Petition to the Santa Monica City Council

We call on the Santa Monica City Council to immediately restore the five-vote requirement, public-notice protections, public-purpose findings and competitive-sale procedures that formerly governed the sale of City-owned real estate.

On March 10, 2026, the Council adopted Ordinance 2849, replacing Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 in its entirety. The rewritten chapter eliminated former §2.24.230, which required:

At least five affirmative Council votes for the final sale of City-owned real property.
Five votes for broker-negotiated sales.
Five votes for sales conducted without publication.
Public findings that property was no longer needed for its original or another public purpose.
Published notice of a proposed sale.
A defined competitive-sale process.
These were meaningful safeguards protecting property owned by the people of Santa Monica.

The public agenda did not clearly announce their proposed elimination.

The February 24 agenda described Ordinance 2849 simply as an effort to “modernize the City’s procurement policies, practices and procedures.” It did not tell residents that the Council was considering eliminating the five-vote safeguard or the accompanying public-sale protections.

The ordinance was introduced on the consent calendar and was not separately pulled for public discussion. Residents would have needed to compare the proposed replacement ordinance line by line against the former Municipal Code to discover what was disappearing.

That is not meaningful public notice.

Santa Monica Charter §613 requires, to the maximum extent feasible, “timely and adequate notice” of City Council agendas and an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed Council actions.

Regardless of how the courts ultimately resolve the legal questions, the Council should not defend the removal of important public-property safeguards on a technicality. It should bring the issue back in full public view and allow residents to be heard.

This matters now because Santa Monica is negotiating with AEG concerning the publicly owned Civic Auditorium. Although an exclusive negotiating agreement is not itself a final sale, the City should not rely on newly rewritten real-estate rules until residents receive a transparent explanation of what changed, why it changed and who requested the changes.

We demand that the City Council:

Restore the five-vote requirement for the sale of City-owned real property.

Restore the former public-purpose findings, publication requirements and competitive-sale procedures.

Suspend reliance on Ordinance 2849’s new real-property provisions until a properly noticed public hearing is held.

Place the repeal of former §2.24.230 on a separately listed Council agenda that plainly describes every safeguard removed.

Prohibit reliance on the disputed provisions for any Civic Auditorium or AEG transaction until the public process is completed.

Release the drafts, redlines, emails and legal analyses concerning the removal of these protections.
Identify every City-owned property evaluated or affected under the new framework.

Require major sales, leases, licenses and other dispositions of significant public property to receive separate public notice and a recorded Council vote.

Santa Monica’s public property belongs to its residents—not to any individual official, administrator, developer or entertainment company.

If City leaders believe the five-vote requirement and competitive-sale protections should be eliminated, they should say so openly, explain their reasoning and defend the decision before the public.

Public safeguards should never disappear under the label of routine “modernization.”

Sign this petition to demand that the Santa Monica City Council restore these protections and conduct a transparent public hearing before relying on the new rules to negotiate away control of valuable public property.