Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

All right, everybody, welcome. This is the Senate Governmental Organization Committee, and it will now come to order. As I think you can see by looking at the dais, we do not yet have a quorum, so we will meet in as a subcommittee. And as you know, we go in file order.

But Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry has been here for 30 minutes, and she's got a press conference. And so we are going to move directly to file item 13, AB 3203, with a motion of do pass to Appropriations. I don't know if you have witnesses or not, but the Committee Rules, two speakers, two minutes each.

We'll keep it short.

And with that, floor is yours.

Great. Good morning, Mister chair Members. AB 3203 will allow California craft distillers to continue selling their products online and shipping them directly to consumers, just like the wine and beer industries do. There are more than 200 craft distillers in California, the vast majority of which are family owned small businesses that employ five to 10 people.

During the height of COVID pandemic, Governor Newsom and the Department of Alcohol Beverage and Control authorized direct to consumer shipping for California crafted sealers from March of 2020 to March of 2022. The Legislature extended this privilege until 2023 and again until 2024. Unfortunately, the online sales and shipping authorization expires at the end of 2025.

AB 3203 simply extends this authorization until January 2026. Members, this privilege has been a lifeline, allowing distilleries in the state to offset revenues lost to the impacts of COVID and increase their presence in a market where they simply don't have access to shelf space in most retail outlets.

Floor is yours.

I hope you will support this effort to help the craft distilling industry for one more year. With me today to testify, I have Nate Sullivan, on behalf of the California Craft Distillers Guild and Beau Biller on behalf of UPS.

Chair and Members, Nate Sullivan, on behalf of the California Craft Distillers Association, appreciate the author and the Committee Members passed these bills over the last couple years, that they've allowed our craft distilleries around the state, about 200 of them, to stay open.

That this is a critical job creation opportunity for these small businesses, because without this ability, they're going to lose over 30% of their sales. So that this allows them to grow and expand. And so we appreciate your support. Thank you so much.

Thank you Mister Biller.

Mister Chairman, Senators Beau Biller, on behalf of Bruce Double D Mac Rae and UPS, we're proud to support this Bill. In our letter, we've detailed the fact that it's been great success in the wine industry over the many years we've been moving it and we ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that want to add me to testimony? So that'd be your name organization, if you have one. And that you support the Bill.

Thank you. Any Members here in opposition and you can go ahead and give testimony.

Thank you Mister Chairman Member Stacey Dwelley, on behalf of the family winemakers of California, our small family winemakers support this Bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you Mister chair Members. Mike Skippa on behalf of alcohol justice. This Bill fundamentally undermines the three tier system. It makes it nearly impossible to consistently engage in a responsible beverage service practice and it creates a nearly insurmountable challenge for ABC. You know, maybe a lifeline for the small distillers.

But since COVID the direct to consumer shipping, has helped to spur a dramatic increase in alcohol related deaths, which are now topping over 19,000 a year from less than 12,000 before COVID we ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the room that wants to add me to testimony in opposition? Seeing none, pull it back to the Committee for questions, comments, concerns. I'm sure you're going to let us know. It's a great Bill, but go ahead.

Let us. I will thank you for bringing it forward. In the time that the bill's been. Well, it's been the law to go ahead and do this. Have the proprietors reported back any negative that you've heard of?

I'm sorry about the small businesses. And this is what I want to encourage the small businesses that we need to encourage our small business. But I'd like to hear if they've had problems with this.

No, negative.

No, they have been delighted because it gave them an opportunity to open up a market that they were unable to tap into. So I only hear good things about it. The few that I hear that are like questioning is just like, can you extend it for even longer? But at this point we want to make sure we can go through 2026 and continue to monitor and make sure the data is there, that this is a good program.

Okay, so I'll move the Bill.

Okay, well, we'll have a motion when the time is appropriate. I'll just closing comments and then you can close. So last time we did this Bill, we had the proprietor from Villacana, which is up in the Paso Robles area, which is a five hour drive from my house. I love, I love their cucumber vodka. But I don't want to drive 5 hours to buy a bottle.

I don't want you to either.

That's going to last me three years.

That's an expensive bottle of vodka.

Right? Exactly. So this program has been great for that. So with that, I'm supportive of the Bill and you may close.

oh, thank you very much. You know, I have a young distiller right down the street from me, and it's so nice to see that he has another option for his small business. And so I ask for your Aye vote today when the time is appropriate.

Thank you very much. Well done.

Thank you.

Who else do we have in the room here? We have Dr. Arambula. Let's see. Wow, you guys are all sneaking in early. So this is file item 10, AB 2543. The motion is do pass to the Judiciary Committee, where I will see it again. With that, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Senators. All California small businesses should have the same access to opportunity in California's economy. When small business thrives in California, California thrives. Assembly Bill 2543 ensures that eligible business owners, including DACA entrepreneurs, are able to register their businesses with the state as a certified small business, regardless of immigration status.

In recognition of the importance of small businesses, California is still established the Certified Small Business Program. A small business which is certified under this program is eligible for a number of benefits such as bidding preferences, prompt payment of state contracts, and as a small business qualifiers for prime contractors required to subcontract with a specified percentage of small businesses.

Despite their importance to local communities and their economic contribution to the state, many small businesses are unable to access these benefits of the small business certification program. These businesses offer the same products and services as other certified businesses.

However, some small business owners may not have proof of lawful status in this country, even when the federal government has issued an employer identification number. This prevents them from accessing the benefits of small business certification and restricts their ability to expand and to continue to help the state's economy grow.

Assembly Bill 2543 simply states that eligible small businesses may be certified regardless of their citizenship or immigration status of its owner. Federal and state law already authorizes these business owners to be in business. It is time for us to ensure that these business owners can thrive and expand. Testifying in support of Assembly Bill 2543, first, is Alejandra Guillén with Immigrants Rising, and second is Janet Esparza with entrepreneur.

All right, each speaker has two minutes. And whenever you're comfortable, proceed.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Alejandra Guillén. I'm the Deputy Director at Immigrants Rising. I'm here to express Immigrants Rising's wholehearted support for AB 2543. Immigrant Rising, established in 2006, has been dedicated to empowering undocumented people and to achieve their educational and career opportunities, aspirations.

We firmly believe that, regardless of immigration status, everyone has the potential to thrive through entrepreneurship. Over the past decade, we've developed programs and resources to educate and empower immigrant communities about entrepreneurship opportunities. Our efforts have yielded tangible results.

We were honored to have received $7.4 million through the state's SEED Initiative, which we distributed to nearly 1000 immigrant entrepreneurs statewide. The investment has enabled individuals to climb the economic ladder and contribute significantly to the California economy. Research underscores that immigrants are more inclined towards entrepreneurship.

Through our work, we witnessed firsthand how entrepreneurship serves as a lifeline, particularly for undocumented students facing employment limitations post graduation. AB 2543 aligns with our mission and values. By expanding business opportunities, the individuals we support, this bill not only fosters economic growth, but also promotes inclusivity and equity within our state. In conclusion, we urge you to support AB 2543. Let's ensure that all individuals, regardless of immigration status, have the opportunity to thrive and contribute to California's prosperity. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good morning. My name is Janet Esparza, and I'm here today to advocate the passing of AB 2543. I am the proud owner of Residential Cleaning Services, which I established two years ago. Through dedication, my business has flourished, now serving a total of 60 regular clients, accommodating another 70 clients monthly.

This aspect has empowered me to provide me for my family and contribute to my community. During the pandemic, I found myself laid off from a stable job after dedicating 13 years of my life to it. That didn't stop me. I seized the opportunity and started my business.

The SEED grant provided by Immigrants Rising was instrumental in helping me with necessary resources and knowledge to navigate through the difficulties. Today, I provide employment opportunities to others within the community. I also actively engage in expanding my business operation to include commercial cleaning services. I'm excited to offer my services to governmental agencies.

This helps create partnerships that benefits everyone and makes our society better. AB 2543 is not just a bill. It's a pathway to inclusivity and economic empowerment to individuals like myself who may be undocumented by granting access to state certification for all reserving entrepreneurs. In conclusion, I urge you to support AB 2543. It will help people like me to thrive and ensure we contribute to California prosperity. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Thank you for your testimony and congratulations for seizing the day. Anybody else here that want to add me too testimony in support? Seeing none. Do we have anybody wanting to speak in opposition? Seeing none, pull it back to the committee for questions, comments, concerns. Senator Rubio, thanks for joining us. Good afternoon.

Well, I'll just make a few comments, but always happy to support small business efforts, and, so just came on the toe end of her testimony. But thank you. And I've been reading and considering this piece of legislation, and I want to be a co-author. So thank you for bringing it forward, and thank you for letting me speak.

So is that a motion when time is appropriate? Okay, very good. Anybody else?

I'll just make a brief comment. I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I recently met with the South Modesto Businesses United community, which is a group of entrepreneurs, some first year, second year immigrants. And the number one question was, what is the state doing for business owners? What are you doing to invest in diverse cultural businesses? And so I think your bill really speaks to that. And thank you for leading on this. And if there are opportunities to co-author, I would love to be on that as well. Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

Thank you for bringing this forward. Obviously, this is a pathway to citizenship. And this is what I really like about the bill. Because it brings people out that have been working in the communities in our district, in our state, that actually, as you just said, they've registered with the IRS, they've gotten their business licenses and so on, and it's just that pathway. I think this is a great incentive to get more and more people to follow the pathway, to do it correctly and become citizens of the United States. So I wish you well with the bill, and I will support it. And we already have a motion. Thank you.

Your streak is broken, Senator Archuleta. With that, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Senators. I want to echo the comments of our witness today who said this is a pathway to inclusivity and economic empowerment. For too many of our small businesses, they don't have the access to capital that they need to flourish.

By being able to pass Assembly Bill 2543 and having their small business certified with the state, we're better able to create that pathway and to make sure that those small businesses are thriving in our state and moving our economy forward. When the time's appropriate, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Again, we have a motion from Senator Rubio. As you can see, we currently do not have a quorum, but we will take that up once we do. I see no other authors in the room. Oh, Assemblywoman Ortega, I'm sorry. Come on in. Good afternoon. Please.

So, coming up next, again, out of file order, file item three, AB 2068, by Assemblywoman Ortega. The motion is do pass to the Labor Committee. And with that, she settled. So go ahead, and whenever you're comfortable, begin.

Thank you, Senator and Chair and Senators, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2068 today. AB 2068 would require California state agencies and departments that contract the public and customer call center services out of state to provide a full list of these contracts.

In recent years, there have been indications that many California call centers are now being located in other states, even though they are paid exclusively by California taxpayer dollars. AB 2068 would require the state to gather a master list of all out of state call center contracts that the state agencies and departments have signed, the cost to California taxpayers, and the number of types of jobs found in other states. I have a witness with me in support.

Great. Sir, you have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District 9, which encompasses California, Nevada, and Hawaii. We are the sponsors of the bill. In recent years, we've seen call center jobs move out of California, overseas and to other states, both in the private sector and also the public sector.

State agencies and departments are increasingly relying on these out of state, on vendors who are moving these call centers out of state, where we're seeing jobs being lost throughout California. These are jobs that are pathways to middle class. They are careers for lots of folks, and we want to find a way to bring these jobs back.

One of the barriers is that we don't have the information as to which state agencies and departments are, in fact, contracting and how many jobs are being sent out of state. We've asked for this information over the past couple of years. We haven't been able to gather that.

Earlier this year, this committee passed a bill to expand the existing mandate that public benefit call centers remain here in California. We cannot craft a bill to expand that law and identify which department agencies should keep their call centers here in California until we have this information. So with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the room wishing to add me too support? Seeing none, we'll move to, is there anybody in the room in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Pull it back to the committee. Questions, comments, concerns? That means you're good.

No, yeah. Comments.

I'm going to go with you first.

Thank you.

You're 0 and 2 now, Archuleta.

Yeah, thank you. I mean, this is an important issue that I sort of been exploring because we talk about jobs here in California, and yet our state agencies are using outside, you know, employees, which I think it's just a travesty because we need to make sure that we keep our jobs here in California, number one.

Number two, I mean, I also know that the quality of interaction diminishes. You know, sometimes, you know, it happens more often than not that you call and you're trying to just figure out a way to communicate because you just know that they're not, you know, not only from our state, but out of the country sometimes.

And so it's a great bill. Thank you. And this is another bill that I've already shared with your office that I want to co-author. Because we need to send a message that we value our jobs here in California. And if it's a state agency, it has more power for us to say, send a loud message that we believe in the workers here in California. So thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Rubio. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to thank the author. Thank you so very much. And of course, our speaker. You know, we are realizing more and more that businesses need to stay in California. Our workforce needs to stay in California.

And I've encouraged it, and I've said it publicly that we need to have a good handle on exactly what's taking place. And I think this bill will do that. It'll show the communication workers that are here in California, and it'll show every agency what is being diverted outside the state and why.

So then, in turn, we can take a good look at it. And we talked about small businesses. You can imagine how many businesses we're losing. So this is a good way to do it. And I'd also like to be a co-author. So at the appropriate time, and I make the motion at appropriate time. Thank you.

Very good. Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you so much. Assemblywoman Ortega, I enjoy your bills because I know that you take a very direct, common sense approach to protecting workers. And this bill, you know, seems like we shouldn't need it. It seems like we should just be able to ask the question and get that data.

So I'm sorry that the bureaucracy in our state has gotten to be so complex that we cannot account for how we treat our workers. So thank you for continuing to champion our workforce. This is a great bill. I'll say. One of my very first jobs was calling for newspapers for the Press Democrat.

And I remember that just that interaction and customer service, you know, opened the doors to me speaking publicly and just being able to engage with people. So, I mean, I really appreciate the opportunity to have those entry level jobs that kind of bring us away from our phones and social media and AI to real personal connections. Thank you so much. And I'll be supporting this bill, and I think there was already a motion, so. Yeah. All right. Thank you.

Continuing down the line, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Member Ortega. I'm grateful to see you here this morning. So I have a couple of questions. I understand the end result for this request for the study is to ensure that we bring these jobs back. But I do want to couple of questions for clarification and for the record. One, many of these agencies have to bid these jobs. Right. Most of these contracts and have to be put out to bid before these contracts are actually signed. Right.

I understand. Yes.

Yes. Okay. So, and it's one of the, and I want to bring it back to the fact that, if these companies, and I'm assuming, for the record, they're going to be addressing both private and public companies that we're contracting with. Yes?

Thank you. If I understand the question, this build is just covering contracts that the state agencies and departments have for call center services.

And the call centers are both private and public?

I think they would just be private companies.

So just private companies. So we're going to be requesting the information on these contracts that impact private companies. And I, and I just want to say, so private companies, lowest bidder. Right? That normally the state acquires?

If I may, just 15 seconds, expand on that in our meetings over the last couple of years, I should give some context. We've actually run bills in the last couple of years to bring, try to bring these jobs back.

So we've met with state agencies and departments and a number of state programs who have been forthcoming and been able to share with us how they go about entering these contracts and more or less how many jobs that they have. Just a lot of departments and agencies have not shared that and for a variety of reasons.

Our understanding is that low cost is one factor, but not the only factor that is considered in entering into these contracts. We have asked whether or not jobs in California would be part of that. They are typically not part of that.

I can say just real quickly, there used to be kind of a General contracting principle in California under the CALNET program, if I remember the name correctly, which used to require that contracts from the state of California for call centers and telecommunications services be located in California. The work had to be in California.

Those provisions are no longer part of the CALNET contracts. So this is a newer phenomenon, and the bidding is kind of a newer phenomenon as well. But that's, so there are many factors that go into it. And just right now, location in California is not one of those factors that's considered.

So in determining the new criteria of requiring the lowest bidder or the lowest cost to the state, it actually impacts the cost of the departments that we have in the state, right?

Well, right now, this bill is just collecting the data.

But what you're trying to address, though, is all of these factors actually come into determining whether or not we lose these companies or these contracts to outside bidders of California.

The point that I'm trying to get is that I understand what the bill is trying to get at, but I'm trying to point to the fact that many of the times we're losing businesses to outside of California because it's so costly to do business in California. So our companies move out of state because it's more cost effective.

Otherwise they would be here. And that's one of the reasons why we're going. So it's almost a Band-Aid.

It's not actually fixing the root of the problem, which is we have to lower the cost of doing business in California so these businesses can stay here in order for us to be able to contract with them with more Californians.

Because I think as a state, I think in general, if we could, we would want to award our contracts to state owned business. I know that I had a bill a couple of years back that would prioritize, you know, companies here in California when we're determining, you know, who do we give the contracts out to.

So I'm absolutely with you on that end, but it does, we do have to get to the root of the problem as to why we're losing these contracts to outside and why these jobs are going to out of state companies and impacting our workforce. So that's the point that I'm gathering.

I'm going to support the bill today, but we have to go further than this. It has to, we have to work on the business environment in California so we can have these companies stay in California.

Thank you, Senator, for the questions and the comments. And I always appreciate conversations on this and look forward to working with you going forward. I can say that when we get this data, we will be able to actually do a numbers crunch and see if it actually is cheaper in other states or not.

Right now we don't even know that because we don't have the numbers to compare it, but that is something we'll look at. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you, everybody, for the participation. I'll make a quick closing comment and then you may close. I'm supporting your bill today for two reasons. One, I've had similar experiences to Senator Rubio where you're dealing with somebody who oversees. His name is Bob, but it's not Bob, and you can't even understand him. That's one.

And number two, we're supposed to have three co-equal branches of government, and we have oversight responsibility, at least according to the state constitution, which I don't think we do enough of personally. And so when we ask for information, the executive branch should give it to us.

And again, I prefer people, if it's taxpayer money, I prefer those taxpayers who are paying money to Californians. So that's my position. Support you today, and with that, you may close.

Thank you all very much. I think you all did the closing for me, which is exactly why I'm running this bill, including the Senator, you know, regards to data and, you know, going further, it's hard to go further when we don't have that information. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. We don't yet have a quorum, but when we do, we will make, we will bring that up. And the motion was made by Senator Archuleta.

Thank you.

Thank you. And our esteemed leaders back. So I will return the gavel to you, sir.

Thank you very much, Senator. We'll now move to file item number nine. AB 2983. Senator Rodriguez. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair Dodd. And Senators, first let me thank Chair Dodd and staff for all their work and attention on this Bill. I accept the Committee's amendments.

AB 2983 require the California Wildfire Mitigation Program Board when evaluating mitigation projects or proposals to assess the extent such wildfire mitigation projects would increase the availability of wildfire insurance policies.

Additionally, this Bill require a representative from the California Department of Insurance be added to the California Wildfire Mitigation Program Board by July 1 of next year to improve coordination. Californians can't afford a disjointed response to the unprecedented risk we face from climate driven fires and wildland urban interfaces.

In the last two fiscal years alone, Cal OES has received almost 800 million in federal hazard mitigation funding to buy down risk across the state. Simultaneously, California insurance crisis has worsened with hundreds of thousands of Californians forced to obtain insurance through the fare plan, which is supposed to be an insurer of last resort.

This Bill ensures there is meaningful collaboration between the wildfire mitigation experts and the insurance policy regulators so that our federal and state mitigation investments effectively protect communities and make wildfire insurance more available and affordable. With me to testify and support is Debra Carleton for the California Apartment Association. With that I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Debra Carleton, California Apartment Association. This Bill is an extremely important step to helping us find ways to lower our insurance. Our folks have done a lot of hardening around their buildings, but we're still seeing increases insurance 2030, sometimes 50%. And I hate to say it, but that's in the best case scenario. Some are just having their insurance canceled altogether.

And this is not just in the fire zones. This is all throughout California, and especially for rental property owners in cities. They cannot increase the rent, so they cannot recoup these costs.

The smaller owners are choosing to exit the market and sell to owner occupancy because they can't maintain the property at the insurance rates that they're being required to pay. So with this, we respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, we'll take the discussion back to Members. Do any Members have any questions or comments.

If I may?

Senator Rubio, thank you.

Welcome back. I hope you're feeling better. Good morning. Good morning. I know that you work a lot on just emergency services, which is, you know, what you do back home, as well as an EMT, but I just want to say very enthusiastically that this is important.

I think what you said, and it's key, that meaningful collaboration, you know, as chair of the Insurance Committee, I know that's been a challenge, especially for, you know, condos and apartments and, you know, in fact, there's been times where we're told that people stop building condos and affordable, you know, apartments because of the lack of insurance.

So I think it's important that. That everyone is at the table having that meaningful discussion. I know that we're currently working on a plan to ensure that we figure out the insurance crisis, but this one in particular, just, you know, getting everyone together to make sure that we're expanding on that, you know, that discussion.

And so thank you. And, you know, I do want to be a co author to this Bill and thank you for sharing that, because it's important. Sometimes I think there's a lack of understanding the connectivity between, you know, building homes, insurance. Right. But if you can't get insurance, some of our builders are.

They stopped building, and we're in California moving towards building affordable housing. Well, if we are not providing the insurance, it curves our ability to meet our goals. So thank you for that, and I will move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll add Janice Cawthorn.

Anybody else? Senator Wilk?

I echo the comments of Senator Rubio, and I also, too, would love to be added as co author it when appropriate.

Thank you.

Okay, Assembly Member, just want to confirm that you're accepting the amendments in the analysis.

Yes, Chairman.

Great. Thank you very much. Do we have a motion? Was that, Senator, we don't have a quorum yet. Of course. So with that, when we get our quorum, Assembly Member will be voting on this. Appreciate you coming this morning.

Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.

I am going to call out at this point in time, Senator Ashby, Senator Bradford, Senator Glazer, Senator Jones, Senator N. Wynn, Senator Padilla, and Senator Portantino and Senator Seyarto. We need two for a quorum. I wish you would come down and check in and let's get a quorum so we can move this along. Thank you.

We have an author.

And for the record, you had to navigate a three car accident on the way in from the district this morning, which is why you're late. And yet you were able to be here and all these other people are aWol.

I'm in complete agreement, Senator. Okay, we'll now move on to file item number 14. That's AB 3069 by Assembly Member Davies.

Yeah, you're special. You get in there.

No, no.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Assembly Member.

How are you today?

Really good.

Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. Senators, today I'm here to present AB 3069. I first want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. Current Tide House laws generally prohibit a manufacturer from paying for advertising space at any facility where the facility is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages.

However, in recent legislative years, the state has made exemptions to this rule for large stadiums and entertainment venues. AB 3069 is a simple measure to allow for an exemption to this rule for the new Frontwave Arena that is opening up in Oceanside, California.

Similar exemptions have been given for arenas like SoFi Stadium and various sporting arenas like PetCo Park. The Frontwave Arena is the first large multipurpose entertainment venue in North County's area of San Diego County and will be a huge economic boom for the area.

With me here today, just in case there are any technical questions about the arena and need for the bill is Bill Mirror. Senators, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody here in support? Are you in support?

He's my witness.

Technical.

Oh, technical. Okay. Anybody else in support? Anybody in opposition? We're going to come back. Senator Rubio.

Thank you. Sheesh. I mean, I'm just respectful to this. And remember, we do this for venues all over California. I think your district deserves the same courtesy. Thank you so much. I'll move the bill when ready.

Senator Wilk.

We're doing it for the Holly, for the Hollywood cemetery, so we can do it for a 5000-seat arena. So, support your Bill.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Senator Roth, did you have something you wanted to add?

No. I'm just waiting for a quorum.

Me too. Okay. Any other comments so that we. I do not have a quorum, obviously, so we'll get to this bill as soon as we do. Thank you.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

No, she did it.

She did it. Beautiful. Without even being asked.

That's professional.

Okay, so I'm going to do it again. Senator Ashby, Senator Bradford, Senator Glazer, Senator Nguyen, Senator Jones, Senator Padilla, Senator Portantino, Senator Seyarto. We should be able to get two of you down here so that we can do the business of the state.

Yeah.

All right. We'll now move to file item number four. That's AB 2069.

Gallagher. Morning, Assembly Member.

Good morning, Mister Chairman. It's a pleasure to be with you this morning. To present AB 2069, a Bill that aims to address an existing disparity in California's alcohol sale regulations. AB 2069 seeks to rectify a discrepancy in current law regarding the sale of domestically produced soju and shochu by on sale beer and wine license holders.

Currently, these licenses, typically restaurants and taverns, are allowed to sell imported soju and shochu alongside wine. However, they are prohibited from selling domestically produced soju and shochu, despite meeting the same regulatory standards as their imported counterparts. This imbalance places California producers at a significant disadvantage and undermines economic fairness in the industry.

AB 2069 would level the playing field by allowing on sale licensees to sell the domestically produced soju and shochu, thereby supporting local distilleries, California businesses, California local distilleries, and encourage the utilization of California sourced ingredients as well.

So I ask for your support for AB 2069 and underscore the importance of promoting economic equity and supporting California business. With me to testify is Chris Koenig, owner of the Golden Beaver Distillery, and Matt Weiss with DC Beverage.

Morning, Senators. I appreciate your time this morning. I'm a distiller and owner, one of the partners in Golden Beaver Distillery out of Chico, California, and we produce soju. We're one of the five distilleries across the country that actually produces 100% rice based spirits, everything from whiskey through gin and vodka and soju.

Our spirits have won awards across the country as well as international competitions. Yet my company cannot sell to beer and wine licensees where importers can. And it's not fair to my employees, it's not fair to my vendors who supply us locally grown California rice, and it's just not an equal playing field for my company.

So I respectfully ask that you support this Bill and allow us to have free market access as our foreign competitors have in our own state. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Matthew Weiss. I operate DC Beverage, which is a small distributor of completely California craft distillers. And if I want to go out and capture the soju and shochu market, I have two choices.

My first choice is I can go through the arduous, complicated, and expensive process of importing a Korean soju. Or I could drive up the I five or down the 101 about an hour and pick up a locally produced California farmed soju. The choice seems simple.

However, the Korean soju has a major advantage over the local soju, and that it can be sold in far more accounts based on the way that the law is currently written. And so we would ask that we put the California producers on the same level playing field as the Korean producers. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, Mister chair. And Senators. Carlos Guterres here on behalf of the California Rice Commission, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Anybody in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back for discussion for Members. Anybody have anything? Senator Rubio?

Well, I'll move the Bill when appropriate, but I also want to say, I think this speaks to also the previous Bill we discussed about making sure that we get it right. This is California produced, you know, product especially, you know, it's going to produce jobs in California. We need to ensure that we keep it in California.

So I think it's the right thing to do. So I appreciate when people are looking for these discrepancies. And as Californians, we need to send a loud message that we care about our jobs here and our businesses here over those that are outside. So I'll move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Senator Wilk, how did you even know how this happened?

Do I know how it happened?

Yeah. The discrepancy.

Well, I can't remember how long ago, but Korean importers of shochu reached an agreement with the State of California to regulate as beer and wine as opposed to hard liquor, so that it could be sold in restaurants that only had a beer and wine license.

Now, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that, you know, and that, because traditionally, that's a beverage that's been more of like a beer and wine.

But to not treat our California producers and distillers in the same way and be able to sell their product to beer and wine distillers is the discrepancy that we're trying to close.

Sir, how did your Assembly Member do?

He did great. Okay. The genesis of this came out of the LA riots. It was to the Korean community, post riots approached the state to allow soju to be served in Korean barbecue and sushi bars. And that's how it developed. And that was long before we had a craft distillers market so we understand the history of it.

We obviously agree with the history. We just like to get it corrected at this point. Thank you very much.

And again, you were three years old in 1992, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to know that. So you're forgiven.

So I would have been 11, but still pretty young.

So young looking you look. Anyway, support the Bill. Obviously want to support California business. I think what you ought to do before this thing hits the floor is you should, because I've never had it. You should have a tasting in your office for all the Senators so we know what we're voting on.

Because I believed in an informed Senate with that happy support your Bill today.

I don't want to be accused of trying to get votes with liquor. BUtI think for educational purposes, everybody should try it out. Yeah. It is a very good beverage.

Can I add something to that real quickly? And I just want to be clear, and this is not just about, like, the alcohol, but, you know, we have, like, the rice growers and all these other businesses that benefit from supporting this product.

So I want to make sure it's not about alcohol, but all the other businesses that benefit as well. So thank you.

Thank you. Now that we have disclaimers clearly stated. Thank you very much, Assembly Members. Anybody else want to say anything? Seeing none, we still don't have a quorum, but we'll be voting on this and we'll be looking forward to that invitation.

Okay, thank you, Senator. Nothing further.

Thank you. Okay, we're going to be moving on.

You want me to read the name?

But I would like particularly for those Members that do not have another Committee at this point in time, I would suggest you get to work and get down here to the Committee.

And so the Committee Members that are not here are Senator Ashby, Senator Bradford, Senator Glazer, Senator Jones, Senator Nguyen, Senator Padilla, Senator Portantino, and Senator Seyarto and I called you out. Thank you very much, Senator Nguyen, for being here. At this point in time, we need one more Member now. Two. We lost. What?

We need two more Members to come down so we can do the people's business. All right, we're going to move on file item number 14. No, we did that. Gotta come down to my level here. Come on. So we'll now move on to file item number 11. That's AB 2589. Senator Patterson, good morning.

You gave him a promotion.

Oh, Assemblymember Patterson.

It's only. It's not even 10:00 yet, and I've been called Senator twice today, so we're gonna have to take that up.

This is your day. You need some shochu.

Okay, a little too early for that.

All right.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. First, I want to acknowledge the great work by the Committee and the staff on helping to narrow this bill a little bit and make sure it was clear on what we were trying to accomplish. It was really great work.

And, you know, one of the things that I've figured out in my 18 months here, and by the way, when I started 18 months ago, I had a full head of hair, and since then, I've lost it. But is Type 47 licenses are a lot like education funding? I don't think.

I think very few people in this building understand how it works.

And as you know, Placer County is one of the, is one of the fastest growing counties in the state, and for some very strange reason, unable to get additional Type 47 licenses, which has really impacted not only the Tahoe region, which I don't represent, but also the very big shopping centers that are competing with small, small restaurants that are trying to stay alive and obviously participate.

They're competing against each other for these Type 47 licenses. So we did here with this measure is we really did for really large shopping centers like a shopping mall. We have a Westfield Galleria in Roseville. And that Westfield Galleria is one of their highest performing assets.

And they're actually doing a lot of great things with it to make it more of an entertainment hub for Placer County, for south Placer County. But they've been unable to attract restaurants because they have to go out and get a broker and get a license for a retailer or for a restaurant.

And, you know, those cost several hundred thousand dollars. And so what this measure does is it essentially allows large retail centers in counties where they are unable to get a license through the normal process because they're all used up already, is to get a license. And also that license has to stay on premises.

So you can't therefore, take the license somewhere else and use it there.

So it's a very limited to help those large retail centers in all of our districts, honestly, because as you know, society and these shopping malls are moving from just places where you go shopping to more of an entertainment center and more where you're bringing your family, you're going to the movies, you're going bowling at some of these locations.

And so we're trying to just create some economic drivers for not only my district, but all of yours, too. And so with that, I'm happy to take any questions. We do have Audrey Ratajczak she represents Westfield Galleria and she's here to testify in support.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Audrey Ratajczak and I represent Westfield. We're here today in support of AB 2589 which is a critical measure in helping moving forward economic development and supporting retail businesses in the state, including improvement and growth opportunities planned by Westfield.

This bill would help support businesses and ensure restaurants and retail centers thrive by allowing ABC to issue additional new on sale General licenses for public eating places located in a retail center. Many new and growing businesses that apply for a license often must wait for months or even longer before having the possibility of securing a license.

And if no license is available from the state due to population restrictions, businesses interested in obtaining an ABC license may purchase one from an existing licensee for whatever price the market will bear.

This is a major impediment for restaurants because there are either no available licenses to purchase or the market has driven up the prices for the secondary license to over $250,000 or more. And this is the exact challenge we're currently facing as we undergo changes and improvements to 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 help 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 the license in order for them to want to move forward.

So for these reasons, we're here in support of AB 2589. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition?

Morning, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Mike Scippa, on behalf of Alcohol Justice, we're concerned about this bill because it will kind of blow open the cap statewide and there is already a legal mechanism in place. It's called proving public convenience and necessity. And I'm wondering if the developers have even tried to go down that route.

When the ABC says there's a density issue, they can apply for a public convenience and necessity waiver at the local level. And very often, very frequently these are given. So we don't see the need for the bill to begin with.

And we think it will open the door to a proliferation of licenses like this in areas that are already over concentrated. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else in opposition seeing them? We'll move back to Committee. Senator Wilk?

Sorry, Bob. Anyway, yeah, happy to support the bill today and I think you're right. It's really an important economic step. Your primary witness, her company walked away from my mall in my hometown because.

Thank you.

The concept of malls is dying, right? So we have an outdoor patio mall, which I actually helped get entitled way back in 2008 that's prospering, but the rest of it's dying. And the new owners going in there and making the transformations that you're advocating and.

Yeah, and those things are important, but you don't want to squeeze out the little guy either, the little entrepreneur. So this makes total economic sense to me. And it's going to save jobs, improve people's quality of life. Great bill. Happy to support it. And I will be happy to move the bill when appropriate.

Perfect. Anybody else? Senator Archuleta, did you have something we wanted to say? No, I'm good. It's a great deal. Senator Rubio?

Well, you know, there is, you know, I would acknowledge the comments of the gentleman that came up, you know, someone that hardly ever supports, you know, expansion of alcohol or drugs and any other things. It does give me pause, especially because the kids go, you know, to the mall and that's where they go gather in.

But I know that they're safeguards. I know that it's not, not about just serving every child alcohol, right. But I do know that malls and businesses are up against the current and in terms of many going, you know, online sales. So it's preventing people from, you know, coming to the malls these days.

And there's a lot of blighted areas that are starting to creep up. And so I could see how malls want to reinvent themselves and be a sort of a hub to draw people in. That is why I will give that courtesy vote. It's necessary.

I could see what's happening in some of our communities and it's a trickle down effect. The mall goes and then everything around it goes. And so we want to continue to support that economic driver. So I will also support it. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Well, thanks again. I really like the point about the small businesses. Cause again, they're trying to have to compete with these licenses and vice versa, and that just doesn't seem right. But, you know, we try to take a limited, very limited approach here. And obviously I recognize the concerns from the opposition. I take that very seriously.

And, you know, hopefully, you know, I mean, there's obviously, I mean, we can acknowledge our risk with alcohol. We've all been impacted by it somehow, and that's very important. So I don't want to dismiss that. But also at the same time, I think most people do drink responsibly.

And this is really to help our restaurants in those malls, so the malls can stay viable in the large shopping centers. I want to say one more point also.

These licenses likely won't go to those smaller strip malls that we see in communities and things like that, because we really wanted it for the large retail centers to stay afloat. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time comes. Good luck with that.

Thank you. I wanted to make sure you congratulated and thanked staff, but you didn't accept the amendments.

I thank them, but I'll deny it. I'm not just kidding. No. Yes, I accept them. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. We'll vote on this when we have a quorum. My professional staff here, amazing.

You need me to read up the next.

So we need now we need authors. And I'm telling you, Mr. Jarreau is getting very annoyed by these authors and members that aren't in the Committee. He's been here since the very beginning. Assemblymember Flora, Assemblymember Maienschein and Assemblymember Mckinnor, please come and present your bill.

And we have immediately Assemblymember Maienschein, I'm going to add again. Senator Ashby, Senator Glazer, Senator Padilla, Senator Portantino, please come to the GO meeting and cause us to have a quorum, please.

Right here. Come on up. Assembly Member Maienschein, welcome. We've got file item number six, AB 2435.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and Members. Since 2012, Covered California has engaged in a public process with robust stakeholder engagement when proposing and adopting regulatory changes. The Legislature has granted Covered California Emergency Rulemaking Authority because they must act faster than the traditional rulemaking process allows to implement changes in laws that affect healthcare access for consumers.

The emergency authority expires on January 1, 2025. Consumers will be at risk of significant delay of new benefits or protections if Covered California is not able to quickly conform to new state and federal policy.

Covered California has recently needed, or will soon need to implement new subsidies to help more people afford health care costs, to create a program to help workers who have lost their health care coverage and revise regulations in response to federal changes.

AB 2435 would extend Covered California's authority to implement emergency rulemaking packages until January 1, 2030, in order to adequately and promptly react to both annual and ongoing changes in federal and state rules. Once the emergency rulemaking process has been completed, Covered California must then complete the permanent rulemaking process within five years.

This allows for another round of public engagement through comments at Board Meetings and through the regular rulemaking process. By passing AB 2435 this ensures Covered California is able to serve consumers while also conforming to new state and federal policies.

Here to testify in support is Christine Smith from Health Access and then Kelly Green and Alison Peace with Covered California. Here to answer any technical questions. Thank you, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Morning. Christine Smith, Health Access California. We're pleased to be here in support of AB 2435. Health Access has testified at every single meeting of the Covered California Board since it began meeting in 2011.

Every meeting. From the beginning, Covered California has had a custom that a topic is discussed at one public meeting and then voted on a month later at a subsequent public meeting.

This practice means that if any interested party has concerns about a proposed emergency regulation, then the Board hears those concerns and in the intervening month, the staff of Covered California can attempt to resolve those concerns before the matter returns to the Board.

In addition, Covered California staff routinely meets with interested parties, including consumer advocates, who participate in public meetings. AB 2435 continues existing law requiring this public process and facilitating the informal process of consultation.

While we are not overall fans of emergency regulations, this public process and the opportunity for public comment gives any interested party the opportunity to participate. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker. Good morning.

Good morning. Faith Borges on behalf of California Agents and Health Insurance Professionals. We greatly appreciate this important piece of legislation, and the constant communication we get with Covered California and our ability to weigh as stakeholders.

With the Legislature adjourning and laws being passed in the fall, and open enrollment happening as soon as October or November, it is important for us to have consistent guidelines, clear direction for consumers, making sure that agents are able to articulate and make folks aware of the new benefits that may be available to them, both at the state level and the federal level.

So, we greatly appreciate these efforts and urge your support today.

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Move forward. Reminder to state your name, affiliation and position only at this point.

Akrish Mera, founder of Elderly Care Everywhere, in strong support of the Bill.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Anybody in the room in opposition? Seeing none, we'll turn back to the Committee. Subcommittee.

I don't want to disappoint.

So, are we going to boycott, Senator Archuletta, today? Did you, Senator Wilk, did you have something you wanted to say?

Yes. This is a great bill. Really what I want to say, because I may not have another opportunity. We both came in at the same time, class of 2012, it was our responsibility to implement the ACA. It's worked way better than I ever thought it was going to work.

You've stayed engaged in this healthy health and insurance space your entire career. So, I just want to thank you for all the work that you have done. Happy to support the bill today.

Thank you, Senator Wilk.

Great. Anybody else? Senator Archuleta?

Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair. You know, insurance is such an important thing in our lives right now. It's all we're hearing from our constituents. But to have the insurance, the affordable type of insurance that we need for our constituents, all of us, we hear it all the time, and I think the extension is so vital. So, at the appropriate time, I'll go ahead and move the bill.

Do we have a quorum right now? No. Una mas. Yes. Okay, anybody else wishing to address this bill? We do have a motion, but it's when the time comes by Senator Archuleta. First one today. Thank you for that, Senator. And would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and Members. Respectfully request an aye vote.

When we get a quorum. We'll be voting on your bill.

Thank you.

Which leads me. Which leads me to bring up once again that Senator Ashby, Senator Glazer, Senator Jones, Senator Padilla, Senator Portantino. Please come in. Get to work.

We will now move to file item number five, AB 2094 by Assembly Member Flora. Good morning, sir.

Good morning, Senators. Pleased to present AB 2094.

We're going to interrupt this normal programming and go to secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Mister Gero is happy at this point in time. I appreciate that motion.

Do we have a. Right in front of me. We'll move to the consent items. The calendar includes file item number 1, AB 1935 Rubio. Item number 2, AB 3285, the GO Committee Bill. Item number 7, AB 2469. Item 8, AB 2776. Rodriguez. Item 12. 2886 AER. Curry. And number 163261 by Fong.

We have a motion by Archuleta and secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

10. Bill has 10 votes. We'll put that on call. Okay. Semi Member floor. Thanks for being so patient with us as we conducted a little bit of business here, so please proceed.

No problem at all, Senator. No, please present. Assembly 2094. Community colleges are the bedrock of local higher education, and they open countless doors for Californians pursuing degrees and certificate programs.

Seminville 2094 brings parity to Bakersfield Community College and other higher education institutions and expand business opportunities and community engagement for Bakersfield College to drive funding for student services and academic programs and respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you very much. Speakers in support.

Thank you, chair and Members. Mark Mcdonald. On behalf of the Kern community College District, AB 2094 would provide a narrow exception to state law that prohibits alcohol sales and consumption on community college property and facilities. Memorial Stadium is an important gathering place that shapes the identity of the neighborhoods that the district serves.

The stadium is a historic venue that has hosted sporting events as well as graduation ceremonies and statewide performing arts events. It holds nearly 200,000 people and it would be a great gathering place for events that would otherwise surpass the Central Valley. So we would ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Anybody else in support? Any in opposition?

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mister chair and Vice Chair, respective Committee Members. My name is Ralph Rodrigo, speaking on behalf of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance. We're a statewide alliance representing over 50 organizations.

We are in opposition to this Bill because like many other institutions of higher learning, this particular Bill continues the concerning pattern of offsetting costs to higher education by selling alcohol ads that will be aimed at students.

According to the National Institutes of Health, each year over 1500 college students between 18 to 24 die from alcohol related injuries, including motor vehicle crashes. For these reasons, we oppose this Bill and ask the Committee Members to oppose the Bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Morning, Mister chair. Members of the Committee, Mike Skip on behalf of Alcohol Justice. In addition to what my colleague has just testified to, the majority of students at this campus are actually 19 years of age or younger.

And we know that exposure to advertising makes a teenager more likely to start drinking and increases the amount they consume when they do drink. It's well established and the research shows it also increases binge drinking.

Whatever the college hopes to gain financially, the students will lose in terms of academic experience, quality of life, and in the worst case, duration of life. For this reason, we ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers come to the mic, I'm going to turn back to our Members here, Senator Wilk.

So I just want to commend you. Great Bill. Former resident, long time ago in another life in Bakersfield. Memorial Stadium is a cultural hub there. And with that, I do have one question for you, though. You don't have Kern, county, correct?

That is correct. Our dear colleague and now congressman. Mister Vince. zero, okay. That makes sense. Proud to protect his Bill on behalf of him.

I should have put that together myself. I didn't. It's early. So anyway, with that, I support the Bill and I will move the Bill.

Thank you very much, sir.

Anybody else?

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So this is a college campus.

A junior college campus.

Junior college campus. Community college campus. So any thoughts on the. On the concerns? I believe I.

Yeah, I can make a couple comments on the comment that the average age is 19. That actually includes the dual enrollment students that are high school students and not actually community college students. The actual age of community college students is actually higher than those at CSU and UC.

And we're looking at this as a venue that could bring in concessions that might otherwise pass by the Central Valley because there are no other venues in the area that makes sense.

So you're looking at the advertising happening.

Happening during, for example, concerts or other sporting events, things like that.

Since you're did you. I think I'm good. Thank you. Since you were talking about venue, I heard you say that this would hold 200. 200,000?

Yeah. What's standing?

Big house in Michigan holds about 105. How does this. How do you.

It's big. That includes standing room only.

We're gonna need a field trip down there, too. I gotta see two.

We can bring the chancellor up here and have you guys come down for sure. Okay. Anymore? No.

We need to invite everybody to when my Santa Clarita Cougars come up to play the drilling. I'll go then. You know, one of the things that people may not understand, and I do because I'm a former board of trustee Member, is a lot of times these community colleges are really a cultural, cultural hub.

So, like, I used to be on college of the canyons board of trustees. If you drive up the I five, you see that we have a performing arts center where we have all kinds of artists come in. The football stadium is used for Easter service concerts, football games, marching band competitions. And he's right.

The average age of a college, that's kind of a spurious argument. The average age is actually higher than the UC system. It's about 30 years old. Because a lot of people are coming back for workforce training in those things.

And so I think this is a very important economic measure and I hope everybody on the Committee supports it.

Senator Dodd, my name is Bob Jarreau and I was here on another Bill, but in my past life, I was the student body President at Bakersfield College. And I'd like to say that memorial Coliseum is huge. The Bakersfield College Renegades were for a very long time, the junior college football champions in the country.

There's a big movie that you all might want to look at. It was Robin Williams starred in it called 'The Best of Times'. But the Bakersfield College Memorial Coliseum has held several events. It is, as Mister Fuller said, it's a central hub location for people that come from all over, from Tehachapi, from up near Fresno.

It's a feeder college to the Fresno College Bulldogs team. And it is a big community venue in Kern county that I think the belt would serve a great purpose for. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Giroud, since I've used you in support of my effort to get a quorum here today, I'm glad you graced us with that amazing background information. I'm enlightened. Let's vote on this thing. Would you like to close disrespectfully?

Ask for Aye vote.

Thank you very much. We do have a motion by Senator Wilk. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

How many? Thank you. That has 11 votes. We'll put that on call. So we're waiting on Assembly Member McKinnor, but I think what we'll do right now, for the sake of the members that are here are lift the calls. Yes, we have on some of them. So let's open the roll on File Item Number Three or do you want to start with consent?

We'll start out with the consent.

Consent.

Absent members, [Roll Call].

Consent: 13. That has 13 votes. We'll leave that on call. We need a motion on File Item Number Three. That's AB 2068: Ortega.

No, not correct, according to my notes. Senator Archuleta made the motion. You weren't here yet because you were in the car accident.

Well, there we go.

Okay. Well, he--

So the motion is by Archuleta. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is: do pass to Labor Committee. [Roll Call].

Nine to one; we'll put that bill on call. I believe--I could be wrong cause I had just got here--but Senator Wilk made the motion here. Don't wanna make that mistake twice. We'll now open the roll: File Item Number Four: AB 2069: Gallagher. Secretary, open the roll, please.

Motion is: do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That's 12 votes. We'll put that bill on call. We'll now open the roll on File Item Number Five: AB 2094 by Flora. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is: do pass to Appropriations Committee. Absent members, [Roll Call].

Has 12 votes. We'll leave that on call. File Item Number Six: AB 2435: Maienschein. Do we have a motion? Senator Wilk made the call. Made the motion. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is: do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Bill has eight ayes and four noes. We'll put that on call. We'll now open the roll on File Item Number Nine: AB 2983: Rodriguez. Motion by Rubio. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is: do pass as amended to Natural Resources and Water Committee. [Roll Call].

Bill has 12 votes. We'll put that on call. Now open the roll on File Item Number Ten: AB 2543: Arambula, and we have a motion by Senator Rubio. Secretary, please open the roll.

Motion is: do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call].

That has seven. Nguyen, no?

Nguyen? Absent members, [Roll Call].

Eight ayes; five noes. That bill will be put on call. We'll now open the roll on File Item Number 11: AB 2589. We had a motion on that, don't we?

I'm no longer Chair, so I didn't write it down. You need a motion. I thought it was me, but--yeah, it was me.

We're going with Wilk.

No, it was me. Now I'm thinking about it.

Open the roll, please.

Motion is: do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thirteen to zero. That bill is on call. We can now open the roll on File Item Number 13: AB 3203: Aguiar-Curry, the motion by Wilk.

Motion is: do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thirteen. That bill is on call. We're going to open the roll on File Item Number 14. That's AB 3069: Davies. Motion by Archuleta.

Motion is do--

Please call the roll.

Motion is: do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Bill has 12 votes. We'll put the bill on call, and now we're going to move to File Item Number 15. That's AB 3206. Assembly Member McKinnor, come on up and welcome. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, AB 3206 is a Bill that would authorize the specific entertainment venue in my district to offer 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 balanced with the need to maintain public health and safety.

AB 3206 takes a 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, limiting the days that the venue can offer after our alcohol sales, and requiring local control, local approval in order to mitigate potential public health and safety concerns. The Bill also includes a 2030 sunset.

With me here today is Bob Jerrow, representing the intuit Dome and the Los Angeles Clippers. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair Members. I'm here on behalf of Mister Steve Ballmer and the Los Angeles Clippers asking you to approve a 2500 square foot venue inside the intuit dome, which is scheduled to be finished on June 20.

In fact, the State of the state, the mayor State of the State of the City of Englewood will be in that venue. As Assembly Member Mckinnor said, it will be at a limited capacity, a limited number of nights per year, and I'm asking for an aye vote and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to testify and support anybody in opposition, come forward now.

Mister Chair, Senators, Fred Jones, on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems, which is primarily a faith-based organization. We're also part of the statewide coalition, CAPA. The concern isn't with this single venue. The concern is with the broader debate about lifting last call from 02:00 a.m. to 04:00 a.m.

We've had that debate now for six years on a statewide basis and each of those years that has stopped. What we're concerned about now is the approach of making this a district by district, venue by venue erosion of that statewide last call which has been on the books for over a century.

So, we are taking a principled stand against any of those efforts, even a district bill approach. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and respective Committee Members. My name is Raul Verdugo, speaking on behalf of the California Alcohol Policy Alliance. Extending last call times to 04:00 a.m. forces surrounding cities to absorb the high cost and needlessly carry the burden of alcohol-related harms and fatalities as inebriated travelers pass through the abutting towns and communities.

As CAPA, we ask that the Committee Members not support AB 3206. Documented risks of extended last call times are not just theoretical, but real, but a real threat to the residents of Inglewood and its surrounding communities.

The potential for VIP travelers and local commuters to cross paths in the early morning hours, particularly during peak commuting times, is a practical concern that this Committee cannot ignore. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mister Chair, Committee Members, Mike Skip on behalf of Alcohol Justice. We too are proud supporters and members of CAPA and we also ask for your no vote. This is an existential threat to all of California. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to bring this back to Members now. Do any of our Members have any questions, comments, concerns? Senator Seyarto.

Probably knew this was coming. What are these occasional events that they're going to have that this is narrowed down to that are going to last till 04:00 in the morning?

I'm going to turn it over to my witness.

Serious. Senator Seyarto. We will have from time to time, we will have concerts, we will have special parties. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the growth and the resurgence of the City of Inglewood, but we have Sofi Stadium, we have the Forum, we have the Hollywood Park Casino.

With all of that we have 1000 square feet of, excuse me, a million square feet of office and retail. We're building a new Ritz Carlton hotel so that the players who come in and out of town to play their games can come from LAX into Inglewood, which is about a five-minute drive, and leave.

So those events are going to be parties hosted by the team and some after hours parties hosted after certain entertainment events. They will be advertised. There is a safeguard in the bill for the City Council of Inglewood to approve the events where these events will take place in this facility.

Okay, well, thank you very much. And I am intimately familiar with the City of Inglewood. I worked there for 23 years and served that community for 23 years. And I watched the development, all of which you were talking about. This movement, you know, concerts in about 11:00, 11:30. Games end at 10:00.

Extending drinking hours from 4 hours to 6 hours is not going to do anything for the public safety of the people that are in Inglewood. That some are getting up and starting their commutes at early hours. And I'm not quite sure that this is something that is desperately needed. If people want to have a party, they can have their party at the hotel where they can stay and not get into the car and get onto one of the 105, the 405, or the 110 and start driving after drinking an extra 2 hours. So, you know, these kinds of bills have come to us in the past.

Not specifically for one city in Inglewood, but Inglewood should not be singled out to be treated any different than Anaheim or any of the others. And if they're doing this, I don't think there's any exclusions for these other communities either, that we know of. Do you know of any of the exclusions for other communities that have arenas?

No, I do not. But this would be for the venue, and this would not be for the entire venue. This would just be for a certain section of it. So, everybody, this won't be for, like, the entire Intuit Dome won't be able to.

I understand it's for the.

It's just for the one venue. And so. No, I do not know. This would be the first time that this, that this happened. Yes.

But people have to leave that venue to go either. I don't care. Some of them may walk across to the hotel, but some are going to get in their car and they're going to drive away. And giving them 2 hours of extra fuel and more traffic on the roads at that time is a recipe for disaster.

So, what we're really doing, I mean, that was when I was working. That was the bewitching hour. We were out pretty much all night, but a lot of times, right at when the bar is closed, between one and about three, we were getting calls. And those calls that we got were hideous calls because they're people that are lacking the judgment they need to drive carefully, and they're hitting people that might be out.

There are a lot of people that stay out in Inglewood, and I just don't see how this contributes to any public safety. And I don't see how it's a big revenue generator for the community. It's a, you know, saying, we're going to have a party venue. Like I said, the players stay over at the Ritz Carlton.

They have lots of party venues over there, and they can afford it, and they can stay there and not have to impact the public safety of all of the other communities. I'm talking Hawthorne, Culver City, LA City, all of those communities that surround Inglewood. They all get impacted by this.

And so, I am not going to be voting for this. And I've always resisted the efforts to move our drinking time even farther into the morning. And so, I just won't be on board with this one. Thank you.

Thank you. And because it has to be approved by our Inglewood City Council, our mayor, Mayor Butts, was in law enforcement for many, many, many years. So, it has to go through him before it can happen anyway.

You can tell James that Kelly says, I don't want that to happen. I worked alongside Mayor Butts while he was in the PD, and I was in the fire service. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Glazer, did you want to?

I think that the author answered my question, that the Inglewood City Council, the elected leaders there, have the final say on this matter, and I'm sure they'll be sensitive to public safety issues in their community and so happy to support, support the bill and move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

The question I have is, are they going to be identified from being in the stadium and then moving into the room? How do you identify who's authorized to go in? And are you going to be asking for additional security at 2:30, 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning?

Senator Archuletta, to answer your question, the answer is yes. This will operate more like a club function. Like I'm sure you may be familiar with the Forum Club function, which is also owned by Mister Bomer, so you would have to be a member and you would have to be invited.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Seeing none. May I have a motion? Senator Glazer made the motion. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Yes, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. The motion here is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Seven votes for, two against.

[Roll call]

Seven votes for, three against. That. We'll put that on call.

Thank you.

Mister Chair, could I vote on Item number six when it comes up again?

Okay, we'll do that. Did we go through them one more time? So, let's open the roll on the consent items, please. Where is that? What are we doing? That's what I said. Yeah, that's right. Open the roll on the consent items, please.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll open up on file item number three. Ortega, motion. Archuleta. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 10 votes, 10 to one. Put that on call file item number four. AB 2069 Gallagher. The votes 120, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bills on call file item number AB 2094. Flora vote is 120. Secretary, open the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is on call file on number six. 2435 Maienschein. It has eight votes, 4 and 4 against. Open the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 8,4, 5 against. Is that right? Yep. Those on call file item number nine. AB 2983 Rodriguez. Open the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 14 votes. We'll put that Bill on call. Open the roll on file item number 10. AB 2543.

[Roll Call]

The Bill has 94 and 5 against. Bill's on call file item number 11. AB 2589. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 14 votes. Bill's on call file item number 13. AB 3203, Aggar Curry. Secretary, please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 14 votes. That's on call. Now move to file item number 15. AB 3206. McKenna. Do I have that right?

[Roll Call]

No, excuse me, I'm wrong. Sheet AB 14. File item number 14. AB 3069. Davies. Secretary. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 14 votes, 13.

Which one is that?

AB 3069. File item number 14. Yes. No. Let's open the roll.

[Roll Call]

No worries. That bill's on call. We'll now open the roll. On file item number 15. AB 3206. McKinner. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

8-4 against. That Bill is on call. Where is. Who else? Okay, we'll start at the top, where Senator Padilla has not gone on record yet. So we'll open the consent calendar, please.

[Roll Call]

The bill's on call. File item number three. AB 2068. Open the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 11 votes, one against. We'll put that on call file item number four. AB 2069. Gallagher. Open the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 14 votes. We'll put that on call file item number five. AB 2094. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 13 votes. We'll put that on call.

Item six.

Item number 6, 2435 Maienschein. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 9-5. That Bill is on call file item number nine. You got it. Okay, so now we're just open for Bradford. Is that Committee still going? Is he chair? Hey. The Committee is going to recess for five minutes. Okay, the GO Committee is back in. Back from recess. We're going to move to open the.

The consent calendar.

Consent calendar. Thank you very much. Can we open the roll, please?

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is out. We're moving to file item number four. I don't have that here. Can we open the roll and file item number three, please?

[Roll Call]

That's 12 to 11-2 to one that Bill is out. We'll now open the roll and file item number 4, 2069. Gallagher. Please open the file.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 15 votes. The bill's out. File item number 5, 2094. Flora. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Smallwood-Cuevas, 14 votes that bill's out. Final item number 4, 2069. Gallagher.

[Roll Call]

You know what? I'm going off of numerous pages here where I'm. We've done five, right?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Number 9, 2983. Rodriguez. Open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Bill has 15 votes. It's out. Where are we now?

Item 10.

AB Item number 10. AB 35...

[Roll Call]

Item number 11, that's 2589. Patterson. Open the roll.

[Roll Call]

And how many votes? 15 bills out.

Item 13.

Item 13. AB 3203. Aguiar Curry.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out. Number 14. 3069. Davies.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. AB 3206. Item number 15. McKinnor.

[Roll Call]

9-4. That Bill is out. That concludes the business before the GO Committee today. I'd like to thank our Committee staff and sergeants for being here today. And in spite of the length and time that we've had for a short agenda. Thank you very much. Appreciate the work.