Santa Monica council adopts narrower worker recall and retention rules for pier and city-owned hospitality

Santa Monica’s City Council on Jan. 27 approved revised municipal rules requiring certain hospitality employers on city-owned property to offer rehire and temporary retention rights to displaced workers, a policy aimed at protecting employees during operator changes at the Pier and city‑owned facilities. The ordinance updates chapter 4.66 and adds chapter 4.69 to the city code, expanding existing hotel-worker protections.Councilors and city attorneys spent more than an hour in detailed procedural debate about who would be covered, how long offers must be held and how to balance worker protections with small-business concerns. The final ordinance requires operators to offer jobs to eligible workers — generally those who worked at least two hours within a two‑month period and had six months’ service — and provides a 90‑day retention period for successor employers after a change in control. It also clarifies definitions for "successor peer employer" and when the retention clock begins, and sets notice timelines to workers and the city.Council members asked staff how other jurisdictions handle similar protections and whether exceptions for “reasonable and substantiated cause” to withhold an offer should remain. The city attorney told the council the retention/recall language is based on models in other California cities and airport/large-proprietary contexts such as Long Beach and Los Angeles but highlighted the difference that Santa Monica is acting in its proprietary role as landlord in many pier cases. Council member Raskin said the ordinance is a pro‑worker measure consistent with the council’s priorities; other members pressed for safeguards for small businesses and limits on litigation exposure.Amendments adopted on the floor narrowed parts of the proposal: the council directed staff to incorporate the revised definitions read into the record, adjust timing language (for example, the 15‑day list exchange tied to lease assumption), and to include the recall/retention language explicitly in Pier leasing guidelines. The council also asked staff to return with more precise data on how many Pier tenants and concessions would be affected at varying employee‑count thresholds (for example, a higher threshold such as 25 employees was discussed).The vote passed with a majority; Council member Negrete recorded the lone “No” on the final motion as amended.Councilmembers pledged to monitor implementation and to refine the rules as staff provides further analysis and guidance. The ordinance will return for any required second reading and subsequent scrivener edits before final codification.