Consider opening a new, publicly noticed LOI/RFP process for the Civic Auditorium so that AEG/Goldenvoice, prior respondents, and any new qualified parties can compete on equal terms.
Conclusion
The issue is not whether AEG or Goldenvoice is qualified to submit a proposal for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. They plainly should be free to do so.
The issue is whether they should be granted exclusive negotiating rights without first competing in an open process available to other qualified parties.
Santa Monica previously required interested parties to participate in a public solicitation before granting exclusive negotiating rights over the Civic. If the City intends to abandon that procedure now, particularly in favor of an entity that did not participate in the original solicitation and that already maintains a substantial financial relationship with the City, the public deserves a clear explanation of the legal authority and public-policy justification for doing so.
The Civic Auditorium is a public asset. Decisions concerning its long-term future should be made through a process that is transparent, competitive, impartial and beyond reasonable questions of preferential treatment.
I respectfully request that these matters be placed into the public record and addressed before the Council takes any action on an AEG/Goldenvoice ENA.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
10 Sincerely,
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.
Santa Monica Global Conference Center Exploration Committee Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Joe DiRosa
Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
213-STAGE-LA
(213-782-4352)
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Heidi von Tongeln; Attorney Mailbox; Econdevel Mailbox; Planning; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST AND OBJECTION TO PROPOSED EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH AEG/GOLDENVOICE FOR THE SANTA MONICA CIVIC AUDITORIUM
EXTERNAL
FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST AND OBJECTION TO
PROPOSED EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING
AGREEMENT WITH AEG/GOLDENVOICE FOR THE
SANTA MONICA CIVIC AUDITORIUM
Submitted Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, Including §§ 2.24.010, 2.24.030,
2.24.100 and 2.24.110
Date: August 10, 2026
To:
Santa Monica City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
Purchasing Agent / Finance Department
City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: FORMAL PROTEST AND OBJECTION — Proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AEG Presents / Goldenvoice concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium To the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Purchasing Agent, and City Clerk:
I hereby submit this Formal Written Protest and Objection to the proposed authorization, award, or execution of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“ENA”) between the City of Santa Monica (“City”) and Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
2 AEG Presents and/or Goldenvoice (“AEG/Goldenvoice”) concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium and associated City-owned property.
This protest is submitted pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Chapter 2.24, including §
2.24.110, to the extent that the City's proposed action constitutes an award recommendation or other action subject to the competitive procurement requirements of Chapter 2.24. Independently of the formal protest procedure, this letter constitutes a formal objection to proceeding with an exclusive agreement without a transparent and competitive process and a request that the City Attorney and City Manager determine, in writing, the legal authority permitting the proposed exclusivity.
The proposed ENA raises substantial procedural, competitive, disclosure, and public-interest concerns because:
1. AEG/Goldenvoice was not one of the entities selected through the City's original competitive process for the Civic Auditorium;
2. AEG/Goldenvoice did not participate as an original proposer in the City's 2023-2024 solicitation/Letters of Interest process that led to the City's selection of a development team in July 2024;
3. Following the termination of the previous ENA, the City did not conduct a new publicly noticed Request for Proposals (“RFP”), Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”), or open Letter of Interest (“LOI”) process through which AEG/Goldenvoice and other interested parties could compete on equal terms;
4. The City has actual knowledge that competing concepts and proposals for the Civic property exist;
5. Granting exclusivity to AEG/Goldenvoice would prevent the City from meaningfully negotiating those competing proposals during the ENA period; and
6. There are material questions regarding the completeness and accuracy of AEG/Goldenvoice's required disclosures, particularly in light of AEG/Goldenvoice's separate, recent, substantial contractual relationship with the City involving its 2026 Santa Monica beach festival.
For the reasons stated below, the City should postpone consideration of the proposed ENA, determine the applicability of Chapter 2.24 and the City's Procurement Policy, require corrected and complete disclosures, and conduct a transparent competitive process before granting exclusive negotiating rights over one of Santa Monica's most significant public assets.
I. BACKGROUND
The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is a publicly owned historic property of extraordinary civic, cultural, economic, and real-estate significance.
The City previously conducted a process beginning in late 2023 in which interested entities were invited to submit Letters of Interest concerning rehabilitation and operation of the Civic Auditorium. That process ultimately resulted in the City Council directing staff in July 2024 to pursue an ENA with Revitalization Partners Group (“RPG”).
The City subsequently entered into a six-month ENA with RPG in April 2025.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
3 On October 14, 2025, the City Council voted to conclude exclusive negotiations with RPG. The City's own public announcement explained that ending exclusivity would allow the City to examine “other potential partnership opportunities” and undertake a broader evaluation of the Civic's future.
The circumstances are therefore materially different from those existing when the original competitive process occurred.
AEG/Goldenvoice was not the entity selected through that process and, to my knowledge, was not an original proposer in the 2023-2024 process from which the prior ENA arose.
Nevertheless, the City is now considering granting AEG/Goldenvoice exclusive negotiating rights without first reopening the opportunity to the market through a new RFP, RFQ, LOI, or comparable publicly noticed competitive process.
That is particularly concerning because the City is aware that other parties presently have competing concepts or proposals for the Civic property.
II. SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.24 EXPRESSLY
ADDRESSES COMPETITION, IMPARTIALITY, AWARD
PROCEDURES, AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY
The current SMMC § 2.24.010 expressly states that Chapter 2.24 establishes roles and authorities for, among other matters, “the disposition of property.”
The significance of that language should not be overlooked. The contemplated transaction concerns exclusive negotiations over the future control, redevelopment, rehabilitation, operation, lease, disposition, or other long-term use of valuable City-owned real property.
Section 2.24.030 further provides for a City Procurement Policy establishing, among other things, procedures for competitive bidding and selection and standards intended to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality.
Section 2.24.100 addresses award procedures and identifies factors relevant to determining the best bidder or best-qualified firm, including price, quality, ability, capacity, financial resources, character, integrity, reputation, judgment, future service capability, and whether proposed pricing is fair, reasonable, and competitive.
The City cannot meaningfully compare these factors when only one newly selected entity is afforded exclusive access to negotiations while known competing proposals are excluded from equivalent consideration.
The fundamental issue presented by the proposed ENA is therefore straightforward:
How can the City determine that AEG/Goldenvoice represents the best available partner and the best available use of the Civic property when AEG/Goldenvoice has not been compared against the current universe of competing proposals through an open and contemporaneous process? Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
4 III. AEG/GOLDENVOICE WAS NOT SELECTED THROUGH THE
ORIGINAL CIVIC COMPETITIVE PROCESS
The City's original process began with solicitation of Letters of Interest in late 2023 and ultimately produced the entity with which the City negotiated in 2024 and 2025.
AEG/Goldenvoice was not the party selected through that process.
The proposed 2026 ENA therefore cannot reasonably be characterized merely as completion of the City's original competitive selection.
The City would instead be granting exclusive negotiating rights to a materially different entity, at a materially different time, under materially different market circumstances, without giving other presently interested parties an equivalent opportunity to compete.
If AEG/Goldenvoice's proposal is superior, an open competitive process gives AEG/Goldenvoice the opportunity to demonstrate that superiority.
Competition does not prejudice AEG/Goldenvoice. It validates the City's selection.
IV. THERE WAS NO NEW OPEN RFP, RFQ, OR LOI PERIOD
Following termination of the RPG exclusivity period, the City did not publicly reopen the Civic opportunity through a new RFP, RFQ, or LOI process available to all interested parties on equal terms before moving toward an ENA with AEG/Goldenvoice.
That procedural history creates the appearance that an entity that did not prevail through the earlier process is now being afforded an exclusive negotiating opportunity without undergoing a comparable competitive process.
Such a result deserves heightened scrutiny where the subject is not an ordinary short-term City contract but the future of an iconic public property potentially involving many millions of dollars in public and private investment and decades of control or operation.
The City should not establish a precedent under which an interested party may bypass an open solicitation and subsequently obtain exclusivity through direct negotiations after the competitive process has concluded.
V. THE EXISTENCE OF COMPETING PROPOSALS UNDERMINES
ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCLUSIVITY WITHOUT COMPETITION
The City is on notice that competing visions and proposals exist for the Civic Auditorium property.
Those alternatives potentially involve substantially different:
land uses;
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
5 economic-development strategies;
financing structures;
public subsidies;
private capital commitments;
architectural approaches;
preservation strategies;
revenue models;
operating models;
tourism impacts;
hotel and visitor spending;
employment generation;
cultural benefits; and
long-term economic value to Santa Monica.
An ENA does more than permit discussions. It contractually restricts the City's ability to negotiate with competing parties during the exclusivity period.
Accordingly, the decision to grant exclusivity itself has substantial competitive consequences.
The proper time to compare competing concepts is before exclusivity is granted, not after competing parties have been prevented from negotiating with the City.
VI. THE CITY'S OWN 2025 ACTION SUPPORTS A BROADER
COMPETITIVE REVIEW
When the City concluded its ENA with RPG in October 2025, the City publicly stated that ending exclusivity would broaden the path forward and allow consideration of other potential partnership opportunities.
Granting a new ENA to AEG/Goldenvoice without first conducting an open process appears inconsistent with that stated objective.
The termination of the previous ENA created an opportunity for the City to compare the market.
The City should use that opportunity.
A new competitive solicitation would allow the Council, residents, taxpayers, preservation advocates, businesses, and other stakeholders to understand what alternatives actually exist before the City removes those alternatives from active consideration through another exclusive agreement.
VII. MATERIAL QUESTIONS EXIST REGARDING
AEG/GOLDENVOICE'S DISCLOSURES
Separate and apart from the competitive-process concerns, I formally object to proceeding with the ENA until the City has reviewed and confirmed the completeness and accuracy of all disclosures submitted by AEG/Goldenvoice and its related entities.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
6 Santa Monica's Oaks Initiative requirements apply to persons and entities seeking or receiving qualifying public benefits and require disclosure of specified individuals with ownership, management, participation, or revenue interests.
AEG/Goldenvoice has a significant and very recent contractual relationship with the City concerning the 2026 Ocean Way Festival on Santa Monica Beach.
The City has entered into a license agreement with Goldenvoice permitting a major two-day music festival utilizing Santa Monica Beach, the Santa Monica Pier parking deck, and portions of adjacent beach parking areas.
That transaction reportedly involves payments to the City exceeding $1 million.
Accordingly, any disclosure submitted in connection with the Civic ENA that fails to accurately identify or account for Goldenvoice's existing contractual relationship with the City, where that information is required by the applicable disclosure form or law, should be corrected before the Council considers granting another substantial public benefit.
I therefore request that the City Attorney and City Clerk specifically determine:
1. Whether AEG/Goldenvoice's Oaks Initiative disclosure is complete and accurate;
2. Whether all required parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, partners, trustees, and persons possessing the applicable ownership, participation, or revenue interests have been disclosed;
3. Whether AEG Presents, Goldenvoice, Anschutz Entertainment Group, and any other relevant related entities have been correctly identified;
4. Whether the existing 2026 festival agreement with the City constitutes information required to be disclosed on any form submitted in connection with the proposed Civic ENA; and
5. Whether corrected disclosures must be submitted before the Council may lawfully act.
These questions should be resolved before, not after, exclusive rights are granted.
VIII. FORMAL PROTEST UNDER SMMC § 2.24.110
To the extent that the proposed ENA constitutes an award recommendation pursuant to the competitive requirements of Chapter 2.24, this letter constitutes a formal protest under SMMC § 2.24.110.
Section 2.24.110 requires written protests to set forth in detail the factual grounds, supporting evidence, legal authorities, and arguments supporting the protest.
This protest asserts that the proposed action should not proceed because the process did not provide a contemporaneous competitive opportunity to interested parties; AEG/Goldenvoice was not selected through the earlier Civic solicitation; known competing proposals presently exist; and material disclosure questions remain unresolved.
Section 2.24.110 further provides that once a qualifying protest has been filed, no solicitation shall be awarded until a final determination on the protest has been issued.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
7 I therefore request that the City treat this submission as triggering that provision to the fullest extent permitted by law and refrain from executing or awarding the proposed ENA until a written determination has been issued.
If the City takes the position that § 2.24.110 does not apply to the proposed ENA, I request that the City provide a written determination identifying the legal basis for that conclusion, including the provisions of the Municipal Code, City Charter, Procurement Policy, or other authority upon which the City relies.
IX. REQUESTED REMEDIES
I respectfully request that the City:
1. POSTPONE THE ENA VOTE.
Do not approve or authorize execution of an ENA with AEG/Goldenvoice until these procedural and disclosure issues have been resolved.
2. SUSPEND AWARD OR EXECUTION PENDING THIS PROTEST.
To the extent § 2.24.110 applies, comply with its requirement that no award occur until the protest has received a final determination.
3. ISSUE A NEW OPEN SOLICITATION.
Conduct a publicly noticed RFP, RFQ, LOI, or comparable competitive process for the Civic Auditorium property allowing AEG/Goldenvoice and all other qualified interested parties to submit proposals under the same rules, deadlines, disclosure requirements, and evaluation criteria.
4. CONSIDER EXISTING COMPETING PROPOSALS.
Do not grant exclusivity until the Council has been presented with a meaningful comparison of the currently available alternatives for the Civic property.
5. REVIEW AEG/GOLDENVOICE'S DISCLOSURES.
Direct the City Attorney and appropriate City officials to determine whether all Oaks Initiative and other required disclosures have been accurately and completely submitted.
6. REQUIRE CORRECTED DISCLOSURES BEFORE ACTION.
If any disclosure is incomplete, inaccurate, ambiguous, or inconsistent with the City's existing contractual relationship with Goldenvoice, require correction before the Council considers the ENA.
7. IDENTIFY THE LEGAL BASIS FOR NONCOMPETITIVE SELECTION.
If City staff contends that the proposed ENA is exempt from otherwise applicable competitive requirements, identify in the public record the precise Municipal Code, Procurement Policy, Charter, or other legal authority supporting that exemption and the factual findings necessary to invoke it.
8. ISSUE A WRITTEN DETERMINATION.
Provide a written response addressing each ground raised in this protest before execution of any ENA.
X. CONCLUSION
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
8 This protest is not an objection to AEG/Goldenvoice being considered for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
It is an objection to AEG/Goldenvoice being granted exclusivity without first being subjected to a fair, transparent, contemporaneous competitive process against the other proposals now available to the City.
If AEG/Goldenvoice offers the strongest proposal for the Civic, an open process should demonstrate that.
If another proposal offers greater economic value, broader public utility, stronger financing, less taxpayer exposure, greater cultural significance, or a better long-term use of this extraordinary public asset, Santa Monica residents deserve to know that before the City removes competing proposals from meaningful consideration through an ENA.
The City's own decision in October 2025 to terminate the previous ENA was expressly intended to broaden the path forward and examine other partnership opportunities. The City should not now narrow that path to a single entity without first allowing those opportunities to be compared.
The Civic Auditorium belongs to the public. Its future should be determined through a process that is competitive, transparent, impartial, properly disclosed, and demonstrably designed to obtain the greatest public benefit for Santa Monica.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the City postpone the proposed ENA with AEG/Goldenvoice, formally adjudicate this protest, require complete and accurate disclosures, and institute an open competitive process before granting exclusive negotiating rights over the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium property.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.
Santa Monica Global Conference Center Exploration Committee 213-782-4352
[email protected]
Reservation of Rights: This protest is based upon information presently available. Nothing herein should be construed as a waiver of any rights, objections, claims, remedies, or grounds for challenge available under the Santa Monica Municipal Code, Santa Monica City Charter, California law, the City's Procurement Policy, or other applicable authority. The protestor expressly reserves the right to supplement this protest upon receipt or discovery of additional public records, disclosures, staff reports, agreements, communications, or other relevant information.
Sincerely,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Joe DiRosa 213-STAGE-LA
(213-782-4352)
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
9 Founder, CEO
Artist Series, Seedlings, Tartare, BrainPower
[email protected]
www.seedlings.vc
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 8:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James; Jennifer Taylor; Nia Tang; Heidi von Tongeln; Susan Cola; Jenny Rogers; Sofia Klatzker; jaleh mirhasemi; Steven Johnson; Barry Rosenbaum; Maryanne LaGuardia; Karen Melick; Sonam Makker; [email protected]; Susan Jain
Subject: August 11, 2026 Council Meeting - Item 11.C. - ENA for Civic Auditorium - SUPPORT
EXTERNAL
Item 11.C. - SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers -
An ENA with Goldenvoice/AEG Presents is another exciting opportunity to try and find the right pathway at last to rehabilitate and reopen the Civic Auditorium.
Reclaiming and reintroducing a vibrant music entertainment space near public transportation and within walking distance of a myriad of hotels, restaurants, the Pier, the beach, parks, and The Promenade is a no brainer.
I hope that these new ENA negotiations will include the same points of discussion as with the RPG ENA (plus any other identified priorities) with a particular emphasis on and requirement for significant community engagement around the settled-upon concept plus permanent community benefits such as community gathering space (e.g., a renovated East Wing Meeting Room - 300- person capacity, seated at 10-top tables) and opportunities for public use like the community enjoyed before closure, such as periodic, reasonable opportunities to host community events like Stairway to the Stars or other significant local gatherings each year.
The City itself would also be able to make good use of community meeting space there from time to time - imagine having a large meeting/events room that the City already owns (!) back in use, mere steps from City Hall.
And of course, please protect Historic Belmar Park and ask Goldenvoice/AEG Presents to view it as a space that can synergize with the Auditorium for outdoor events (see, e.g., photos from the Growing Place community celebration a few months ago), picnics, concerts, and upscale tented events. Simply put in a big retractable fence on the West Side of Belmar Field and you've doubled your Civic Center activation space.
Lastly, it would be great to figure out a way to give it a dual-face so that the North-facing Main Street approach and main entrance remain, but also the facility would be inviting and activated at the Pico & Main corner to welcome visitors into the Civic Center area from the SW approach too.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
2 Please remember that this is supposed to be our Civic Center. Please don't gut it. It should remain public space (or publicly-accessible) not thoroughly privatized. It's zoned mainly for a park, and the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan still applies even though it routinely gets ignored!! Thanks so much and GOOD LUCK!
Best,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 30+ years
Co-Chair, Civic Center Task Force
----------------------------------------------
P.S. - I just bought two (2) tickets to see LORD HURON in January at The Wiltern (1,850-2,300 seating capacity depending on seating configuration for the event). Love The Wiltern but would much rather be spending my concert-going dollars right here in Santa Monica.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
3 David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 10:30 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James; Jennifer Taylor; Sofia Klatzker; Jaleh Mirhashemi; Steven Johnson; Barry Rosenbaum; Maryanne LaGuardia; Karen Melick; Sonam Makker; [email protected]; Susan Jain; [email protected] Subject: City Council Meeting - 8/11/26 - Item 11.C - ENA for Civic Auditorium - Support
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers -
An ENA with Goldenvoice/AEG Presents is another exciting opportunity to try and find the right pathway at last to rehabilitate and reopen the Civic Auditorium.
Reclaiming and reintroducing a vibrant music entertainment space near public transportation and within walking distance of a myriad of hotels, restaurants, the Pier, the beach, parks, and The Promenade is a no brainer.
I hope that these new ENA negotiations will include the same points of discussion as with the RPG ENA (plus any other identified priorities) with a particular emphasis on and requirement for significant community engagement around the settled-upon concept plus permanent community benefits such as community gathering space (e.g., a renovated East Wing Meeting Room - 300-person capacity, seated at 10-top tables) and opportunities for public use like the community enjoyed before closure, such as periodic, reasonable opportunities to host community events like Stairway to the Stars or other significant local gatherings each year.
The City itself would also be able to make good use of community meeting space there from time to time - imagine having a large meeting/events room that the City already owns (!) back in use, mere steps from City Hall.
And of course, please protect Historic Belmar Park and ask Goldenvoice/AEG Presents to view it as a space that can synergize with the Auditorium for outdoor events (see, e.g., photos from the Growing Place community celebration a few months ago), picnics, concerts, and upscale tented events. Simply put in a big retractable fence on the West Side of Belmar Field and you've doubled your Civic Center activation space.
Lastly, it would be great to figure out a way to give it a dual-face so that the North-facing Main Street approach and main entrance remain, but also the facility would be inviting and activated at the Pico & Main corner to welcome visitors into the Civic Center area from the SW approach too.
Please remember that this is supposed to be our Civic Center. Please don't gut it. It should remain public space (or publicly-accessible) not thoroughly privatized. It's zoned mainly for a park, and the 2005 Civic Center Specific Plan still applies even though it routinely gets ignored!! Many thanks,
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
4 Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Wilmont Chair
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
5 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 10:36 AM
To: Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Jing Yeo; Ross Fehrman
Subject: Agenda Item 11.C, August 11, 2026, Support with Three Suggestions
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Torosis and Members of the City Council,
I write in support of Item 11.C. Bringing an experienced operator to the table is the right next step for the Civic, and I hope that the Council moves it forward tonight.
I offer three suggestions drawn from the City's own account of the prior negotiation.
First, add community engagement to the ENA scope. The RPG process identified community engagement among the issues to be addressed, and staff reported that broad community engagement had not yet occurred. The scope described in tonight's report does not mention it. Neighborhood associations are well positioned to help build community support early, while the plan is still taking shape.
Second, set a deadline to execute. Council authorized the RPG agreement in July 202 and it was not executed until April 2025. A firm execution date protects the six-month clock.
Third, require a written pro forma. The report describes a "financial approach" among AEG's deliverables.
A written pro forma, capital stack, and operating plan should be explicit deliverables and a condition of any 90-day extension. That is precisely what the last process never produced.
I will add a personal note. In conversations with neighbors over the past year, I have not met anyone who wants the Civic to stay closed. People want it open. People want a vibrant entertainment venue, and people want to be proud of the Civic, not just for the past, but for the future. They also want to be part of it, which is why the engagement piece matters.
None of this needs to slow the project down. Each one is meant to protect the time you are authorizing tonight.
Thank you for your continued work on this.
Respectfully,
Matt Goldenberg
Santa Monica resident
I serve as Co-Chair of the North of Montana Association (NOMA) and am writing in my personal capacity.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Mari Miranda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 4:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 11C Please Reject
EXTERNAL
I am writing to urge council members to reject article 11.C Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and execute an exclusive negotiation agreement with GoldenVoice/AEG Presents, LLC.
Aeg owns or operates 8 venues within a 20 mile radius of Santa Monica. With the capacity of the Civic Center, opportunities to drive traffic to Santa Monica are greatly reduced due to the local competition for AEG artist/shows only. An open venue, such as Dodger Stadium, where bookings are “open” to all promoters (LiveNation, Another Planet, Netflix, Apple, Disney) drives traffic to Santa Monica, instead of to other LA/AEG venues. A bidding system for desired dates would allow Santa Monica to profit from offering programming not found other places in LA. Exclusively negotiating with AEG moves Santa Monica away from its identity, film and tv production, towards AEG’s domain.
Instead of an outside entity like AEG determining the use of the Civic Center, all programing should filter through FilmSantaMonica. This ensures high value assets such as naming rights fees to remain solely with Santa Monica; likely providing longterm funding for FilmSantaMonica. Turning the Civic Center into a modular soundstage reflects the industries that build Santa Monica, while providing innovative streaming and recording facilities with the capacity to host live events; similar to ReFrame studios. Not only does a studio support current SaMo businesses and residents in the industry, but will attract new businesses; more than a venue with only one primary use.
FilmSantaMonica is able to start utilizing the campus immediately, with portable studios made from shipping containers; to attract recording projects, content creators, and large scale brands who utilize social media for marketing.
The City Council would be at the mercy of AEG’s ability to completely refurbish the space; instead of continuing ownership and generating immediate revenue from a highly valuable asset; especially with the Super Bowl & Olympics fast approaching.
Instead of “exclusively supporting AEG,” a soundstage venue facilitates & supports the many production/gaming businesses who operate in SaMo and provide residents with a reason to stay local.
I urge the City Council to reconsider the exclusivity in favor of a complex that will differentiate the Civic Center, instead of hiding it behind, and competing with, 8 other venues.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mari
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
2 David Yakobson
From: Mari Miranda <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 8:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 11C- public statement
EXTERNAL
Here is my full public statement that was cut short due to number of speakers this evening. am here to urge the City Council to reconsider exclusive negotiations that will see the Santa Monica Civic Center, compete with the 8 other venues AEG operates within 20 miles of Santa Monica. This is counterintuitive as santa monica would have to fight other venues in the same county for access only to AEG artist/shows. An open venue, such as Dodger Stadium, where bookings are “open” to all promoters/production companies (LiveNation, Another Planet, Netflix, Apple, Disney, DaZone,ESPN) will drive traffic to Santa Monica, instead of to other LA area AEG venues. A bidding system for desired dates would allow Santa Monica to maximize profit from industry competition, instead of losing out to The Novo, or a run of shows at a music staple like The Fonda; who have similar capacities as the Civic Center and are AEG exclusive.
By no means do I recommend excluding AEG, but excluding other promoters is detrimental to the city in the long run. Even more so, giving AEG the exclusive right to determine who performs in Santa Monica is more beneficial to their business model than repurposing the civic center into a place for Santa Monicans.
In order to build a facility that will remain useful across decades, it is imperative to innovate, and not follow suit. A collaborative effort between traditional film, tv, live music/sports along with streaming, social media, and egaming companies will result in a state of the art, top tier venue that consistently generates city-wide revenue.
According to the City’s website: Information, Creative Tech, and Arts/Entertainment/Sports account for 56% of the city’s total payroll. That is a collection of over 3,100 businesses, not just a single, exclusive, entity. An open venue will attract businesses to Santa Monica when they do not otherwise have the opportunity in LA; the opposite of what an exclusive contract with a single promoter, like AEG, will bring.
Specifically, a Soundstage Studio complex overseen by an arm of FilmSantaMonica reflects the industries that built Santa Monica, supports the Capital Improvement Program designed to drive more filming to the area, and can create immediate streams of new revenue throughout reconstruction. A multipurpose venue, similar to Re:Frame studios, would be able to support traditional film, streaming, and live events through innovative technology and a modular design. These technologies already exist, mostly owned by California companies, and have been implemented into venues by companies like Another Planet & LiveNation.
With an exclusive contract, the City would be at the mercy of AEG’s ability to completely refurbish the space for use; instead of continuing ownership and generating immediate revenue from a highly valuable asset, similar to why FilmSantaMonica exists. In addition to providing longterm funding for FilmSantaMonica it ensures high value assets such as naming rights fees remain solely in Santa Monica A quote from FilmSantaMonica to LaMag noted “Filmings generate revenue for a host of partners including cast and crew hotel stays, opportunities for local vendors, specialized job creation and increased traffic at nearby shops and restaurants.
Instead of “exclusively supporting AEG,” a soundstage venue facilitates & supports the many production/e-gaming businesses who operate in Santa Monica and provide residents with a reason to stay local.
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
3 I urge the council to make the effort to ensure revenues from this asset stay in santa monica. To consider the benefit of innovation, instead of investing in an existing business model that benefits a single corporation. A venue for creation and delivery supports existing industry businesses and further’s Santa Monica’s cutting edge reputation with streaming capabilities, mobile recording booths, and reasons to attract auxiliary industry business.
Thank you for your time and consideration Mari Miranda
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026
Item 11-C
August 11, 2026