Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, September 22, 2026

From: Zoe <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 12:57 PM
To: Aidan McGarrigle <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: TheFirm <[email protected]>; Michelle Ruiz <[email protected]>; Romy Ganschow <[email protected]>; Denise McGranahan <[email protected]>; Jonathan ErwinFrank <[email protected]>; Oliver Chi <[email protected]>; Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Heidi von Tongeln <[email protected]>; Clerk Mailbox <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Edgar Sernas <[email protected]>; Xavier Mota <[email protected]>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Esterlina Lugo <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Plaintiff 643 Pacific, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment - 643 Pacific, LLC v. Besser, et al. (Case No. 25SMUD01272) (Our File No. 9353-001)

EXTERNAL
More than a week has gone by and it seems none of you are aware of the dangerous predicament your clienmt is in.

I need to know no later than tomorrow at noon. Otherwise I will file the claim in Court. As previously stated I am running for rent Control Board to avoid this happening to another renter in Santa Monica.

The claim in court is not my first line of approach unless your client refuses to abide by the local ordinances establishing rules and requirements of a no fault eviction.

If Sean Besser and/or Janeen Morris made promises that this would not be prosecuted or allowed to be heard in Court, they were mistaken. As mistaken as running an ilegal co-living business without the right permits, against the zoning laws on Santa Monica Municipal Ordinance. It seems Sean Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Besser and Janeen Morris overpromised and underdelivered. Not a good look on election year if you ask me. Your client put the units back in the market and raised the rent to market value. That was the purpose of removing me as a tenant. Wasnt it?
I have not made the rules, I only follow them. Both Mayor Torosis and Councilmember Ellis Raskin acknolege the facts of the law aty the last City Council meeting on September 8. 2026 after my public coments in Item 12B.

City Clerk staff NOTE for transparency purposes:

Please include this email in the package for public comment for next week's City Council meeting.

Kindly reply by noon tomorrow. Thank you.

Have a blessed weekend everyone.

On Sun, Sep 6, 2026 at 5:10 PM Zoe <[email protected]> wrote:

Reference Santa Monica No Fault Eviction Key Rules & Requirements:
 Timing: Landlords must pay the full relocation fee prior to the tenant's departure; failing to do so violates the City Charter and voids the eviction. [1]  No-Fault Categories: Includes owner move-in, compliance with government orders, or certain structural removals from the rental market under local Santa Monica Evictions guidelines. [1, 2]
On Sun, Sep 6, 2026 at 5:03 PM Zoe <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. McGarrigle,
It seems your client forgot to pay me over $30,000.00 for the No fault eviction as per Santa Monica municipal code. Is he planning to pay or do i need to file in Court? In other fronts I am running for Santa Monica Rent Control Board and noticed that after the litigation your client used the maneuver to raise the rents of the units in the building. I would like a comment from your client to present during the campaign.

Kindly reply, thank you.

On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 5:01 PM Aidan McGarrigle <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon:

Attached please find the following documents filed in the above-referenced matter:

1. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF 643 PACIFIC, LLC FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
4 2. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF 643 PACIFIC, LLC’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS UNLAWFUL

DETAINER COMPLAINT

3. DECLARATION OF JAMES SUAREZ OF PLAINTIFF 643 PACIFIC, LLC AND EXHIBITS THERETO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4. DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT JANEEN MORRIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

5. DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT SEAN BESSER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

6. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF 643 PACIFIC, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF 643 PACIFIC, LLC FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

8. [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT FOLLOWING COURT’S ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION OF PLAINTIFF 643 PACIFIC, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS UNLAWFUL

DETAINER COMPLAINT
These documents may also be accessed through the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/derqih68udjv2yg6gfjec/AOjVKCoQuGyjcxlZuANgQPI?rlkey=j4dfggl8be4 iv4uqyj6j19vvl&st=ojrtets5&dl=0.

Please contact our office should there be any issues accessing the attached.

Sincerely,
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
5 Aidan P. McGarrigle, Esq.

McGARRIGLE, KENNEY & ZAMPIELLO, APC
9600 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 200
Chatsworth, California 91311
T (818) 998-3300
F (818) 998-3344
[email protected]
--
Zoё Muntaner
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear?"- Tao Te Ching IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed to and may contain privileged and confidential information. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it safely, securely, and confidentially.

Unauthorized re-disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this message from your computer.
--
Zoё Muntaner
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear?"- Tao Te Ching IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed to and may contain privileged and confidential information. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it safely, securely, and confidentially.

Unauthorized re-disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
6 subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by return email and delete this message from your computer.
--
Zoё Muntaner
“Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear?"- Tao Te Ching IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed to and may contain privileged and confidential information. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it safely, securely, and confidentially.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 3:56 PM
To: [email protected]; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Finance Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James; Sandra Santiago; Sergio Ramirez; Lisa Parson; Lauren Howland; Melissa Spagnuolo; Attorney Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Supplemental Public Integrity Submission — City of Santa Monica Procurement Ordinance 2849, Subsequent Procurement Policy, and Civic Auditorium / AEGGoldenvoice Process

EXTERNAL
September 17, 2026
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office
Public Integrity Division
211 West Temple Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90012
Re: Supplemental Public Integrity Submission — City of Santa Monica Procurement Ordinance 2849, Subsequent Procurement Policy, and Civic Auditorium / AEG-Goldenvoice Process To the Public Integrity Division:

I respectfully submit this supplemental information concerning the City of Santa Monica’s 2026 rewrite of Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, its subsequent Procurement Policy, and the later exclusive negotiation process involving AEG Presents/Goldenvoice and the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.

I am not asking the Public Integrity Division to infer misconduct merely from the sequence of events described below. Rather, recently obtained official City documents identify a specific documentary question that I believe warrants independent review: what City officials intended to replace the realproperty safeguards removed from Chapter 2.24, why the subsequently adopted Procurement Policy appears not to contain a corresponding real-property procedure, and when the City developed the interpretation later relied upon in connection with the Civic Auditorium.

February 24, 2026 procurement rewrite
On February 24, 2026, the City Council considered Staff Report 7556 on the consent calendar. The publicly presented purpose was to “modernize” the City’s procurement system. Staff described a threepart framework consisting of a new Procurement Ordinance, an annually adopted Procurement Policy, Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
8 and Administrative Instructions. The report stated that this structure was intended to improve efficiency while maintaining fairness and transparency.

The staff report further represented that the future Procurement Policy would be the City’s primary operational procurement document and would address procurement thresholds, competitive bidding and source selection, impartiality, conflicts of interest, and vendor communications.

The ordinance attachment introduced that evening is particularly significant.

The proposed replacement Chapter continued expressly to state that Chapter 2.24 governed the purchase of goods and services, public-works contracts, “and the disposition of property.” New section 2.24.030 required the City Manager to prepare a Procurement Policy, adopted annually by the Council, “to implement the provisions of this Chapter.” That Policy was required, at minimum, to establish approval thresholds, procedures for competitive bidding and selection, and standards concerning conflicts and impartiality.

The ordinance also expressly addressed real property. New section 2.24.060(a)(3) authorized the City Manager to enter agreements to rent, lease, or license real property either within thresholds established in the Procurement Policy or pursuant to express Council approval.

The ordinance itself further provided that implementation of the new system would occur upon adoption of a Procurement Policy by the City Council.

Elimination of former §2.24.230
The February 24 redline also confirms that the proposed ordinance eliminated former Municipal Code §2.24.230, entitled “Sale of real property.”
Former §2.24.230 required a Council resolution to identify the reason for a sale, describe the property, find that the property was no longer required for the purpose for which it was acquired or another public purpose, and designate the competitive sales process to be used. It also generally required public notice.

The former provision also established procedures for competitive bids and competitive proposals and negotiation.

Importantly, the old law did not make competition absolute. It provided an exception allowing real property to be sold without advertising if at least five Councilmembers adopted a resolution finding that advertising would cause unnecessary expense or delay or would not be in the City’s best interest. The Council could then authorize direct negotiation or another identified method.

Thus, what disappeared was not simply a mandatory-bidding provision. The rewrite removed a codified public process requiring Council findings concerning the continued public need for City property, the method of sale, public notice, and—in circumstances bypassing publication—a five-member Council finding.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
9 I recognize that the deletion was visible in the ordinance attachment presented on February 24. I therefore do not contend that former §2.24.230 was secretly inserted or removed between the first and second readings. My concern is narrower: the public-facing staff report emphasized modernization, fairness, transparency and competitive source selection, but did not specifically explain the significance of eliminating the existing standalone real-property procedure while transferring much of the procurement system to a later Policy.

The subsequent Procurement Policy
The July 7, 2026 Procurement Policy implemented detailed classifications for goods, contractual services, technology services, professional services and public-works projects. It established informal and formal competitive procedures and instructed departments uncertain about the classification of a procurement to consult Procurement staff before commencing the process.

The Policy also expressly treats public-works project development broadly, including feasibility studies, needs assessments, site investigations, surveys, concept development, master planning, architectural and engineering work, cost estimating and other preconstruction activities.

What I have not located in the July Policy is a corresponding real-property disposition category, realproperty threshold, or procedure replacing former §2.24.230. The Policy’s listed procurement classifications instead identify goods, contractual services, technology services, professional services and public-works projects.

This creates an apparent structural gap that I respectfully ask PID to investigate.

The ordinance continued expressly to govern disposition of property. It required the Procurement Policy to implement Chapter 2.24 and establish competitive-selection procedures. It referred real-property rent, lease and license authority to thresholds established in that Policy. And implementation of Ordinance 2849 was expressly tied to adoption of the Policy.

Yet the later Policy appears not to supply the real-property procedure that the former Municipal Code provision had supplied.

Relevance to the Civic Auditorium / AEG process
This issue became material shortly thereafter when the City moved toward an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with AEG Presents/Goldenvoice concerning the publicly owned Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.

I am not asking PID to assume that Ordinance 2849 was adopted for the purpose of facilitating that transaction. The documents presently available do not establish that conclusion.

They do, however, make the chronology and internal drafting history highly relevant.

The material question is whether City officials already understood, during the ordinance and Procurement Policy drafting process, that eliminating former §2.24.230 and omitting a corresponding real-property procedure from the later Policy would permit City property negotiations to proceed without the previous procedural safeguards or another competitive-selection process.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
10 If that interpretation developed only later, PID should be able to determine that from the records.

If it existed earlier, the records should likewise establish when it was developed, by whom, and whether it had any relationship to ongoing or anticipated City real-property negotiations.

Records I respectfully request PID review
I respectfully request that PID obtain and review:

1. All drafts, redlines and version histories of Ordinance 2849 and proposed Chapter 2.24 from the beginning of the procurement-modernization project through final adoption.

2. All Finance Department, City Manager, City Attorney, Procurement Division and departmental communications concerning former §2.24.230, “real property,” “disposition,” “sale,” “lease,” “license,” “competitive sale,” “direct negotiation,” “Council approval,” or procedures intended to replace the repealed section.

3. The departmental feedback referenced in Staff Report 7556 as having informed the modernization effort. The report expressly states that Finance had engaged departments and was using that feedback to shape the new policies and procedures.

4. Every draft and redline of the Procurement Policy ultimately adopted in July 2026, including documents identifying who decided which procurement categories, thresholds and exceptions would be included.

5. Any written or oral legal analysis concerning why the July Policy did not contain a separate realproperty disposition procedure or real-property threshold.

6. Any Procurement Division analysis concerning how agreements involving both real-property rights and professional, feasibility, technical, predevelopment or public-works-related services were to be classified.

7. All records identifying when City staff first concluded that the Civic Auditorium / AEG-Goldenvoice process did not require a competitive selection process under Chapter 2.24 or the Procurement Policy.

8. Communications between City officials and AEG Presents/Goldenvoice concerning the Civic Auditorium before that interpretation was reached, including communications concerning site access, tours, technical materials, feasibility work, exclusivity, lease or license terms, and contemplated development work.

9. Any records showing whether the City’s interpretation of Ordinance 2849 or the Procurement Policy changed after the Civic/AEG relationship began.

Purpose of this submission
The issue I am raising is not whether a municipality has authority to modernize or amend its procurement laws. Nor am I asserting that the repeal of former §2.24.230, standing alone, establishes a Brown Act violation or criminal misconduct.

The question is whether the documentary record shows that a significant procedural protection governing publicly owned real estate was removed as part of a restructuring represented as preserving fairness and transparency, that the promised implementing Policy failed to replace that procedure, and that City officials then knowingly relied upon the resulting gap when advancing an exclusive transaction involving one of the City’s most significant public assets.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
11 That question can be answered from contemporaneous records.

I respectfully request that the Public Integrity Division preserve and review those records and determine whether the sequence reflects an independently justified procurement modernization, an inadvertent policy omission, or conduct warranting further investigation under the laws within PID’s jurisdiction.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Joseph DiRosa
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 Sep 15, 2026, at 2:52 PM, [email protected] wrote:

I’ll make the editorial prosecutorial toward the documentary record without supplying hypothetical defenses for City Hall. Where the evidence stops, it will simply say what has and has not been established rather than inventing explanations on the Council’s behalf.

THE MISSING RULE
What Happened to Competition for Santa Monica’s
Public Property?
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
12 Santa Monica required competition before granting Goldenvoice exclusivity in 2025. Months later, the City Council rewrote its procurement law, repealed the Civic Auditorium’s specific competitive-process provision and placed “disposition of property” inside a procurement framework administered by City Manager Oliver Chi. By August 2026, the City was relying on the absence of a specific real-estate procurement procedure to move toward exclusive negotiations over the Civic without a new competitive solicitation.

There is a sentence in Santa Monica’s August 11 presentation on the future of the Civic Auditorium that should stop anyone who cares about public property in this city. The City told the Council that its Charter, Municipal Code and Procurement Policy do not prescribe an express competitive solicitation process for the disposition of City-owned real property through a license, lease or sale. On its own, the statement sounds like technical municipal law. Put it beside what the same City Council had done just five months earlier, however, and it becomes something much more consequential. In March 2026, the Council had rewritten the procurement code to expressly include the “disposition of property,” ordered City Manager Oliver Chi to administer an implementing Procurement Policy, and simultaneously eliminated the Civic-specific section that had previously required a competitive process.

That sequence now sits at the center of DiRosa v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26SMCP00435, the lawsuit I filed challenging the process surrounding Santa Monica’s proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AEG Presents and Goldenvoice. I have a direct interest in the dispute. I proposed an alternative use for the Civic involving Morphosis and Pritzker Prize-winning architect Thom Mayne. That fact should be disclosed, but it does not change what the City’s own documents say. The procurement law was changed. The Civic-specific competitive provision was repealed. A new policy was created. The City later directly approached AEG. No new Civic competition was opened. Those are matters contained in public records, not conclusions drawn from rumor.

The story begins in September 2025, when Santa Monica went looking for an entertainment company to evaluate a beachfront music festival that became Ocean Way. The City issued a Music Festival Assessment Partner Request for Qualifications and described what would happen next: companies would compete, a partner would be selected, that partner would enter an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to assess feasibility, and a later production contract could follow if the project moved ahead. The City called it a two-step process.

Goldenvoice ultimately emerged from that competitive selection. In other words, Santa Monica’s own procedure demonstrated that an ENA was not a substitute for competition.

Competition determined who received the opportunity to negotiate exclusively.

One month later, the City Council addressed the Civic. On October 14, 2025, the Council refused to extend the existing exclusive negotiations with Revitalization Partner Group and instead ordered staff to explore alternative options for the Civic and assess its “highest and best use.” The motion passed 4-3. The City’s public announcement described the decision as broadening the pathway for the Civic after the existing proposal failed to Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
13 provide sufficient financial specificity to justify continued exclusivity. The public direction was therefore clear: step back from exclusivity, examine alternatives and determine what the property should become. (Santa Monica)
Then came March 10, 2026.

The Council adopted Ordinance No. 2849CCS and substantially rewrote Chapter 2.24 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The new law expressly declared that the chapter establishes roles and authorities governing purchases of goods and services, contracts for public works projects and “the disposition of property.” It required the City Manager to prepare an annual Procurement Policy establishing approval thresholds, procedures for competitive bidding and selection, and standards intended to ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. The statutory architecture therefore placed property disposition inside the procurement system and assigned implementation of that system to the City Manager.

At the same time, however, the Council repealed former §2.24.230, the provision associated with the competitive Civic process conducted in 2024. The significance of that repeal is no longer merely an allegation by an outside critic. In its own court filing, the City acknowledged that Santa Monica had conducted a competitive process for the Civic under former §2.24.230, that the Council repealed the section in March 2026 and that the current chapter contains no comparable requirement applicable to the proposed AEG ENA.

That is an extraordinary legislative sequence. A specific Civic competition rule existed. The Council removed it. The Council simultaneously inserted “disposition of property” into a broader procurement structure. The City Manager was directed to produce the policy implementing that structure. And when the Civic returned to the Council months later, City Hall’s legal position relied in part on the proposition that the resulting system contained no specific competitive procedure requiring the City to solicit competing proposals before entering the AEG ENA.

The Procurement Policy itself makes the omission harder to overlook because it is detailed almost everywhere else. It establishes categories for goods, contractual services, technology services, professional services and public works. It identifies dollar thresholds and formal solicitation procedures. It defines professional services to include architects, engineers, appraisers, consultants and construction-project managers. Its treatment of public works is particularly broad: the policy encompasses the full project-development lifecycle, including pre-project activity, pre-design, design, preconstruction and construction management. It specifically identifies feasibility studies, needs assessments, site investigations, surveys, environmental review, concept development, master planning, architectural and engineering work, permitting, cost estimating and related preconstruction services.

The policy also knows exactly how to describe competition when the City wants it. Formal procurements above designated thresholds require public solicitation through the City’s vendor system; public-works projects receive additional advertising requirements. Santa Monica continues to publicly tell vendors that its purchasing process is handled through Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
14 OpenGov and that bid opportunities, prospective bidders, public documents, questions, addenda, results and awards are available for public review. (Santa Monica) Yet when the future of one of Santa Monica’s most valuable historic properties came before the Council, the administration emphasized what its procurement framework did not require. The August presentation said there was no prescribed competitive solicitation process for disposing of real property through sale, lease or license. The result was not an academic gap in the code. The gap had immediate practical value: it supported proceeding with one private party without reopening the Civic to competition.

The timing deserves scrutiny because another government relationship was developing during the period in which these rules changed. Goldenvoice had already established a working relationship with Santa Monica through Ocean Way. The City’s own August 2026 Civic staff report subsequently disclosed that the City approached AEG about the Civic through that Ocean Way relationship. The City now publicly describes Goldenvoice as an ongoing partner, and after the 2026 Ocean Way event was cancelled because of beach conditions, Mayor Caroline Torosis emphasized that the partnership itself would continue into 2027. (Santa Monica)
The public record does not establish that AEG requested or participated in the March procurement changes. It also does not answer the far more basic chronological question: When did discussions between Santa Monica and AEG or Goldenvoice about the Civic begin? That date matters. So do the identities of the officials involved, the person who first proposed using AEG at the Civic, the people who proposed repealing §2.24.230 and the internal explanation for why the Civic-specific competitive provision was removed.

Those are factual questions capable of being answered through documents.

The litigation sought those documents. The requested discovery covered communications between City officials and AEG or Goldenvoice concerning the Civic, communications arising from the Ocean Way relationship, records concerning the March 10 amendment and repeal, Civic ENA drafts and redlines, meeting logs and calendars, consultant information and records concerning whatever happened to the October 2025 highest-andbest-use analysis. These records are important precisely because the most consequential events occurred before the public ever saw an AEG Civic proposal.

The July chronology makes that problem impossible to dismiss. On July 1, Economic Development Manager Jennifer Taylor told me that the City was not soliciting Civic offers, that consultant review would inform a future RFP and that she would notify me when proposals opened. Thirteen days later, on July 14, the Council met in closed session concerning negotiations over the Civic under a public agenda description identifying price and terms of payment. On July 31, I submitted the Santa Monica Global Conference Center proposal, identifying Morphosis as the architectural participant. Eleven days after that, staff recommended that the Council authorize exclusive negotiations with AEG/Goldenvoice.

There had been no future RFP of the sort described on July 1. No new RFQ. No open call for Civic proposals. No publicly disclosed comparative evaluation of the AEG concept against other possible uses. No publicly produced highest-and-best-use report explaining why the Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
15 exploration ordered in October had resulted in a live-entertainment recommendation. The public instead learned that the City itself had approached AEG.

City Manager Oliver Chi was subsequently reported as saying that “no prescribed process is required for such an agreement” and that the ENA did not constitute a disposition of property. That position narrows the transaction to the legal character of the ENA itself while avoiding the larger procedural question: how did AEG become the sole party offered the opportunity to reach that ENA?
Ocean Way makes the contrast particularly stark. When Santa Monica wanted Goldenvoice for a music festival, Goldenvoice competed before receiving exclusivity.

When Santa Monica moved toward Goldenvoice/AEG for the Civic, the City selected the party through its existing relationship and then sought authorization for exclusive negotiations. The City may distinguish the legal categories of the two arrangements, but that does not erase the procedural contrast visible in its own records.

Nor are these decisions being made by officials unfamiliar with economic development, municipal law, finance or real estate. Chi has decades of municipal-government experience and previously served as Irvine’s city manager. The Council includes attorneys, finance professionals and members with substantial land-use, housing and economicdevelopment backgrounds. That expertise makes the procurement structure more worthy of examination, because the consequences of delegating property authority, repealing an existing competition requirement and adopting an implementing policy without a dedicated real-estate solicitation procedure were matters this government was professionally equipped to understand.

The Civic is also only one part of a much larger period of aggressive decision-making involving land and institutions under City influence. Ocean Avenue produced unusually complicated negotiations concerning properties at 419 and 1616 Ocean Avenue, ultimately forcing the Council to waive confidentiality and publicly disclose portions of what had been happening behind closed doors. The contemplated transaction did not proceed, but the episode demonstrated how far consequential property discussions could advance before the public understood their contours.

At Bergamot Station, another major City-owned asset, negotiations involving housing development have generated intense concern over the future of the arts complex. Unlike the Civic process, Bergamot has involved a solicitation, making the contrast itself instructive. When a closed-session agenda later referred to negotiating “price and terms of payment,” residents feared the City was contemplating a sale; officials subsequently said the proposed arrangement involved a long-term lease. The controversy again demonstrated how much substantive public-property policy can reside behind the sterile vocabulary of a real-estate closed-session agenda.

The same governing majority has also shown a willingness to intervene forcefully in institutions tied to downtown economic development. In July 2025, the Council used an emergency agenda item to remove six City-appointed directors of Downtown Santa Monica Inc. and install interim replacements. The City’s own public statement said the purpose was to make DTSM a more “aligned city partner.” The motion passed 6-1. That action did Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
16 not involve a property disposition, but it revealed something important about governing philosophy: this Council has not been reluctant to use the power available to it when it wants greater control over institutions central to Santa Monica’s economic direction.

Then there is Santa Monica Airport, roughly 192 acres whose post-closure future may represent the most consequential public-land decision the city has faced in generations.

The airport planning process has involved extensive public participation and differs materially from the Civic process, but its sheer scale reinforces why the governing rules over public property matter. Santa Monica is not making isolated decisions about minor parcels. Its current leadership is reshaping public land, civic institutions and development policy on a citywide scale.

The Civic itself carries an additional complication. Santa Monica’s own Procurement Policy defines public works broadly enough to include feasibility studies, site investigations, architectural and engineering work and other preconstruction stages associated with public improvements. The parcel at 1855 Main Street also has a documented recent public-works history. The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project constructed an advanced water-treatment facility beneath the Civic Center parking area through Clean Water State Revolving Fund financing, and the City continues to service debt associated with that financing.

Historical records go further. The National Register documentation for the Civic describes federal urban-renewal funding used to acquire the former Belmar neighborhood through eminent domain as part of the Civic Center expansion and records the public-purpose requirement associated with federally purchased land. The underlying federal agreements necessary to determine whether any such restriction remains enforceable today have not yet been produced, so the historical record alone does not establish a current federal covenant. It does establish that the Civic’s history is inseparable from public acquisition, public funding and public works.

The court has so far declined to halt the AEG process. On September 11, Judge Bradley S.

Phillips denied my first temporary restraining order for failure to demonstrate irreparable harm. On September 15, he denied the renewed application, stating that there were no new material facts and that I had not demonstrated irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits at that interim stage. Those rulings are part of the story. They do not change the chronology contained in the underlying City records.

And that chronology is now difficult to ignore. Santa Monica competitively selected Goldenvoice for Ocean Way in September 2025. The Council ordered a broad exploration of Civic alternatives in October. City staff’s relationship with Goldenvoice continued. In March, the Council rewrote Chapter 2.24, expressly inserted property disposition into the procurement framework and repealed the Civic-specific competitive provision. Oliver Chi’s administration produced an extensive Procurement Policy without a dedicated competitive procedure for real-estate disposition. In July, an interested competing proponent was told to wait for a future RFP. That RFP never came. The City instead directly approached AEG through its Goldenvoice relationship and by August was seeking authority to enter exclusive negotiations.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
17 Those facts lead to questions that should be answered with records, not public-relations language. Who wrote the March amendments? Who requested the repeal of §2.24.230? What was the stated policy reason for eliminating the Civic-specific competitive requirement? Why was property disposition expressly brought within Chapter 2.24 while the resulting Procurement Policy omitted a corresponding competitive procedure? When did the first Civic conversation with AEG occur? Who participated? What work was performed pursuant to the Council’s October order to assess highest and best use? Why was a future RFP described on July 1 if the administration was following a different process? And what comparative analysis, if any, preceded the decision to approach AEG alone?
This is not merely a dispute over which company gets to negotiate over an old auditorium.

Chapter 2.24 governs much more than the Civic. If the City’s interpretation is that “disposition of property” belongs within its procurement authority but competitive procedures need not exist for selecting the private party with whom the City negotiates, then the implications reach across Santa Monica’s portfolio of public land.

The most important feature of this story may therefore be the simplest one: the rule that is missing.

The Council deliberately wrote property disposition into the procurement law. It deliberately repealed the Civic-specific competitive provision. It deliberately delegated implementation of the procurement framework to the City Manager. The resulting policy contains elaborate rules for other categories of City business but no comparable competitive real-estate disposition process. Months later, that absence became part of City Hall’s justification for proceeding exclusively with AEG.

The documents needed to explain how and why that happened should exist in Santa Monica’s own files.

The public should see them.

This keeps the necessary distinction between what the documents establish and what remains to be discovered, but removes the paragraphs that were effectively constructing alternative justifications for the Council.

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]
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
18 www.seedlings.vc
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
19 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 6:38 PM
To: [email protected]; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Finance Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James; Sandra Santiago; Sergio Ramirez; Lisa Parson; Lauren Howland; Melissa Spagnuolo; Attorney Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Santa Monica Civic — Confidential Reporting and Whistleblower Options

EXTERNAL
Subject: Information Regarding the Santa Monica Civic — Confidential Reporting and Whistleblower Options
I am seeking information from current or former City employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, or others with first-hand knowledge concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, the City’s dealings with AEG/Goldenvoice, the procurement-policy changes adopted in 2026, or related actions by City staff or members of the City Council.

Relevant information could include documents, emails, text messages, calendar entries, meeting invitations, drafts, site-access or tour records, internal procurement or legal analyses, instructions from supervisors or Councilmembers, communications with AEG/Goldenvoice, or information concerning when decisions were made and who participated.

If you have information but are concerned about retaliation or disclosure of your identity, there are several possible routes. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division accepts written complaints concerning alleged misconduct by public officials or employees and Brown Act violations; its published process states that submissions may be anonymous if accompanied by supporting evidence. The City of Santa Monica also maintains a 24-hour Ethics Hotline for possible ethical violations by City staff at (844) 476-3844 and through its online reporting system.

For matters involving financial conflicts of interest, Government Code §1090, campaign reporting, gifts, or other Political Reform Act issues, the California Fair Political Practices Commission accepts complaints through its electronic system. The FPPC specifically permits anonymous complaints and advises anonymous filers to remove identifying information and metadata from documents if they wish to protect their identities.

You may also consult an independent attorney before disclosing information if you want advice concerning whistleblower protections, confidentiality, employment consequences, privileges, or the safest method of preserving and providing records.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
20 If you choose to contact me directly, please tell me at the outset if you are requesting confidentiality. I will treat requests for confidentiality seriously, but I do not want to promise legal privilege or absolute anonymity that I may not have the legal ability to guarantee. You are also welcome to provide information without asking me to identify you publicly.

Please do not remove, alter, destroy, or access records you are not lawfully authorized to possess or access. Preserve original documents and electronic records in their original form where possible, including dates, headers, attachments, and metadata. If you are uncertain whether you are permitted to disclose particular material—especially attorney-client, personnel, closed-session, or otherwise protected records—consider obtaining independent legal advice before transmitting it.

I am particularly interested in first-hand information concerning when the Civic relationship with AEG/Goldenvoice began; any tours, walkthroughs, site access, plans or technical materials provided before the public announcement; the drafting and implementation of the March 2026 Chapter 2.24 changes and July Procurement Policy; internal discussions concerning competition or exceptions; and the development of the Civic ENA before and after the July 14 closed session.

The purpose is to establish an accurate documentary record. Information that supports the City’s decisions is just as important as information that raises concerns.

Thank you,
Joseph DiRosa
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 Sep 15, 2026, at 1:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
21 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DID SANTA MONICA CHANGE THE RULES BEFORE
GIVING AEG AN INSIDE TRACK?
Lawsuit Raises a Bigger Question: Did City Hall Change the Law in 2026 in a Way That Made It Easier to Dispose of Santa Monica's Public Real Estate? SANTA MONICA, Calif. — September 15, 2026 — A lawsuit challenging Santa Monica's exclusive negotiations with AEG Presents and Goldenvoice over the historic Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is raising a question that reaches far beyond one building:

Did the Santa Monica City Council change its laws in March 2026 in a way that made it easier to dispose of City-owned real estate — and, if so, why? That question is emerging from DiRosa v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26SMCP00435, brought by Joseph DiRosa following the City's decision to pursue exclusive negotiations with AEG/Goldenvoice over the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.

The case challenges the process surrounding those negotiations. But the chronology raises a broader issue that deserves public scrutiny.

In March 2026, the Santa Monica City Council amended its municipal procurement framework to expressly place the disposition of real property within procurement authority delegated to City Manager Oliver Chi, who was charged with establishing the City's procurement policy.

Yet the resulting procurement policy, DiRosa contends, established no comparable competitive procedure governing the disposition of City real estate.

That raises an extraordinary question:

Did Santa Monica create authority to govern the disposition of public property — and then leave out the rules governing how that property must actually be offered, competed for, or disposed of?
And if so:

What prevents City Hall from choosing who gets access to Santa Monica's most valuable public properties without an open competitive process?

THE CIVIC AUDITORIUM MAY BE THE TEST CASE
The controversy is no longer hypothetical.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
22 Months after the March 2026 action, Santa Monica moved toward an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AEG Presents/Goldenvoice concerning the landmark Civic Auditorium.

DiRosa had separately proposed the Santa Monica Global Conference Center (SMGCC), involving a concept developed with internationally renowned architecture firm Morphosis, and had advocated for an open process in which competing visions for the property could be evaluated.

Instead, the City pursued exclusive negotiations with AEG/Goldenvoice.

The lawsuit asks the Superior Court to examine the legality of that process and the governmental actions surrounding it.

But the implications potentially extend to every piece of real estate owned by the people of Santa Monica.

QUESTIONS THE PUBLIC DESERVES ANSWERED
The litigation and surrounding public record raise questions that reporters, taxpayers and residents can examine for themselves:

Why did the City Council expressly add disposition of real property to the City's procurement framework in March 2026?
Why does the resulting procurement policy allegedly contain no meaningful competitive procedure for disposing of City real estate? When did discussions between the City and AEG/Goldenvoice concerning the Civic actually begin?
Were those discussions underway before or during the changes to Santa Monica's procurement laws and policies?
Why wasn't the Civic opened to competing proposals before the City selected AEG/Goldenvoice for exclusive negotiations?
Did the 2026 changes merely modernize City procurement — or did they create a pathway through which valuable public property could be negotiated away without meaningful competition?
And perhaps most importantly:

IF THE CITY CAN DO THIS WITH THE CIVIC AUDITORIUM, WHAT OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY CAN IT DO IT WITH?
“These questions are bigger than my proposal and bigger than AEG,” said Joseph DiRosa, petitioner in the case. “The public deserves to know when this relationship began, why the rules changed, what safeguards exist for public property, and whether every qualified party Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
23 was given a fair opportunity to compete. The Civic Auditorium belongs to Santa Monica.

The process used to determine its future should withstand public scrutiny.” THE DOCUMENTS ARE PUBLIC — READ THEM
DiRosa is making the underlying materials available so journalists do not have to rely solely on allegations or competing press statements.

A redacted media version of the most recent court filings, exhibits and supporting materials is available for press review.

The media page also collects independent reporting concerning DiRosa, the Civic Auditorium dispute and the SMGCC proposal, including coverage from:

Santa Monica Daily Press
Santa Monica Observer
Santa Monica Sun
Press coverage and the redacted case materials are available at:

SMGCC.info/news
Case: DiRosa v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

Los Angeles County Superior Court
Santa Monica Courthouse
Case No. 26SMCP00435

ABOUT THE CASE
The lawsuit challenges governmental actions surrounding Santa Monica's pursuit of exclusive negotiations with AEG Presents/Goldenvoice for the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. DiRosa has proposed an alternative conference-center concept and contends that the City's process deprived competing proposals and the public of a lawful, transparent and competitive process.

The allegations remain subject to adjudication. The lawsuit asks the court to determine the legal issues; this release does not presume the court's ultimate findings.

MEDIA CONTACT
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.

Media materials, coverage and redacted court documents: SMGCC.info/news Sincerely,
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
24 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 Sep 5, 2026, at 1:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:

THE CITY WAS NOTIFIED EIGHT TIMES—DON’T ACCEPT ITS PR
NARRATIVE AT FACE VALUE The City of Santa Monica may portray its proposed exclusive agreement with AEG/Goldenvoice for the Civic Auditorium as routine, transparent and unopposed. The documented record—and the City’s own legal obligations—tell a different story. City officials received eight notices: August 5 — Written objection. The City was formally warned about the proposed exclusive arrangement before proceeding. August 10 — Oaks Initiative notice. The City was notified of concerns about the required disclosure of AEG/Goldenvoice’s officers, directors and individuals holding more than a 10% financial interest before receiving a qualifying public benefit. August 10 — Formal procurement protest. Santa Monica Municipal Code §2.24.110 says that once a qualifying protest is filed, “no solicitation shall be awarded” until a final determination is issued. It also requires the City Manager or designee to issue a written decision, with reasons, within 10 days. August 12 — Warning delivered before the City Council vote. The Council was expressly informed of the procurement and disclosure objections before voting, but proceeded without first resolving them. August 13 — Written addendum and supporting record. Additional facts and legal grounds were submitted, further documenting that the objections were not vague or merely political. August 21 — Demand for the overdue procurement determination. After the 10-day period passed without the required written decision, the City was formally reminded of its obligation. If the City contends §2.24.110 does not apply, it should explain that position in writing—not simply ignore the protest. August 26 — Formal Brown Act complaint. The City was notified that its closed-session and open-session procedures were being challenged. This notice did not automatically stay the agreement, but it placed officials on notice of alleged opengovernment violations before any further implementation. August 30 — Statutory Cure and Correct demand. California Government Code Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
25 §54960.1 gives the City 30 days after receiving the demand to cure or correct the challenged action or provide written notice that it refuses to do so. The demand does not automatically invalidate the vote, but it is a mandatory step toward asking a court to declare the action null and void.

The City cannot credibly claim it did not know about these objections. It received repeated written notice, including notice before the Council vote.

The strongest immediate contracting restriction comes from the procurement protest: if §2.24.110 applies, the City could not award the challenged solicitation until issuing its final determination. The City may dispute whether the AEG process qualifies as a procurement or solicitation—but that is now one of the central questions before the court.

A civil case has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court challenging the City’s actions. Filing a case does not prove the allegations, and it does not by itself stop the agreement unless the court issues an injunction. But it does mean the City’s carefully managed public-relations narrative is not the final word. Residents should examine the eight notices, the City’s own procurement code and the court filing. Santa Monica deserves facts, transparency and lawful process—not propaganda. Sources: Santa Monica Municipal Code §2.24.110: https://ecode360.com/42719200 California Government Code §54960.1: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ 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 Sep 3, 2026, at 12:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Santa Monica’s mayoral rotation has a glaring flaw.

Under City Charter §604 and Council Resolution 11547, the City Council selects the mayor from among its own
members—but the rules do not prevent a councilmember from Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
26 serving as Mayor while simultaneously running for reelection to the Council.

That should change.

The office of Mayor comes with heightened visibility,
ceremonial authority, media exposure, agenda-setting
influence, and the ability to speak for the City at public events.

During an election year, those advantages can blur the line between official City leadership and campaigning for
another term.

No sitting councilmember who is actively seeking re-election should be allowed to serve as Mayor during that election cycle.

This is not about one individual. It is about basic fairness.

The mayor’s office should not become an incumbency
advantage paid for by the prestige and visibility of City government.

Santa Monica should amend its Council rules so that any councilmember up for re-election is temporarily ineligible to serve as Mayor until the election is over.

Public office should not double as a campaign platform.

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 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
27 David Yakobson
From: John Alle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2026 8:17 AM
To: Santa Monica Coalition

EXTERNAL
Another Summer has come and gone in Santa Monica. Theft and arrests have increased. Retail sales on 3rd Street Promenade have decreased. Tourism and hotel occupancy are down. Horror movies play out in the 3 Downtown parks day and night, as the Venice Family Clinic continues to hand out drug paraphernalia. City Attorney, City Manager and EVERY Council Member look the other way and continue shelling out homeless grant money. Hallmarks of success for City Staff and its nonprofits.

Insta
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdbtPkYAD_b/
YouTube
https://youtu.be/qOsJrydl9nQ
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
28 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2026 11:50 AM
To: [email protected]; Shawn Landres; Nina Fresco; Jim Ries; Josh Hamilton; Leslie Lambert; Peer Chacko; Jacob Wasserman; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Finance Mailbox
Cc: councilmtgitems; Jennifer Taylor; Oliver Chi; Susan Cline; Peter James; Sandra Santiago; Sergio Ramirez; Lisa Parson; Lauren Howland; Melissa Spagnuolo; Attorney Mailbox; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Press Release: Santa Monica Quietly Eliminated Five-Vote Safeguard for Selling City Property
Attachments: City Council Release.pdf

EXTERNAL

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Santa Monica Quietly Eliminated Five-Vote
Safeguard for Selling City Property
Consent-calendar ordinance described as routine “modernization” erased supermajority, public-notice and competitive-sale protections without identifying those consequences on the agenda
SANTA MONICA, Calif., September 19, 2026 — A review of Santa Monica’s Municipal Code before and after the City Council’s March 10 adoption of Ordinance 2849 reveals that the Council eliminated a longstanding requirement that the sale of City-owned real property receive at least five affirmative votes.

The repeal was not identified in the agenda title, the recommended Council action or the public minutes.

The public was never plainly told that the supermajority requirement—and the accompanying publicsale protections—were being erased.” What the Council eliminated
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
29 Former Santa Monica Municipal Code §2.24.230 required:
 Five affirmative Council votes for every final sale of City-owned real property.  Five affirmative votes for a broker-negotiated sale.
 Five affirmative votes for a sale conducted without publication.  Public findings that the property was no longer needed for its original or another public purpose.  Published notice of the proposed sale.
 A designated competitive-sale process.

Ordinance 2849 replaced Chapter 2.24 “in its entirety.” The rewritten chapter ends at §2.24.110. Former §2.24.230—and every one of those explicit protections—disappeared.

No equivalent five-vote requirement appears in the current Chapter 2.24.

The new code instead moves approval thresholds and competitive procedures into an annually adopted Procurement Policy prepared by the City Manager. It also authorizes the City Manager or a designee to enter agreements to rent, lease or license real property within thresholds established by that policy. “The Council did not merely update purchasing rules,” DiRosa said. “It removed a code-level safeguard governing the sale of public land and shifted substantial authority into an administrative procurement system.”
What the agenda failed to disclose
The February 24 agenda described the item as:
“Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, Purchasing System, to Modernize the City’s Policies, Practices and Procedures.”
Neither that title nor the recommended actions disclosed that the ordinance would repeal:
 The five-vote requirement for selling City property.
 Mandatory findings concerning continued public need.
 Published notice requirements.
 The former competitive-sale procedures.

The full replacement language was placed in the supporting material, meaning a resident would have needed to conduct a line-by-line comparison against the existing Municipal Code to discover what was being removed.

The first reading passed 7–0. Final adoption on March 10 passed 6–0, with one Councilmember absent.

Therefore, the ordinance itself received more than five votes—but future property sales no longer carry the former express five-vote protection in Chapter 2.24.

California law and potential consequences
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
30 California’s Brown Act, Government Code §54954.2, requires a posted agenda to contain a brief general description of every item of business to be transacted or discussed.

Describing an ordinance only as procurement “modernization,” while failing to identify its repeal of a supermajority requirement protecting publicly owned real estate, raises a serious question about whether the agenda gave residents meaningful notice of the action being taken.

Potential Brown Act remedies include:
 Injunction or declaratory relief: Under Government Code §54960, an interested person or district attorney may seek a court order stopping or preventing violations or determining whether past, ongoing or threatened actions violate the Brown Act.  Invalidation of government action: Government Code §54960.1 permits courts, in qualifying and timely cases, to declare an action null and void following the required cure-and-correct process.

Strict statutory deadlines apply.
 Criminal misdemeanor liability: Under Government Code §54959, a Councilmember may face misdemeanor liability when the member attends a meeting where action is taken in violation of the Brown Act and intends to deprive the public of information the member knows—or has reason to know—the public is legally entitled to receive.
 Possible misdemeanor punishment: Where no different punishment is specified, California Penal Code §19provides for up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

No criminal finding has been made. Criminal liability would require evidence of the specific intent required by §54959. Removing the five-vote rule is not itself a crime; the legal issue is whether officials deliberately deprived the public of legally required notice or information.

Immediate public review demanded
DiRosa is calling on the City to:

1. Publicly explain why former §2.24.230 was eliminated.

2. Identify who proposed removing the five-vote requirement.

3. Release all drafts, redlines, emails and legal memoranda concerning the rewrite.

4. Identify every City property affected by or evaluated under the new framework.

5. Restore the five-vote requirement through a publicly noticed ordinance.

6. Place any future sale, lease or major disposition of the Civic Auditorium and other significant public properties before the Council as a separately noticed public item.

The discovery is particularly significant because the City is now negotiating with AEG concerning the publicly owned Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Although an exclusive negotiating agreement is not itself a final sale, the March rewrite removed safeguards that would have governed an eventual sale and expanded administrative authority over leases and licenses. “This Council knew the value of Santa Monica’s public real estate,” DiRosa said. “If it believed the fivevote protection was outdated, it should have said so in public, placed the repeal plainly on the agenda and defended that decision in an open hearing. It did none of those things.” Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
31 The issue adds to the questions raised in DiRosa v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26SMCP00435, concerning transparency, competitive access and the City’s negotiations over the Civic Auditorium. The claims remain pending and have not been finally adjudicated.

Media Contact:

Joe DiRosa
[EMAIL ADDRESS]
Source Documents:
 Santa Monica Ordinance 2849
 Current Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24
 California Government Code §54954.2
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 Sep 17, 2026, at 6:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Subject: Information Regarding the Santa Monica Civic — Confidential Reporting and Whistleblower Options
I am seeking information from current or former City employees, contractors, consultants, vendors, or others with first-hand knowledge concerning the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, the City’s dealings with AEG/Goldenvoice, the procurement-policy changes adopted in 2026, or related actions by City staff or members of the City Council.

Relevant information could include documents, emails, text messages, calendar entries, meeting invitations, drafts, site-access or tour records, internal procurement or legal analyses, instructions from supervisors or Councilmembers, communications with Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
32 AEG/Goldenvoice, or information concerning when decisions were made and who participated.

If you choose to contact me directly, please tell me at the outset if you are requesting confidentiality. I will treat requests for confidentiality seriously, but I do not want to promise legal privilege or absolute anonymity that I may not have the legal ability to guarantee. You are also welcome to provide information without asking me to identify you publicly.

Please do not remove, alter, destroy, or access records you are not lawfully authorized to possess or access. Preserve original documents and electronic records in their original form where possible, including dates, headers, attachments, and metadata. If you are uncertain whether you are permitted to disclose particular material—especially attorneyclient, personnel, closed-session, or otherwise protected records—consider obtaining independent legal advice before transmitting it.

The purpose is to establish an accurate documentary record. Information that supports the City’s decisions is just as important as information that raises concerns.

Thank you,
Joseph DiRosa
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
33 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 Sep 15, 2026, at 1:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DID SANTA MONICA CHANGE THE RULES
BEFORE GIVING AEG AN INSIDE TRACK?
Lawsuit Raises a Bigger Question: Did City Hall Change the Law in 2026 in a Way That Made It Easier to Dispose of Santa Monica's Public Real Estate?
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — September 15, 2026 — A lawsuit challenging Santa Monica's exclusive negotiations with AEG Presents and Goldenvoice over the historic Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is raising a question that reaches far beyond one building:

Did the Santa Monica City Council change its laws in March 2026 in a way that made it easier to dispose of City-owned real estate — and, if so, why?
That question is emerging from DiRosa v. City of Santa Monica, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26SMCP00435, brought by Joseph Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
34 DiRosa following the City's decision to pursue exclusive negotiations with AEG/Goldenvoice over the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.

The case challenges the process surrounding those negotiations. But the chronology raises a broader issue that deserves public scrutiny.

Yet the resulting procurement policy, DiRosa contends, established no comparable competitive procedure governing the disposition of City real estate.

That raises an extraordinary question:

What prevents City Hall from choosing who gets access to Santa Monica's most valuable public properties without an open competitive process?

THE CIVIC AUDITORIUM MAY BE THE TEST CASE
The controversy is no longer hypothetical.

Months after the March 2026 action, Santa Monica moved toward an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with AEG
Presents/Goldenvoice concerning the landmark Civic Auditorium.

Instead, the City pursued exclusive negotiations with AEG/Goldenvoice.

The lawsuit asks the Superior Court to examine the legality of that process and the governmental actions surrounding it.

But the implications potentially extend to every piece of real estate owned by the people of Santa Monica.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
35 QUESTIONS THE PUBLIC DESERVES ANSWERED
The litigation and surrounding public record raise questions that reporters, taxpayers and residents can examine for themselves:

IF THE CITY CAN DO THIS WITH THE CIVIC AUDITORIUM, WHAT OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY CAN IT DO IT WITH?
“These questions are bigger than my proposal and bigger than AEG,” said Joseph DiRosa, petitioner in the case. “The public deserves to know when this relationship began, why the rules changed, what safeguards exist for public property, and whether every qualified party was given a fair opportunity to compete. The Civic Auditorium belongs to Santa Monica. The process used to determine its future should withstand public scrutiny.” THE DOCUMENTS ARE PUBLIC — READ THEM
DiRosa is making the underlying materials available so journalists do not have to rely solely on allegations or competing press statements.

A redacted media version of the most recent court filings, exhibits and supporting materials is available for press review.

The media page also collects independent reporting concerning DiRosa, the Civic Auditorium dispute and the SMGCC proposal, including coverage from:

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
36 Santa Monica Daily Press
Santa Monica Observer
Santa Monica Sun
Press coverage and the redacted case materials are available at:

SMGCC.info/news
Case: DiRosa v. City of Santa Monica, et al.

Los Angeles County Superior Court
Santa Monica Courthouse
Case No. 26SMCP00435

The allegations remain subject to adjudication. The lawsuit asks the court to determine the legal issues; this release does not presume the court's ultimate findings.

MEDIA CONTACT
Joseph DiRosa
Seedlings Inc.

Media materials, coverage and redacted court
documents: SMGCC.info/news
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 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
37 On Sep 5, 2026, at 1:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:

August 12 — Warning delivered before the City Council vote.

The Council was expressly informed of the procurement and disclosure objections before voting, but proceeded without first resolving them. August 13 — Written addendum and
supporting record. Additional facts and legal grounds were submitted, further documenting that the objections were not vague or merely political. August 21 — Demand for the
overdue procurement determination. After the 10-day period passed without the required written decision, the City was formally reminded of its obligation. If the City contends §2.24.110 does not apply, it should explain that position in writing—not simply ignore the protest. August 26 — Formal Brown Act complaint. The City was notified that its closedsession and open-session procedures were being challenged. This notice did not automatically stay the
agreement, but it placed officials on notice of alleged opengovernment violations before any further implementation.

August 30 — Statutory Cure and Correct demand. California Government Code §54960.1 gives the City 30 days after
receiving the demand to cure or correct the challenged
action or provide written notice that it refuses to do so. The demand does not automatically invalidate the vote, but it is a mandatory step toward asking a court to declare the action null and void. The City cannot credibly claim it did not know Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
38 about these objections. It received repeated written notice, including notice before the Council vote. The strongest immediate contracting restriction comes from the
procurement protest: if §2.24.110 applies, the City could not award the challenged solicitation until issuing its final determination. The City may dispute whether the AEG
process qualifies as a procurement or solicitation—but that is now one of the central questions before the court. A civil case has been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
challenging the City’s actions. Filing a case does not prove the allegations, and it does not by itself stop the agreement unless the court issues an injunction. But it does mean the City’s carefully managed public-relations narrative is not the final word. Residents should examine the eight notices, the City’s own procurement code and the court filing. Santa Monica deserves facts, transparency and lawful process— not propaganda. Sources: Santa Monica Municipal Code
§2.24.110: https://ecode360.com/42719200 California
Government Code §54960.1:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
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 Sep 3, 2026, at 12:29 AM, [email protected]
wrote:

Santa Monica’s mayoral rotation has a glaring
flaw.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
39 Under City Charter §604 and Council Resolution
11547, the City Council selects the mayor from
among its own members—but the rules do not
prevent a councilmember from serving as Mayor
while simultaneously running for re-election
to the Council.

That should change.

The office of Mayor comes with heightened
visibility, ceremonial authority, media exposure,
agenda-setting influence, and the ability to
speak for the City at public events. During an
election year, those advantages can blur the line
between official City leadership and
campaigning for another term.

No sitting councilmember who is actively
seeking re-election should be allowed to serve
as Mayor during that election cycle.

This is not about one individual. It is about basic
fairness.

The mayor’s office should not become an
incumbency advantage paid for by the
prestige and visibility of City government.

Santa Monica should amend its Council rules so
that any councilmember up for re-election is
temporarily ineligible to serve as Mayor until the
election is over.

Public office should not double as a campaign
platform.

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
(213-782-4
joe@seedlin
www.seedli
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026

The repeal was not identified in the agenda title, the recommended Council action or the public minutes.

Instead, the public was told that the Council was considering an ordinance to “modernize the City’s procurement policies, practices and procedures.” The ordinance was introduced on the February 24 consent calendar and approved without being separately pulled for public discussion.
“This was not routine administrative cleanup,” said Santa Monica resident and litigant Joe DiRosa. “The Council removed a five-vote lock protecting public property and called it procurement modernization. The public was never plainly told that the supermajority requirement—and the accompanying public-sale protections—were being erased.” What the Council eliminated
Former Santa Monica Municipal Code §2.24.230 required:
● Five affirmative Council votes for every final sale of City-owned real property. ● Five affirmative votes for a broker-negotiated sale.
● Five affirmative votes for a sale conducted without publication. ● Public findings that the property was no longer needed for its original or another public purpose.
● Published notice of the proposed sale.
● A designated competitive-sale process.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Ordinance 2849 replaced Chapter 2.24 “in its entirety.” The rewritten chapter ends at §2.24.110.

Former §2.24.230—and every one of those explicit protections—disappeared.

No equivalent five-vote requirement appears in the current Chapter 2.24.

The new code instead moves approval thresholds and competitive procedures into an annually adopted Procurement Policy prepared by the City Manager. It also authorizes the City Manager or a designee to enter agreements to rent, lease or license real property within thresholds established by that policy.
“The Council did not merely update purchasing rules,” DiRosa said. “It removed a code-level safeguard governing the sale of public land and shifted substantial authority into an administrative procurement system.”
What the agenda failed to disclose
The February 24 agenda described the item as:
“Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, Purchasing System, to Modernize the City’s Policies, Practices and Procedures.”
Neither that title nor the recommended actions disclosed that the ordinance would repeal:
● The five-vote requirement for selling City property.
● Mandatory findings concerning continued public need.
● Published notice requirements.
● The former competitive-sale procedures.

The first reading passed 7–0. Final adoption on March 10 passed 6–0, with one Councilmember absent. Therefore, the ordinance itself received more than five votes—but future property sales no longer carry the former express five-vote protection in Chapter 2.24.

California law and potential consequences
California’s Brown Act, Government Code §54954.2, requires a posted agenda to contain a brief general description of every item of business to be transacted or discussed.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Potential Brown Act remedies include:
● Injunction or declaratory relief: Under Government Code §54960, an interested person or district attorney may seek a court order stopping or preventing violations or determining whether past, ongoing or threatened actions violate the Brown Act. ● Invalidation of government action: Government Code §54960.1 permits courts, in qualifying and timely cases, to declare an action null and void following the required cure-and-correct process. Strict statutory deadlines apply. ● Criminal misdemeanor liability: Under Government Code §54959, a Councilmember may face misdemeanor liability when the member attends a meeting where action is taken in violation of the Brown Act and intends to deprive the public of information the member knows—or has reason to know—the public is legally entitled to receive. ● Possible misdemeanor punishment: Where no different punishment is specified, California Penal Code §19 provides for up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.

Immediate public review demanded
DiRosa is calling on the City to:

1. Publicly explain why former §2.24.230 was eliminated.

2. Identify who proposed removing the five-vote requirement.

3. Release all drafts, redlines, emails and legal memoranda concerning the rewrite.

4. Identify every City property affected by or evaluated under the new framework.

5. Restore the five-vote requirement through a publicly noticed ordinance.

6. Place any future sale, lease or major disposition of the Civic Auditorium and other significant public properties before the Council as a separately noticed public item.

The discovery is particularly significant because the City is now negotiating with AEG concerning the publicly owned Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Although an exclusive negotiating agreement is not itself a final sale, the March rewrite removed safeguards that would have governed an eventual sale and expanded administrative authority over leases and licenses.
“This Council knew the value of Santa Monica’s public real estate,” DiRosa said. “If it believed the five-vote protection was outdated, it should have said so in public, placed the repeal plainly on the agenda and defended that decision in an open hearing. It did none of those things.” The issue adds to the questions raised in DiRosa v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 26SMCP00435, concerning transparency, competitive access and Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
the City’s negotiations over the Civic Auditorium. The claims remain pending and have not been finally adjudicated.

Media Contact:

Joe DiRosa
[email protected]
Source Documents:
● Santa Monica Ordinance 2849
● Current Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24
● California Government Code §54954.2
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: mark susser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2026 12:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: DEVELOPER STREET SWEEPER TRUCK PASSING IN FRONT OF DOUGLAS PARK PLAYGOUND ALL DAY!

EXTERNAL
To City Council Members,
There is a dangerous situation occurring every day (Monday-Friday) between the hours of 8am- 5 PM in front of the Douglass Park Playground.

While the neighborhood adjacent to the development at Wilshire Blvd and 26th Street is grateful for the effort to help keep streets clean during this stressful time, there is a very dangerous situation on-going during this development. And its happening right now! As graphically shown below: A developer provided 10,000 lbs street sweeper truck is rounding Douglas Park IN FRONT OF A PLAYGROUND OVER 100 TIMES A DAY (EVERY FOUR (4) MINUTES, EIGHT (8) HOURS A DAY, EVERY DAY!) THIS IS A DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN AND IT NEEDS TO END NOW.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
2 How long are you going to let this situation continue? Until someone's child is run over? Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 10:35 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Oliver Chi; Nia Tang
Cc: Jenny Rogers; Tony Lopez; Micah Akerson; Noe Mendoza; Sonam Makker; Matthew Goldenberg; Karen Melick; Maryanne LaGuardia; Barry Rosenbaum Subject: Rec & Parks Commission Follow-Up to September 8 Trapeze School Vote Attachments: 0922-RPC-Letter-On-Trapeze-School.pdf
Esteemed Councilmembers, please find the attached letter from the Recreation & Parks Commission in response to Council’s September 8 Consent Calendar vote.

Thank you.

Steven Johnson
Chair, Recreation & Parks Commission
City of Santa Monica
(310) 429-0475

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Tuesday, September 22, 2026
Re: Stop Execution of Trapeze School Agreement to Address Potential Non-Compliance with Zoning Laws Dear Mayor Torosis, City Council members, Oliver Chi and Nia Tang, The Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC) values the advisory role to the Council and City Staff as specified in the City Charter. We welcome the opportunity to advise on matters that affect our parks and recreation, and provide the following advice regarding moving the Trapeze School to Clover Park.

At our regularly scheduled September 17, 2026, RPC meeting, we reviewed the public information regarding proposed agreement between the City and the Trapeze School at Clover Park. Significant issues were identified. Commissioner Rosenbaum, who was the City’s Senior Land Use Attorney for 19 years, stated that he believes this agreement is in violation of the City’s Zoning laws for parks and open space. The experience and knowledge of the RPC commissioners to identify this critical issue is why this should have been reviewed by the RPC before the Council voted to approve the agreement.

Potential Compliance Issues with Santa Monica’s Parks and Open Space Zoning Laws Santa Monica’s Planning and Zoning ordinance for Public and Semi-Public districts, Article 9.15.020 Land Use Regulations, says that commercial uses in parks and open space for commercial, entertainment, and recreation are not permitted except for minor use permits for cinemas/ theaters. The zoning law also prohibits food and beverage sales, except as part of a full-service or limited-service restaurant in parks and open spaces. The building height limitation is 20 feet, yet the Trapeze School will be 40 feet high. We ask that the City Attorney review and determine whether entering into this agreement complies with the zoning laws for parks and open space before execution.

Process for Leasing/Licensing of Public Property was not Followed The standard process for leasing/licensing of public property was not followed for this project, possibly due to the threat of legal action, even though the grounds for suing are questionable. This process did not include an open and competitive process; the pricing does not reflect fair market value; nor was there a determination of compatibility that supports a harmonious, attractive, safe, and accessible environment. $4000/month comes out to $9.50 per hour for a 120 ft by 60 ft space using the stated operating hours of 8am-10pm in the staff report. Residents are charged $20/hour and non-residents $30/hour to rent the adjacent picnic areas that are similar or smaller in size. The City standard is for commercial rates to be higher, even double or quadruple the resident rates. This base licensing fee does not appear to be a fair market value for the opportunity.

Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Incomplete Financial Analysis
The Staff report’s financial analysis only lists the annual licensing revenue to the City. There is no mention of the cost to remove the trailers, which likely will far exceed $48,000 of the first year's revenues. This will negatively impact this year’s budget. Despite the agreement including the City getting 8% of the concessions revenues, there’s no estimate as to what that will be.

Determination of How the School will be Located at Clover Park The site plan for the trailer area or any other area, including the total footprint, fencing, lighting, and tree impacts, should be publicly released along with the terms of the agreement. Considering that the size of the trailer area is only 80 feet long, and the school has said it requires 120 feet long, how will this school fit in the area without disruption to the trees and open areas. The public has a right to know. How will it be compatible with the adjacent picnic areas? A Publicly Noticed Neighborhood Meeting
Because this appears to not comply with the current zoning laws for parks, if the City wishes to move forward on this, a publicly noticed neighborhood meeting addressing the issues should be held.

The City needs to immediately stop the execution and implementation of this agreement to address these issues.

We raise these concerns as a partner and look forward to working with the Council and City Staff to build and maintain great parks for our community. We hope matters like this will come to the Commission early, where our advisory role can add the most value.

Sincerely,
The Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Karen Melick, Vice-Chair
Maryanne La Guardia
Barry Rosenbaum
Sonam Makker
Matthew Goldenberg
cc: Jenny Rogers, Tony Lopez
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Clarence McDowell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 11:46 AM
To: Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc: Oliver Chi; Heidi von Tongeln; Jing Yeo; Caroline Torosis; Daniel Mick; Denise McGranahan; Brigette Garay
Subject: Public Comment Handout for September 22, 2026 Council Meeting — HD-11536 / Case No. 25-COM-1682 / Permit No. 26BLD-0578 — Request for Inclusion in the Meeting Record
Attachments: Council_Handout_Timeline_CodeCitation_092226.pdf

EXTERNAL
Dear City Clerk,
Attached is a handout "Timeline & Governing Code — HD-11536 Comparability Appeal" that we are presenting in connection with our public comment at tonight's City Council meeting, September 22, 2026.

The handout sets out the dated procedural history of our pending administrative appeal (filed July 22, 2026), the Santa Monica Municipal Code section governing the right to a hearing on a relocation-benefits determination SMMC § 4.36.100(i)–(j) and the case-duration figures we referenced in our remarks. These figures include the bewildering fact that 215 days have now passed since Habitability Determination HD11536 was issued on February 19, 2026. Today, the unit remains uninhabitable, with zero additional code enforcement citations issued against the landlord since that date.

We respectfully request that this handout be:

1. distributed to the Mayor and Councilmembers this evening as a companion document to our oral public comment; and

2. entered into and retained as part of the official record and minutes for tonight's meeting, consistent with the City's practice for public comment handouts.

This submission is made for the record in Case No. 25-COM-1682, HD-11536, Permit No. 26BLD-0578, and Stop Work Order CESWO-1153, and incorporates by reference all prior correspondence, claims, and reservations of rights on file with the City, including our September 19, 2026 Final Demand for a Signed, Written Determination.

Please confirm receipt and inclusion in the record. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
Clarence & Victoria McDowell
1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405
[email protected]
Attachment: Council_Handout_Timeline_CodeCitation_092226 (Timeline & Governing Code — HD-11536 Comparability Appeal)
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Timeline & Governing Code — HD-11536
Comparability Appeal
Clarence & Victoria McDowell · 1011 Pico Blvd., Unit 7, Santa Monica, CA 90405 Case No. 25-COM-1682 · HD-11536 · Permit No. 26BLD-0578 · Stop Work Order CESWO-1153 Prepared for: Santa Monica City Council Meeting, September 22, 2026 Case-Duration Snapshot
Metric Figure Basis / source
Days since HD-11536 was
issued mandating per diem
relocation payments until the
order is lifted
215 days (Feb. 19, 2026 -
Sept. 22, 2026)
HD-11536 issuance date
confirmed in case
correspondence (Director
Yeo's Aug. 6, 2026 letter
references the Feb. 19, 2026
order)
Days since Permit No.
26BLD-0578 was issued
149 days (Apr. 27, 2026 -
Sept. 22, 2026)
Permit record on file
(26BLD-0578-PERMIT);
issuance date not yet
confirmed in the excerpts
reviewed — pull the "Issued"
date field from the permit
card before printing
Two Failed inspections on
Permit 26BLD-0578
91 days since 1st failed
inspection on Jun. 24,
2026, 2nd failed inspection
on 9/10/26
At least one failed inspection
is documented (WebPermits
report dated July 27, 2026);
confirm total count from the
full WebPermits inspection
history before printing
Separate 3-Day Notices to
Pay Rent or Quit served in
direct violation of Civil Code
1942.4
2/11, 8/11, 8/22, 9/11/2026 A $24,325 Three-Day Notice
served by Daniel Sloan is
documented in the record
(date recorded inconsistently
across correspondence as
1 Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Metric Figure Basis / source
Aug. 11 and Aug. 21, 2026 —
reconcile against the
certified/served copy before
printing)
Additional code enforcement
citations issued against the
landlord since HD-11536
Zero Per client-confirmed case
status
Timeline of the Pending Administrative Appeal
Date Event
Feb. 19, 2026 Habitability Determination HD-11536 issued, ordering $473/night relocation per diem.

Jul. 22, 2026 Formal Administrative Appeal filed of the Jul. 11 comparability determination (804½ Pacific
Ave., Venice) — timely, within one business
day of the City's disclosure of its analysis.

Jul. 23, 2026 Supplemental Brief filed: the City's own June 15 "Method and Means"/Relocation Plan was
"not submitted … not received … not
approved or distributed" by Building.

Jul. 27, 2026 Chief Deputy City Attorney Ganschow states comparability findings are "not subject to an
administrative appeal" — no code cited.

Citation demanded in writing same day; none
ever provided.

Aug. 6, 2026 Director Yeo confirms in writing: no order lifting HD-11536 ever issued;
relocation-benefit obligation has continued.

Aug. 9, 2026 Renewed Hearing Demand filed under
SMMC § 4.36.100(i)–(j).
2 Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Date Event
Aug. 11/21, 2026 Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit served, demanding $24,325 (date recorded
inconsistently across correspondence —
reconcile before citing in a pleading).

Sept. 3, 2026 Supplement filed: request docket/hearing
number, independent Hearing Examiner, and
confirmation HD-11536 remains operative.

Sept. 8, 2026 Written acknowledgment of Sept. 3
Supplement requested. None received.

Sept. 19, 2026 Final Demand for Signed Written
Determination sent to Chi, Yeo, Mick,
Ganschow. Deadline: 5:00 p.m., Fri., Sept.
25, 2026 — docket & set hearing, or issue
signed determination with legal citation.

Sept. 22, 2026 Tonight. 215 days since HD-11536 issued; 62 days since the appeal was filed — no docket
number, hearing examiner, or determination
issued.

Governing Code — The Right to Appeal
SMMC § 4.36.100(i): "A landlord or tenant who disputes a notice or order regarding temporary relocation benefits may request a hearing pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 6.16.

Any such hearing request shall be filed with the Building Officer within five business days of the notice or order on a form provided by the Building Officer." SMMC § 4.36.100(j): Governs the renewed hearing demand procedure invoked Aug. 9, 2026, following the same request-for-hearing framework as subsection (i).

SMMC § 4.36.010(a): Comparable housing is one component of the relocation benefit determination. No provision of Chapter 4.36 exempts a comparability finding from the §

4.36.100(i)–(j) hearing right.

Contradicted City position: Announcing enforcement outcomes in City of Santa Monica v.

Goldie and City of Santa Monica v. 7th Street Partners, LLC (Bo Drake) (both March 2026), 3 Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Deputy City Attorney Denise McGranahan publicly stated landlords have "a right to appeal a decision by code enforcement," but if they "forego the process or are not successful … they cannot simply refuse to provide the benefit." Chief Deputy City Attorney Ganschow has taken the opposite, uncited position against the McDowells' comparability appeal.

Requested Council action: (1) Direct staff to meet the Sept. 25, 2026 deadline under SMMC §

4.36.100(i)-(j) — docket the pending appeal and set a hearing, or issue a signed, lawful determination; (2) Agendize the closed-session settlement conference already requested under Government Code § 54956.9.

Prepared for the record and for submission to the City Clerk in connection with public comment at the September 22, 2026 Council meeting. All claims, rights, and remedies stated in prior correspondence are expressly reserved.
4 Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Larissa Shadchina 💃 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2026 5:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: Agenda Items : 1, 2,5C September 22 Public Comment

EXTERNAL

PUBLIC COMMENT
( no
Agenda Item 1,2,5.

September 22
Agenda Item 1
affordability what can we do
Agenda Item ,2 Environment
.A
Thanks for gardens and thanks for composting in or town suggest take Compost and a garden to next level - I would like to volunteer.

B I would like promote to do more local composing and local gardening each property Santa Monica possible
C suggest. cover roof roofs with real or fake grass to make our roof‘s beautiful - it’s easily done on new buildings so I can we make all roofs gardens or look green D .

Agenda Item 5 C z‼
Why don’t VAYMO make a RECALL Why can’t they recall the vehicles and silence the sound of the cars arriving to the park silently could solve the issue.

QUESTIONS. ?

1. Re Gardening on residential areas and in Appartement buildings

1. 2 Where is it allowed to donate and plant fruit trees in town in public or private front yard ? Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
2 1. 3 How can we improve gardening? How can we open garden every day not just on once a week occasions ..make more gardens good for food security and good for mental health

1.4. Where can I pick up Extra? Composed Bind and Marketing Materials ?

1.5 how can we make garden in each property and local compost stations I’d like to Volonteer for gardening and compost movements Who do I contact ?
WILL THERE BE DETAILS DISCLOSE ABOUT THESE CONTRACTS?
WHERE ARE THEY REGARDING THE SANTA MONICA CITY SPENDING MONEY To what actual causes ? Special Thanks 뤳륝륟률륡륞
, Santa Monica city organizing compost program I would like to volunteer participate. Who Should I contact and would like to develop gardening and composing and growing food and other productive environment friendly grow trees
the city ideas
Gardening Positive Effects on Physical and Mental Health Warm Wishes
Lala Green
[email protected]
“So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.”
Mark 16:19 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/mrk.16.19.ESV
“And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.]]”
Mark 16:20 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/mrk.16.20.ESV
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026
Item 1-A
September 22, 2026

Santa Monica City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
September 22, 2026