Assembly Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good afternoon, everyone. The Assembly governmental organization Committee is now called to order. I see an author. So for the sake of timeliness, I would like to begin. We're going to start as a Subcommitee. As soon as we can establish a quorum, we will. Senator Dodd, can you come up? We are on item number one, SB 495 by Senator Dodd. There you go.

Thank you, Assemblymember. That sounds a lot better, doesn't it? Madam Chair Members, SB 495 is nearly identical to a couple of Bills that many of you have already heard and supported, so I'll try to keep this brief. SB 495 seeks to do two major things. The first is to expand on cocktails to-go by adding bars to those provisions, removing the meal requirement, and allowing for the delivery of cocktails directly to a consumer's door.

The ability to include alcoholic drinks has been a lifeline to our restaurant industry during Covid-19. This Bill simply seeks to continue one of the most successful elements of the emergency regulatory pandemic relief. In addition, this Bill requires third party delivery companies who are delivering alcohol on behalf of the alcohol licensee to obtain a permit from the Department of ABC. As the analysis points out, under current law, ABC has no statutory oversight whatsoever over third party delivery companies that deliver alcohol. There's something wrong with that.

The Department has been very clear that it cannot sanction third party delivery companies, and therefore, responsibility in any potential criminal liability is only with the driver and the licensee that sold the alcohol. SB 495 solves this problem by shifting some responsibility to third party delivery companies and providing ABC with oversight on all alcohol deliveries.

I want to be very clear that this does not legalize the delivery of alcohol by third party delivery companies by either grocery stores or even restaurants. As the analyst points out, current law already allows all types of alcohol to be delivered by third party companies on behalf of grocery stores and ability these companies to deliver wine and beer on behalf of restaurants.

What this Bill does is provide a common sense approach that gives the Department of ABC the necessary oversight to ensure that deliveries are being done in a responsible manner that protects against underage drinking and over intoxication. I want to be clear that the Bill does not authorize ABC to find delivery drivers. The Bill on page 27, line 28 makes it clear that these fines would be against the holder of the permit. This is similar to how an employee at a restaurant is not the entity responsible for the fine. I'd like to end my comments with the following. I understand Labor's concern in opposition to third party delivery companies.

I get that. But I myself voted for AB 5. However, the reality is that right now, under current law, alcohol delivery by a third party delivery company is completely legal with or without this Bill. That will continue to happen. The question is not whether to legalize alcohol delivery, but whether third party delivery companies should take some responsibility. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Here with me today is Matt Sutton from the California Restaurant Association.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association certainly want to thank Senator Dodd for his continued work in this space and patience. The Bill just gets better with time, and I think the Senator has adequately pointed out the additional safeguards that are here. So just quick history. What we're talking about is a policy that came about during the outset of the pandemic via emergency regulations from ABC. That allowed beer, wine, and cocktails to be delivered from restaurants for delivery. The cocktail piece, the spirits piece, has lapsed.

And so what we're talking about is beer and wine are currently allowed to be delivered from restaurants to consumers. This simply creates some equity for spirits and cocktails. Additionally, I think the most important part here is that the Bill actually adds public safety guardrails. And it does that with the delivery service permit that is required, and it does it with a number of other requirements that we must do before we send any alcohol out the door. And so I know that last mile has been a concern, so to speak, the actual delivery in the exchange.

And to that, I would say that in the outset of the pandemic, there was a little bit of clunkiness on a number of fronts with the pandemic policies in the entire world. This one had a few, too. ABC was incredibly responsive, and their data, their actual numbers showed a decline in the problems related to this policy. And a lot of that is due to the safeguards that have been in effect before. And I think with these being added, we'll just increase public safety and create a good sweet spot here and bring alcohol parity to beer, wine and spirits for delivery. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Okay, bring it up to the public.

Madam Chair and Members. Beau Biller, on behalf of Gopuff, BevMo, in support.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public in support? Thank you. We'll go ahead and move to the next comments in opposition. Anyone testifying in opposition?

Thank you so much to the chair and the Members of the Committee. My name is Carson Benowitz-Fredericks. I'm the Research Director at Alcohol Justice in San Rafael. We're a nonprofit dedicated to promoting public policy that upholds public health and safety. We actually. Well, we oppose this Bill entirely because of the cocktail delivery portion. And the main reason here is that we find that alcohol harm is increasing wildly in the state. And one of the. And we have actually had time to look at the data coming out of the pandemic era allowance.

And what we actually have found is that the cocktails to go are most frequently consumed by the people who are already at the borderline of really dangerous drinking. And so this, like a lot of policies that kind of reduce the amount of time you consider your choices to drink, really is the thing that kind of pushes people over the borderline into risky drinking. And on top of that, while we. I also. Right. Join the supporters in praising ABC's work in bringing the number of illegal sales to minors down. The fact is, each of those legal sales to minors would not happen if it weren't for cocktails by delivery. So for those reasons, we ask the Committee vote no on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments in opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Vice Chair, my name is Raul Verdugo. I represent the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, and we oppose this Bill, SB 485, because we feel the public health issues that many of our counties face are not due to a lack of availability when it comes to alcohol, but rather an increase in access that doesn't diminish or extricate underage youth consumption of alcohol, domestic violence and physical assaults, where alcohol consumption contributes to their outcomes. For these reasons, we ask that the Committee respectively not support SB 495. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, members of the public, anybody in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Do any of the Members have any questions or comments? I'm sorry, say that again. Any comments? Okay. Yes. And we don't have a quorum yet, so as soon as we do, we can go ahead and do that. All right, thank you.

I would like to make a comment, and I completely understand what the opposition is saying. The opposition has stated that third party delivery services are routinely delivered delivering alcoholic beverages to minors. And we know that under current law, the ABC has no authority to regulate or take enforcement actions against third party delivery companies.

So wouldn't, in my opinion, wouldn't it be best to bring them under a regulated scheme where they can be held accountable for the actions while protecting the interests of the states, as I believe, that SB 495 actually puts in the guardrails. And again, to the opposition's point, and I know our Labor friends are opposed as well, the law already says that they're being delivered.

I see this more of a guardrail so that delivery companies have to get regulated by ABC, further putting more regulations in place so that those that are not following the rules, ABC has a better opportunity to be able to find them and find those actors. As, again, I appreciate the comments from the opposition. My opinion is that this is actually strengthening the regulation so that the sale to minors or the unregulated sales are avoided. So thank you. With that, since we don't have a quorum, Senator, can you have an opportunity to close?

Madam Chair, I would like to use your comments as my close. Thank you very much to the Member Chairman and to the Members of the Committee. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator. And again, since we don't have a quorum, we will have a motion or when appropriate. Thank you. I know that Senator Wiener was on his way and Senator Bradford is also on his way. I have not heard from Senator Durazzo. If she's available, we can take her before the other two. If she arrives.

Okay, thank you. I understand that assemblymember Valencia is going to be presenting on behalf of Senator Durazzo. Thank you. We can establish quorum. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll on the quorum?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We do have a quorum, and we Members, we just heard Senator Dodd's Bill, so if anybody. Thank you. I have a motion by assemblymember Lackey, a second by Assembly Member Patterson. Madam Secretary, can you.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the roll open for added Members. Thank you, Senator Wiener. Welcome, Senator Wiener.

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Chair. If this Bill looks familiar, it's because this Bill, in this approximate form, has passed out of this Committee twice. So hopefully third time is a charm. The first time it got held in Appropriations. The second time, it got pretty dramatically narrowed in Appropriations, so we're hoping that this time we can pass it in a good form. So thank you.

SB 969 is a local control Bill that will authorize, but not require cities to create designated outdoor entertainment zones where local brick and mortar, mom and pop restaurants and bars can sell takeout alcohol beverages within that zone at street festivals and other outdoor events.

Right now, other than in San Francisco, because last year's Bill was limited only to San Francisco, cities can have street festivals and bring in outside vendors, perhaps from other communities, to come in and sell, but the restaurants and bars there cannot. And you can imagine how deeply frustrating that is when your area where you have your business is street festival and others can come in and sell, but you can't.

This will allow that. The Bill, by allowing the creation of these entertainment zones, which could be for one day or one designated day a week or every weekend or one day a month or every day, depending on what the City Council wants to do, will allow cities to create vibrancy in areas where they want to do that.

It might be in a downtown area. It might be in another area. It brings people outside. It just creates vibrancy. And it's a very powerful thing. We have a broad coalition of folks from up and down the state. A lot of cities want the flexibility to be able to do this, and I think that now is the time to empower our cities to take this step in whatever form they deem appropriate locally. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify is Zane Barnes from the City of San Jose, which is one of our sponsors. And Bob Simpson, a board member of the California Nightlife Association and the owner and operator of nightlife establishments here in Sacramento. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Events like San Jose Jazz Summerfest and Music in the Park alongside our nightlife hubs like the SoFA District in San Pedro Square, are bringing life back to urban centers. However, our hospitality businesses face immense challenges. In San Jose, food and beverage sales in our downtown remain 13% below pre pandemic numbers when accounting for inflation.

That's just one reason why we're excited about SB 969. Allowing cities to designate outdoor entertainment zones where brick and mortar establishments can sell alcoholic beverages into a defined area for public consumption gives these businesses and their business districts a fighting chance after years of pandemic struggles.

This Bill removes barriers that have previously prevented these establishments from fully participating in nearby outdoor special events and enables novel activations independent of existing events. Currently, these types of outdoor events must utilize a third party vendor for alcohol sales. Directly competing with the nearby businesses. By empowering brick and mortar shops to serve their communities, SB 969 opens up new opportunities for these businesses to generate revenue and attract foot traffic.

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

We will work with our Police Department, community organizations, mayor and City Council to ensure that the implementation is a good fit for our community. In summary, SB 969 represents a proactive and innovative approach to supporting small businesses, revitalizing downtown areas, and creating engaging experiences for residents and visitors. Thank you for your time and I ask for your aye vote on SB 969.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. My name is Bob Simpson. I've owned and operated restaurants, bars and nightclubs for the past 40 years and I have four venues currently in downtown Sacramento. I'm also a board member of CAL NIGHTS. It's a statewide advocacy group for the social economy. We strongly believe SB 969 will help boost areas struggling in our statewide downtowns that have lost business since the pandemic. Our downtown entertainment districts have been negatively impacted as well due to remote work.

The 05:00 business crowd that used to pack my bars are no longer in our downtowns. SB 969 will allow us to create larger activations by partnering with neighboring businesses, throwing block parties, concerts, crafts fairs, putting on large events that our downtowns will really benefit from. I believe cities will see the financial benefit and promotional benefit by participating with the businesses as they will also see increased employment and taxation base. And of course, operators are still going to be regulated by the cities and by alcoholic beverage control. This will be a great Bill for the social economy. Please pass SB 969. Thank you.

Thank you. Any Members of the public in support?

Emellia Zamani with the California Travel Association in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Karen Lange on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, a proud sponsor of the Bill, and the City of Santa Monica in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Stephanie strode on behalf of the City of Merced and City of Santa Rosa in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association in strong support.

Thank you.

Hi there. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of the City of Sacramento, in support.

Thank you.

Geoff Neill, representing the County of Yolo, also in support.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, bringing it back. Witnesses in opposition, please step forward.

Madam Chair and Members. Fred Jones, on behalf of the California Council on Alcohol Problems, which is led by clergy who deal with alcoholism among their congregates on a daily basis. Two primary concerns with this Bill. One is Bourbon Street in New Orleans is not a one off event. It's an all year party zone. That's what this Bill, we are afraid, will be created throughout California. Farmers markets, one time events, that's one thing. Designated area limited dates. This allows 365 days out of the year.

Bourbon Street areas in cities throughout California. Throughout California is my second point. This body limited this Bill last year, not a decade ago. The Assembly limited the author's Bill last year to just San Francisco. They haven't even implemented this yet. It's a perfect opportunity to be a pilot. Let that play out. They haven't implemented it yet. See how it happens and impacts San Francisco and the surrounding communities before you open this up statewide. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Raul Verdugo. I represent the California Alcohol Policy Alliance, CAPA, representing over 50 organizations across the state. As CAPA, we are opposed to Senate Bill 969 because it will increase the access and consumption of alcohol under conditions that compromise the public's interest in community health and public safety.

Outdoor entertainment zones that promote public intoxication undermine any local effort to decrease alcohol related health harms, including an increase in the potential for youth to access alcohol and the likeliness of overconsumption, including alcohol poisonings. Alcohol related deaths in the State of California have risen by 70% since 2015.

This type of legislation only allows businesses of limited kindness succeed, placing unmitigated financial and social strains on any county, or, excuse me, municipality, that cannot provide adequate protection for their communities, including adequate law enforcement. Prevailing data from the University of North Carolina School of Public Health indicate that these zones are likely to operate in counties with more BIPOC residents live and.

Can you wrap it up, please?

Yes. And for those reasons, we ask that the Committee not support SB 969. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Any members of the public who wish to come up in opposition?

Yes. Thank you. My name is Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, and on behalf of Alcohol Justice, we are in strong opposition.

Thank you. Any other members of the public? Come up. Thank you. Seeing none. We'll go ahead and bring it back up to the Committee. Any of the Committee Members have any questions or comments? Assemblymember Bryan.

Yeah, no, it's interesting. I think one of the opposition witnesses just said that these are more likely to happen in BIPOC areas and that there are not, there's not enough law enforcement. It was a very interesting comment. I was downtown Los Angeles last week with the Select Committee on downtown revitalization with Chair Haney from San Francisco.

And what we saw from the Central Cities Association and others is that these kind of activations are actually what we need to revitalize our downtown city centers that were decimated during COVID and haven't seen the foot traffic that they saw previously that allowed for businesses and communities thrive. They also told us that that increased foot traffic is in itself one of the safety mechanisms for downtown areas. And so I think this is a responsive effort by the Senator and like to make a motion to move the Bill.

Thank you. Any other comments from the, from Committee Members? Okay, I have a motion by Assemblymember Bryan, a second by Assemblymember Wallace. Just as a comment, I wanted to first thank the author for always working with the Committee, but I wanted to clarify that the Bill was narrowed in Appropriations. This Bill was passed in its full form from Governmental Organizations. So I just want to make sure that we're clear on that. But again, I want to thank the author and obviously the Committee for always working with us. And one of the things that I can admire of you, Senator, is that we can always talk, have a conversation, and we can agree to disagree.

And you're always willing to make concessions so that we could to a place where we can all agree. I appreciate the Committee and Assemblymember Bryan's comments on that, because we've seen, we're seeing it here in Sacramento where we don't have the foot traffic that will revitalize the community. So I want to thank you for that. And again, I just wanted to clarify the comments about where the Bill was narrowed, and it was in Appropriations, not as in this Committee. Thank you for that. And you are welcome to close.

Yeah, thank you so much, colleagues. And I agree with Assemblymember, Bran. This is, it's a very powerful tool we're seeing in San Francisco now. Anytime we create new outdoor events, people love it, and it brings people downtown. And anything we can do to integrate that with our local businesses, to support those businesses, in addition to letting people come together in a joyous way with community, is really powerful. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

SB 969 by Senator Wiener. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill has a sufficient vote, but we'll leave the roll up for added Members.

Thank you, colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you. And while we're at it, can we take up the consent calendar before Assemblymember Valencia takes up the Bill?

The following bills are on the consent calendar, and they all have the same motion, which is do pass to appropriations. Recommend consent file item two, SB 958. Dodd. File item four, SB 978, Seyarto. File item five, SB 1214 Nguyen. File item six, SB 1246, Limon. File item seven, SB 1336. Archuleta. File item 10, SB 1523.

On the consent [Roll Call]

Thank you. The consent calendar has enough votes. We'll leave the roll open for adding Members.

We have a roll on the consent calendar for Assemblymember Papin. Papin, aye. Baines on the consent calendar? Baines. Aye.

Thank you. Senator Bradford's not here yet, so we'll take assemblymember Valencia on behalf of Senator Durazzo. Assemblymember, you may begin.

Thank you. Buena Tardas, Madam Chair and Members, I am presenting SB 1488 on behalf of Senator Durazo. SB 1488 directs Caltrans to support arena advertising displays in their current negotiations with the Federal Highway Administration.

This Bill also reduces the length of time for a marketing contract from one year to 120 days, which more accurately reflects outdoor advertising opportunities. This provides stadiums and arenas revenue streams that do not rely on public funding. Stadiums create thousands of local jobs, high paid construction, and also generate state and local taxes. With me to provide testimony today is Angie Monetti, the sponsor of the Bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Angie Minetti here on behalf of the Dodgers and the LA Football Club in support of SB 1488. Outdoor advertising allows us to diversify our revenue streams, and it provides less reliance on public subsidies. Senator Durazo and, you know, all stakeholders have come to an agreement to continue to work on clarifying the federal state agreement discussions, and so we commit to doing that as well and participating in those conversations.

We appreciate the work that the Committee has done, the thorough analysis by the Committee staff, and we respectfully request your, I vote on this.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? No, seeing none. Members of the public. Members of the public in support, please come forward. Thank you. Any Members in, any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Audrey Ratajczak from Cruise Strategies here on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. We represent 90% of all of the billboards in California.

We're here today with an opposed position on SB 1488, but we really want to express our appreciation to Senator Durazzo and the sponsors for continuing to work with us. We have two fundamental concerns and proposed amendments. Which are? One is changing the timeline for the sponsorship marketing agreement from 120 days to nine months.

As context, the arena exemptions allow for limited offsite advertising for partnerships with the arena has. With companies who have a longer term advertising agreement with the stadium. So we just want to maintain the integrity of the arena exemptions by ensuring that there's a meaningful timeline for the advertising marketing agreement.

The second concern we have is with the directive to Caltrans to advocate for an arena exemption in their negotiations with the FHWA. We do believe that's an issue that needs to be looked at further, and we have some suggestions on language clarification that we'll continue to work on.

So with me today is Ron Beals, who's our General counsel for the Association, in case there's any technical questions.

Thank you. Any technical questions? No, thank you. Any Members of the public in opposition please come forward.

Chair and Members Dennis Loper, on behalf of Veal Outdoor and General Outdoor, we remain in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Members of the public in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Members of the Committee, any questions, concerns, comments? No, I would like to make a comment to your point. Thank you very much for stating your reasons.

I do understand that the 120 days was a Committee amendment from 2022, and I want to thank Senator Durazzo for working with the Committee and working. I believe they've been working with you as well on coming to an agreement, and I look forward to those conversations.

I know that I spoke to Senator Durazzo directly, and she's open to the conversations, and I know assemblymember Valencia can take that message back to her. But again, the Committee amendments were in 2022 on the 120 days, and she accepted the amendments at that point.

But I'm hopeful that with continued conversations, we can get to a point where we can all at least agree on how to move forward. Thank you. I need a motion in a second. Okay, move by assemblymember Pacheco. Second by Assemblymember Brian. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll.

SB 1488? Durazo. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. We have 11 votes, we're still short, and we'll leave the roll open for adding Members. Thank you. I see. Senator Bradford, welcome. Thank you, Senator Bradford, you may begin. Microphone. Microphone.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present 1371, and it's just a way of providing greater convenience and security at alcohol purchases by allowing biometric identity systems as a method to verify a customer's age. Existing law provides alcoholic beverage retail licensees with the affirmative defense and a proceeding involving the sale of alcoholic beverages.

This offense is allowed if the licensee can prove that they requested and were shown a government ID. Issued ID, I should say. Some licensees, especially large venues like stadiums, have begun the use of additional biometric methods, such as fingerprints and facial recognition, to affirm a purchasers age.

This technology is accurate, reliable, convenient for both the retailer and the purchaser. So it will just include biometric systems for eligible affirmative defense. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And here in support is Joe Langs to answer any technical questions.

Go ahead. Thank you.

Welcome, Mister Madam Chair, Members, just real quickly appreciate your Committee staff's good work on the analysis. When the affirmative defense statutes were created 30 years ago, this technology didn't exist. We believe that this will help to improve compliance with age verification for sales, and we support the Bill.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Members of the public in support? You may come up. Okay. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you to the chair and the Members of the Committee. Carson Benowitz-Fredericks, Alcohol Justice. I just wanted to flag that we still have concerns that the technology is actually not foolproof, not consistent and real. The real issue here for deferment of defense is that it is a whole bunch of information and verification that is kept in a black box by the person who would be up before the judge.

The state does not really have a way to audit or verify or, or analyze the algorithms that this would be using, and for that reason, I think we should be a little more cautious before we unleash it. It kind of feels to us a lot like a solution in search of a problem.

And then, just as one last note, speed in serving people alcohol actually does reduce the opportunity to engage in safe service practice. So I actually think there is a vet. There is a positive public health benefit to pausing and looking at the, at the ID and interacting with the. With the customer. That would be lost if this is put into practice. So we suggest you vote no. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Members of the audience wish to come up and oppose? Okay. Seeing none. Any Members of the Committee? Questions? Comments? Assembly Member Bains?

Hi. I just wanted to ask, so when I read the Bill, we're going to be changing the way that we looking at, you know, verification, but we also need to know, like, what is it that's going to be used in this biometrics data to analyze and verify the age.

Madam Chair, Assemblymember Bains, The answer to that question in a simple way. Right now, somebody uses a government issued ID, and we know sometimes that those are fraudulent. And what this technology will allow people to do is, through either retinal scans or facial recognition, authenticate the ID that is given so that you have an extra layer of compliance on top of the government issued ID.

So it's not getting rid of the government issue ID. Okay, so we'll have government issue ID in addition to this.

The Bill actually requires it.

Then I. That helps me also, you know, just to add my personal story to that. When face recognition first came out on the. I remember my cousin got that first phone, forget which phone first had it. And I, like, took his phone. I'm like, let's see if it'll detect me. And it broke through the phone.

My cousin has a beard and a turban. So I just want to make sure that we are doing everything we can. Technology is advancing, and that's great, but at the same time, I want to make sure that we are holding everything accountable in innovation and that we don't make more loopholes. I will be supporting this Bill, but I do want to see more and more work on innovation insecurity. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments from the Committee? Assemblymember Valencia.

Thank you. Timely Bill. I definitely agree with the direction that the technology is going in, and then obviously the following legislation behind it. Just one concern. Is there anything that you could address regarding the data that may be collected or how that could be used by the individual who is actually scanning the ID?

Under the provisions of the Bill, the technology provider is required to maintain the data for purposes of ABC jurisdiction and compliance. So we using the technology, in this case, intuit dome, the new dome for the clippers, we have to, if we were ever called in because of a potential sale to a minor, we would have to be able to demonstrate that the technology was used, that it, in fact, authenticated the government issued ID.

And the good thing partly about the technology these days is that with the hologram, pictures and part of the government ID, that authentication is getting closer and closer to foolproof. Probably not 100%, but I think in conversations with the ABC, our hope is that this would bring 99% compliance.

Thank you for that. And would the entity that is collecting that data, in the case that it is requested by the ABC or whoever, would they have the ability to then use that data or information in any other way outside of what is currently outlined?

The affirmative offense that were. That's amended by the Bill is only for that purpose.

Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Okay, are we. We have a motion by Assembly Member Papen, a second by Assembly Member Davies. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll.

SB 1371. Bradford. The motion is due. Pass. Rubio, aye. Rubio, aye. Lackey, aye. Lackey I Addis Addis I Baines. Baines I Brian Brian. I Cervantes Cervantes I Davies Davies I Dixon Dixon I Gabriel Gabriel I Gibson. Gibson I Haney Low. Low. I mcKinner. McKinner I Pacheco. Pacheco I papin. Papin I Patterson Patterson I Ramos. Soria. Ta. Ta. I Valencia. Valencia. Yes. Wallace? Wallace I.

Thank you. We have the votes to pass the Bill, and we'll leave the roll open for any additional Members, and we are done. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll for those absent Members?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Yes. Open the roll for Assembly Member Soria. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We are adjourned. Okay, we'll give five minutes for any absent Members. Thank you so much for attending. Yes. So I understand that Assemblymember Haney and Ramos are on their way as soon as they're done, and so we'll leave the role open for them. Thank you. We are adjourned at 02:32 p.m.