Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Julia Wood <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 3:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
My family would love to see an entertainment zone that we can enjoy and would actually bring people from around LA and other cities here again. This would help revitalize the area and make it so residents have another area to enjoy.
Julia wood
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
2 entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Alissa Keegan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 2:00 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Alissa Keegan
ZIP 90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
4 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Emma Cheng <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 1:02 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Emma Cheng
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
6 Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Brandon Taraku <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 12:38 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Brandon Taraku
90034
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
8 Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Jing Yeh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: State law update amendments
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a long time resident (almost 19 years), concerned citizen, homeowner, and parent in Santa Monica - I object to the proposed amendments and urge anyone who can to VOTE NO.
I live in a neighborhood filled with children and it is very important that we keep our neighborhood and city safe and build with true intention.
I am not proposing that you never build or stay antiquated in any way, however, this proposal is not ready. Please do your due diligence, Council Members before it’s too late.
There are bigger tasks at hand to build a better Santa Monica. It’s not all about the money but this proposal spells out just that. It’s just hidden in the small print.
Thank you for your time, a very concerned citizen,
Jing Yeh
"Proposed amendments to the Text of the citys Zoning Ordinance related to housing production for constancy with recent updates to State law and to implement other changes, corrections and clarifications : amendments to the Santa Monica General plan Land use map and official districting map for parcels located at 2644 3oth street and 1331 Wilshire Boulevard for consistent designation." --
"Only from the heart can you touch the sky." Rumi
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 11:32 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Forward Letter - Item 10A - Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Many of our supporters have already sent our letter language, and included their own thoughts as to why improving the Entertainment Zone Ordinance is necessary for our economic recovery and supporting our local merchants. We need to get out of our own way and do creative and fun things again. We've included the letter again below with the key points in bold. We are happy to discuss if you have any questions or comments.
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth.
If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
2 EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Much appreciated,
Brad Ewing and Carl Hansen
Co-Chairs, Santa Monica Forward
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.
SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Entertainment Zone Ordinance Needs Improvement
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am happy to see the Entertainment Zone (EZ) ordinance moving forward, but it needs to be significantly improved from the current staff recommendation. This ordinance is essential for the recovery of business in Santa Monica and the 3rd Street Promenade in particular. Currently, the promenade is plagued with vacancies, visitor numbers are far below pre-COVID levels, and the city's budget is nothing short of a crisis. An EZ will increase business and city tax revenues, reduce vacancies, and promote public spaces for residents and visitors alike. However, the currently proposed ordinance will not achieve any of those goals. I urge council to direct staff to:
1. Implement the EZ as a permanent program rather than a 1 year pilot. Retail leases are typically multiple years and opening a business is a long and expensive process. In order to stimulate business and reduce vacancies, they need to be confident that they will continue to benefit from the EZ for years. Council can easily re-evaluate the EZ when appropriate without making this a pilot program, and review is already required every 2 years by SB 969.
2. Establish the EZ with daily regular hours. The current ordinance proposes to limit it to special events and a permit-by-permit basis. Franky, this negates the entire purpose of an EZ. At a minimum, it should be at least Thursday-Sunday into the late evening.
3. Make participation in the EZ “by-right." The permitting process for participation in the EZ is unnecessary and just adds additional bureaucratic hurdles for no benefit. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Safeguards to keep some control for the city, such as the right to revoke participation for appropriate reasons, can be included without adding the regulatory hurdle of permitting.
4. Propose alternative security arrangements. Multiple police officers per block for all hours of the EZ is an absurd suggestion that only serves to saddle the city and businesses with obscene costs and/or sabotage the ordinance entirely. Bars and restaurants already operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, and the entire EZ can do the same.
Sincerely,
Connor Webb
90404
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Caro Vilain <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 10:37 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Caro Vilain
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
3 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Mike Terranova <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:49 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A Public Comment – Re: SMPD Concerns on Promenade Entertainment Zone
EXTERNAL
The proposal for a 1-year pilot Entertainment Zone (EZ) on the Promenade is a missed opportunity - limited by an unnecessary time-bound restriction and a cautious approach from SMPD that runs counter to successful models elsewhere in California. Cities like San Francisco, San Diego, Long Beach, and West Hollywood operate multiple entertainment zones that bring people together, boost local businesses, and are effectively managed for public safety. They are subject to administrative or periodic reviews. Santa Moncia should not be treating this as though it’s a fragile experiment with an expiration date.
If anything, a pilot period should apply to SMPD - not the Entertainment Zone. SMPD should use the next year to try new safety strategies and improve what isn’t working. Long Beach and Oakland’s MACRO tested alternative public safety models through pilot programs without limiting the vitality of their cultural districts. West Hollywood recently launched a year-long pilot for new safety tech (Safer WeHo), not to restrict nightlife, but to support it. Santa Monica should follow these examples.
If public safety is a concern, then why hasn’t SMPD recommended applying the same object bans used during protests in the EZ - on sticks, pipes, flammable liquids, and other improvised weapons? These tools already exist, yet don't seem to be applied here.
Businesses and residents need predictability - not a short-term experiment. The EZ should be permanent from the outset, with regular and reliable hours that support investment and encourage foot traffic. Participation should be by-right for businesses with existing ABC licenses, without the burden of unnecessary new permits.
Security doesn’t require a heavy police presence. Promenade bars already manage outdoor service with private security. Why can’t the broader zone use a similar model, supported by ambassadors or community partnerships similar to other cities, e.g. Pacific Beach, NoHo? The City Manager will have discretion to declare events in the zone. What’s needed now isn’t more red tape. SMPD’s objections seem more about controlling public space than protecting it. If we want the Promenade to thrive again, we need an Entertainment Zone designed for long-term success - not one stalled at the starting line.
Let’s make the Entertainment Zone permanent and give SMPD a 1-year window to pilot new public safety approaches, not stand in the way of progress.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
5 Regards,
Mike Terranova
Sunset Park Resident
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Jacob Wasserman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 8:48 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. As a resident, voter, parent, and frequent user of the Promenade, I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Jacob Wasserman
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
7 must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect. --------------------------------------
Jacob Lawrence Wasserman
<[email protected]>
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Ally Welch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 7:54 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Ally Welch
90402
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
9 must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect. —
ALLY C. WELCH
www.linkedin.com/in/allycwelch
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Dustin Shahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 7:20 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
I'll emphasize that the consistent and ongoing nature of the zone is vital for businesses to plan the best way for them to leverage the possibilities. None of them will put in serious effort if it's "maybe a year and only 3 times", so even those pilot dates won't achieve their potential.
Dustin Shahan
90401
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
11 entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Rohan Sharma <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:48 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I have lived at Seacastle since 2020 and have seen how over the years the city’s lack of investment in its status as an entertainment hub has cost the city greatly. Please do not make the short sighted mistake of limiting our city’s potential.
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Rohan Sharma
90401
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
13 entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Quinn Vaughn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 7:59 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Quinn Vaughn
90401
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
15 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Steve Hair <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 7:20 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Steven Hair
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
17 must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: David Norwood <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear council,
Due to the new federal administration, international tourism is dropping off a cliff. We need to bolster domestic tourism through multiple initiatives, including the new Entertainment Zone. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
David Norwood
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
2 Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Michelle Bielas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:35 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Michelle Stevens
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Nisha Sunku <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Nisha Sunku, MD
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
5 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
6 David Yakobson
From: Homegrown Recording & Collective <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:28 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Danny Pravder
90043
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
7 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Walsh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:47 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Daniel Walsh, CAIA
90401
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
9 Daniel P. Walsh, CAIA
[email protected]
570-807-9818
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
10 David Yakobson
From: Kevin Mitchell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 3:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comments for 4-22-25 Meeting Re Item 10A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. If it is allowed to go forward on a permit-only special event basis, such action seems to undercut the intent and purpose of the ordinance to spur more visitors and bolster economic recovery for Promenade businesses, as well as the CIty as a whole. The proposed plan seems like no real action at all.
Further, I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Thank you.
Kevin Mitchell
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
11 permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
12 David Yakobson
From: Jonah <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:43 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance 10A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Jonah L,
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
13 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Jonathan Haski <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:38 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Lana Negrete
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Jonathan Haski
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
15 Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
16 David Yakobson
From: Jason Ramin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 2:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Jason Ramin
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
17 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
18 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Gray <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 1:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Lisa Gray
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
19 Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 1:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 10: Entertainment Zone Proposal is Very Bad
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council,
I'm not sure that anyone is going to be happy with staff's entertainment ordinance proposal, which reads like what I'd propose if I wanted to kill the idea and, along with it, any hope SB 969 could help generate more revenue for a City that desperately, desperately needs it. Perhaps staff doesn't yet understand how dire the City's financial situation is? The only silver lining, I guess, is that we all now have a new shorthand for explaining how impossible it can do business in Santa Monica -- a permitting chart that staff didn't even bother to make
legible: https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/GetImage.aspx?Type=25&ID=/Aspose.Words.1 b42f746-8f1a-4369-9088-0b029167256a.001.png ((and let's be honest, even you could make out the words, we all know it wouldn't be remotely acceptable).
If we want this idea to have any chance of succeeding, it can't be a pilot, it can't be for one-off events, it can't have onerous and overly complicated permitting requirements; it can't require significant outlay of PD overtime and other staff hours; instead, it needs to be a straightforward set of regular hours by which existing and new business can participate. Keep it simple, so that businesses can make investments, and residents and visitors know to come here in the first place -- like other "entertainment zones" around the country and, yes, the world.
I'm sure Council is going to have no problem developing and implementing quickly here a better proposal than staff so I won't get into details about hours etc, but I do want to focus on some institutional issues that seem to plague City management and decision-making:
1. "With All Due Speed":
When Councilmembers Davis and Zwick proposed this item, and Mayor Negrete moved it, the motion was to be completed "with all due speed." As then-Councilmember Davis explained, other SoCal jurisdictions would soon be looking to do the same, and novelty would give us an advantage in attracting visitors and establishing (re-establishing) the Third Street Promenade as a plan to have fun.
So how in the world did this take six months? Six months for a 10-page report with a blurry chart? Six months for a report that doesn't even do what Council asked (see below)? The Third Street Promenade is already pedestrianized -- we have the perfect place to get this up running quickly and simply, but instead we got a needlessly complicated report that fails even to propose permanent rules or give clear guidance to businesses.
I don't think staff should have more than 30 days to correct this; it's already ridiculous this took so long.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
21 2. A Pilot Program? Where are the other options?
Council did not ask for a pilot program. SB 969 has a consultation requirement with PD, but it does not put PD in charge of designing policy -- here, Council asked for an ordinance change and, after six months, got back an extremely expensive, temporary proposal from PD. How are businesses supposed to invest with a 1-year pilot? How are visitors supposed to even learn this is something we have with a 1-year pilot, let alone use it?
At the very least, if this was PD's good faith proposal, staff should have presented options that actually implemented what Council asked for. Option 1: Simple ordinance change for set hours.
Option 2: Simple ordinance change for special events only (with a chart you can read, and ideally one that provides a one-stop shop for businesses looking for permits). Option 3: Police's 1-year pilot proposal. Then let Council, the folks who are democratically elected, choose which option they'd like to implement. But that didn't happen, so now it's -- again, six months later -- and Council doesn't even have the opportunity to implement what they asked for. Staff can't say it didn't have time to generate other options!
This is a real problem, because -- as you know all too well -- Council has effectively zero resources and does not have their own staff; if they did, frankly, I don't think a staff report would have been returned like this.
3. Has PD actually studied this issue? Or looked at any other jurisdictions that do this successfully (Savannah is the prime example but there are others)? As happens with basically anything the City wants to do that might bring in visitors and generate revenue, PD has said it's not possible without significantly increased police staffing -- at least 4 officers per block. I have many, many questions:
--Is there anything PD can point to as to why we need at least 4 officers per block? That seems like a lot. Presumably, we already have foot patrols on the Third Street Promenade as part of our base level of staffing? (Though I do know our MOU with the POA says that only PD officers can do foot patrols in places like Main Street, but I've personally never encountered a Main Street foot patrol....perhaps something to look into...) Physically, we are also not a large city, so if anything does happen, I imagine PD officers elsewhere can respond quickly and appropriately? If we really did need more security, is there any reason private security who can radio police wouldn't work? --Has PD looked at crime stats for other jurisdictions with alcohol social districts? My understanding is that, while the data are limited, one of the most proven ways to increase public safety is to get more eyes on the street; in other words, dead zones aren't safe, but busy areas actually mean fewer incidents escalate. PD can't be everywhere, so does PD agree that getting more people out there enjoying our City would help with public safety? I'm also not exactly happy that this report took six months, and there's somehow nothing in it from PD looking at how non-California jurisdictions have handled their alcohol social districts? Did PD talk to those other departments? I'm not in any way suggesting more study, but, frankly, these expensive recommendations need to be better backed up if they're effectively going to kill a Council-initiated program. --DUI is cited as a concern. What are we currently doing for DUIs? I know we occasionally have grant-funded sobriety checkpoints, but do we do DUI saturation patrols like other jurisdictions? I remember looking at the stats last New Year's Eve and we had something like 4 DUI stops and/or arrests, though presumably many, many more people were driving drunk. So I gather we're not doing Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
22 DUI saturation patrols on one of the biggest nights for DUI of the year? Perhaps we should be rethinking how we approach and target DUI instead of using the real danger of DUI to kill a program that could bring some life back to this City?
Again, I don't think we need to go back and study all these issues now before implementing a better program -- if that was going to happen, it could have happened over the last six months, a fix-it proposal should take no more than a month -- but, honestly, there are deeper structural-institutional problems here that need addressing.
I'm not sure how it hasn't happened already, but it needs to be impressed upon staff that the City is in a financial hole and business as usual -- making it impossible for businesses and Council to take advantage of new revenue-generating opportunities -- isn't going to cut it if we want to continue paying for this City.
Thank you all for your time.
Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
23 David Yakobson
From: Kenneth Warner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 12:30 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Ken
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
24 David Yakobson
From: John Lin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
John Lin
Santa Monica downtown 90401
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
25 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
John Lin
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
26 David Yakobson
From: Selena Kingsley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:14 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Oppose the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members
I am writing to oppose the proposed entertainment zone in the promenade area. I’m not interested in living in a New Orleans-type of environment with a bunch of drunks encouraged to roam around in open spaces. We pay exorbitant prices for rent to live in a city that already struggles to keep the public spaces clean and safely accessible. We don't need to make it worse.
I understand that helping the local businesses is the goal, but we can do better than turning the promenade into a bar.
Selena Kingsley
90405
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
27 David Yakobson
From: Ryan Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:08 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I believe a big part of restoring effectiveness to our state and local government should be a much greater willingness to move quickly and add process later if needed rather than starting with intense process for every policy change, even if that means making mistakes, as long as mechanisms are in place to correct those mistakes quickly. (Please let me know if any members of council or city staff would like my copies of Jennifer Phalka's Recoding America or Ezra Klein/Derek Thompson's Abundance, they should be required reading for all California Democrats right now and they're doing no good on my bookshelf right now.) I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Ryan Olson
90405
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
28 minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
29 David Yakobson
From: Alexandra Kalinowski <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:07 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Alexandra Kalinowski
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
30 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Alexandra Kalinowski
she/her
Composer, Songwriter, Vocalist
www.alexandrakalinowski.com/
+1-310-985-0007
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
31 David Yakobson
From: Cassie Stuurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:04 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Cassie Stuurman
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
32 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
33 David Yakobson
From: Eleanor Huntington <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 11:02 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Eleanor Huntington
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
34 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
35 David Yakobson
From: Dan Burks <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:17 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
Please listen to your fellow Santa Monicans - the Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. It's a program wanted by residents, tourists, and business owners alike. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Daniel Burks
90404 (Husband, father, homeowner)
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
36 Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible. • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Dan Burks
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
37 David Yakobson
From: Tommy Thornton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:12 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Tommy Thornton
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
38 Sent from my iPhone
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
39 David Yakobson
From: KJ Knies <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:06 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Kyle Knies
90404
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
40 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect. sent on the go
206.551.9920
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
41 David Yakobson
From: Connor Vance <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:58 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Connor Vance
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years. • Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum. • Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone.
Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
• Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week.
Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
42 David Yakobson
From: Nicholas Quirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 4:58 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Nick Quirk
Zip code 90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
• Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
• Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
• Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
43 • Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Brian <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 2:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Open container vote
EXTERNAL
To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my support for an ordinance change to support the allowance of open alcohol containers on third Street promenade. I believe it will add much needed foot traffic to the area as well as revitalize the restaurant industry in the area.
Kind regards,
Brian Thomas
Sent from Proton Mail Android
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Gleam Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 9:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 10A/Entertainment Zones
EXTERNAL
Please do not overthink the establishment of an entertainment zone in Santa Monica. If you genuinely care about economic development, you must know that the staff recommendation is insufficient to make the Promenade the first and best Entertainment Zone in the region. These types of open container areas (frequently called Designated Outdoor Refreshment Areas or DORAs) are well-established, weekly occurrences in dozens of communities in the U.S. and have been incredibly successful in revitalizing commercial areas. You do not have to reinvent the wheel here. Just steal enabling regulations from Savannah, GA or Dayton, OH and you'll have all you need. And, it should not be a pilot; it should be permanent. Moreover, it should not be tied to special events but should have regular hours every week. Don't think of this as a "mass gathering" (as the staff report describes it). Think of it as an enhanced way of doing business designed to bring back the crowds that once characterized the Promenade. If you want this to be a successful program, consider the following:
1. People should not have to know if there is a special event to know that Downtown Santa Monica is the place to have fun and stroll with their favorite recreational beverage. You want people to come to DTSM regularly and repeatedly, which they are more likely to do if they know that the Entertainment Zone is a regular fixture. Having the Entertainment Zone only activated occasionally will not draw people back. Knowing that they can meander down the Promenade any weekend while enjoying a beverage will.
2. One of the benefits of an Entertainment Zone is increased foot traffic. Increased foot traffic for three special events a year will not change the situation on the Promenade or in DTSM. Regular weekly activation will. Increasing foot traffic will encourage prospective tenants to lease currently vacant spaces on the Promenade and throughout downtown. Moreover, increased foot traffic, especially at night, should encourage current tenants to expand their hours. This creates a virtuous upward cycle of more business (and more sales tax revenue).
3. You do not need to regulate the sale of alcohol. The licensed businesses selling alcohol are very regulated and can do that. For example, the folks selling alcohol should card the purchasers. If you want them to make sure that folks walking on the Promenade with a beverage are over 21, then have the vendors distribute wristbands once proof of ID is shown. Requiring one proof of ID per drink will keep adults from buying drinks for underage persons.
4. Let Downtown Santa Monica businesses be meaningful participants. For example, let businesses that don't normally sell beverages easily obtain permits for fun events. There are many companies that offer temporary bar set-ups that are fully licensed and will comply with the law. I'm sure they would be happy to work with local businesses Imagine if Barnes & Noble was able to do a wine-tasting in conjunction with a book reading. Or if Lululemon or Alo Yoga could sell Mimosas to shoppers on Sunday. And let DTSM sponsor (and share in the revenue from) events in the public areas. Maybe a beer garden on one block and a "paint and sip" art class on Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
2 another? How about more movies on the Promenade with something stronger than buttered popcorn?
5. Please do not bury this program in process. The chart in the staff report is mind-numbing. Make it easy to get a permit; make it easy to yank a permit from businesses that don't follow the rules. Make the window decals, the cups, and wristbands (if you want them) available through DTSM. Don't make businesses schlep to City Hall.
6. The rules should be simple:
signs should let patrons know when they are entering the Entertainment Zone-you don't have to control ingress and egress;
no outside alcohol should be allowed in the zone;
any "to go" alcohol should be served in a special Entertainment Zone cup; the cups should be single-use---no refills (and yes you can get compostable cups); signs can remind visitors when they are leaving the zone with strategically placed trash cans for them to dispose of unfinished drinks and used cups (if you feel that you must have a human being at egress points use an ambassador or private security); businesses within the zone should be given a choice of decals to place at their entrances-one for businesses that offer "to go" drinks, one for non-alcohol serving businesses that welcome people with a "to-go" beverage, and one for businesses that do not allow "to go" beverages in their establishment.
If you do this right, it can be a gamechanger for the Promenade. Moreover, once you get it up and running, it should be a no-brainer to expand the concept of an Entertainment Zone to other parts of the City. I am certain that businesses in the wider downtown area and Main Street would be receptive to such an idea.
Please do not miss this opportunity to really make a difference in the economic heart of our City. And do it quickly. Other cities are moving to establish entertainment zones. We should be the first. Thanks.
Gleam Davis
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
3 David Yakobson
From: Allon Percus <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 9:48 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Allon Percus
1105 Centinela Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
4 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Eli Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 9:42 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Make Santa Monica Fun Again: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Let's Go!
Eli Gill
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
6 Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Sam Shapiro-Kline <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 7:44 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: 10A: Improve the Entertainment Zone Ordinance
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members, The Entertainment Zone ordinance needs to be improved to achieve its intended goals. I share the views of Santa Monica Forward included below.
Sam Shapiro-Kline
90403
---------
The proposal under Item 10A for the promenade entertainment zone fails to meet the needs of Santa Monica and should be amended to facilitate greater use and business recovery. The creation of an entertainment zone is an outstanding opportunity to bring business and life to the promenade, create a great new space for residents to enjoy, increase city tax revenues, and reduce the number of vacant storefronts which blight the area currently. As proposed, the entertainment zone ordinance would not meet these goals. Instead, the council should direct staff to:
Launch the Entertainment Zone as a permanent program, not a 1 year pilot. Residents support an entertainment zone, and businesses need confidence that it will continue to exist beyond the 1 year timeline in order to invest in the area. Small business owners would be hesitant to open new businesses with the risk that the pilot will end and devastate their growth. If there are valid reasons to re-evaluate continuing the EZ, the council can do so when appropriate rather than being forced to after a pilot period, including sooner than 1 year if unanticipated issues arise; SB 969 also already requires a review of an entertainment zone every 2 years.
Open the Entertainment Zone with regular hours on a daily basis, rather than only for special events on a permit by permit basis. This will reduce the permitting requirements for businesses, and create a schedule that visitors can rely on, further increasing the use of the EZ. These hours should reflect when businesses are open and in greatest demand, such as 10AM - 10PM daily, or Thursday-Sunday at minimum.
Establish participation in the EZ as “by-right”, and eliminate the permitting process for the entertainment zone. Once the city has established the hours of the Entertainment Zone, businesses with existing liquor licenses should be able to participate simply by notifying California Alcohol Beverage Control. There is no need for an additional permitting process to be instituted. Should the city disagree, it must provide the most simple, short, and low cost process possible.
Propose alternative security arrangements. Staffing several police officers per block for all hours that the Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
8 EZ is open will saddle the city or businesses with significant costs, especially should the EZ be open several days a week. Bars can operate outdoor patios with only their own private security, why not the entire zone? Furthermore, the Promenade is already permanently pedestrianized, so the EZ does not require dedicated non-police staff support every time EZ hours are in effect.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 3:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell
Subject: RE: April 22, 2025 Council Agenda Item 10A: Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program
Attachments: DTSM Inc Entertainment Zones Support Letter 4.22.25.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Honorable Council Members, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) is pleased to express our strong support for City staff’s recommendation to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to advance the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program as a tool to promote economic recovery.
DTSM, Inc. supported the passage of SB 969, the enabling legislation allowing local jurisdictions to create designated outdoor "Entertainment Zones." We believe that establishing an Entertainment Zone on the Third Street Promenade will directly benefit businesses, enrich the existing event experience for visitors, and create exciting new opportunities to attract foot traffic, stimulate local spending, and strengthen community engagement.
We also want to acknowledge and thank City staff for their ongoing partnership and creative thinking, particularly in identifying ways for DTSM, Inc. to generate revenue in support of Entertainment Zone programming. Ideas such as extending the placement duration and expanding the footprint of branded signage within the event space are promising steps toward building a sustainable activation model.
While we are enthusiastic about the proposal, we respectfully ask the Council to consider two key concerns that may limit the program’s long-term success:
1. Cost of City Services – The current staffing requirements for Police, Fire, and Public Works present a risk of making the events cost-prohibitive. We ask the City to consider either covering these costs directly or allowing DTSM, Inc. to supplement with our own contracted security personnel in a manner that meets safety standards while maintaining financial feasibility.
2. Achieving Critical Mass – For the Entertainment Zone to thrive, we must ensure sufficient participation from local businesses. We encourage the City to explore flexible, streamlined processes that allow alcohol-licensed businesses to temporarily occupy vacant Promenade storefronts or provide bar service directly within the activation area. These measures would not only increase participation and create dynamic experiences but could also open the door for collaboration with other Santa Monica businesses, both Downtown and citywide, who may wish to participate. Such participation could help DTSM, Inc. offset event-related costs through shared financial responsibility.
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
10 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important initiative. We believe the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program has the potential to meaningfully contribute to the recovery and continued vibrancy of Downtown Santa Monica.
Respectfully,
Andrew Thomas, LPM
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
1351 Third Street Promenade, Ste. 201
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.393.8355 (Office)
www.DowntownSM.com
Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | TikTok
Sign up for our newsletter
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] Santa Monica City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
April 18, 2025
RE: April 22, 2025 Council Agenda Item 10A: Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot Program
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, and Honorable Council Members, Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (DTSM, Inc.) is pleased to express our strong support for City staff’s recommendation to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to advance the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program as a tool to promote economic recovery.
DTSM, Inc. supported the passage of SB 969, the enabling legislation allowing local jurisdictions to create designated outdoor "Entertainment Zones." We believe that establishing an Entertainment Zone on the Third Street Promenade will directly benefit businesses, enrich the existing event experience for visitors, and create exciting new opportunities to attract foot traffic, stimulate local spending, and strengthen community engagement.
We also want to acknowledge and thank City staff for their ongoing partnership and creative thinking, particularly in identifying ways for DTSM, Inc. to generate revenue in support of Entertainment Zone programming. Ideas such as extending the placement duration and expanding the footprint of branded signage within the event space are promising steps toward building a sustainable activation model.
While we are enthusiastic about the proposal, we respectfully ask the Council to consider two key concerns that may limit the program’s long-term success:
1. Cost of City Services – The current staffing requirements for Police, Fire, and Public Works present a risk of making the events cost-prohibitive. We ask the City to consider either covering these costs directly or allowing DTSM, Inc. to supplement with our own contracted security personnel in a manner that meets safety standards while maintaining financial feasibility.
2. Achieving Critical Mass – For the Entertainment Zone to thrive, we must ensure sufficient participation from local businesses. We encourage the City to explore flexible, streamlined processes that allow alcohol-licensed businesses to temporarily Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
1351 Third Street Promenade, Suite 201, Santa Monica, CA I 310.393.8355 I [email protected] occupy vacant Promenade storefronts or provide bar service directly within the activation area. These measures would not only increase participation and create dynamic experiences but could also open the door for collaboration with other Santa Monica businesses, both Downtown and citywide, who may wish to participate. Such participation could help DTSM, Inc. offset event-related costs through shared financial responsibility.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important initiative. We believe the Entertainment Zone Pilot Program has the potential to meaningfully contribute to the recovery and continued vibrancy of Downtown Santa Monica.
Respectfully,
Andrew Thomas
Chief Executive Officer
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
CC: DTSM, Inc. Board of Directors
Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
Community Development Director Arminé Chaparyan
Economic Development Manager Jennifer Taylor
Planning Manager Jing Yeo
Senior Planner James Combs
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Chasen Daniels <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 10.A – Third Street Promenade Entertainment Zone Pilot
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I’m writing to express strong concerns about the direction of the proposed Entertainment Zone Pilot Program as outlined in the staff report for Agenda Item 10.A.
The original vision behind creating an Entertainment Zone on the Third Street Promenade was to support ongoing economic revitalization by establishing a regularly scheduled, accessible, and low-barrier zone for businesses and visitors—not a limited, event-based model tethered to a handful of Citysanctioned activations over a one-year period. What staff is proposing does not reflect that vision.
Instead, it builds unnecessary bureaucracy and fails to provide the flexibility or simplicity required to foster innovation, attract foot traffic, or support our local businesses in a meaningful way.
We should be making it easier—not harder—for businesses to operate, experiment with new concepts, and thrive. A vibrant entertainment zone should be structured around recurring activations and business-led participation, not special events that require layers of approvals, restrictive oversight, and unclear rules.
On that note, I want to call out something particularly frustrating and frankly insulting in the staff report:
the inclusion of a completely illegible flowchart intended to illustrate the permitting process. How are residents, business owners, or even Councilmembers expected to understand or comment meaningfully on a process they can’t even read? This undermines transparency and confidence in the City's implementation of what should be a community-focused effort.
This plan, as it stands, is not bold or innovative—it’s a half-step that burdens organizers, limits creativity, and betrays the original intent of SB 969. I urge the Council to redirect staff to develop a real entertainment zone that is simple, recurring, business-friendly, and designed for long-term impact—not just another pilot program that overpromises and underdelivers.
Thank you,
Chasen Daniels - 90401
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025
Item 10-A
April 22, 2025