Loomis council tables proposed ‘entertainment zone’ after hours-long public hearing
Loading...
Summary
After more than two hours of presentation, questions and public testimony, the Loomis Town Council voted to table consideration of a proposed entertainment-zone ordinance and asked staff to return after further outreach and clarifying edits to permit language, hours, enforcement and signage.
Council members on Tuesday paused action on a proposal that would let patrons carry approved, town-authorized plastic containers of alcohol in a defined downtown area, after heated public comment and detailed technical questions from the council. The item, introduced by Community Development Director Christian Spence and championed by business owner Scott Paris, prompted debate about enforcement, hours, liability, signage and the extent of town-manager authority.
The proposal would have implemented a local ordinance under state law (referred to in the presentation as Senate Bill 969) permitting local governments to authorize off-premises consumption in defined public-right-of-way zones with town-issued permits for participating businesses. Christian Spence explained the mechanics: participation would be voluntary, only eligible ABC-licensed businesses could issue drinks in approved non‑glass, clear containers (a 16-ounce pint for beer, 6-ounce wine, spirit cocktails limited to 1.5 ounces of spirits), and the town could revoke a business’s EZ participation permit for repeated noncompliance. "The action requested is to waive the first reading of the ordinance," Spence told council during staff remarks.
Scott Paris, owner of High Hand, acknowledged public anxiety about the idea and repeatedly asked residents to direct frustration at him rather than other people: "If you're upset, please direct that energy towards me," he said, describing the EZ as a voluntary tool for coordinated events, a way to connect small downtown businesses and to stage fundraisers and music strolls.
Residents and business owners delivered split testimony during the public hearing. Supporters, including several downtown operators, described the EZ as a potential economic and civic tool and emphasized server training and voluntary rules. Many others urged caution: speakers warned of increased litter, congestion on narrow sidewalks, proximity to schools and parks, uncertain enforcement capacity by the sheriff’s office and potential increases in insurance costs for both businesses and the town. "This needs to be taken a 100% off the table," said resident Greg Walters, urging more narrow, event-based permits instead of a standing zone.
Council members spent lengthy time testing ordinance language and sought clarifications about: (1) whether the town manager’s authority to impose permit conditions could be used to alter hours for the whole zone or only on specific permits (staff said it applies to permit-specific conditions at issuance and can be used for time-limited safeguards); (2) how enforcement would function in practice (the sheriff’s office said it will respond to calls for service and that public intoxication remains illegal); (3) penalties for individuals versus businesses (the draft includes escalating administrative penalties and permit revocation); and (4) whether an automatic zone-wide operating hour could be triggered by a single business’s later hours (staff agreed to clarify language to avoid unintended expansion).
After deliberation, Councilmember (speaker 4) moved to table the ordinance and return the item at a later date following additional community outreach and revisions. The motion passed on roll call: Cortez — Aye; Ring — Yes; Youngblood — No; Cartwright — Aye; Mayor Clark Kretz — Yes. The council directed staff to work with the Loomis Retail/Chamber representatives, the sheriff’s office and affected business owners to refine boundaries, clarify permit and enforcement language, revisit hours and fines, and prepare more precise implementation and monitoring plans before the next reading.
The council emphasized that participation would remain voluntary and that the permit system includes revocation and reporting. Staff said they plan weekly debriefs with law enforcement, public works and participating businesses in the first two months if the council ultimately adopts an EZ, and repeated that the state mandates a two‑year statutory review while the council retains authority to repeal the ordinance at any time.
The meeting record shows strong resident engagement: dozens of commenters asked for a more limited, event-driven approach or more safeguards; business owners sought clarity on parking-lot inclusion and whether the zone would generate sufficient economic benefit to offset compliance and liability concerns. Councilmembers asked staff to return with tightened, clearer ordinance language and a stakeholder-outreach plan before any second-reading vote.
