1 David Yakobson
From: Sean Ahaus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: California Roadhouse, Inc - 256 Santa Monica Pier
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
My name is Sean Ahaus, I’m the CEO & co-owner of California Roadhouse, Inc., a small locally owned business which was recently selected by The Santa Monica Pier Corporation to help save & greatly improve live music, entertainment and community involvement on the Santa Monica Pier, by using our unique live entertainment concept, which has been specifically designed to help develop and showcase local singers, musicians, comedians & others talent in Santa Monica. While also introducing our delicious California themed foods & beverages. The California Roadhouse is working to create fun, wellpaid jobs and to give visitors another great reason to visit and return to Santa Monica.
As a small local business owner, I can tell you firsthand how hard it is to open a successful business in Santa Monica.
In June of 2025, we viewed a Santa Monica City public listing to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier.
The first week in July of 2025, California Roadhouse, Inc. submitted a letter of intent and proposal to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier, to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation (acting as agent &/or under authority of the City of Santa Monica).
In October of 2025, the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, and The City of Santa Monica’s Economic Development Dept. notified California Roadhouse, Inc. that California Roadhouse, Inc’s letter of intent and proposal to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier had been officially accepted and approved by SMPC, and that due to the current city regulations, that additional city council approval would not be necessary.
Subsequently to said notice of governmental approval in October 2025, California Roadhouse, Inc. has invested substantial time, work, resources and expenditures to complete improvements for their project to be located at 256 Santa Monica Pier, based in good faith reliance on Santa Monica City government authorization(s).
California Roadhouse, Inc. believes that a vested right to complete our improvements in 256 Santa Monica Pier exists. It is the position of California Roadhouse, Inc. that any new changes to local ordinance(s) should not be retroactive and should be prohibited from negatively restricting or affecting the rights of California Roadhouse, Inc., to improve 256 Santa Monica Pier. Retroactively passing any ordinance(s) that restrict(s) or negatively affects any of these rights would violate the due process rights of California Roadhouse, Inc.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
2 Furthermore, California Roadhouse, Inc. opposes Santa Monica City’s proposed January 27, 2026, Agenda Item: 10.A, that proposes to Amend SMMC Chapter 4.66, and that proposes adding Chapter
4.69, which attempts to force new businesses on city owned property in Santa Monica, to rehire all the workers of previously failed businesses.
SMMC 4.69 would require a new business to hire all previous staff of a failed business even if some of these previous employees lack the experience requirements of a new employer, or have a history of violence, or a history of unsafe work practices, or a history of dishonesty, or if they lack any other requirements of a new employer, and even if some of these previous employees directly contributed to the reason(s) the previous employer went out of business.
California Roadhouse, Inc. believes that forcing new businesses to hire employees solely based on where they have previously worked, over and regardless of any potential employee’s qualifications, and over an employee’s character, integrity and/or merit is a recipe for disaster, and a recipe for yet another failed business.
It has been over 6 months since California Roadhouse, Inc. submitted our letter of intent to lease 256 Santa Monica Pier, and the property has been vacant for over one year, costing the city of Santa Monica over $1,000 per day (and over $365,000 in lost revenue over the past year). This has also cost our community over 35 well-paid jobs for more than a year and counting.
Let’s work together to get many deserving people back to work as quickly as possible.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration to these issues, Sean Ahaus
California Roadhouse, Inc
213-364-6251
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Becky Warren <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 11:20 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Council Mailbox
Subject: File Item 10A Council Meeting Jan 27 (Today): Oppose Right to Return Proposed Ordinance
Attachments: Oppose File 10A, Right to Return Ordinance, 012725.pdf
EXTERNAL
Please see the attached letter in opposition to File Item 10A re: proposed right to return ordinance signed by multiple Santa Monica businesses.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
January 27, 2026
Santa Monica Mayor Caroline Torosis and Santa Monica City Councilmembers 1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Oppose File Item 10A Proposed “Recall of Workers and Retention of Workers” Ordinance Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
At a time when the City has made clear that attracting private business investment and revitalizing Santa Monica’s economy is a top priority, this proposed ordinance sends the opposite message:
that Santa Monica is willing to add new, city-specific employment mandates that will give employers and prospective tenants pause before investing here. What is worse, is that while small businesses are working to keep the lights on, this ordinance is placed at the last minute with no formal outreach to impacted businesses.
This proposal creates uncertainty for the smallest of employers and new tenants Santa Monica’s recovery depends on businesses choosing to sign leases, make capital investments, and hire workers in a highly competitive regional market. A city-specific right to return mandate for any business with over five employees in specified areas in town, particularly one that goes beyond state law introduces uncertainty that businesses factor directly into leasing and expansion decisions.
For businesses considering entering Santa Monica, this type of ordinance:
• Raises concerns about long-term regulatory creep once a new mandate is on the books, • Adds additional compliance and administrative burdens that do not exist in neighboring cities, and
• Signals a willingness to impose one-off local employment rules that increase operational risk.
• Increases litigation risk by opening the door for trial lawyers to sue small businesses under the private right to action provision.
That reality alone is enough to cause businesses to reconsider whether Santa Monica is the right place to locate.
This ordinance is driven by outside special interests, not Santa Monica’s recovery We are also concerned that this proposal is being driven by outside special interest groups – specifically UNITE HERE Local 11 that do not operate businesses in Santa Monica and have little stake in the City’s long-term economic vitality. These groups will not be responsible for filling vacant storefronts, restoring visitation, or generating the tax revenue that funds City services.
Santa Monica’s economic challenges are unique, and solutions must be shaped by those who are invested in making the City more vibrant, not by one-size-fits-all policies imported from elsewhere.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
This ordinance adds new litigation risk to small businesses.
The ordinance adds essentially a private right of action which is just a way for predatory law firms to sue small businesses.
The City should focus on policies that grow jobs, not deter investment Santa Monica’s visitor economy generates hundreds of millions of dollars in annual spending and tens of millions in transient occupancy tax revenue that directly support City services and local jobs.
Policies that discourage employers from leasing space, expanding operations, or hiring workers ultimately undermine those shared goals.
Right now, Santa Monica is still struggling:
• Tourism is down 50% since 2019, with Santa Monica Travel & Tourism projecting continued decline.
• Many restaurants and hotels report July 2025 revenues are worse than in July 2020, which was the peak of COVID-19 restrictions.
• Businesses on the Pier and Ocean Avenue are bracing for an even steeper drop as the Pier Bridge closes for the next two years.
• Part II crime is up 16%, contributing to persistent customer safety concerns that occur nearly daily exacerbating the declining foot traffic.
• A 2023 LA County Economic Development Corp report found over 38,000 businesses closed permanently between 2020–2023, primarily small businesses in retail, food service, and hospitality.
Santa Monica would be an outlier and that matters to investors California already has a temporary statewide right-to-return framework for hotels, airports, office buildings and private clubs specifically related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Creating a broader, cityspecific ordinance would make Santa Monica an outlier and layer local requirements on top of existing state law.
Santa Monica is competing with other coastal and regional markets for hospitality, tourism, and destination investment. Adopting a broader and permanent mandate of this kind does not provide businesses with confidence and instead, it raises red flags.
Oppose Permanent Right to Return
For these reasons, we respectfully urge the City Council to reject any city-specific right-to-return ordinance that would impose additional burdens on Pier businesses, hotel employers, and the broader visitor economy.
Santa Monica’s workers and businesses succeed together. The City should send a clear and consistent message that it welcomes investment, values job creation, and is committed to economic revitalization, not additional uncertainty.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
We respectfully urge Council to slow down, engage stakeholders early, and fully evaluate the economic and operational impacts before advancing any new requirements.
Sincerely,
Fred Deni & Jim Christel
Owners
Back to the Beach Café
Michael Bezerra
Cabo Cantina
Jameson’s
Matthew Sutton
Senior Vice President
California Restaurant Association
Albin Gielicz
Santa Monica Resident
Peter Trinh
Partner
Lanea Restaurant
Hunter Hall
Executive Director
Main Street Business Improvement District
Don Luis Camacho
Owner
Mariasol Restaurant
Jeff Klocke
CEO
Pacific Park on the Santa Monica Pier
Richard & Melody Chacker & Family
Owners
Perry's Café & Blazing Saddles
Joanie Gordon
Marlene Gordon
Dana Picore
Monique Giroux
Co-Owners
Playland Arcade
Alan Mont
Promenade Enterprises L.P.
Colby Goff
Co-Owner
Rustic Canyon Family
Judi Barker
Owner/Operator
Santa Monica Air Center/Barker Hangar
Cindy Pfeifer
Co-Executive Director
Santa Monica Pier Lessees Association
(SMPLA)
Greg Morena
Owner
The Albright - SM Pier Seafood est.1977
Marina Case
1444 Third St. Promenade Corp
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Cc: City Manager Oliver Chi
Interim City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Assistant City Attorney Susan Cola
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Council Mailbox
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 10:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: FW: Santa Monica City Council Meeting Agenda Items 5.H and 10.A for January 27, 2026 From: James Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 5:05 PM
To: Council Mailbox <[email protected]>
Cc: Caroline Torosis <[email protected]>; Ellis Raskin <[email protected]>; Dan Hall <[email protected]>; Natalya Zernitskaya <[email protected]>; Barry Snell <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Jesse Zwick <[email protected]>
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting Agenda Items 5.H and 10.A for January 27, 2026 Dear Honorable Mayor Torosis and City Council Members,
In reviewing the City Council agenda for the January 27, 2026, City Council Meeting, I have noted two items that relate to the purview of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation.
Item 5.H. – Conference with Real Estate Negotiator regarding 256 Santa Monica Pier The Leasing Guidelines adopted by the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors and then subsequently adopted by the City Council in July 2025 state that the Pier Corporation Board of Directors recommends a lessee and the City Manager negotiates the lease for any lease under 25 years. I would like to understand the purpose of this Closed Session Item, so I can communicate to my board how it impacts the board’s role in the adopted leasing process.
Item 10.A – proposed ordinance relating to “Recall of Workers at Hotels on City-Owned Property and Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier”
The Santa Monica Pier Corporation assists the City with public review and discussion of planning and policy matters related to the Pier objectives. The agendizing of this item on Thursday January 22, 2026, and the Clerk’s Office being closed on Friday, January 23rd mean that the Pier Corporation Board of Directors cannot notice a public meeting before the date of the Council Meeting to provide public review and discussion of this matter. Before the Council takes final action on this matter, I request that staff present the proposed ordinance to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation at our meeting scheduled for February 9, 2026, at 6:30pm.
Thank you for your partnership in working toward the best for the Santa Monica Pier and the community we serve.
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
2 Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Judy Kruger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:25 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Cc: councilmtgitems; Judy Kruger
Subject: Council Agenda Item 10.A. Recall and Retention Attachments: Chamber Letter re Recall and Retention.pdf
EXTERNAL
Good Afternoon Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers:
Please see the attached letter from the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce addressing Council Agenda Item 10.A.
Respectfully,
Judy
Judy Kruger
CEO & President
213-703-1340
[email protected]
smchamber.com
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
January 26, 2026
City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Council Agenda Item – OPPOSE 10.A. Recall and Retention of Workers Ordinance
Dear Mayor Torosis and City Councilmembers:
On behalf of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, we are requesting that City Council not move forward on the proposed Recall and Retention ordinance.
The City and the Chamber know well that our business community is still recovering economically from impacts from Covid-19, downturn in tourism, and, more recently, the devastating wildfires. Imposing additional onerous regulatory requirements that limit business recovery, deter new business attraction, and force additional costs on businesses is untimely and excessive.
We share the same belief with the City, that economic recovery and vitality can and will soon return to our beloved City and hard-working business community. But at this time, the City must do everything to protect, nurture, and support businesses so that the path to recovery is swift.
For these reasons, the Chamber requests that City Council not move forward on the proposed Recall and Retention Ordinance.
Respectfully Submitted,
Judy Kruger Paula Larmore
President & CEO Chair, Board of Directors
Board Executives
Chair
Paula Larmore
Harding, Larmore,
Kutcher & Kozal LLP
Past Chair
Charlie LopezQuintana
ETC Hotels
Treasurer
Addie VanGessel
Tavern on Main
Vice-Chair
Dustin Peterson
Fairmont Miramar
Hotel & Bungalows
Vice-Chair
Jeremy Rawitch
RAND
Vice-Chair
Vee Gomez
Beach Yoga SoCal
Vice-Chair
Melissa Cohen
Boston Properties
Vice-Chair
Elias Garcia
Kaiser Permanente
Directors
Eddie Guerboian
Jeweler
Neil Carrey
Attorney
Elnie Vannatim
Cedars-Sinai
Gina Gribow
EKA Public Affairs
Directors
Jessica Rincon
Sanbourne
Lilit Avagyan
US Bank
Jenn Verma
Lionsgate
Ben Marcus
UP Partners
Yvette Sims
Hair by Yvette
Cheree
Michael Altchule
UCLA Health
Shanna Johnson
Regent
Shari Davis
Santa Monica
College
Wesly Hernandez
SNAP Inc.
Berta Negari
XYZ Rent
Garrett Childers
SM Fire 1109
Doreen Lahav
Prism Places
Kara Block
DHF Architects
Carlos Madrid
SMPD POA
Jared Amerson
Providence Saint
John’s
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Pfeifer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SOLUTION FOR Council Meeting 1/27 Item 10A
EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
As a long-time resident of Santa Monica and business owner, I am disappointed to see that the council is continuing to push for Retention / Recall of Workers. A solution for a problem that doesn’t exist in the manner you are being sold on.
The problem that does exist is that Santa Monica businesses are closing at a record rate, leaving many employees jobless. Employees need to pay their bills, pay rent and buy groceries now. They can’t wait a year or two to return to their old job locations, they need help NOW. Retention / Recall of Workers does not provide this help.
If the city really wants to help the employees, I propose the following:
o The City of Santa Monica puts into place a city run Santa Monica centric job database When a Santa Monica business goes out of business, employees will have the opportunity to register in the data base.
Santa Monica residents will also have the opportunity to register (the locals are being squeezed out with your current proposal.)
When hiring, current and new Santa Monica employers can access the data base Your decision Tuesday night will aƯect more than just the businesses but residents as well, along with the future of our City. Please put the welfare of the City of Santa Monica and not special interest groups and organizations at the forefront of your decision. That is the only way you will be able to turn around the decline of Santa Monica.
Please stand up for Santa Monica.
Thank you for your time.
Cindy Pfeifer
RESIDENT
Email: [email protected]
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Leslie <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2026 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Retention law for businesses on the Santa Monica Pier
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members,
My name is Joanne Leslie. I’m a retired professor of public health at UCLA and an Episcopal Deacon at St. Augustine’s-by-the-Sea church. I’ve lived in Santa Monica for almost 30 years. Santa Monica Pier is a place where my family has built memories and relationships over many years. My 8-year-old granddaughter lives in Brooklyn and going to the Pier is an important part of every visit to Grandma in Santa Monica.
Most employees at businesses on the Pier, like the Rusty’s workers I have gotten to know over the past year, work long hours, especially in the summer and on holiday weekends. They are a key part of what makes the Pier such a welcoming place for people of all ages and all economic levels.
They deserve to be treated with dignity and as valued members of the Santa Monica community, whether they live here or commute long distances to work here, as many do.
In this particular moment, what this means for me, is that the Rusty’s workers shouldn’t lose their jobs, just because a restaurant changed hands. I want Santa Monica to be known as a city with high ethical standards, a city where we care not just about home owners and landlords, but also about renters, and a city where we care not just about business owners and managers, but also about workers. So, please, at the upcoming City Council meeting on January 27th, I urge you to support a worker retention law for all businesses that operate on the city owned Santa Monica Pier.
Thank you very much for taking time to read my letter,
The Rev. Dr. Joanne Leslie
1351 Grant St. Santa Monica 90405
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026
Item 10-A
January 27, 2026