Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairperson. As proposed to be amended, Senate Bill 1028 will allow the Department of Alcohol, Beverages and Beverage control to issue up to 10 additional type 47 licenses to a county after that county reaches its limit. The Bill also gives local control by allowing a county to decide how many additional licenses to request from the Department of ABC. Type 47 licenses allow an eating place like restaurants to sell beer, wine and liquor for consumption on the premises.

Current law caps the number of these licenses to counties based on their population ratio of one license per 2000 residents. Oftentimes, a growing county will be hindered by the large discrepancy between the demand for type 47 licenses and the supply that ABC can provide. Additionally, many rural counties, like the ones that I represent, have relatively small, permanent populations while hosting a large tourist population throughout the year. Unfortunately, tourism is not a factor when determining the number of type 47 licenses a county may receive.

Over the years, the Legislature has routinely passed bills that allow ABC to issue additional licenses to specific counties. Senate Bill 1028 will apply these policies statewide and allow any county to request up to 10 additional type 47 licenses. To conclude, this Bill is necessary to ensure that our communities have the ability to grow and foster economic development. Here to testify and support is Audrey let me try this Ratajczak on behalf of Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield.

Good morning.

Good morning. Chair Dodd and Members of the Committee, Audrey Ratajczak I know it's a hard one. I represent Westfield. I'm here today in support of SB 1028, which is a critical measure to helping move forward economic development and support businesses in the state, including improvement and growth opportunities planned by Westfield. The Bill allows the Department of ABC to issue up to 10 additional type 47 licenses to a county in the calendar year following any year in which the county reaches its limit.

Many new or growing businesses that apply for a license often must wait for months or longer before even having the possibility of securing a license. If no licenses are available from the state due to the population restrictions, businesses interested in obtaining an ABC license may purchase one from an existing licensee for whatever the price the market will bear.

And this has been a major impediment for restaurants in our area because there are either no available license to purchase or the market has driven up the prices for a secondary license to over $250,000 just for one. This is the exact challenge we're currently facing as we undergo changes and improvements at the Westfield Galleria in Roseville. We would like to move forward with expansions and continue to bring new economic development opportunities to our mall to support the region.

But the lack of available liquor licenses has made it extremely difficult to contract with new restaurants who have to be able to get a license in order for them to want to move forward to secure a spot. This Bill would help support businesses and ensure restaurants thrive by allowing additional type 47 licenses to a county that has reached its limit because the population limit does not always account for large tourist populations, which we have at the Galleria. For these reasons, we request your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before we continue, let's establish a quorum secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Fantastic. So we now have a quorum. We're going to continue with Senator Alvarado-Gil. For those viewing at home, it's SB 1028. Anybody else wishing to address?

Chair and Members Nate Solov, on behalf of the California Craft Distillers Association, Paso Robles Distillery Trail, and Travel Paso. Appreciate the author's work on this and the Chair. This is about economic development and job creation throughout the state. Appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else? Me, too. State your name and your organization. I'll get there. I'll get there. Hang on a second. Hang on. Anybody else in the room wishing to seeing? None now. Come on up. Anybody opposed to SB 1028? Sorry about the confusion there.

I am way too excited to be opposed. Sorry, but thank you. The Chair. Thank you, the Committee. My name is Carson Benowitz-Fredericks. I'm the Research Director at Alcohol Justice. We're a 501 C, three nonprofit organization in San Rafael that advocates for policies that promote public health and safety. And we're asking for your no vote on SB 1028, the sort of be all and end all of why we're asking for this is that restrictions on alcohol outlet density are a really fundamental plank in keeping alcohol safe and legal.

That when we find that there are too many alcohol outlets in one small area, we find that a number of behavioral problems emerge, including violence, including dangerous driving, including people drinking in ways that directly harms themselves. And in fact, restrictions on alcohol outlets are a policy advanced by more or less every major public health body, including the American Public Health Association, the World Health Organization. Change lab solutions backs this up. This is kind of the accepted standard for a protective policy.

And California is in a period of rapidly, rapidly escalating alcohol harm. In 2016, the mortality per year was around 11,000. Now it's over 19,000. So in eight years, we've gone up 8000 additional deaths per year from alcohol. And then according to an analysis that we actually did, looking at bills passed in this Legislature that enhanced the number of places that people could get alcohol, there's been last 10 years, I believe, 55 or 57, something like that, that enhanced access.

Every single one of those ticks that harm up a little bit, and that's how you end up with 8000. So again, what we need is a break. When we look at real numbers, we have simulations of density limits in California that found that reducing licenses by 1 bar per zip code would reduce what would prevent 290 serious assaults per year.

And I just want to make one other point, which is that while we sort of have this instinct to think of this as a liquor store problem, it actually isn't. And there's a lot of burgeoning research that shows that this is connected to both on and off sale. Bona fide eating place is good, at least in terms of generating more jobs. But the problem is they don't always just restrict themselves to operating as bona fide eating places, they operate as bars.

That does have a higher risk profile as well. And last, we've actually seen during post pandemic, the locus of harm from over concentration shift from being off sale outlets like liquor stores to on sale outlets. This is a many factored change that people are still exploring, but it does really lend against the wisdom of sort of an uncapped, infinite expansion of alcohol licenses to any store that is already at the level that ABC flags as kind of hazardous. So again, I ask for you to vote no on SB 1028, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Hi, good morning. My name is Raul Verdugo, Program Director for the California Alcohol Policy Alliance. That's CAPA, a project of alcohol justice. We represent 35.

Did you put the mic down a little bit so we can hear you? I'm sorry.

We represent 35 organizations statewide with a mission to unite diverse communities in the prevention and reduction of alcohol related harm. We are opposed to Senate Bill 1028 for the following reasons. This system will not retire existing licenses where local municipalities are likely to be over concentrated. It's considered an undemocratic approach in that it disempowers communities with the ability to participate in the licensing process and it removes the rights of self determination that any and all community stakeholders should be expected to have. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing none, I'll turn to Members of the Senate Committee, Geo Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Archuleta?

Yeah, Senator, I've got a question. Each county has a different population. I see the number of 10. Is it up to 10 or does it anyway reflect the population? As you know, in LA County we've got 10 million people.

That's right.

And we've got the Olympics coming to LA County, and in 2028, we've got, hopefully the games coming and all sorts of things and expanding. Obviously in a County of Los Angeles, besides 10 million people makes a little bit of sense, but in another county when there's only 1 million or whatever, how are you working with that?

Well, yes, so what we've seen is really the lack of equity in counties across the state. So counties that have a smaller population are still held to the same standards in terms of population ratio. So it does not take into account the amount of vast tourism that comes into those communities. And so this is where we're trying to create that lens of equity. Now, we know Los Angeles County has a very large population here in California. This Bill perhaps would not.

Well, it would not hinder, but it perhaps would not help them. In a sense, that would create larger economic development. But this would do a great deal of amount for our smaller rural communities that are the majority here in California.

The other thing that I want to note is that the 10 additional licenses are up to 10, and there is still local control. There is still that ability of the local body, the county body, to assess, make a vote and make an ultimate application to ABC.So this is essentially eliminating that step of excluding the smaller communities. And that's what I'm looking to do.

Good. Thank you for the clarity Chair.

So really, your Bill is essentially to make the competition between different entities that pop up in rural communities that have tourist areas, make them competitive so that they can survive.

Correct.

And people are still going to go there if one's not selling and one is selling, they'll just go to the one that's selling if that's what they're in that area for.

That's right. And I represent some of the most beautiful areas in the state that attracts visitors from all over the world, Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, Mono Lake and Ino. And these are communities that thrive with tourism. But if we're not able to give the local restaurants and the local business owners that appeal to those tourists that want to enjoy a glass of wine, for example, with their meal, then we are not able to attract the workforce and attract that investment of economic development.

So we want a fair playing field. At the same time, I'm looking also to discourage and ultimately eliminate the illegal market of liquor licensed sales. We've seen on different social media platforms and different ways that people have bartered with these liquor licenses for sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars above the price that they would ultimately pay legally.

All right. Thank you. Yes.

Okay. So, Senator, as a co-author of this Bill and author of similar bills in the past, I want to thank you for authoring this important legislation that it will allow our counties to have a say in what businesses they allow in their communities. I think that's an important distinction of this Bill. From previous bills, I've seen countless bills allowing the department to issue additional restaurant licenses.

I think this is a much more efficient solution that negates the need for individual counties to have to sponsor legislation every time they need additional licenses. With the amendments taken today, counties will be able to limit the number of licenses in the department. The department can issue in their respective communities, or, if they choose to do so, completely refuse any of the licenses that this Bill provides. I think this is a great example of local control, and I look forward to supporting the Bill today. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion on SB 1028? We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

That Bill has 12 votes. We'll put that Bill on call for the absent Members, and we'll move back to the top of the agenda. Please. Wilk moves the consent calendar. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Wilk. Secretary, please call the role in the consent calendar.

Do I need to read those into the record? Okay, so the motion on our consent calendar, this includes file item number one, SB 931. File item number two, SB 978, Seyarto. File item number five, SB 958, Dodd. And file number six, SB 1014, Dodd. Do we have a motion? We do have a motion by Senator Wilk now. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 12 votes. We'll keep that Bill on call as well. We'll now move to item number three, SB 969. Senator Wiener, up and ready to go as usual.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. I jumped the gun a little bit. You were calling me, but you were calling the consent calendar colleagues. I'm here to present SB 969. If this Bill looks familiar, it's because this Committee has passed versions of this Bill out this twice before. A few years ago, it was in a different Bill, and it got stripped out in Assembly of probes.

Last year, SB 76 passed this Committee and was narrowed down only to San Francisco, and then even narrower, still in Assembly approach. And so we're here again with a good Bill whose time has come. And hopefully this time we will be able to actually get it in a strong form through the Senate and to the Assembly floor. So I appreciate you hearing the Bill. This Bill is actually quite simple.

It will allow, not require, allow, cities, if they want, to designate outdoor entertainment zones, which could be part of their downtown area. It could be a town square, it could be whatever they want. And in those entertainment zones, they'll be able to define the scope, what people can do, the hours. They could do it 365 days a year, only on weekends, only on Saturdays, only a few days a month, only special events.

And what it will allow is local bars and restaurants to be able to sell alcohol onto the street. Right now, cities can designate, quote unquote, open container zones. They have that ability right now, however, those are only for special events, and only outside vendors can come in to sell, for example, beer. The local restaurants and bars that are in that zone cannot sell into the open container zone.

So you can imagine how frustrating it would be if you are, say, a bar or restaurant owner and you see outside vendors selling beer on the street. But you can't do that. That is unfair. And so this will give a lot of flexibility for cities to be able to activate, whether it's their downtown areas or somewhere else.

We know that coming out of the pandemic, a lot of cities, San Francisco might be, is the most extreme example, but not the only one where downtowns have not come back. And cities want to try to find ways to bring people in to activate outdoor space to support their small businesses. And SB 969 will help them do that.

One thing that's in the Bill that wasn't in the Bill you passed last year are some additional guardrails and clarifications that we put in in the Assembly, making sure that only people 21 and older clarifying that the open container zone or the entertainment zone has to shut down whenever the latest liquor license of any of the small businesses ends, and also requiring cities to consult with their local Police Department to obtain feedback before passing an ordinance. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And with me today to testify is Zane Barnes from the City of San Jose, which is one of our co-sponsors, and Bob Simpson, a Board Member for California Nightlife Association and the owner of nightlife establishments here in Sacramento and in the Bay Area since 1990.

Good morning. Good morning, honorable Chair and Committee Members. My name is Zane Barnes and I'm the Chief Intergovernmental Relations Officer for the City of San Jose who is a proud co-sponsor of SB 969. As we emerge from the pandemic, bars, restaurants, and entertainment venues are playing an outsized role in bringing people into central business districts.

Events like San Jose Jazz, Summer Fest and music in the park alongside our nightlife hubs in the SoFA District and San Pedro Square are bringing life back to our urban center. However, our hospitality businesses face immense challenges in San Jose. Food and beverage sales in our downtown remain 13% below pre-pandemic numbers when accounting for inflation. That's just one reason we're excited about SB 969.

Allowing cities to designate outdoor entertainment zones where brick-and-mortar establishments can sell takeout alcoholic beverages gives these businesses and their business districts a fighting chance against years of pandemic struggles. This Bill removes barriers that have previously prevented these establishments from fully participating in nearby outdoor special events.

Currently, these types of outdoor events utilize a third-party vendor for alcohol sales, directly competing with nearby businesses. By extending the areas where patrons can enjoy beverages sold by brick-and-mortar shops, SB 969 opens up new opportunities for these businesses to generate revenue and attract foot traffic.

This could fundamentally change the way San Jose engages in public events such as the upcoming Super Bowl 60, Copa America and the World Cup. This new model will ensure that visitors spending stays in the local economy. Furthermore, the flexibility provided by SB 969 allows cities to tailor how their entertainment zones operate to their unique needs. The legislation builds in safeguards and checkpoints to ensure that community concerns are taken into account.

Working with the San Jose Police Department, community organizations, mayor, and council Members, we will ensure the implementation is a good fit for our diverse community. In summary, SB 969 SB represents a proactive and innovative approach to supporting small businesses, revitalizing downtown areas, and creating engaging experiences for residents and visitors. Thank you for your time and I request your aye vote on 969.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning. Mr. Chair, Members, my name is Bob Simpson. I own and operate several nightclubs and restaurants and bars in Sacramento. Currently, I have four. I also sit on the board of CAL NIGHTS. It's an advocacy group for the social economy. I strongly believe SB 969 will help boost the areas in our struggling statewide downtowns that have lost businesses due to the pandemic.

Our downtown entertainment districts have been affected negatively with remote work. The 05:00 business crowd that used to pack my bars is no longer in our downtowns, and SB 969 will allow us to create larger activations by partnering together as businesses, throwing festivals, block parties, and special events.

We're all sharing the same costs and sharing the same promotional opportunities. I believe cities will see the benefit of that with increased employment and taxation, operators are still going to be regulated by ABC and city jurisdictions, and I believe this Bill would be fantastic for the social economy. So please pass SB 969. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else here in support? Reminder now to state your name, affiliation and position only.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Downtown Association, representing the state's business improvement districts, were in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Karen Lange, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support and sponsorship this morning. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Chris Walker, on behalf of the California Craft Brewers Association, in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, at this time, we're going to move to witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Good morning.

Good morning Chair, Members. Fred Jones, on behalf of California Council on Alcohol Problems, which is led by pastors and ecclesiastical leaders that deal with alcohol among their congregants and the impacts on a regular basis. I keep hearing that one of the primary justifications for this Bill is to put brick and mortars on a level playing filled with festivals, out-of-town providers, and vendors.

If that were the case, we could limit the Bill to festivals and other one time permits. But as the author just acknowledged, this would allow 365 days out of the year our local communities to transform their downtown business areas into Bourbon street. Are you really prepared to let that go statewide throughout all of our communities?

Are local law officials prepared for that? Is the state ABC prepared for that? I don't think so. I think they're all understaffed and overworked already. You have an opportunity to see a pilot program in real time before you authorize this statewide in San Francisco.

The Bill just passed last year. Let that play out. The city hasn't even adopted a resolution to authorize SB 76 in San Francisco yet. Let's see how that goes there before you expand it statewide 365 days out of the year. So we would respectfully request this Bill be held, and let's see how things go in San Francisco first. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition, please forward. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Dodd. Thank you to the Members of the Committee. My name is, again, Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, still the Research Director of Alcohol Justice. We are a nonprofit in San Rafael that promotes evidence-based policies to protect public health and safety. We would like to urge your no vote on SB 969.

Again, I've discussed the rise in just eight years, the 75% rise in the rate of alcohol mortality. We've gone from 11,000 or so in 2016 to 19,000 in 2021. That is five years. That's good job math there, me. But that is all exacerbated by bills that are meant to encourage more people to drink more, to travel more to drink, and to come and gather tightly while intoxicated. These are all really well identified risk factors for acute alcohol harms.

For motor vehicle crashes, which again, have gone up in 2019, I believe they were 960 something. They're now over 1300 as of the last California Office of Traffic Safety Report. So that is rising again, kind of out of control right now. We have a Bill. It's going to bring people into city centers from wherever they are. They will drive, they will park their car, they will walk around the street drinking. Some of them will drink too much.

Some of them who have not gotten in their car will have drunk too much. Then the ones who have drunk too much will get in their car, drive down the streets that nothing in this Bill expects to be closed with. The people who have drunk too much are still on the street. You basically, you. The only thing that could make this more of a perfect machine to flatten pedestrians is to increase the at last call time in these zones. So this is already really risky.

This is just a specific case. But we actually do see, again in Bourbon street, we see lots of violence associated with it, lots of attempts by residents to roll it back. We do know that we have the sort of signature horrifying act of violence around a street party in San Francisco was the Castro Street Halloween 20 years ago.

The problem is, if you actually look at Bourbon street, which presumably would be the ideal for many cities of what this Bill would create, you see, sure enough, a mass shooting on Halloween. You also have one on Christmas Eve, and you had just had one on Mardi Gras. This is just the ones that I found by searching for shootings in the French Quarter on special events. This doesn't include the ones that happen every day.

And so we are really raising the risk of this happening in any city that goes full bore for it. So, sure, they don't have to go full bore for it, but the thing that would protect people's lives is to make it so they can't go full bore for it. We're not supposed to let people kill their residents and kill their visitors if they want. We're supposed to prevent them from doing it. That is sort of what alcohol law is about.

And I believe that SB 969 really looks at a whole lot of demonstrated harms from kind of this really uncontrolled and unaccountable. Sorry, I'm going to try to wrap this up, but I just want to emphasize, unaccountable bars cannot use responsible beverage service with their patrons when those patrons are not in the bars. Okay? So unaccountable alcohol sales will ramp this out of control. And I really hope that this would make you see that a no vote on SB 969 is the way to go. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing testify?

Yes. Thank you. Then again, thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Raul Verdugo.

So technically, to be fair, I'm only supposed to allow you to state your name and who you represent.

That's fine. I don't want to go too long anyway. But thank you for that. We are opposed to SB 969, the entertainment party zone Bill, because by taking alcohol consumption out of bars, where staff are trained in responsible beverage service, there will no longer be safeguards to ensure the alcohol sold will not be consumed by underage youth. In addition, we also find problems with SB 969 because its success hinges entirely upon whether it gets more people to drink more alcohol.

I'd instead state your name and your organization and whether you support or not. Sorry about that. That must be on me, because that's just the way we're rolling to here this morning. So I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Anybody have any comments? Senator Seyarto.

Just to clarify, people can still have their street festivals where they have their temporary use permits for alcohol. People are selling it on the street. And you have maybe a restaurant that is behind one of the shopping centers that line the street that's now closed. So people can walk around. So people are drinking there.

If they want lines too long or something, they just go over there instead of waiting in line and order something from the restaurant where they could probably order in any way. The only difference is they can take that outside and join the street festival while the festival is going on. It doesn't preclude a local area, a local entity, from creating more rules that are restrictive if they're having problems.

Because my thing is, people are going to go, right, they're going to go to this festival, and if they're inclined to drink, they'll drink. If they're not, they won't. They're going to get alcohol and hopefully not over imbibe. Some people will, but this Bill doesn't add to that amount or subtract to that amount. All it does is help those restaurants that every time there's a festival right in front of them survive because they'll be in the entertainment zone also. Is that correct?

That is correct. And it also does require in the implementing ordinance that the city passes measures to ensure that there's checking to make sure people are over 21 and also consultation with their local police department. It also does allow cities to move away from doing it just for special events. And if they want to say every Saturday this area is going, they can do that without having to tie it to a specific special event. But that's their local flexibility.

They determine that.

They determine that.

This doesn't force them to do.

Cities can ignore this entirely and has no application.

Thank you, Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the local control aspect of it. That's always been very important for me and I'm sure for many others that have been elected officials locally. What I'd like to, and like I said, I know that you have more safeguards than the Bill that you passed last year, as you stated. I want to see if you can explain a little further.

I think I heard you say it's regulated by ABC and local jurisdictions in terms of what they can and cannot do. Can you go further into it in terms of safeguards? What does that mean? So the city has to come up with some standards or ABC.

Can you just talk further on again right now? A city can already do an aspect of this by having outside vendors come in. Cities can do that today and have been able to do that for a very long time. They can say this area is an open container zone. People can walk around with alcohol in an open container. We're going to bring outside vendors in to sell so that's already happening today.

What this Bill does is it allows the bars and restaurants to participate the same as the outside vendors, and it allows the city to do it in a way that it's not just tied to a special event, but they can say, we're going to do it on weekends or Saturdays or three days a month or whatever they choose to do.

We put various guardrails in, in the Assembly last year, which we have stuck with about making sure that people are over 21, making sure that the open container zone cannot remain open past whenever the latest service hour is on the local liquor licenses. So if all the local liquor licenses, if they all have to stop selling at midnight, the entertainment zone has to shut down by midnight, for example. And then the requirement to consult with local police to get feedback on public safety issues.

They also have to provide all documentation to ABC. They're required to review and audit basically the entertainment zone every two years to determine if there are any issues and then make that information available to ABC. And then, of course, if you have license holders that are violating their license or causing problems, the ABC can always take action.

So it's very specific. That's a third-party vendor that's already an established industry that sells alcohol. So let me share with you where my thoughts are going right now. I think it was last year where we passed the food vendor Bill, which we all wanted to be supportive of the street vendors, right? And as I drive around LA County now, it was meant to help small people.

And all of a sudden now people are taking out full kitchens and industrial size cookware, and it's become sort of an outside restaurant. But you have a safeguard where you're still trying to make sure that they're licensed. There's ways of curving that kind of outside sale with individuals.

So just to be clear, this Bill doesn't expand what the outside vendors can do, because those outside vendors are able to operate. Now, if a city chooses what this Bill does, in addition to allowing to go beyond the special events to a more regular basis, if the city wants to, it empowers the brick and mortar bars and restaurants to participate, which they are barred under state law from participating now.

So it's the brick and mortar bars and restaurants that would be the new participants, and they're obviously the local, generally mom and pop establishments.

And that's the goal, because I see on this other side where they're not no longer going to restaurants, they're going outside. But I'm trying to find that middle ground. But I agree. I think that we need to figure out a way to help those brick and mortars that are not doing well. So I just wanted to clarify those questions. Thank you for that.

Yeah. Senator, opposition mentioned doing this 365 days a year. I'm under the impression it's only at special events or perhaps the weekend. Do you clarify that?

No, it's not just special events. Cities will have the ability to do it on a regular basis if they want to. I am doubtful that any city is going to choose to do it 365 days a year, but cities will choose whether they want to do it once a month, once a week, the full weekends, Thursday through Sunday, they can do it. That'll be a local choice, and it'll have to be done within all the constraints.

And they still all have liquor licenses under ABC, which if they violate, they can be penalized or revoked.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I support where you're moving with it. Just a comment in that the draft language gives pretty clear definition to entertainment zone and in the amendments to the code lays out the rights of the vendors if they are within an entertainment zone.

I would just suggest that perhaps the language could be strengthened to be very clear that the creation of such a zone per se is exclusive to the local land use authority within the parameters. I don't think that that's explicitly made as clear as it could be in the draft language and could lead to other unintended consequences, for example, in putting inordinate pressure on a local land use authority to create such a zone in the first place.

So I'm happy to support it out of Committee, but I do think that language making it very clear that this is not an obligation of a local land use authority, that this creation of this zone lies exclusively in so fully with a local land use authority, and that they're under no obligation to create such a zone in the first place. So I think that that needs to be made more clear in the draft, but other than that, I'm happy to support it.

I appreciate it. We'll go back and take a look at that language. Absolutely. I think it says that, and that's certainly an intent, but if it needs to be clarified, we have no problem doing that.

Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I agree with some of the comments my colleague has made. One other thing. So just some ideas as you're going back is one, is what Senator Archuleta mentioned is it could be 365 days because there are areas in my district, there's times where we have festivals for three months and so I don't want it to be a burden on the residents as well.

And so I think if there's some kind of guidelines that we can allow cities or local government to know that they can't just blanket the entire city as an entertainment zone, because back then when we had other zones allow, some cities have used it and just made it the entire city.

And so I think that if there's some kind of guidelines or restriction to not allow cities or county to completely zone their entire city as entertainment zone, causing burdens to the residents, I think that would be helpful or some kind of appeal process for residents, not just to City Council but also to ABC. And then the other part is, is there any times or date restrictions in these entertainment? Are we allowing them to go 24 hours a day or is this just purely what local government will decide?

Yeah, first of all, this doesn't.

Yeah, I think we just need to make it clear here. They can go 365 days out of the year right now. A city can in local control. This just allows, if they're doing that, those specified bars to be able to participate. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, I mean, they could do special events 365. Now, it's clunkier to do it because they have to keep pulling permits, but they could do that. And to answer your question, this does not extend our, I mean, as you know, I've carried the 04:00 a.m. Bill before and this Committee has, the Senate has been very hospitable to that Bill. The Assembly Floor a little less so and Governor Brown a little less so. You know where my view is on that. This Bill does not change the hours.

So 02:00 a.m. Is still the end time. In addition, it does not extend the hours for specific permits because there are cities where everything ends at midnight or at 10:00 p.m. Because the city, as a matter of land use has made that decision. This doesn't change that unless the city decides to change it. In addition, if ABC has said you can only serve until 08:00 p.m. Or 10:00 p.m. Or midnight, that restriction from ABC will continue and the city can't change that. So all of the time limitations remain. We're not changing that at all.

Perfect move the Bill. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Senator Wiener, I just wanted clarification of your Bill. So currently, if there is an entertainment zone or a festival, outside vendors can sell alcohol, but the restaurants, brick and mortar that have been there cannot. Correct. So with your Bill, that would change that. Now, my question is really about how to regulate the access of minors or under 21. So would that mean that if the restaurant participates, they could no longer welcome patrons under age 21?

Or would they have to put in some type of restrictions to ensure, like one of those Bains or checking IDs, how would it change, or how would it stay the same?

Right. This wouldn't change who can enter an establishment. So right now, under 21 can enter a restaurant, but cannot enter a bar that will remain the same. An amendment that we are keeping from the Assembly last year is that the city, when it adopts an ordinance, has to provide for how they're going to ensure that it's 21 and older. And they could do it with wristbands, for example. There are probably various ways that they can do it, but that is a requirement in the Bill. Thank you.

By Senator Glazer. Secretary, please call the roll.

Would you like just a brief? And I do want to address one thing I know in this Committee. There's a lot of debate about the pros and cons of alcohol. As someone who's, and I've said this publicly before, who lost a close family member to a DUI, I'm extremely sensitive to those issues. But we also want to support cities ability to have vibrancy in their downtown. I do want to just mention one thing.

There was an inaccuracy not just about my city, but about my neighborhood that I've lived in for almost 25 or for 27 years, about the Castro Halloween. As someone who lives in the Castro, who was present at that Halloween when there was tragically a shooting and that resulted in Halloween being shut down in the Castro, that was a gang shooting. It was not an alcohol-related shooting. I think it's really important to be accurate when we say these kinds of things. Thank you. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. So we have that motion. Can we. Secretary, please call the roll?

SB 969 motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] We'll hold it open.

How many? Okay, that bill has enough votes, but we're going to put that on call. We're going to go through the roll. We'll start out with the consent items. Open the roll, please.

Absent members. Ashby. Bradford. Glazer. Aye. Roth.

Roth. Who else is in here? Ashby, Roth and Bradford. Okay, we'll go now to--has everybody that's here voted on 969, Wiener? Yes. Okay, so we'll now go to SB 1028, Alvarado-Gil. Open the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Absent Members. Ashby. Bradford. Glazer. Aye. Roth.

Okay, can we see if-

Rubio is on consent.

You're done. You're done. You're done. All right, so is Senator Roth in a position where--he's on his way, so we're going to open this up just momentarily. Should we just get them out? No, we'll just get you out. Let's open the roll for the consent items.

Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. That's 15.

How many?

15.

Still, we'll leave that open for Senator Roth. We'll move to file item number 3, SB 969, Wiener. Open the roll, please.

Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye.

Now move to-

Roth.

Sorry about that. Okay, we're going to keep that open. Now we'll move to file item number 4, SB 1028. Open the roll, please.

Ashby. Aye. Bradford. Aye. Roth.

That's alright. Sorry I wasn't there. Imagine you call me and I say, "Here." It's been one of those mornings.

On the consent items, please call the roll.

Roth. Aye.16-0.

Senator, there's two more. So how many votes?

16-0 on the consent.

16-0 on the consent calendar. That's out. We'll move to item number 3, SB 969, Wiener. Open the roll, please.

Roth. Aye. 16-0.

16-0. That bill is out. We'll move now to file item number 4, SB 1028, Alvarado-Gil. Please open the roll.

Roth. Aye. 16-0.

16-0. That bill is out. That concludes the business before the governmental organizations committee. I'd like to thank staff and everybody in the room for helping out today. This meeting is adjourned.