1 David Yakobson
From: Beach Dude <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 11:12 AM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Oliver Chi
Subject: City Council Meeting February 10, 2026 – Item 4L
EXTERNAL
City Council Meeting February 10, 2026 – Item 4L
To City Council Members:
I do not think the adding of Chapter 4.69 to Provide Retention of Workers at Hospitality Business on the Santa Monica Pier should be adopted. If this is moving forward, then you need to consider changes to it to maintain a stable business environment that creates jobs.
California has some of the best protection of employees already in the country. To name a few, higher minimum wages with no sub minimum wage, established sick days, layoff rules, and most recently in 2026 CalSavers where companies that did not offer a retirement benefit now must use the state mandated program.
One of the many state employee protections is the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as of 2023 this covers the rights to employees to opt out of employer’s sale or sharing of their data and the right to limit employer’s use of their sensitive data.
This ordinance as written does not reference these California employee protections. The City is requiring the former owner to hand over sensitive employee data without providing the former employees with the chance to opt out of the sharing or being notified of this data sharing. This can create an ordinance conflict that former employees could sue the former and current employer and the City for sharing data, but if they don’t share the City has a right to penalize the data not being shared.
The City also is not providing any safeguards or making any guarantees that the passing of any employee date from the former employer to the City to the current employer is free from any data breeches. Data sharing through multiple parties increases the risk of a breach of sensitive data.
The Pier and its Business are unique in many ways, and this ordinance looks haven been a cut and paste job from other cities. The Pier is not an airport or a convention center. The cut and pasting to form this ordinance show up when the wrong code section is referenced. It might be minor but for an ordinance that has a major impact, it should be clean. The Municipal Code Section referenced as 9.51.020 should be according to the City’s online ordinance website 9.51.030 (4.66.01q and 4.69.01k).
The Ordinance vague wording also does not provide many working or administrative details of how it will work leaving numerous questions or decisions unanswered. Without the City taking charge of education, providing guidelines, and enforcement of the ordinance and no right to cure provision it will lead to Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
2 lawyers filing lawsuits, including 3rd parties and frivolous ones, allowed under remedies to answer or extort money from businesses.
Here are just a few or many examples of situations that will occur in business where there are no clear answers in the current wording of the ordinance.
Example: If a former employee was making $25 an hour with no benefits, and is offered a new job at $20 an hour with benefits, could he sue under the retaliatory clause for being paid less per hour even if their new employment package in total is worth more?
Example: If a former employer only is required to provide name, date of hire, and job classification (this ordinance gives no definition of what this means), then how does the new employer contact the former employee to make a written offer?
Example: If a new employer is just moving locations (from Main Street to the Pier) and has a full staff, do they still have to make offers to former employees to be in compliance even if there are no open positions?
The City cannot decide where they stand on creating business and supporting small business. If the City wants to promote that they are a supporter of small business, then the Pier Business to be covered should have the same definition as a “Costal Zone Business” where the bar was set at $5 million gross receipts. Since this amount was set in 2000, it should be adjusted by the CPI to 2026, approx. $9.6 million, and adjusted annually. This approach would eliminate the need to formulate and calculate a count of total actual employees or FTEs that gets complicated when including several variables like seasonal workers, student and intern workers, and part-time workers.
The City and council moved forward with a lack of information on the Pier Businesses show that staff were just pushing as quickly as possible to get this action through to solve nothing and not taking the time to go through the normal process to look at any potential problems or possible damage to the Pier business environment.
This ordinance is trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Employees come and go all the time.
Employees always have the right to apply for an open job. Having a stable workforce requires stable and ongoing businesses. Forcing businesses to hire employees from prior employers creates divisions not unity in the work environment. Long-running successful businesses know how to hire and create a solid workforce, let them do their job and in turn there will be jobs for all.
No Business – No Jobs
Best
David Newberg
Santa Monica Resident
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: James Harris <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 11:51 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: Oliver Chi; Carter Rubin; Randi Parent; David Newberg; Misti Kerns; Peter Trinh; Julieta Giner; Nicholas Rolston
Subject: Letter from Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors Regarding February 10, 2026 Council Agenda Item 4.L.
Attachments: City Council Right to Recall Item 02.10.26 final.pdf Honorable Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council; Attached please find a letter from the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors regarding tonight's City Council Agenda Item 4.L.
Thanks, and all best regards,
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
200 SANTA MONICA PIER, SUITE A, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
1 February 10, 2026
Mayor Carolyn Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item 4.L – Second Reading and Adoption, or, in the Alternative, Reintroduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.66 to Provide for Recall of Workers at Hotels on City-Owned Property and Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier and Adding Chapter 4.69 to Provide for Retention of Workers at Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier Dear Honorable Mayor Torosis and Members of the Santa Monica City Council:
At the February 9, 2026, Meeting of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors, the Board reviewed and discussed the February 10, 2026, City Council Agenda Item 4.L. - Second Reading and Adoption, or, in the Alternative, Reintroduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 4.66 to Provide for Recall of Workers at Hotels on City-Owned Property and Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier and Adding Chapter 4.69 to Provide for Retention of Workers at Hospitality Businesses on the Santa Monica Pier and wishes to express the following advice to the Council.
In the spirit of creating a stable business environment that doesn’t overburden Pier businesses and employees, the SMPC Board is unable to support this ordinance in its current form for the following reasons:
● City staff have not been available to share information and answer questions, despite being on our agenda twice (January 27, 2026 & February 9, 2026) ● The Ordinance which requires disclosure of private employee information does not respect the California Consumer Privacy Act in an employee’s rights to limit the use and protection of their data.
If the proposed Ordinance does move forward, in a further effort to protect small businesses, SMPC recommends the following:
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
200 SANTA MONICA PIER, SUITE A, SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
2 ● Setting the threshold for which businesses are covered by the ordinance at the same level as those covered by the “Coastal Zone Business” provisions, with the $5 million annual gross receipts base set in 2000 adjusted for inflation per the CPI, which as of today would be approx. $9.6 million. Then the level should be adjusted annually. This should be used instead of setting a threshold based solely on the number of employees.
● Assigning a city department to provide education, consultation, and guidelines for businesses to clarify the details of how the ordinance works, is monitored, and is enforced.
● Adding provisions allowing businesses to cure alleged violations, providing mediation before litigation to avoid frivolous and third-party lawsuits, and allowing businesses the right to recover attorney’s fees.
Respectfully,
Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board of Directors
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Jackie Romero <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to Agenda Item 4L – Harmful and Unworkable for Pier Restaurants Attachments: CRA Letter_Opposition on R2R_UpdatedFinal.pdf
EXTERNAL
Letter attached from CRA
best,
Jacqueline Romero, MPA
Director, Local Government Affairs
California Restaurant Association
P.O. Box 7423
Long Beach, CA 90807
T: 562.581.4271
[email protected]
While all information released by the California Restaurant Association (CRA) is intended to provide accurate information on the subject covered, the CRA does not provide legal advice and any information provided by the CRA shall not constitute legal advice. You are encouraged to consult your attorney, accountant, or other appropriate professional, as needed.
Confidentiality note:
This electronic message transmission contains information from the California Restaurant Association which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.
If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 800.765.4842.
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
February 10, 2026
Honorable Mayor Torosis
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Opposition to Agenda Item 4L – Harmful and Unworkable for Pier Restaurants Dear Mayor Torosis and Councilmembers,
The California Restaurant Association (CRA) represents more than 22,000 neighborhood eating establishments throughout California, and we work continuously to help shape public policy in ways that support a strong and sustainable restaurant community.
I am writing to strongly convey our continued opposition to Agenda Item 4L, the proposed “Recall of Workers and Retention of Workers” ordinance. While this proposal is presented as a way to protect workers, in practice it would seriously harm small restaurant businesses on the Santa Monica Pier and could ultimately lead to fewer jobs, not more.
This ordinance shows a lack of understanding of how businesses and employees on the Pier actually operate. Pier restaurants are not large corporations. They are small businesses that depend on seasonal tourism, weather, special events, and daily fluctuations in visitor traffic. Staffing needs change constantly. Employees often work part-time, seasonally, or in flexible roles. A rigid, one-size-fits-all employment mandate does not match these realities.
The ordinance would require restaurants to rehire former employees before hiring anyone else, even when business needs have changed. It would force employers to wait at least ten days for each former employee to respond to a job offer before moving on to someone else. During that waiting period, restaurants would be unable to fill open positions—even if the job is critical to keeping the business running safely.
In real terms, this means restaurants could be forced to operate short-staffed for weeks. In an industry where every shift matters, this creates serious problems for service, safety, and financial survival. Many restaurants simply cannot afford to wait that long to staff essential roles.
Even more concerning, the ordinance allows private lawsuits for alleged violations. This means small businesses could be sued over paperwork mistakes or technical issues—even if no employee was actually harmed. Most Pier restaurants do not have lawyers or human resources staff. The threat of costly lawsuits alone could force some businesses to close or decide it is no longer feasible to operate on the Pier.
The administrative requirements in this ordinance are also overwhelming. Extensive recordkeeping, notices, postings, and documentation assume that small restaurants have the same resources as large companies. They do not. These requirements pull time and money away from operators who are running their business and keeping people employed.
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
It is also important to recognize that Pier employees are not all the same. Many workers rely on flexibility rather than rigid employment rules. Forcing businesses into inflexible rehiring systems may reduce opportunities for seasonal and part-time workers and make employers less willing to hire at all.
In addition to recall requirements, the ordinance’s provisions on employee retention create significant uncertainty for both current and future business owners. For current employers, this could force them to keep employees in positions that are no longer operationally necessary, limiting flexibility and increasing financial strain. For anyone purchasing or taking over a Pier business, the ordinance could require them to retain staff from the previous ownership regardless of their experience, qualifications, or the new owner’s business plan. This uncertainty makes it harder to sell or transfer businesses, discourages new investment, and could reduce the number of viable operators willing to maintain or open restaurants on the Pier.
Taken together, this ordinance creates serious legal risk, operational delays, and financial strain. For some businesses, complying with these rules may be impossible. Such an outcome would hurt workers, business owners, and the City alike.
If adopted as written, this ordinance would introduce significant legal uncertainty due to its rigid restrictions on lawful business operations. Such uncertainty increases the likelihood of disputes and formal challenges, outcomes that are foreseeable and could be avoided through clearer drafting and more careful consideration.
For these reasons, we urge the City Council to reject Agenda Item 4L. At a minimum, the Council should slow down, engage directly with Pier employers, and ensure it truly understands how the Pier workforce and businesses function before imposing new mandates.
Santa Monica should be supporting small businesses and job creation on the Pier—not passing policies that increase uncertainty, legal risk, and the likelihood of closures. For these reasons we ask that you do not adopt this ordinance as written and continue to engage with Pier businesses in good faith.
Sincerely,
Jackie Romero
Director, Local Government Affairs
CA Restaurant Association
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
1 David Yakobson
From: Sean Ahaus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Right to Recall - California Roadhouse, Inc.
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Council,
My name is Sean Ahaus, with California Roadhouse, Inc., a family-owned and operated small business opening a new live music venue and restaurant on the Santa Monica Pier.
I. The city's proposed Right to Recall ordinance, which is sponsored by Unite Here Local 11, the same special interest group that has sponsored many political campaigns:
1. Removes or restricts a private business owner’s right to choose who they can and can't employ.
2. Strips fundamental private employment rights out of the hands of trained & qualified small business professionals & reassigns these otherwise private rights to:
A) Unite Here Local 11,
B) Santa Monica City Council, and
C) To Previously Failed Santa Monica Pier Businesses
3. Strips enforcement responsibility of this specific ordinance from the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office, and places enforcement in the hands of Unite Here Local 11, its members, employees and other non-government people. This is unlike the enforcement of approx. 99% of all other city ordinances, which are currently enforced by the city, and not enforced by Unite Here Local 11, or other non-city persons.
4. Exposes new businesses to frivolous and unjust lawsuits, as it does not currently provide for the reimbursement of defendant legal fees if legal action is brought under a Right to Recall ordinance, even if or when said legal action is dismissed, discharged and/or found to be untrue and/or is unsubstantiated.
5. These proposed restrictions are being imposed on businesses that have no record of ever discriminating against anyone, are being drafted without just cause, they are lacking approprate due process, they reduce and prolong job availability, they reduce the value of businesses on city owned property, they harm the economy, and their alleged need is not evidence based.
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
2 We ask council to reconsider and oppose any Right to Recall ordinances.
II. However, if council moves forward with supporting a Right to Recall Ordinance (RTRO), we ask for the following protections for our residents, workers and businesses alike:
1. Right to Recall Ordinances (RTRO) should also be amended to:
1. Provide for a department within the city that is designated with the responsibility of educating employees, employers and tenants on their rights and obligations under any RTRO.
2. Provide for the City of Santa Monica to enforce RTRO's and not outsource enforcement to Unite Here Local 11, private sector or others.
3. Provide for non-binding, but required city sponsored mediation and remedies before any litigation is brought on by a plaintiff under any RTRO.
4. Prevent frivolous lawsuits. Provide for the full reimbursement of defendant legal fees if legal action is brought under a Right to Recall ordinance, and if said legal action is found to be untrue, dismissed, discharged &/or is otherwise unsubstantiated.
5. City shall indemnify previous and new employers/tenants for any violation of privacy law claims that may be brought on by employees or others as a result of a city mandated RTRO - Including indemnifying tenants for releasing or contacting former employees, and/or for releasing their private information, contact information and/or employment records, without their prior written consent.
6. Exclude small businesses (as defined by US Small Business Administration) from compliance. Similar to the exclusion currently provided to hotels or other businesses that have less than $5,000,000 in revenue (adjusted for inflation from previous levels, and/or as defined as a small business by the US Small Business Administration).
If the intentions of council are in the interests of protecting and promoting Santa Monica workers, the business community that supports them, and our economy, then I have no doubt that council will also be equally concerned with making certain all parties are equally protected from unjust employment practices, malicious prosecution and/or frivolous lawsuits, by including the above 6 protections as amendments.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Sean Ahaus
California Roadhouse, Inc
213-364-6251
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026
Item 4-L
February 10, 2026