Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Chair and members. I want to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill and I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments today. AB 2174 would allow the Department Department of Alcohol Beverage Control to permit and authorize a licensed beer manufacturer to sell their own beer for consumption at limited special events. Current law prohibits licensed beer manufacturers from selling their own craft beer for consumption at any location other than their license premise.

California has over 1100 locally owned breweries that simply want to participate like other small businesses and local community events like street fairs, craft brewers important jobs, craft brewers important job providers and charitable contributors, and their continued vitality in a hyper competitive industry relies heavily upon consumer brand recognition and sales. AB 2174 would provide an opportunity for craft brewers to expand their footprint and collaborate with their local communities by obtaining permits from ABC to sell their beer at limited special events.

With me today to testify and support, I have Lori Ajax, executive vice president for the California Craft Brewers Association, and Peter Hoey from the Urban Roots Brewery here in Sacramento. Welcome.

Thank you very much sssembly member. Good afternoon Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Lori Ajax and I am with the California Craft Brewers Association in support of AB 2174. As was just mentioned, this would create a new pathway for California breweries to participate in community gatherings, street fairs and a private event.

AB 2174 seeks to build upon existing law by allowing breweries to participate in a limited number of events that have been approved by both local law enforcement and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This will ensure that these events are conducted in a safe and responsible manner. It will also allow our California breweries to showcase their product, connect with their consumers, and also contribute to their communities, which they do quite a bit of and they'd like to do it more.

I kindly request your aye vote and I will be here if you have any questions. Thank you.

Hello, thank you Madam Chair and committee, my name is Peter Hoey. I'm the co founder and brewmaster of Urban Roots Brewing and Smokehouse right here in downtown Sacramento. I am also a former board member for the CCBA and an active member for the Sacramento Brewers Guild. I've been brewing professionally 25 years and I've seen lots of ups and downs over the course of my career, and currently we're as an industry, are facing kind of an unprecedented challenge.

The aftereffects of COVID market changes, global supply chain issues, resulting in an increase in our cost of goods, as well as a lessened access to market through distributor consolidation. All of these things add up to what a number of small businesses like mine have discovered. And that's the direct to consumer interaction, is where there's really a path forward for the smaller breweries.

And what this legislation will really do for breweries of all sizes is be able to allow us to put our products right in front of consumers, to have a direct interaction with them. Right now, one of the ways we participate in the community is through donating to nonprofits, and frequently for those events, it's nonprofit volunteers that are pouring the beer.

What this will allow us to do is to say yes to requests that we get at the brewery for participating in weddings, street fairs, community gathering spots. We're right downtown, and we see the reduced foot traffic in this downtown. I travel throughout California and see it in other communities. And one of the ways for rebuilding that foot traffic and re engaging in the community and building that network of people that want to come out, be social, and interact with each other.

Often beer can be a catalyst for that, and serving it responsibly is built into what we do. This isn't an effort to sell more beer. 36 events is currently what it allows. I've not written a business plan being open for 36 days a year. This is a bonus. And the real power in this bill is that consumer interaction piece is being able to directly interact with people and meet them where they want to be. They want to have a beer at the street fair.

This would allow us to have a booth right next to the local bread maker, local restaurant, et cetera, the other craftsmen that exist in this city and cities throughout California. So I thank you very much for your time. And again, I'm available for any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Okay. Any members of the public in support.

Concerns?

Okay. Any members of the public in opposition are tweeners.

Yes, we're a tweener. George Miller, on behalf of the California Family Beer Distributors, we have some concerns over the volume that's in the bill, but I think we've expressed those concerns to the author's office and the proponents, and we look forward to working with them. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? Thank you. Thank you, assembly member, majority leader. You may close.

Local jobs and businesses and allow communities to support their local breweries. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We don't have a quorum, so when we have one, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And yes, I will continue to work with him.

Yes, thank you. And I wanted to point out that you have been very open to working, and I know that the committee consultant has been directly involved in this bill, to Mr. Miller's point. I know that we're working through this to make sure that we get it correct and make sure that we can at least meet everybody in the middle. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Gallagher, I see you in the audience. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2069, a bill that aims to address an existing disparity in California alcohol sales and regulations. AB 2069 seeks to rectify the discrepancy in current law regarding the sale of domestically produced soju and Sochu by on sale beer and wine license holders. Currently, these licenses, typically restaurants and taverns bars, are allowed to sell imported soju and shochu alongside wine.

However, they are prohibited from selling domestically produced soju and Sochu, despite meeting the same regulatory standards as their imported counterparts. This imbalance actually places California producers at a significant disadvantage and undermines economic fairness in the industry. AB 2069 would level that playing field by allowing on sale licenses to sell both domestic and imported soju and shochu, thereby supporting our local distilleries and encouraging the utilization of California sourced ingredients.

So additionally, the bill aligns with the US Treasury Department of Treasury's Alcohol Trade and Trade Bureau definitions which do not combine, do not confine soju and shochu sales to imported products. The broad support for AB 2069 underscores its importance in promoting economic equity and supporting California small business. With me to testify and support is Kris Koenig, who is the owner of Golden Beaver Distillery, a domestic soju, and shochu producer, and Matt Weese with DC beverage. So I respectfully urge your support for this bill and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Chairman and committee members, for allowing me to express my company support for AB 2069. I'm one of the founders and distiller at Golden Beaver Distillery in Chico, California. Our distillery is one of only five across the United States that produce spirits from 100% rice. We produce whiskey, vodka, gin, moonshine and soju, all from locally grown Cal Rose Rice.

Our spirits are award winning, including our Bībā Soju, which won best Asian spirit at the 2022 Sunset Magazine Spirits competition, soju of the year in 2023, at the John Barleycorn Spirits competition, and just recently at the LA Invitational competitions in 2024. Even with all these accolades, we are not allowed the same privileges that foreign producers and their wholesalers hold in our own state. Our wholesaler is denied access to sell our soju to on sale beer and wine licensees.

Licensees who can purchase from korean and Japanese importers and wholesalers. This situation is not fair to our company, our employees, our farmers, our vendors and other domestic distilleries. And ultimately, it's unfair to the consumer. They lose a choice. Finally, those that say that Soju can only come from Asia once it was believed only great wines come from France. What would California wine history look like today if the folks at Chateau Montalena didn't push back in 1970 to create a whole new class of world class wines? Please give domestic distillers the same market access that foreigners currently enjoy in the State of California. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Speaker.

Good afternoon. My name is Matthew Weese. I am the operator of DC Beverage. We are a small distributor of craft spirits and wine based out of Healdsburg, California. We represent Golden Beaver Distillery and many other small California distilleries and wineries. As a distributor, if I'd like to have access to a fairly significant portion of the market, I have a choice to make. When it comes to soju.

I can go through the arduous and complicated and expensive process of importing a soju from overseas, or I could drive up the I-5 or down the 101 and source my soju from a local producer who sources his agricultural products from California farmers. The choice seems fairly obvious. However, the California producers have a significant disadvantage in that they are not allowed in a significant portion of the ABC licenses comparatively to its import counterparts. How's that? Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition to the bill? Okay, Members of the public in support of the bill,

Good afternoon. Chair and Members. Naomi Pedron, on behalf of the Distilled Spirits Council, pleased to support the measure. Thank you.

Hi, Michael Walker on behalf of the American Craft Spirits Association, in support of the bill.

Thank you. Any others in support? Okay. Any members of the public in opposition to the bill? Okay, seeing none, any members of the committee have any questions? We don't have quorum yet, but. So thank you. Okay, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members appreciate your attention to this Bill. Again, would ask for your. I vote to ensure that our domestic producers have the same market access. So thank you for your. Thank you for. Considerate consideration and ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. And we are still a subcommitee, so as soon as we have quorum, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Okay, Mr. Lowenthal, that's fine. I just saw you first. I was giving you the courtesy.

Assemblymember Lowenthal, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 2389 to begin, presumably.

Yes.

Madam Chair and members, thank you so much. I am pleased to present AB 2389 which is part of a larger package of bills that I'm carrying to address the ongoing and underreporting issue of roofing that is taking place across California, across the world that we have discussed here in this committee in the past. Last year, I authored AB 1013, which requires bars and nightclubs to have anti roofing test kits available for their patrons.

I'm proud to say that this bill was signed into law, went into effect. It goes into effect on July 1. While this is a step in the right direction, we still have work to do in addressing the issue. As people will now have access to these devices and be able to test their drinks for the presence of date rape drugs, we now need to be prepared with the next steps for the unfortunate event that someone's test comes back positive.

We know that drink spiking is typically done so that the perpetrator can easily commit crimes, other crimes such as sexual assault and rape. It is therefore extremely important to protect these individuals from falling victim to further horrible crimes. AB 2389 requires that if an employee of a restaurant, bar, or nightclub is made aware that a patron has been or believes to have been roofied, an employee of the establishment must then take two actions.

Number one, contact law enforcement or medical services, and number two, stay with the drugged individual to the best of their ability until law enforcement or medical services arrive. These simple extra steps will have the opportunity to reduce levels of sexual assault, rape, and even save lives. As a restaurant and bar owner myself, I'm extremely sensitive to this issue, and I understand just how important it is to provide a safe and inclusive environment to all of our guests.

This bill package gives restaurants, bars, and nightclubs the ability to address this issue using a comprehensive approach and ultimately strengthen the safety of their patrons. I know I have another bill on this that we're going to be discussing right after, and I want to make sure the committee understands. None of these measures by themselves should solve the issue of roofing in our state, but rather collectively.

They're all going to chisel away to raise awareness and to create an era of prevention where everybody is collectively vigilant, part of the village of people overseeing this. So this is one of those measures. Pleased to be joined by Michael Scippa of Alcohol Justice, who is here to testify and support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair Lackey, honored members of the committee, I'm Michael Skippa with Alcohol Justice, based in San Rafael, and it's an honor and a pleasure. And I want to express my gratitude to Mr. Lowenthal for bringing forward yet another Bill that actively seeks to reduce harm when it comes to alcohol, instead of increasing it, as so many other bills do.

Drink spiking, as you probably know, but it bears repeating, is often under recognized, underreported, or the blame is reflected back on the victim. The period of indecision is the window in which victimization is most likely to happen and or the victim will most likely go somewhere else where they do not have the protection of the initial bar's staff. This automatic mandated response is simple for people to engage in.

In a stressful situation, a bartender or bouncer instinctively doesn't want to bother someone who is heavily intoxicated if they're not causing harm. But requiring them to prevent them from allowing harm to happen by inaction is unconscionable. Likewise, someone who has been drugged may try to talk staff out of an intervention. A forced protocol will get them help. Regardless, it guarantees that an exceptionally toxic adulterant can be addressed quickly and effectively.

While we understand that there are many situations where this simply is not the fault of the club, there is enough potential for gray areas that we appreciate striking out the releases from liability. Nonetheless, we strongly recommend that medical personnel always be called, regardless of whether law enforcement is. I asked for your aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Any witnesses in opposition? Okay seeing none. Any members of the public in support? Any members of the public in opposition? This is easy. Thank you. And again, we. I think we have quorum. Can we hold off? I think we can establish quorum at the moment. Madam Secretary, can you take the roll.

On the quorum. [Roll Call]

Thank you. And just for the record, Assemblymember Bryan and Cervantes are absent today. And Assemblymember Lee is going to be a substitute for Assemblymember Bryan. Thank you. Mr. Lowenthal, you may close. Oh, I'm sorry. Questions from the committee? Thank you. Any questions from the committee?

I do. By me. Thank you. Question is, says somebody, you know, somebody comes up to, maybe I'm watch witnessing someone. How do I know? Like, you know, is it just they're intoxicated or is it something that perhaps they're being spiked with a roofie? Where do we, how do I do that?

So this is a wonderful question. I'm glad you're asking it. This is something we should all be aware of. What are the scenarios where this might take place? Well, let's be real on all of it. First of all, a lot of bars are so busy that the bartenders, our employees, are just completely focused on what they're doing right in front of them. And people are, they're in the middle of selling a drug that people are getting intoxicated over.

Alcohol is a drug and people are becoming intoxicated. And a lot of times patrons are not being taken seriously in their actions, whatever's going on. So by intentionally saying, I believe I've been roofied, I believe I've been drugged, it is critically important for that staff Member to take that moment seriously. Secondly, what often happens in a scenario like this is the offender, the perpetrator will say, it's okay, she's with me or he's with me, I've got her. There's nothing to worry about here.

And the person at the bar will say, okay, that's a relief. She's being taken home. That's fine. When that may be the offender who is going to commit sexual assault. And that is precisely why when somebody complains to somebody in a bar, you know that they should be responsible to contact first responders, to come to the scene and take care of it and do their best, best efforts to monitor.

I want to make sure that everybody understands there is no liability if the roofied individual leaves the establishment. No liability for the bar prior to first responders arriving. Finally, one last scenario. I would like to say, in the course of, of creating these bills and working with the public, I've heard many stories. One of the stories I've heard is actually that the bartenders may be involved in it themselves. That is quite possible. So it is especially important that the onus is on employees of the bar.

Any time an individual thinks that they may have been drugged for there, the law is for them to contact law enforcement.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gipson, first, and then Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you very much to the author. I think we've, for some reason, we've heard this bill before another committee, and certainly I shared with you not my concern, but my excitement for this bill based on a cousin of mine, which was my first death, and my family when I was 10 years old, he was roofied. And of course, he didn't wake up the next morning. They robbed him. And then another story was when I was removing the statue off of rape myself.

And a former senator, one of the males who came to testify, talked about how the bartender, in fact, was part of the scenario, him being roofty and also being raped at the same time. He was raped because he went to the bathroom. And when he came back from one drink, he couldn't remember what happened until he found himself in this place being sexually assaulted.

So anything that we can do in this space to make it safe, even young people, because of fentanyl and how it's easily transmitted. And I tell even young people, if you have to leave a drink, take it with you to the bathroom. Never leave it unattended, even with people that you think you know and you think you can trust. And so I would like to be considered, but I would like to move the bill, if it hasn't been already.

Thank you, Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you, chair. You do have an important package of bills. Assemblymember Lowenthal, this is all very good. I've not asked this question before, but how are you working with the industry, the restaurant and bar owners? I know obviously you're a restaurant owner yourself. What about the California Restaurant Association, number one? And then you mentioned in this bill, a program. Is this a voluntary program or is this a mandatory program to all restaurants to train their employees, explain the industry opinion, and then the implementation.

Assembly member, thank you for your ongoing support and for your questions. The bar program is actually the bill I'm about to present next. So I'll be addressing that next as part of this package. So happy to answer that question there. And if it's okay, I just wanted to also respond to Mr. Gipson. It was actually in this committee that you so eloquently and so importantly told your story.

It's been both comforting and alarming at how many members of the legislature have personal experiences relating to being drugged against their will out in the public. And so we do need a series of bills, a series of bills that are going to take care of this. And in a better budget year, we're going to try and come back and raise public awareness campaigns around it as well.

But the industry, you'll talk about that in the next bill.

The industry, I can tell you really quickly, the California Restaurant Association has been supportive of 1013, maybe 1013, which is the streps in the past. I can tell you as somebody who's a member of the industry myself, that it is going to be a lot better for business when our drinking establishments are safer. Way, way better. And so to raise awareness collectively in all these ways, I think on the whole are positive. I'm also having dialogue right now directly with alcohol companies and distributors.

For them to get involved, there's incredible branding opportunities, much like they're involved today in anti drunk driving initiatives.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. Let me first congratulate you for the commendable engagement on this big, very serious social problem.

But I'm just wondering, is this just an encouraged policy or is there a consequence for noncompliance?

Believe that there is a consequence associated with this.

If there was, would ABC be the enforcement arm?

ABC would be the enforcement arm.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from committee Mmmbers? Seeing none, you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote on this very important issue. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Assemblymember Gipson, second by Assemblymember Davies. Secretary, can you please take the roll?

AB 2389. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes, we'll leave the roll open for adding members before we continue on the next one. Can we take up the consent calendar, please?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. You have the votes. We'll leave the roll open for adding Members. Oh, not you. Sorry, Mister Lowenthal. AB 2402.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members want to start by accepting the Committee's thoughtful amendments and appreciate the excellent work done in the analysis. Pleased to present AB 2402, another crucial piece of the bill package I'm carrying this year to address roofing. We know that drink spiking can take place anywhere and happen to anyone. However, the most common places are restaurants, bars and nightclubs. The most frequent targets are women and members of the LGBTQ community.

Increasing the public's awareness and the training of employees at these institutions is a critical step in curbing the incidence of roofing. AB 2402 requires the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, ABC to establish two programs. Number one, a public awareness campaign on the issue, and number two, a Safe Bar program to better educate and prepare restaurant, bar and nightclub employees on preventative measures and how to handle drink spiking should it occur in their place of employment.

Through a public awareness campaign, the ABC will increase awareness of the dangers of drink spiking, the resources available to the public to prevent these crimes, and how to handle the unfortunate event that someone has had their drink spiked. This will not only help facilitate safer social environments, but also deter perpetrators from attempting to engage in these criminal acts in the first place.

Secondly, through the establishment of the Safe Bar training program, modeled after Tennessee's Safe Bar program, the ABC will create an optional program for restaurants, bars and nightclubs participate in to better educate their employees on preventative measures as well as how to handle drink spiking should it occur in their place of employment. Increased training and awareness of employees at the institutions where drink spiking commonly occurs will help promote a safer and more alert atmosphere with fewer accounts of roofing and in turn, sexual assault and rape.

I want to note I'll take again, I am pleased to be joined by Mr. Michael Scippa of Alcohol Justice, who is here to testify in support of this bill.

Madam Chair, Members. Once again, I want to thank Mr. Lowenthal for taking another step forward in reducing alcohol-related harm. As he stated previously, any one strategy, technique or bill is not going to solve all the problems, but it is changing the culture step by step and making folks more aware of the harm and how to prevent it.

With this bill creating an effective training, it would both reduce hesitation and uncertainty on behalf of the staff and reduce stigma against the victim. Note that many effective strategies to reduce the harm from drink spiking also reduce harm to patrons from their own drug use or from simple over-intoxication. If staff vigilance and victim resources can make it so that people delivering the drug can no longer take advantage of the victim, then the spiking prevalence will diminish.

This is prevention, whether or not the druggers are caught. The Department of Alcohol Beverage Control RBS program, current program provides existing infrastructure for delivering these trainings in Mister Lowenthal's new bill. We hope that you will see the value in this and pass it as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Okay, any opposition? Are you in opposition?

No.

Members of the public in support. Thank you.

Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of the City of West Hollywood, we thank the author for the bill and we're in support.

Thank you.

Support as well?

Yes.

Okay. Fred Jones, on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems, in support of both bills, but I was late getting here for the prior bill.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else in support? Okay. Any members of the public in opposition? Okay. Hearing none. Questions from the Committee? Assemblymember Dixon and then Assemblymember Soria. I'm sorry. Davies.

It's not Gibson. Again, we've been on the same page with this. I have 40 years of being in hotel hospitality managing. And I know that, you know, we have the tips program that you have to go through every year. And I think just obviously including this in there, because you do, you are taught signs of someone being intoxicated to begin with. So I think having this part of this is so important because most people don't realize it.

And it does stay with you and a lot of your hotels and that they have their HR program when you get hired right off the bat, too. So they have this. And I think it'd be great that even if you're not in the beverage department or whatever it may be of a large hotel, that all employees should be taught that as well. So if they're somewhere else, they're also being educated. Something to look for. And I would like to co-author this as well. Thank you.

Glad to have you as a co author. I would really like to acknowledge and recognize the tremendous work Assemblymember Davies has been put on this issue for some time.

Thank you, Assemblymember Soria. And then, okay, so we'll go Mckinnor.

Yes, I'd like to be a co-author as well.

100% thank you.

Soria, did you have a comment? No. Assemblymember Dixon.

Before I comment, I'd love to be a co-author as well. Just to clarify how this gets implemented. So it requires the ABC Department to establish a voluntary, safe bar training program for bars, nightclubs and restaurants. And so there's certain requirements to establish that, and it would require that any bar, restaurant, et cetera, that participates. So it doesn't sound like it's mandatory.

That's right.

But there's an incentive. They get a little notice or a sticker on their door.

That's exactly right, assemblymember. And there are cities that are doing this already. The City of West Hollywood has a program. City of Long Beach is putting a program together on this very thing, and it's quite effective. And patrons feel comforted knowing that there's training taking place in that establishment. I could tell you a very small anecdote really quickly.

In all of my research around these bills, I called my best friend's son, who's the social director of his fraternity at Ole Miss. I said, is roofing a problem in your fraternity? He said, it's a massive problem taking place. He said, well, what are you doing about it? He said, well, we made a decision to stop serving open containers. Whenever we're serving alcohol, it's going to be closed containers only. I said, wow, that's a big one. Well, what's happened?

He said, our parties have tripled in size. He said, overnight, all the women wanted to be here because they felt safe, and then all the guys wanted to be where the women were.

Well, and then just to bring that full completely. I guess our last meeting, you had the lids for the cups, correct?

That's right. Lids if requested.

If requested. So is this the complete program now, the three of these bills, or is there more to come?

The only thing that matters is when we're cutting down on sexual assault. Assemblymember, that's the only metric we're looking for. So we will continue in every direction until we cut down on it.

Very good. You have my full support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other Members of the Committee wish to comment Hearing none? You may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Can you call the roll, please?

AB 2402 Lowenthal. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. Rubio? Rubio aye. Lackey? Lackey aye.

Addis? Addis aye. Bains? Bains aye. Lee? Davies? Davies aye. Dixon? Dixon aye. Gabriel? Gibson? Gibson, aye. Haney? Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer aye. Low? Low aye. Mckinnor? Mckinnor aye. Pacheco? Pacheco aye. Papan? Papan aye. Patterson? Patterson aye. Ramos? Ramos aye

Soria? Soria, aye. Ta? Ta aye. Valencia? Wallace?

Okay, the measure passes. We'll leave the roll open for adding Members. Thank you, Assemblymember Patterson. Joe Patterson. I gave you an opportunity to be first.

Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And to the committee staff in particular, thank you for working with me on this measure. Is I was recently doing a tour. This is AB 2589 and I was recently doing a tour with a very important economic engine in my district, and that's the Westfield Galleria Mall, which is one of their top performing assets.

And it's over time, as you know, throughout our country and our state, shopping malls are having to rethink how they do business, to go more from just large retail to also consider experiences and other types of facilities that attract people to their. To their restaurants or to their facilities to maybe do some shopping as well. And so we've seen a lot of that at Westfield Galleria and Roseville.

But what I notice is we have an issue attracting restaurants at that particular mall because they're unable to obtain a type 47 license. And so this just came out of touring with our general manager over there, and I said, hey, look, maybe there's something we can do on this, because we want to encourage people to shop at their shopping malls. But also in all of our communities that have a shopping mall, they generate a lot of retail sales for local services.

And I wanted to incentivize more restaurants into these types of facilities. And so we started working on this legislation, and I said, hey, look, if we can come up with a way to get more restaurants into your facility, then that would be a really great thing. So we came up with this legislation that allows limited type 47 licenses, and they're not transferable.

So you can't go there and get a type 47 license and then move your business to, you know, somewhere else, some other neighborhood and use that type 47 license. So it's limited to 1.3 million sqft or larger to use one of these licenses. And so that's what AB 2589 does. Again, it's limited in scope. And again, thanks for the Committee to helping narrow it even more. And with that, I have Audrey Rutiak with me to testify in support of the measure.

Thank you. And then, just to be clear, you're accepting the committee amendments.

Of course. It would be really disingenuous if I thank you for your work and did not accept them. But thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Audrey Ratajczak and I represent Westfield. I'm here today in support of AB 2589 and this is a critical measure to helping move forward economic development and support retail businesses in the state, including improvement in growth opportunities planned at Westfield. AB 2589 will help support businesses and ensure restaurants in retail centers by allowing them to have additional liquor licenses in public eating places that are located in specific retail centers.

Many new and growing businesses that apply for a license often have to wait for months or longer without the possibility of securing a license. And if they're not available due to different restrictions, getting one from the secondary market can cost over $250,000. And we have a lot of planned growth at our Westfield center, but a lot of that hinges on getting the specific restaurants there and we're not able to do that unless there are enough licenses because otherwise they wouldn't want to come.

So that's the exact challenge that we're facing. As the Assembly Member mentioned, we want to thank you for your work on this, and with that, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition.

Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee Members, Michael Scippa, on behalf of Alcohol Justice. Alcohol outlet density limits are one of the fundamental strategies for keeping alcohol safe and legal. On sale. Over concentration is associated with problem drinking, long term heavy drinking, overall crime rate and violence. This Bill would continue to over concentrate every county with no conceivable limit as long as there are malls for a bar to set up in.

Each on sale license right now is responsible for a mean of $36,182 in harmony. Two additional licenses per year per county would equal $4.2 million in additional harm. The retail centers identified in this Bill are most likely to be the kind of automotive-centric, family-centric malls which are, a, not usually walkable from home, b, usually include extensive parking areas where cars and pedestrians intersect and circle, a major draw for children and teenagers.

Not only does this ramp up the potential for automobile crash deaths, but it ramps up the potential for these deaths to include teenagers. In the chaos of a shopping center, it will be a challenge to cut off dangerously intoxicated patrons or prevent underage patrons from obtaining alcohol. For these reasons, we ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Okay. Members of the public in support seeing that any Members of the public in opposition. Thank you. Any questions from the Committee? Assemblymember Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify with the amendments and what's in my copy of the Bill anyway, so just restate, is there a total of 10 I'm reading in the report there's a total of 10 over what period of time? And then allowing ABC to issue up to four licenses in the first year. So four in the first year and then six more over what period of time. If I'm reading that correctly?

Its 10 Licenses in my county and or in a county, and it's only four during a particular year. But again, I think the, actually the most limiting factor on this is the 1.3 million sq ft that a retail center needs to be. Those just aren't in every, you know, every corner of our community.

Okay, that's spelled out in the Bill?

Okay, so let me restate what you just said. It could still be a total of 10 per year.

Yes.

No, no, no. It's up to four per year.

So indefinitely?

No, up to 10 total.

Okay. That's what I thought the first time. And then that's done. And then you'll look at it and see what, what else is needed. And then to clarify too, as well, you referred to your county, but this really applies to every county, correct? Okay. All right. Thank you. Great.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Okay, thank you. You may close. Great.

Thank you. Just comment briefly on the opposition. You know, I was actually a certified tips trainer, which is training for intervention procedures to help prevent, you know, public intoxication deaths from duis. And I've been impacted in my family for, you know, in a major way from alcoholism. I take that very seriously.

I'm not sure that adding licenses to places where people can already go to a facility and, by the way, have a beer and walk around in the shopping mall, but this confines it to actually, a certain particular restaurant. So I actually think it decreases the density of where people go right now. But we can obviously have those discussions. But I take that very seriously, you know, preventing alcohol.

And I always would work with this Committee and authors of this Committee on other legislation to do that, just generally speaking. But this Bill is very limited to major retail centers. And thanks again for the work on it.

Thank you. Any other. Actually, I need a motion in a second. Oh, I'm sorry. It was Addis and Papan. I appreciate happening, that is. Thank you. Well, with that, Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

AB 2589? Joe Patterson. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, the measure passes. We'll leave the roll open for adding Members. Thank you. And I don't see Assemblymember Fong, so, Assemblymember McKinnor, if you would like to present your bills. Thank you. 20615 before she begins, can I move Assemblymember Gallagher's Bill that was. Heard by the Subcommittee motion motion by. Mister Lackey, second by Assemblymember Addis. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

AB 2069 Gallagher. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The measure passes and we'll leave the roll open for adding Members, we also have item number four. AB 2174. Aguiar-Curry, I need a motion in a second motion by Assemblymember Addis. Second by Assemblymember Pacheco. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

AB 2174 Aguiar-Curry, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. The measure passes. We'll leave the roll open for adding Members. Assemblymember McKinnor, you may begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present AB 2615 which will authorize airport terminals to sell alcoholic beverages in an expanded license area under a COVID-19 temporary catering authorization and will sunset by July 1, 2026. During the pandemic, airport passengers were allowed to take their alcoholic beverages outside of the bar and drink their beverages by the gate.

This allowed for more responsible alcohol consumption and reduced the likelihood of passengers or ordering additional drinks as there were no rush to finish before boarding their flight. This practice aligns with the ease of access to alcoholic beverages similar to that in stadiums and concert halls. While addressing the practical needs of air travel, it offers flexibility to travelers, reduces congestion at airport bars, accommodates patrons who perform more open spaces, and eases service wait times. Airports are highly secure environments with well lit spaces.

Constant video surveillance, and routine patrols by airport personnel and law enforcement, significantly reducing the risk of misuse of underage drinking. Unlike patrons at stadiums or concert venues, airport patrons do not drive immediately after consuming alcohol, reducing the risk associated with drinking and driving. This policy has been effectively implemented in other major airports, nationwide and internationally for many years without incident, indicating a successful model for California to follow. With me here today is Jim Lites with the Airport Council and Steven Mora with the Metropolitan Culinary Services of Burbank.

Thank you, Jim Lites, on behalf of the California Airports Council, representing the 31 commercial airports in the state. As Assemblymember McKinnor noted, we had this authority for almost three years during emergency COVID rules. It took place without incident. We did query all of the airports for any incident reports related to alcohol during that period of time, and there were none that were presented to us. This does provide simply a short 18 month pilot program and the Bill is not automatic authority.

It must be approved by the airport owner operator, which means the City Council or county Board of Supervisors and then the ABC. So this Bill really sets up a process for an airport to go through. It really also really affects the larger airports in the state. Our smaller airports that have smaller terminals already have this authority. So Long Beach, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Sonoma County Airport, those alcohol licenses already apply to the entire terminal.

So this will help the largest eight or nine airports in the state that have multiple terminals. As the analysis points out, this is already done at airports around the country, including San Antonio and the South Carolina airports that have also received this authority permanently since COVID Lastly, we passed out to the Committee a sheet from the FAA website that shows unruly passenger incident reports. As you can see, at May of 2022, those incident reports dropped.

That was the moment in time that the FAA lifted the mask mandate. So it shows that a lot of the incidents that were taking place on board the aircrafts seem to have been mask related rather than alcohol related. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you inviting me here today. In 2022, AB 1221 required all bartenders and servers to be certified through the state's Responsible Beverage Server program, or RBS. The mission is to ensure effective RBS training for servers and their managers to curb harm related to underage drinking and the overuse of alcohol. In California, the state's ABC licenses more concert venues, stadiums, arenas, theme parks, and zoos, with far more risk than all the state's largest airports combined.

Over 85 million passengers departed from our major airports last year. By comparison, 130 million people went to sporting events, concerts, festivals, Disneyland, and Universal Studios. Serving guests at seats in stadiums, arenas, and airports is commonplace around the world. Numerous airports in the US also allow consumption throughout the terminals. The building does not make a difference. The people inside do. You cannot legislate civilized behavior, but you certainly can legislate education training to ensure public safety.

In 2012, flight attendants were required by the FAA to receive training for serving alcohol and recognizing intoxicated passengers. Thanks to the Legislature, the state's servers and bartenders now possess the same skills and knowledge. The necessary infrastructure is in place to ensure compliance and public safety. Airports have trained law enforcement officers and sophisticated surveillance systems. By contrast, concert venues and sporting events have very few, if any, law enforcement officers, but have plenty of non-RBS certified ushers and security guards.

The ABC determines the risk and exposure of every premise they license. The risks associated with serving alcohol at an airport are no different than an arena or a stadium, it's not the venue we should be focused on. Responsible operators act responsibly. Take comfort in the fact that the ABC, the state through AB 1221, and the FAA put in place safeguards which should allow you to feel confident in moving this bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Okay, main witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair, in support.

Thank you.

Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of the Los Angeles World Airports Authority, LAX being the biggest airport in that.

Thank you. Can we allow the witnesses in opposition, please, to continue?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Alberto Torrico, on behalf of Airlines for America, the freight association for the major airlines and freight carriers. I guess let me begin by saying that we have a different viewpoint of success, although I, you know, I understand from the author's perspective and from the sponsors that they believe the program was a success.

The airlines had to deal with the brunt of customers around arriving at the terminal with alcohol, wanting to take it onto the plane, which is not allowed, was not allowed under the exemption, nor is it allowed in the bill. And we had to deal with the brunt of customers and passengers being on the plane completely inebriated. I think all of you saw repeated newscasts and news reports showing custom passengers completely out of control and forcing the flight attendants to deal with them.

I've talked about a couple of different points of interaction and potential disarray, so to speak, at the gate and on the plane. You don't have to take our word for it. The FAA, in the analysis, the FAA wrote in 2021 that they had expressed concerns about serving alcohol to passengers in airport restaurants and before in bars before flights. They also said that every week they saw increased instances requiring law enforcement intervention.

The sheet that's been distributed to you, you know, look, I'm not here to dispute what the cause was, but I will note that between 2020 and 2021, where the exemption was granted, there was a 500% increase in incidence. If you want to go before COVID between 2017 and 2021, there's a 1000% increase in incidence. I'm not ascribing all of those to the use of alcohol or excessive use of alcohol, but it does contribute so regrettably, we're opposed to the bill.

Management and labor in this industry doesn't always agree. As in most industries that are organized, most of the airlines are organized from top to bottom. In this instance, the airlines and the unions are unified in opposition. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Michael Scippa, on behalf of Alcohol Justice. Alcohol is the driving force behind disruptive behavior at airports, including around 40% of air rage incidents. The past few years have set records for unruly and aggressive behavior by passengers according to the FAA. The special cups provision in the bill is ineffectual and simple to evade.

The idea of taking walk-away space away from people trying to get to and from an airplane and turning it over to people trying to drink will create conflicts that broadly make the terminals even more hostile. The consequences for a single alcohol-related disruption are vastly amplified in the context of air travel. We ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Now, members of the public in support. Sorry about that.

Madam Chairman and members, Madison Dwelley with Political Solutions, on behalf of the Family. Winemakers of California, in support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Stephanie Estrada with Cruz Strategies on behalf of the San Diego County Airport Regional Airport Authority and then Oakland International Airport, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any members of the public in opposition?

Fred Jones again, on behalf of California Council on Alcohol Problems, primarily a faith-based organization. We are also members of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, which is statewide coalition, which is also in opposition.

Madam Chair and members, Kathy Van Osten, representing United Airlines, in opposition.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Mike Belote, on behalf of Delta Airlines, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Armand Feliciano, on behalf of Southwest Airlines, in opposed.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, I'll bring it up to the committee. Questions from the committee? Comments? Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer.

Actually, I'm interested in this, in that I've been on the airlines for the last 11 years and I've seen people who are unruly. And I would imagine that most of them, especially when we've even had airlines, just stop the flight altogether because someone was that unruly and they were concerned that they would have been a threat to other passengers. Now, I've seen some others where people didn't want to turn off their phone, they got unruly.

They didn't want to pull up their lap seat, got unruly, or they just didn't want to buckle their, their seatbelt, they got unruly. I don't know if my question would be, I don't know if anyone kept any of those records. Do flight attendants report back that that person was, was inebriated, or if they were just assholes? And I would submit that they were probably problematic, more so than alcoholic or drunk.

It would be, quite frankly, it would be interesting to see if anyone kept any of those records every time there was a disruption. That happens every day. That's happening right now. Somebody's being unruly and being uncomfortable with a flight attendant right now as we speak. But I'm not necessarily saying they were. Alcohol was the reason of it. And so with that, I will be supporting the bill today until somebody can show me evidence that alcohol is directly impacted.

Especially when, as I'm on my Southwest flight, they're offering two drinks. Teach passengers who have free drinks going back and forth, and they're not questioning whether or not that person was in the restaurant having 15 drinks before they got on the airlines. They give them drinks again when they get on.

So let's, if we're going to be serious about this, and the reason I even mentioned this, because we had Mr. Lowenthal, who's talking about how you get restaurants and others in tune to whether or not people are roofies or even being overly intoxicated, that it's also putting the onus on the restaurants.

And maybe we need to figure out a way we can train the flight attendants and others on how we can spot that as they get on, so we can start to record that so that we can have better information on whether or not the root cause of all of the disturbances and the fights on the planes, whether or not that was due to alcohol or something else just being straight-out rude. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the committee? Okay with that. I'll entertain a motion in a second.

Moved.

I'll second. Okay. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll, please? Oh, I'm sorry. Can you please close? Thank you.

[Roll Call]

The measure is on call. We'll wait for members to come back and add on. Thank you. And then you have another bill. Let's see. Item 11, AB 3206.

Hello, Chair and Members. I would like to start by saying I accept the Committee's amendments. I'm here to present AB 3206, which would authorize a specific entertainment venue to offer an after hour alcohol sales under limited circumstances. Much like cities around the world, many California cities are seeking to navigate a growing demand for after 02:00 a.m. Retail alcohol sales balance with the need to maintain public health and safety.

AB 3206 takes the new approach to addressing the demand for after hour alcohol sales by authorizing a specific entertainment venue, not an entire city, to offer after hour alcohol sales under limited circumstances. This Bill includes a number of safeguards, including limiting the size of the venue, limiting the number of customers allowed in the venue, and limiting the days that the venue can offer after our alcohol sales in order to mitigate potential public health and safety concerns. This Bill also includes a 2030 sunset.

With me here today is Joe Lang, representing the new Intuit Dome and the Los Angeles Clippers.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Madam Chairman, Members of Committee, Joe Lang, representing Murphy's bowl LLC, the holding company for the new Intuit Dome arena. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and staff, for your amendment recommendations, which we think just further tighten and provide the right safeguards and guardrails to be able to try this experiment. Essentially, it's a promotional tool.

If you think about when you invest in a large infrastructure project of several billion dollars, the ability to recover that over time takes many, many years, and you try to create new promotional tools that will help you with that. This is one, we think that the limitations in the bill that the author mentioned are very strict. Only on days when there are either games or public events held. It's only within a small, tiny space at the venue. High security, good way to track what goes on.

And we think there's a good limited way to take a look at this, along with the fact that there is a sunset after five years, just to make sure that the policy is a good one. And with that, we urge your support. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Hey, witnesses in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Michael Scippa, on behalf of alcohol justice, this bill is a bad idea. You know, since 2013, there have been five additional attempts to extend last call to 04:00 a.m. And all five have been met with defeat. There was a 6th that we were supposed to hear today. It's been pulled by the author. This I would call a 7th. The risks of extending service apply to VIP's the same as it does to anyone else.

Aside from the risk of assault, accidental injury, motor vehicle crashes, drinking at 04:00 a.m. Or until 04:00 a.m. Creates conditions where exhaustion plus alcohol is more deadly than either alone. Keeping it confined to a VIP area creates a space even more devoid of accountability than most late night bars and clubs. There really is no compelling argument for its necessity. And granting this will make every major institution with a vip room demand one. This is the camel's noes under the tent.

It's a slippery slope and we cannot allow any institution, any organization, any 1 bar, or club, or auditorium, or sports arena to sell alcohol until 04:00 a.m. It's a prescription that will result in nothing but more harm outside of that venue. We ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Fred Jones with the California Council on Alcohol Problems, which is also a Member of the California Alcohol Policy alliance, both of which are opposed to the Bill.

The main thing I just want to point out, and the Vice Chair, I hope will back me up on this, according to CHP statistics, the most dangerous time of the road is 02:00 a.m. To 03:00 a.m. If you pull 1 hour out of the day. And that's because that's the last call hour. Bars close at 02:00 a.m. That's when the heavy drinkers go home. So we are concerned pushing this to 04:00 a.m. Now you're going to start impacting morning commute. This particular area is high density.

There's going to be a splash over effect of other communities beyond just this VIP area. Bottom line is, I recognize this is a district Bill, but we're concerned that you're going to have a lot more district bills pushing the last call if you allow bills like this through. So we humbly request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in the public in support? Okay. Anyone in the public in opposition? Okay. I'll bring it up to the Committee. Questions or comments from our Committee Members? Mister Lackey?

Yeah. First of all, there was an allegation here that this is a fifth return of a previous attempted policy. This is much different, but there are some similarities that I still have strong objections to. I know that this, for example, this bill is not, this club is not open to the public. So that's a pretty big distinction. And I know that the Committee has done a very commendable job into trying to tighten this up and to limit its outcome.

And I do appreciate that and recognize it. But one thing that is undeniable, and I've witnessed it as a personal observer in the California Highway Patrol with almost 30 years of experience and 20 of those years working graveyard during these hours. And it's not just the impairment that we're dealing with. It's also fatigue. Fatigue during those hours, as immeasurably enhance.

And I personally used to go out during these hours during two and 04:00 a.m. And without exception, would find at least one to two drivers that were sober but were falling asleep. I personally was in a very severe traffic accident some years ago when my best friend fell asleep, and we barely survived it. But those are two very, very serious circumstances that this bill directly addresses. And I know that there's been attempts to try to minimize the outcomes, and I do appreciate those.

But one thing I can tell you is that even though the amount of tragedies will probably be minimal, any tragedy that's associated with public policy that I evaluate when I know there's going to be some tragedy, there just will be. That's human nature. People will show poor judgment when they're impaired and when they're extremely tired.

There will be tragedy associated. And therefore, I cannot support this particular measure. And I just hope that if it does pass, that people will consider the reality of any death that's preventable should not be supported by public policy. And that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Any other Members of the Committee? Assembly Member Pacheco? Thank you.

So I have similar concerns as well, but I have a question as to the necessity of this Bill. I know most events and concerts are usually over by 1, 2 in the morning. And I was curious as to why this Bill was needed.

Senator Pacheco, what we found, this is a marketing tool, and there are significant number of people, not myself. And Assembly Member Lackey, I take your comments very seriously. I won't be awake at 02:00 in the morning to take advantage of something like this.

But there are people that do, and there are some arguments to be made that potentially having them in a limited space with high security over time is better, potentially, than having them leave an event at one in the morning and then go somewhere else. What the demand is. This is kind of an experiment in a way, if you would Assembly Member Pacheco.

We believe there is demand, and it's a way to, in some ways, attract people to be able to talk about buying sweets, season tickets, other things that giving sort of this special access to a lounge would allow. It's an experiment. I don't know. Is there high demand. We think there is significant demand, but whether or not that translates to high demand, I'm not sure. A little bit of an experiment. That's why we have the sunset clause in to make sure it's used.

I'm also concerned about people being tired and fatigued and with maybe they're not highly intoxicated, but when you add in fatigue, I'm concerned about those drivers who are now getting on the road. And so that's my concern, because I really don't see a necessity. I see this as like more like an after hours kind of club kind of thing. I know the Staples center, now called Crypto Stadium, has been successful and they haven't had any issues. And that's why I was wondering why the necessity. But thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Assembly Member Dixon.

I know that Assembly Member McKinnor is. Wants to do the right thing and for her community, I understand the economic imperative. I come from representing a number of beach communities and sitting on local government for the last eight years, have dealt with ABC licenses and worked with police departments and when restaurants, I don't know a single restaurant that doesn't have an ABC license, doesn't want one. I mean, that is really the ticket to their profit margin. I understand it.

I had a philosophy as a council representative, I represented the beach communities in Newport Beach and every single restaurant wants to serve alcohol. I get that. The police would say, the Newport Beach police would say, in reviewing these applications for conditional use, would say nothing good happens between 11 and 2, 11 p.m. To 02:00 a.m. And that is when problems occur. And to extend this to 04:00 a.m. Gives me great pause. And while this is Inglewood and it would be confined, I respect that. I am concerned.

I think one of the gentlemen said, the slippery slope. Every single restaurant owner currently serving alcohol will want to go to 04:00 a.m. They will, or 99% will in my community. And I could see it as a marketing program. I think a marketing program that, you know, is going to encourage continued drinking after many hours of drinking. I mean, the performance may have begun at six or seven or 08:00 and then six or 8 hours of drinking. I'll let you think where that ends.

I want to be supportive of my colleague and for her community. I'm just concerned for the extension of it in other communities. And that's where I come down. I cannot judge Inglewood and it really would be good as an economic imperative. But in the beach communities. Like I said, nothing good happens between 11 and 2. And if it goes to four, it's even worse. I mean, it is such an important, the reason the restaurants want it, I could see why.

There's money to be made, very profitable money, and I don't hold that against you. And everybody wants it. I've seen it, and the ABC knows it by the volume of license requests that they get. And they all start with beer or wine, and then it all goes up to type 47. And it's great revenue, great revenue to the city, great revenue to the state, but at what cost? So I'm very concerned about it.

So thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer.

And so I've been reading through the analysis. The brilliance of this Committee and what they've done has required the City of Inglewood to adopt an ordinance that allows for alcoholic biblical between those sales of 2 and 4. The reason I bring that up, because Inglewood may be a little unique in that the mayor of the City of Inglewood is former law enforcement.

Not only he's not just a beat cop who worked the street, but he's former chief of police of at least two departments that I know of in California. And I believe he was even over airport. So we're talking about someone with extensive experience in law enforcement. And I'm sure he will not allow something like that to happen without a full study.

I mean, as you go on, you also are going to require that the City of Inglewood provide an ABC, ABC with a report on the impact of the additional hours, one year after the authorization of the permits. So we get to see in real time a year later, well, a year later, what that impact has been on the city, its residents public safety.

And so it doesn't get out of hand, but also it can serve as a learning tool for other cities, whether or not it worked or not, or whether or not there's lessons learned from that experience. They can then take it before those other cities can even apply. They can say, wait, before we even start, maybe these are things that didn't work out for Inglewood, or these are the things that made it successful for Inglewood.

And this is why we want to move forward with it, because Inglewood has done the pioneering work of doing this in a large scale, because the Clippers and the staples, I mean, we're talking about, we're not talking about a little small city. We're talking about something that's going to be on a large scale and then hopefully on the biggest stage, which is World Cup, Super bowl, and the Olympics one day that we have to prepare for that. And so.

And if it doesn't work, we won't be having that World Cup, Olympics and everything that we have enough time to actually investigate and see if that works or what doesn't work. And so I'll be supporting this today because of what the Committee. The safeguards that the Committee has put on you in this report.

Yes, and I thank the Committee chair and the staff for helping us in working with us on this bill. My colleague, Assembly Member Dixon. Yes. Your City Council would get a chance to say, no, I don't want this in my city. And so I think that's a great safeguard. And like my colleague from LA said, my mayor in Inglewood is a former Police Chief from Santa Monica, from Inglewood and over LAX. And so he has to approve this first before it can be done.

And I'm pretty sure he's going to put safeguards. I don't know. I'm going to invite you to Inglewood so you can come down and see what we're doing down there. But, yeah, it'll have a lot of safeguards. It is not open to the public, which makes it just, you know, it's. And I think it's like 200 people, 100. Not even 200, 100 people in a private club. And so I think this is a good pilot program for this. And so I am. This is my closing.

I am requesting an aye vote.

Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Yes. Assembly Member Bains and then Assembly Member Soria.

I just wanted to make a quick comment. There is a misnomer in addiction medicine that people think that people without money are the culprits of drug abuse, and that is absolutely not true. Actually, people with money have the highest opioid overdose, and opioid abuse happens in populations, especially people that have a lot of money. So this is creating an avenue specifically for people with money. And these are people that have access to even higher powered drugs on the street.

So I am concerned about this Bill, and unfortunately, I will not be able to support it today.

Thank you, Assembly Member Soria.

Yeah, so I want to thank the author, obviously, for the bill and the Committee for being thoughtful with the amendments, because I, too, do have just some of the concerns that I think we're expressed by other folks. And so for me, I think having the City of Inglewood have the last say and the community have an actual discussion. Do they really want this in their community?

I think is extremely important for me because I do share, again, some of the same concerns, but because it is very limited in scope. And again, the city has the last say and essentially the community, because we know that if the community hears about it and they really don't want it, they will speak out. So you guys have some work to do to, you know, if you guys really want to make this happen, to convince the community that this is a good idea for them.

And so because of that, I will be supporting the Bill today. But those were some of the same concerns that were raised earlier I had. So thank you to the Committee for the work that you guys did in really narrowing the bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member Davies.

Thank you. My question is, and this is what I had with Senator Wiener when he had the bill come up, is that although your community may say, great, we want this, does that mean that every person that's staying at that club lives in that city? Because our concern with Senator Wiener was how many of these people since are actually traveling, you know, that are driving from other communities going, great, I'm going to this party. I've been invited, but when I'm done, I'm going back home.

It could be 60 miles. It could go through many, many towns or cities. And that was one of the concerns, especially with law enforcement going and mayors, council members, we don't want them coming through our city, you know, after they've been drinking to 04:00 in the morning. This isn't just their city, it's also nearby cities, and we don't know how far. So how do you contain those people in that district at that event from not crossing the border of the city?

It is already illegal to be too intoxicated over the limit. Regardless if they're leaving at two or they're leaving at four. It's already illegal for anyone to drive drunk. And so that's just. It's already illegal.

No, but I mean, this is an event actually that is going on and serving up to 04:00 so other bars and restaurants don't have that authority to do that. So yes, you could definitely say, as we say, people, bar closes at 02:00 and they know that that's when most of your public safety is out there looking at. I guess I'm just saying that you've got two more hours now. So that was my concern. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Okay, I'll entertain a motion. Okay. Okay. Motion by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer, second by Assembly Member Soria. Assembly. Sorry, Madam Secretary, can you call the roll, please?

AB 3206. McKinnor. The motion is do pass as amended.

[Roll Call] The measures on call will wait for other Members to add on. Thank you. Next, Mister Fong, Assembly Member Fong, you can begin.

Madam Chair and members, I would first like to accept the committee's suggested amendment and thank you so much to your chief consultant for all his help and guidance on this bill. As amended, the bill will increase the cap placed on the total number of thoroughbred races imported by associations or fairs when live thoroughbred or fair racing is being conducted from 50 to 75. Thank you. As noted in the analysis, on many days there were all over 150 thoroughbred races conducted at racetracks throughout the country.

The 50 race per day limit forces associations and fairs to choose just 50 races, thereby preventing a customer from the ability to wager on a race or races that didn't make the selected list. There is no cap for licensed advanced deposit wagering businesses conducting advanced deposit wagering in our state. This bill, while not achieving parity, will provide customers with more options. Here to testify and support is Scott Wetch, representing the Los Angeles Turf Club and Santa Anita park, which is located in my district.

Madam Chair members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the Los Angeles Turf Club Incorporated, which operates all live thoroughbred racing at historic Santa Anita park. As described by the author, this bill is rather simple. Under current law, when simulcasting, we are restricted, as are at the other simulcast facilities such as the fairs, from importing more than 50 out of state races in any given day.

This is an arbitrary number, and as the author stated, it puts customers at a disadvantage because there may be races that they really want to be able to watch and wager on, but they can't because they just weren't selected. In addition, there is no such limitations for ADW providers which are located out of the state. And this puts the in-state simulcast industry at a distinct disadvantage to those out of state ADW providers. So with the committee amendments, we think this is a very reasonable solution.

As you know, the horse racing industry in California is hurting. It is on the precipice of perhaps even closing. And I don't think that's an exaggeration to say that just at Santa Anita alone, we have over 6000 jobs just right there at Santa Anita park. There's over 60,000 jobs supported by the California horse racing industry in California. This is a very modest change, but it will provide some relief. And so we would urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of Del Mar Racetrack and the Thoroughbred Owners of California, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Any members of the public in opposition? Any other Members of the public in support? Okay. Questions from the committee.

So, just a suggestion. When using acronyms, be careful. ADW to me is assault with the deadly weapons. And I know that that's not what you meant, so just be careful.

Thank you.

Quick question.

Assemblymember Dixon.

Hi, I'm in support of the bill, but I just want to know what. Where did the 50 number 50 come from?

I believe that was an arbitrary number.

I would defer to Mister Johnson on that. He probably wrote that 50, you know, some 20 years ago.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Committee? Kay. I'll entertain a motion to. zero, I'm sorry, I have a motion by Assemblymember Jones Sawyer, second by Assemblymember Wallis. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

AB 3261. Assemblymember Fong, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.

You are accepting all the amendments, correct?

Correct. I am accepting the committee's amendment, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

The measure passes and we'll leave the roll open for additional members.

Thank you so much.

While we wait for Assembly Member Haney, he's the last Bill today. Can we go ahead and call absent Members on the consent calendar? [Roll Call] File item three, AB 2069. [Roll Call].

[Roll Call] AB 2402 [Roll Call] AB 2589 [Roll Call]AB 2615 [Roll Call] AB 3206 [Roll Call] We're waiting for Mister Haney. Ayef you're in the building, please come down. Okay, we're opening the roll again and.

Assembly Member Fong's Bill

AB 3261 Assembly Member Fong [Roll Call]

Thank you, Mister Haney. Yes.

All right.

Thank you, Mister Haney.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 1775 is a reintroduction of AB 374, which many of you supported last year, which received strong bipartisan support throughout the legislative process. It will legalize cannabis cafes by allowing cannabis retailers to sell non cannabis foods and non alcoholic drinks. It also allows them to hold live performances at their venues only if their local governments allow for it.

As you know, this was vetoed last year, and we have been working diligently to address the concerns in the governor's veto, and we were encouraged to reintroduce the bill. We have amendments that will clarify that food preparation and consumption are to remain separate. We also have language that will make it clear that food and cannabis cannot be mixed together, and we worked on this language with the environmental health directors.

We are also actively engaging with UFCW, who are representing here today on additional workplace protections, which was the concern that was listed in the governor's veto. Here to testify with me today is Pam Lopez from California normal and Kristen Heidelbach from UFCW.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members. Pamela Lopez, K Street Consulting on behalf of California Normal, as Mister Haney said, which advocates for cannabis consumer rights and safety, existing law already authorizes local jurisdictions to permit cannabis consumption lounges. AB 1775 simply improves the consumption lounge experience by allowing food to be prepared and sold and by allowing the sale of performance tickets. This will increase the benefits of consumption lounges in jurisdictions that choose to allow lounges, both for cannabis consumers and non consumers.

The first benefit is that many cannabis consumers are not allowed to consume in their homes if they rent. They need safe public places where they are allowed to consume and where they can respectfully be away from people who do not wish to be near cannabis consumption. This is especially important in dense urban communities with high populations of renters like assemblymember, Haney's district, and many others throughout California.

Second, it is important for the mental health of all Californians, including cannabis consumers, to have fellowship and friendship in public places and not be isolated at home. This is especially true after the pandemic, which drove adult loneliness and isolation. Improving the consumption lounge experience will encourage more adult consumers to go to public places where they can meet a neighbor or make a friend.

We hope that members of this community can support this modest step of allowing consumption lounges, which already exist in communities in California, to improve the experience by offering food and performance.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Apologies. My name is Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in proud support of AB 1775. I want to start by thanking Assemblymember Haney for this bill and his intent to offer a potential lifeline to struggling cannabis businesses by broadening their ability to connect with California consumers. Allowing cannabis consumption lounges the ability to prepare and serve fresh food and non-alcoholic beverages gives them the opportunity to expand their business model while also educating curious consumers.

It's important to note that cannabis consumption lounges already exist in the State of California. They are allowed by jurisdiction. This bill would simply allow them to provide fresh food. So create more of a cafe experience. If a new cannabis consumer has the option to sit down in a cafe, order a coffee, and have a conversation with a bun tender, they're not in a rush dispensary setting. They have the ability to learn more about the products and where to begin.

They can ask questions and understand safe dosage. And more importantly, they're able to purchase a cannabis product and enjoy it in a safe space and out of the eye of the public eye. Excuse me, out of the public eye. Consumption lounges provide a better alternative for age-appropriate patrons to consume cannabis and not do so in a park or other public setting where families and children convene. Finally, no part of this bill shuns California labor law.

California employers have many different responsibilities under Cal OSHA, and the Health Act, excuse me, and Title Eight of California Code of Regulations. Under current law, employers must make necessary adjustments for the safety and well-being of its employees and are required to maintain, implement, and revise, if needed, an injury and illness prevention program. For these reasons, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition. Welcome. Yeah. Each of you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Keesa Bruce. I'm here on behalf of the American Lung Association. Breathing in secondhand smoke causes lung disease, heart disease, and cancer. California responded to this public health crisis in 1995 by implementing a statewide smoke free law in restaurants, then extended those workplace protections to workers in bars in 1998. In 2016, California passed Proposition 64, legalizing adult use of cannabis, and the same protections and safety guidelines related to secondhand smoke were included.

Allowing non cannabis food to be prepared and sold at consumption lounge. Excuse me, at consumption lounges exposes a new class of workers to secondhand smoke. The science is clear that secondhand smoke exposure, whether from combustible cannabis or tobacco products, is toxic and it's dangerous. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no risk free level of secondhand smoke exposure. The science is also clear. There is no ventilation or filtration systems that can control or prevent exposure to secondhand smoke.

Last year, the Governor chose to protect the health of workers by vetoing the same bill, AB 374. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the author staff for having a call with us this year. However, since then, we have not had any further engagement about addressing the health impacts of secondhand smoke. Protecting workers from secondhand smoke exposure must be paramount in your consideration. Please uphold the governor's veto by ensuring a safe, healthy, smoke-free work environment for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I respectfully request your no vote on AB 1775.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Morgan on behalf of the American Heart Association, also in opposition. In addition to the clear science about the negative health impacts of secondhand smoke, I want to underscore the fact that ventilation systems cannot eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke. ASHRAE, the organization that represents professionals in the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning industry and allied fields, determined in their 2023 position statement on environmental tobacco smoke that neither dilution, ventilation, air distribution, nor air cleaning can be relied upon to control exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. For these reasons, we oppose the bill and urge you to as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any Members of the audience in the opposition? Okay. Any Members of the audience in support?

Hi, good afternoon. Mary Creasy on behalf of the California Cannabis Industry Association and spark and support.

Thank you. Any other Members in the public? Okay, members of the committee. Questions? Comments? Member Jones Sawyer.

Thank you for bringing this forward and continuing to push this forward. You know, when Mister Lackey and I worked to legalize cannabis here in California, we never thought it would get to this level. I'm sure Mister Lackey never thought it would get to this level.

And I am I, for one am glad that we're really looking at the safeguards, or at least the concerns that the governor had and that you're bringing it back, resolving all of those concerns, because I think they were valid and we needed to address them. And that.

And hopefully it's enough not only to get out of this committee but hopefully to get his signature as we move forward to take this to the next level because that's where it needs to begin, obviously, with all the proper precautions and safeguards that you need to have. But. So I want to thank you for moving this forward.

Thank you. Any other members of the committee wish to comment? I do, Mister Lackey.

I gotta vindicate myself to some degree. It's probably no surprise that I wasn't a big supporter of Prop 64, but it is the law of the land. And I do support democracy, and I do support the fact that it is a commodity that's, in my opinion, over regulated and has an unfair circumstance of survival because of the illicit market that is running rampant and is responsible for about 80% of the market right now.

And so this industry with honest people, with a commodity that I'll never enjoy. But nonetheless, the people have stated it should be legal, so it is legal. And there's always health concerns that are not irrelevant. But I will tell you to the point that you are the only hope against the illicit market supporting your industry. That is why I support you in every reasonable approach that you bring forward.

It isn't because I love cannabis, but it is the fact that I believe you deserve to be successful. And right now, the illicit market has a really, really unfair advantage, and they are dominating that space. And so I will do everything I can to try to help you combat those who are doing a lot of harm. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments from the committee? Okay, I'll entertain a motion and a second.

The dynamic duo. The first and the second.

Mister Haney, can. You are welcome.

Yes. Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Appreciate it.

AB 1775, Haney, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

That's it. The meeting is adjourned.