First, Irvine Councilmember Tammy Kim wanted to continue a special Great Park board meeting to a later date. However, after four hours of public comment and council deliberation, she cast the deciding vote to end Irvine’s agreement with Live Nation to build an amphitheater in the heart of the Great Park.
Kim joined Councilmembers Larry Agran and Kathleen Treseder in throwing out the design, construction and operation agreement with events promoter and venue operator Live Nation Tuesday evening, July 25.
Related: Irvine and Live Nation to hash out Great Park concert venue plans
Instead, City Manager Oliver Chi is now tasked with coming back to the City Council in 90 days with a process and timeline for an amphitheater in the Great Park — to replace the temporary FivePoint amphitheater — that will have up to 10,000 seats and an in-house speaker system with no residential noise impacts.
The new proposed venue will not be managed by one promoter but rather by a third-party operator.
“The city of Irvine does not have a legal agreement with Live Nation,” said Chi. “What we had at this point was council direction to negotiate with them exclusively and that particular process was undone by the council.”
“There is no financial penalty for making that decision,” he added.
Live Nation said in a statement: “As the city continues to debate plans for the permanent amphitheater, we remain committed to supporting live music in Orange County as we have for the last 40 years. At every phase of this process, we have responded diligently to the requests and concerns of council members and staff.”
“We’ve invested in both the temporary amphitheater and in the process to build a permanent amphitheater,” the statement continues. “We will focus on operating FivePoint Amphitheatre for this season and are open to any future discussions to build a permanent amphitheater in Orange County.”
Negotiations between city officials and Live Nation have been ongoing since the council first approved an agreement in September. The size of the amphitheater, noise concerns and revenue split have all been topics of discussion.
Then, earlier this year, the concert promoter proposed an “extensive reconfiguration of the deal,” said Chi. Given the extensive changes to the council-approved agreement, Chi said, city staff could not approve the counter agreement.
Staffers brought a proposal to the council in February, providing an alternative plan for a smaller, city-managed amphitheater. But, despite residents’ outcry, the City Council ultimately voted to continue negotiations with Live Nation. Kim cast the deciding vote then too.
Tuesday’s special meeting was hastily announced on Friday night — and residents during the public comment portion decried having to thumb through the more than 75-pages long proposed agreement over a weekend; the majority spoke out against continuing the partnership with Live Nation.
Union workers, including stagehands and construction crew, spoke in favor of the concert promoter.
Mayor Farrah Khan, who voted against ending the agreement with Councilmember Mike Carroll, said she had heard from residents at town hall meetings who favored Live Nation as a partner. Residents, she said, wanted to enjoy big-name acts in town instead of driving to Los Angeles to enjoy.
“I don’t think we are ready to take a decision,” she said before the council voted 3-2 to end the agreement with Live Nation.
During council deliberations, Agran called the proposed agreement with Live Nation “lopsided.”
Two areas in the proposed agreement he said he was concerned about included the concert ending time of 11 p.m. With alcohol served until closing time, Agran said he worried that concertgoers would drive drunk on city streets.
In the proposed agreement, Live Nation retained naming rights, including all the revenue generated from the sale of naming rights. Agran called this “one-sided.”
Treseder took issue with the proposed agreement’s stipulation that Live Nation will only follow the city’s existing noise ordinance which did not account for dBc levels – the low-frequency vibrations that some residents complain about from concerts. Under the agreement, concerts at the proposed Great Park venue would have been exempt from future noise ordinances.
Kim, who served on the amphitheater subcommittee with Carroll and has been part of negotiations, echoed comments she made previously: that the issue at hand with Live Nation was that it controlled the calendar and acted as a promoter and manager of the venue.
An independent, third-party manager should control the venue, she said, so the amphitheater could host diverse acts.
Camiar Ohadi, a Great Park resident, called the meeting a “wonderful united front by Irvine residents.”
“(Great Park Board) Directors Agran, Kim and Treseder understood the facts of the matter in context of testimony of the residents and voted to reframe the process of bringing the best iteration of a live entertainment amphitheater,” he said.
