Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning and welcome, The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization will come to order and proceed as a sub. In the absence of a quorum. Do you see that we have an author here? Assemblymember Gonzalez. Welcome. Yay, Freddie.

With respect to file item 15, AB 820. Before we take the Assembly Member just for purposes with respect to file item 11, AB 478 Zbur and file item 17, AB 1334 Wallace. These items have been pulled from the agenda. And thanks and welcome to Senator Choi who's pinch hitting for Vice Chair Valladares this morning.

Mr. Chair, if I can go try to grab a witness from the line.

Absolutely. Help yourself. You're what we have Assemblymembers. So whenever you're ready to proceed.

All right.

While we're giving Assemblymember Gonzalez time to grab his witness, I know that Assemblymember Bennett is here. With respect to file item 6, AB 372. Assemblymember, welcome. Please come forward and proceed when ready, welcome.

Welcome.

Thank you very much. And to the chair and Members, AB 372 is a straightforward bill. It seeks to establish the Rural Water Infrastructure for Community Wildlife Wildfire Protection Program within the California Office of Emergency Services, to provide funding to improve water system infrastructure. Ten of the twenty largest fires in California have occurred since 2020.

That's an amazing statistic, and we really are at a tipping point here in California. The Department of Water Resources' Small Water Systems and Rural Communities Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Planning and Risk Assessment found that 61% of the top at-risk water suppliers are in high or very high wildfire zones.

This means that the same regions most likely to face catastrophic fires are also at risk of water system disruptions. AB 372 would allow the state to provide matching funds to small water systems for improvements, such as upgrading water lines, installing additional hydrants, or backup power generation.

This will help our water systems maximize their resources and be prepared for future fires. With me today, I'm proud to say, is Shelly Thomsen from the South Tahoe pud. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Welcome. State your name again for the record.

Your time is limited to four minutes.

Perfect. Good morning. I'm Shelly Thomsen with South Tahoe Public Utility District. On behalf of my water agencies, as well as the Tahoe Water for Fire Suppression Partnership, we support AB 372. This bill addresses a funding gap for water infrastructure projects that improve wildfire resiliency in rural communities.

Water infrastructure for fire suppression has historically been overlooked as a critical component that can protect communities in that wildland-urban interface from catastrophic fire. My community of South Lake Tahoe has seen firsthand the difference investments in water infrastructure can make. The majority of our service area was built in the '50s and '60s to support summer cabins.

As such, the water mains are often 2 inches with few or no fire hydrants. The 2007 Angora fire burned down 250 homes in my community, and we ran out of water during that firefight.

Since then, we've been investing in upsizing those water mains, adding fire hydrants every 500 ft, installing interties between water districts, as well as investing in backup power at our field facilities, so that our wells, our booster stations, and our water tanks are able to operate during an emergency.

During the Caldor Fire of 2021, our robust water infrastructure, combined with fuels management and home hardening, resulted in not a single home burning down in the Tahoe Basin. If the fire had hit a deficient part of our system or the Basin, a very different outcome would have likely occurred.

In Tahoe alone, our partnership expects an additional investment of over $120 million over the next five years to upsize the capacity of our water infrastructure and fire flow. AB 372 will help by developing a program to distribute state matching funds in that high–very high severity zone in the wildland–urban interface to help improve and upgrade rural water systems infrastructure.

This will really help address community fire suppression. So, the Tahoe Water for Fire Suppression Partnership proudly supports AB 372, and we urge you to do the same. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Are there any individuals who would like to register support for the Bill? Please come forward to the mic. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning. Steve Wallach, on behalf of the California Tahoe Alliance, in support.

Amanda Bloom with the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, in support.

Jen Stein with the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Good morning, Chair members. Kaitlyn Johnson, with Political Solutions on behalf of the California Water Association, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Zach Cefalu, with the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. Doug Houston, representing the Sierra Business Council, in support.

Good morning, Chair members. Rachel Mueller, on behalf of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Any individuals who would like to register opposition to the bill? Seeing no one come forward—bringing it back to the Committee Members for questions or comments. Good morning. Seeing none, you may close Assemblymember.

Thank the Chair for getting us on promptly here. We're trying to get witnesses, et cetera—it's helpful, so I appreciate that. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, sir. We'll put this. Do we now have a quorum? Yeah. All right, let's establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Now that we have a quorum, is there a motion on this Bill?

Senator Choi made a move.

Motion.

Senator Choi moves the Bill. Please call the roll.

Motion is due. Passed to Natural Resources and Water Committee.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Place that item on call. Thank you very much. Assemblymember. Bring it back to Assemblymember Gonzalez with respect to file item 18, AB 828. Welcome, Assemblymember. Any witnesses? They made it?

Yes. Your staff is very great. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Mark. Please proceed when ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members, thank you so much for your time this morning.

I'm pleased to present AB828, which would establish a new neighborhood restricted special on sale General alcohol license and issued by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. These licenses would be available to restaurants located within the specific census tracts in the City of Los Angeles.

I want to thank the Committee for their Diligent work on this Bill, and I am accepting the Committee's amendments at this time. Under the current law, ABC may only issue one new on sale General license per 2,000 residents per county.

Once those caps are reached, the only option for new businesses is to purchase a license on the open market, where limited supply and high demand have driven prices sky high. And my witness today, and I had been working on that for some time, especially during COVID on that, which is why she's here today.

When new licenses are made available, they're distributed via a lottery system. Even for the lucky winners, the licenses cost approximately $20,000 or more. In Los Angeles, the cost of purchasing an existing license on the open market can exceed $200,000, not including broker fees, which can add another 10% to the fees already in place.

These expenses are in addition to local permitting processes. Again, in Los Angeles, conditional use permits often cost upwards to $20,000 and take up to a year to even secure, delaying openings and creating financial strain for small businesses and owners. The current licensing structure also fails to reflect the scale to pace of Los Angeles tourism economy.

In 2023 alone, LA welcomed 49.1 million visitors at those numbers expected to grow as the city prepares to host global events as the FIFA World Cup, 2026 All-Star Game, US Women's Open, NFL Super Bowl, and of course, the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

AB 828 addresses both the cost and the access barriers facing Los Angeles restaurants by authorizing ABC to issue up to 12 new neighborhood restricted licenses per year beginning in 2026 until a total of 40 licenses have been issued in that area.

The Bill will offer much needed relief for restaurants to support economic development and provide small businesses, especially minority owned restaurants in historic neighborhoods like and as we've been seeing over the last couple of weeks have been hit hard as a result of these raids.

But specifically areas like Koreatown, Little Tokyo, Chinatown, Historic Filipino Town, PICO Union, Boyle Heights with a critical opportunity to grow and thrive. With me today and taking time out of her day to be here and from her business is a good friend and somebody who's been a strong advocate for Los Angeles.

Corissa Hernandez, owner and operator of Nativa HLP, a local LA business and board member with the Independent Hospitality Coalition and Marlon Lara with the Coalition Restaurants Association. Take it away.

Thank you. Welcome. Witnesses, state your names again for the record. Your time will be limited to standard two minutes each.

Good morning. My name is Corissa Hernandez. I am a first generation Latina daughter of immigrants and small business owners. I'm here today in strong support of AB828. I opened Chelas and Nativo in the same east side neighborhoods that gave my family its first home in this country.

Right now, obtaining a full liquor license on the open market can cost between 100,000 to 300,000. The actual cost of this license directly from ABC is closer to 20,000. The artificial demand for the licenses means that they can only be obtained by those with capital behind them.

This makes the dream of a bartender working their way to opening their own bar nearly impossible. The ability for restaurants to sell alcohol can be a game changer. Businesses with full liquor licenses see higher revenue and stronger profit margins compared to food only establishments.

That revenue matters because when a small business thrives, the community thrives, we hire locally, we stimulate the local economy. We create safe gathering spaces and we reinvest in the very neighborhoods that raised us.

AB 828 prioritizes neighborhoods like Chinatown, Boyle Heights, Historic Filipino Town, Downtown LA and the arts districts and others that have long needed for economic revitalization. AB828 gives entrepreneurs a chance to build the businesses of their dreams without unnecessary risk. Thank you for your time.

Good morning Chair and Members. Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association, representing 22,000 Neighborhood Restaurants across the state. We're here in strong support of AB 828. AB 828 is a Bill that could not come at a more critical time, especially as restaurants in LA continue to face tough headwinds to keep their doors open, particuLarly in LA.

We continue to receive daily reports from neighborhood restaurants in census tracts outlined in this Bill that are reporting significant drops in foot traffic and in sales due to several factors, including rising inflation, overhead, and local factors that have rocked beloved institutions.

Neighborhood restaurants such as the devastating wildfires, Hollywood writer strikes and recent enforcement actions that have caused so much disruption.

We see AB828 as a measure that will restore the vibrancy and resiliency of neighborhood restaurants by increasing the amount of on sale general licenses for bonafide public eating places, especially in historic towns in areas like Koreatown, Chinatown and Boyle Heights.

In a thoughtful manner over the next several years, as the Assembly Member said, several large tourism events are expected to start next year through 2028.

We also appreciate language in this Bill to increase neighborhood investments while lowering overhead costs for small restaurants by requiring that any license issued under this Bill remains in these neighborhoods by prohibiting the transfer to another county or to another license type. For these reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any individuals who'd like to register support for the Bill? Seeing no one come up, we might have someone come to the mic. State your name and affiliation please.

Brittany Valles from the IHC Registering my support for the IHC Great White, Broad Street Oyster Company, Pajo Lee and Bessia on behalf of support of the Bill, thank you.

Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill or individuals want to register opposition to the Bill? Seeing no one come forward. Bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator Archuleta.

Excuse me. I'd like to thank the Assemblymember for bringing this forward. Some of the cities that were just named are very strange to so many because you're not from Los Angeles, but this is right in the hub of Los Angeles, Boyle Heights, East LA, Chinatown, Little Tokyo.

These are all within minutes of Dodger Stadium, which is going to see an influx of people and so on. For the restaurants and for the restaurants that need to thrive during this time of opportunity, I think this is a great opportunity.

And I really like the fact that when it's all said and done, they're not going to be able to transfer. That's very important. With that, I'd like to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Senator Choi

Thank you Chair. Assemblymember Gonzalez, I'm so surprised how expensive the liquor license to $200,000. What are the qualifications now your Bill is allowing up to 40 new liquor licenses. And rather than limiting this, I don't know what data you have based to come up with the 40 new licenses.

What are the basic requirements for considering permitting the new licensee to have the legalized license?

We worked on the census trap to create the numbers how they're already issued today in today's standards and we. What is the number one legal license? I think it's 2,000 for. What did I say? 2,000 for one license. ABC may only issue one new on sale General license per 2,000 residents per county. So you based 40 new licenses based.

Upon that data, the new census tracks based on that? We had it a much larger number. What we spoke to the staff and we amended it down to get it to a smaller number. Small pockets of those areas.

Will there be any downside if you eliminate that, I mean some data based number.

But when there's a requirement in a versa application from licensee, potential licensee, I would like to establish liquor store here, then case by case in that vicinity, like 1 mile radius or 2 mile radius radius of what the population will be whether there is existing store or not. Wouldn't it be more practical?

So it's only restricted to restaurants only it's only 12 per year. And so until it gets to a total maximum of 40 within those areas that we mentioned, the way that the system works right now is and Corissa can attest to that is when you do get the.

When you do win the lottery in the sense that you do get it, then the owner of the building also has to sign off on said license as well. That also in itself is a delay in that process. This is also not giving licenses to everybody.

This is trying to give it more to the small business owners to opportunity to get them firsthand rather than buying them on the outside market, which cost them even more money in the immediate. So we were very strategic on how we issued the number just to be cognitive that we're not giving them out to everybody.

But the reality is that there has to be some control as to how we're doing it. Right now there is none. And it makes it much harder for us to even have small businesses to survive. So that's essentially the goal by allowing this.

So our number was much bigger, but we dwindled it down to be reasonable to work with the State Department on that. And a lot of times the uniqueness about my area and the reason why this Bill is so important is so I have that epicenter. And I know Mr. Jones knows LA very well.

We were just talking about that that Koreatown, for example, has a lot of these Korean barbecues and so forth and want to qualify for those licenses. Small businesses, there are some that have taken advantage of that area and sort of do alcohol when they're not supposed to. They don't have the proper licensing for it.

Or they have restaurant license where they only have five items on the menu and call that a restaurant and get that license as well. So I think that in this approach it negotiates itself fairly and across the board so that folks aren't having to buy it thirdhand, which costs them even more and eventually bankrupts the business.

I guess Koreans love to drink. Can't speak to that but I do sure. To me what it concerns is that 40 new licenses then potential store buyers or to open one will look for new location. But there may be based upon.

If you don't limit the new licensees based upon geographic area or radius which one is existing, just 40 new numbers then it can be very saturated areas such as Korea Town. So I wondered whether based upon applicants when I try to open my new store.

Obviously I will do some research how many stores competitors are nearby me based upon that whether I can survive or not. Not one block.

And that's a business decision. But it's not for the stores specifically. It's for restaurants only. It's not. It's exclusive to that. And it's only 12 and you have the maximum is 40 over time. So 12 per year starting in 26.

That's the reason I asked why what the qualifications are for the new applicants for you for ABC to allow that. Do they consider the radius of the existing liquor licensee store existing or not?

So I know Corissa has been to that specifically. If you want to address the specifics of what you need in order for you to get a license. I guess is the question.

Yes, thank you. And I do see you have a valid concern when it comes to ABC. They're very strict about how these licenses get distributed. Oftentimes as business owners, we have to present to neighborhood councils and get their permission first and foremost.

Once we get that green light, then we have to follow rules around how far we are from schools and churches. And then we have to have neighborhood input. So we have to send out mailers to neighbors who are within a certain diameter radius from our locations.

Once we pass all of that, then we get the landlord to sign off approval that we will be selling alcohol in their building.

And then ABC will make sure that all of the ayes are dotted, Ts are crossed, they'll come out, check out the location, make sure that we are abiding by all rules, and then we're granted the liquor license.

The location that we're talking about, it's a large area of Los Angeles and 12 licenses is not a lot considering the demand right now.

And especially with the amount of businesses that have closed for good in the City of Los Angeles, this would be a major game changer, especially in such a dire time for a small business community. And I know that our reputation as restaurants, it matters when it comes to applying for these liquor licenses.

So we have to show good faith by our community and being responsible restaurant owners.

And there's already restrictions in place for folks who already have a type 47. This is just for completely new ones. And this body in 2016, SB 1285 under Mr.

Leno created a new type of neighborhood restricted license, non transferable liquor license, type 87, which then allow the ABC to issue up to over five of those licenses within specific census tracts in the city and the County of San Francisco. We're just trying to that passed through this body.

We're trying to establish the same in Los Angeles to give us a fair shot at that as well.

Okay, my final question is that now before your Bill allowing for the new additional licenses, how long ago state legislation regulated that the allow the additional number? Do you know how long it has been?

So if I understood correctly, so AB471 was Ting in 2017, AB2359 in 2023 expanded the amount of type 87 licenses that can be issued from 5 to 30 and 40 respectively. So we already have that in place.

So about a year ago it was the number was updated and now you are renewing that number.

I'm not renewing the number. We're creating localized as past legislation has done. Yes. Localizing it in those areas that we mentioned.

Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator, Ochoa-Bogh.

I just want to commend you on the Bill. Although I'm not part of the LA area, I really do empathize with the story behind it. As a daughter of immigrant parents, myself and my dad, being a restaurateur he owned, his dream was to own a restaurant.

Starting as a bus boy and moving himself up through the area, and then one day, with the partnership with his siblings, be able to start his own restaurant. But I remember the wait to be able to find a license to be able to sell liquor on premise.

And it actually, I had no idea that we had such that this could be possible until this Bill came through. And now I'm kind of curious to know how the Inland Empire is impacted. And I'm going to do my own little research on it. So I might have to partner up with you in the future for something.

Maybe I'll co author that now.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this measure forward, and I'm happy to support it.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. I don't see any other questions or comments you want to close, Assemblymember?

Sure. Thank you, Senators, and thank you for the dialogue and the conversation. Briefly, AB828 is more than policy.

It's a pledge to our neighbors, it's a pledge to our dreamers, and it's a pledge to our risk takers who light up our evenings and feed our souls. It says, we believe in you. We've got your back. Let's give our local restaurants the tools they need to succeed and our neighborhoods the opportunity to flourish. Thank you.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta, move the Bill, please. Call the roll. All right, there we go.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We'll leave that item on call. Thank you very much. Assemblymember. I see that Assembly Member Elhawary is here, so come on forward with your witnesses.

This with respect to file item 14, AB 822. Please proceed when ready. Welcome.

Good after- or morning actually. Chair and members, I'm proud to present AB 822, which would extend the sunset date for the Commission on the State of Hate to January 1, 2031. This commission was created in 2021 in response to hate crimes against Asian Americans.

But its work reaches far beyond one moment or one community. While some hate crimes are declining, attacks against LGBTQ people, especially trans and non binary folks, are still rising. These acts of hate aren't far away. They're happening in our own districts, in our schools and on our streets.

AB 822 ensures California continues to respond with care urgency and long term solutions, not just reactive headlines. The fight against hate doesn't start somewhere else. It starts with us. I'm asking you to stand with me and be a part of that fight. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any witnesses. Are there any individuals who want to register support for the bill? Please come forward to the mic. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support. Thank you.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association in support.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in support.

Thank you. I don't see any witnesses in opposition. Any individuals want to register opposition to this bill. Seeing no one come forward. Bring it back to committee members. Senator Weber Pierson, Senator Choi, followed by Senator Weber Pierson.

Okay, thank you, chair. I voted on this bill, but this bill is only extending the sunset period until 2031. This hate crime is obviously should not have any place. Absolutely.

But right now we have witnessed in many different sectors, racial, whatever the kind you can name, particularly last 3-4 years, Asian community has faced a lot of Asian hate because of the name Covid, you know, China virus. That is really concerning to me after receiving, I mean, establishing such a commission, commission alone doesn't do anything.

But the commission at least will- will track down the statistics. I wonder whether there are many, many different categories that I'm not going to ask about the data, but in particular Asian hate crime since Covid has subsided.

Now is it also proportionally down or the trend continues or do you happen to have that data that you can share?

I don't have the data on me specific to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, but I know even recognizing where we are in this current climate, immigrants overall, I think hate crimes and generally as we see what's going on with this federal administration, things have absolutely been shifting. We Even see it beyond immigrants.

Thinking about the recent anti Semitism, the hate against Muslims with the travel ban and just recognizing that we really want to do the work to ensure that we don't continue to see that happen against communities.

Can you remind me exactly the responsibilities the mission that was charged for this commission?

I don't have that information on me. But it is to ensure that they're collecting data specific to hate crimes across the State of California.

It is right now they are collecting the data isn't necessary. Yeah, I would love to have that data.

Yeah, that's great. You can definitely get that. Over to you from our team. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you chair. When I really thank the assemblymember for bringing this bill forward, you know, as you stated and the previous senator stated, unfortunately hate crimes are still here. You know, we would have hoped that we as a people and as a country would have evolved into a place where everyone is welcome.

And unfortunately what we're seeing with right now, especially with the current administration and the things and the rhetoric that is coming from the top, we are devolving into a very, very, very scary place where we are seeing a spike in people just disliking and having negative feeling towards others not because they know them or not someone did something to them, but just because of what they think they know or because of the rhetoric that has come from our national administration.

And so really want to thank you for this. The data is extremely important and you know, they list out the number of hate crimes. I think Asians is now number six out of all of them. But we can definitely check that. But that's something I learned yesterday. Thank you.

Thank you Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this forward. I'm going to have to echo some of the comments my colleagues made. So I feel that when we talk about hate crimes there are also communities that under report.

And I want to give example of this and as part of the, you know, as the Vice Chair of the API caucus in my district in the Bay Area in the last couple weeks, there was an individual and I need to share this story because I want to show how some people look at somebody the wrong way and report it.

Other people will have this story and not want to report it. So there was an individual roughly in their 50s, pushing 60s, did a morning walk around 5am around their neighborhood park. They finished their walk. They own a shop where they fix cars and so forth in the city. They've lived there for over 40 plus years.

When they were finished with their walk, they were stretching. There was a man that walked behind him and hit him in the back of the head. He fell over. The man ended up kicking him, spat on him, said, go back to your country, and revealed himself and peed on him.

And this individual is, you know, obviously fighting for his life at this part, and he's screaming for help. People come, the man runs away. This man gets up, tries to chase him. Eventually, police, you know, are called on the scene and so forth. Now, I spoke to this man. His son wants to report it.

His son wants to make this, you know, get the attention it deserves. And when I spoke to the victim, the victim doesn't want to highlight any of the negativity, any of the tension and said that this can happen to anybody, even though the person clearly highlighted him and said, go back to your country. Right.

I highlight this because a lot of the data is very skewed. And in communities like my own, they don't represent what's really going on. After 911 the Muslim community was deeply targeted as well as the Sikh community, just because they wear the turbans and the ignorance there can't even differentiate between cultures, religions, languages, and much more.

We also. Almost every single bill that I've seen in regards to data and hate and discrimination and so forth in this building has also been very biased. And I have shared this concern significantly with colleagues to really highlight that we have to do a better job of educating why this data is important.

Two, understanding that a lot of communities, immigrant communities that have lived here for 40 years, like this man, as well as those who are new arrivals, feel comfortable sharing their experience, number one. Number two, they don't want to be a victim.

And so they want to move on because of the shame and the trauma and so forth, as well as don't even know that they're supposed to report this. Right. There's a lack of understanding there. Now, I support this bill, and I want to just get that out of the way.

So I just also think that every time we talk about hate crimes and reporting and data and the fact that one group is, you know, has a higher percentage of another than another group, it's not accurate. Right.

And I really want to stress this because I will say that amongst the Asian community, it is underreported across the board. Pick an Asian group, they won't report it.

Yeah, right.

Whether it's Asian hate that we saw during Covid and much more, whether it's right now the fact that we are saying, please be on special alert, we are profiling people, right? We are really highlighting their skin tone. Right. We are highlighting their names.

And I don't think that we intentionally want to do that, but some of the ways that we are addressing hate crimes is actually racist in itself, Right? And so even within the Asian community, and we've, you know, my colleague here and I have talked about this. It's so broad, right. Nobody would think I'm Asian, Right.

When they look at me, right. They think some, you know, other person, Persian, Middle Eastern, something, right? And so there's a lack of education there. And I just raised the issue because I'm deeply frustrated in this building that nobody understands this.

And even with international crises that tend to happen, it is heavily skewed negatively on communities that are underrepresented. And I also want to highlight this.

Even in this building, when staff come up to me and tell me that they attended a protest and now they are being targeted and labeled certain things just because they believe in freedom, that is wrong.

And so I really want all of us to check this and also pay attention when our own staff is also being targeted because of the way they look or what they believe in. So thank you, and I'll move the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

Thank you, Senator Wahab. Would you like to close?

Yes. And just even to respond, I think it's really important, and I would love to be thoughtful around that kind of feedback that we can share with the commission.

I think really being thoughtful around the work that we want and need to do, especially for some of the communities that are even more underrepresented and who are afraid to speak up.

I think even in this moment, as we see what's going on with the raids, if anything is going on, and even we talk about the Labor Commission, very few reports are being made when there violations because folks are so afraid in this moment.

And so as we think about that, I think we have to really push on the piece around education and the biases and really being able to encourage folks to speak up and figure out what it will take to get there. So thank you for that. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We'll place that item on call. Thanks, Assemblymember. Before we take the next author, we'll dispense with the consent calendar. I'll entertain a motion. Moved by Richardson. The consent calendar is comprised of file items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We will place consent on call. I see that we have Assemblymember Gabriel here. Welcome, sir. Thank you, gentlemen. Assemblymember, proceed when ready.

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I want to start by thanking the Committee for their thoughtful work on this Bill and confirm that I will be accepting the amendments today.

I am pleased to present AB 592, a measure that will support California's neighborhood restaurants by ensuring that outdoor dining remains a viable option for restaurants across the state. Neighborhood restaurants are the backbone of communities across California, but too many are continuing to struggle.

After enduring unprecedented challenges during the Pandemic, these beloved small businesses are now grappling with major challenges from inflation and other cost pressures. AB 592 will support California's restaurants by reducing red tape and enabling restaurants to leverage our state's exceptional climate.

In particular, this Bill will extend the regulatory flexibility granted under two bills that I authored that allow for greater outdoor and patio dining. And additionally, this Bill will cut red tape around open kitchens. With this flexibility, restaurants can create a more inviting and open air atmosphere as part of the overall dining experience.

In so doing, AB 592 will help keep our beloved neighborhood restaurants afloat and assist them on the long road back to recovery.

This Bill is supported by a robust coalition that includes the Los Angeles County Business Federation, the California Travel Association, the California Restaurant Association, restaurants and hospitality coalitions, and business councils and chambers of commerce from across our state.

I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of the Bill, Marlon Lara, here on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, and Brian Bennett, Chef and Owner of Bennett's American Cooking in Sacramento. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, would respectfully request your aye vote. thank you.

Thank you, and to the witnesses, welcome. State your name again for the record, please. Your time will be limited to 2 minutes each.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association. AB 592 represents the continuation of sensible regulatory reform that created low cost, low hurdle process for permitting alcohol service in expanded outdoor dining areas. While the law was first enacted during the Pandemic, the program was wildly successful, but since then, it has operated as a pilot program.

AB 592 extends this existing law by allowing restaurants who already have alcohol licenses to utilize a streamlined approval process with ABC. This temporary permit is called a temporary catering authorization. As a result, 11,000 restaurants have enjoyed these privileges, with more looking to join.

In fact, some local jurisdictions across the state, many actually, have embraced outdoor dining by creating permanent programs, such as the City of LA's LA Al Fresco Program, Sacramento's Farm to Fork Al Fresco, San Francisco Shared spaces and programs.

AB 592 will extend the life of this temporary regulatory process by giving restaurants more time as they navigate the formal process to make these spaces permanent, through an already existing ABC framework. AB 592 is an important bridge to that permanency. For these reasons, we're in strong support of AB 592. We strongly ask for your aye support today.

And now, I'd like to turn it over to a local restaurateur, Brian Bennett, with the Bennett Hospitality Group, who will share with you directly just how important these types of regulatory reform measures are for the entire restaurant community.

Hi, I'm Brian Bennett with the Bennett Hospitality Group and thank you for allowing me today to be here. I am Brian Bennett, and I founded this with my wife, Susan Bennett. Nine years ago, we started Bennett Hospitality Group. We've been in business in California since 1968.

That puts me as a young child, but for 50 years we've done business in California. We opened our first location for Bennett's Kitchen Bar and Market in Roseville, California in 2019. I'm in support of AB 592 to take a few minutes to share with you the impactful—how this legislation will impact and continue to impact the small businesses that use it.

As you know, AB 592 continues the pathway to hassle-free, low-cost permitting process for restaurants that want to serve alcohol and new expanded patio areas. And as you know, patios were critical during the Pandemic, both for restaurant survival and for the safety of the community.

Outdoor dining remains popular and is critical to making the economics of restaurant work and any good policy changes that occurred during the Pandemic ought to continue. That's why we support AB 592. The COVID Pandemic disrupted many lives and business, including the Bennett family.

And in response to the shutdown, we developed 13 family meals that we launched immediately, and it kept us alive. Additionally, we had a patio attached to our restaurant and we could use that patio immediately as it was already licensed. So, we were way ahead of competitor.

But that didn't make it any easier for the competitors who took months and months to get to there where they could survive. We would never be in business today if it hadn't been for our patios being open and ready to go when this Pandemic happened. We would have just not have made it, but we did make it.

We were able to pivot, we learned how to do it, we got better at what we did. And, you know, the underlying law behind AB 592 is what made those types of spaces easy for our competitors and for us to permit so that they could be in business and stay in business.

The others already have outdid air—allowed them expand to outdoor spaces with alcohol. About 95% of what we do, our revenue, goes to paying our costs. If you're a great operator, 95% goes. If you're not, 98% goes. Every day, restaurants close. When permitting is streamlined, it reduces the cost and gets restaurants, you know, expanded sooner, employing people, and, you know, keeps us open and supporting the local communities.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there any other individuals who would like to register support for the Bill? Please come forward to the mic. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Madison Dwelley with Political Solutions, on behalf of the California Travel Association and the Family Winemakers of California, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of Sacramento Mayor, Kevin McCarty, in support.

Chair and Members, Norlyn Asprec with Axiom Advisors, registering support from the following restaurants and organizations: Babel Bestia, Hiho, John and Vinny's, Mottoo, Rosso Blue, Rustic Canyon, Safi's Superfine Playa, Sushi Nozawa, Uvo, Steadfast LA, and the Office of LA County Supervisor, Lindsey Horvath. Thank you.

Good morning. Jared Maas on behalf of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Brittany Valles, on behalf of the IHC, in support, and registering support on behalf of Regarding Her Wallflower, Gorilla Tacos, Broad Street Oyster, Kitchen Culture, Recruiting Great White, and Broad Street Oyster Company.

Good morning, again. Corissa Hernandez with the Independent Hospitality Coalition, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rachel Mohler, here on behalf of CAMEO Network, in strong support. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Members. Orquilla De Roy Reyes, an Intern with Mesa Verde Group, on behalf of the Inclusive Action for the City, in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill or individuals who would like to register opposition to the Bill? Please come forward to the mic. State your name and affiliation.

Hello. I'm Amanda Bloom with the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators. We are in an opposed unless amended position with specific concerns related to food safety and open kitchens. Thank you to the author for continued conversations.

Good morning. Isabella Argueda with the Health Officers Association of California. We're similarly in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no one else come forward, bringing it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator Rubio.

Yeah. First of all, thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel. This is something that's really important, I think, to all of our communities. Well, I should speak for myself. I think that we haven't seen some of the challenges that are coming our way, and I'll share with you.

I was not necessarily a believer early on because we didn't know how it was going to work. And after COVID, the Pandemic, you know, I saw how much our restaurants and our businesses just thrived in a time where they should have been closing down. And again, we have so many challenges coming our way.

I think this is important, at least, you know, I do appreciate it says here till January 1st, 2029. It's important to acknowledge everything that's on in LA and so many of our challenges due to federal cuts. So, we need to support our businesses.

So, I think this is really important, and I do want to be a coauthor, if I'm not already. I think we need to push this forward. So, thank you for, for acknowledging, acknowledging our small restaurants and businesses that are struggling to succeed. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator. We'd love to add you.

All right. Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yeah. I just want to thank the Committee, thank the witnesses. You know, we think that we have found a winning formula here of cutting red tape, allowing our small businesses to thrive. As you've heard from the witnesses, these folks had a hell of a time during COVID and those challenges are persisting.

And so, we know that there's so many of these neighborhood restaurants are on the verge of shutting down, and anything we can do to help them to navigate these challenges in this unprecedented moment, we think is a good thing. So, on behalf of those restaurants would ask you for an aye vote, respectfully.

Thank you, Assemblymember. On Chair, I'll entertain a motion. Richardson moves the Bill. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Place that item on call. Thank you. Thank you very much. I see that Assemblymember Kalra is here with respect to file item four, AB268 welcome Assembly Members. Member proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In line with other recently added historical and culturally significant holidays. AB268 as Diwali as an official state holiday in California and also allows for public schools to elect to close in recognition of Diwali.

Diwali is worthy of this state holiday designation given its broad appeal among Indian Americans, the greater South Asian diaspora and Hindu 6 Buddhists and Jains of all ethnic backgrounds. As the analysis points out, Diwali is more than just a religious holiday.

It is the most celebrated festival and culturally significant day for many Indian American families and South Asian Americans growing up here. Celebrating Diwali was one of the few ways and most celebratory manner in which we celebrated our culture, our heritage, our food, in addition to our faith.

And it's been really incredible to see over the decades that I've been here in California that these celebrations have gotten broader, bigger, and have included a wide range of our diverse community to enjoy in the celebrations as well. State workers are already allowed to use their personal holidays for Diwali and other cultural, religious and heritage days.

But by adding Diwali as a state holiday, AB268 will raise awareness and encourage those to take the time to be with family and friends during festivities throughout the state. California would not be the first state to specifically recognize the Valley in its state laws.

Last year, Pennsylvania became the first state to officially recognize the Valley as a state holiday. Actually, that was in 2023 and New York requires public schools in the City of New York to be closed on the Valley as a school holiday. Other states are also considering the Valley holiday recognitions this year. Respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you very much. Summer I don't see any witnesses or individuals either in support or opposition to this bill. Like to register support for the bill. Come forward. State Your name and affiliation.

Thank you. Chair and Members. Puneet Kaur. On behalf of the Sikh Coalition, grateful to the author's office for their thoughtful amendments and strong support.

I wanted to offer some, maybe some objections. If you'd like to register opposition just needs your name and affiliation. You have no opposition witnesses. If you'd like to be a lead witness in opposition, please come forward. State your name for the record. Your time will be limited to four minutes. Welcome.

Do we make sure his mic is activated?

All right, you're live. All right. Thanks so much. My name is Greg Burt. I'm here on behalf of the California Family Council. AB269 crosses a line that should concern us all regarding our faith, regardless of our faith background because it breaches the neutral stance the state is constitutionally required to maintain regarding religion.

The bill does not merely acknowledge Diwali. It actively promotes the celebration of a religious holiday specific to Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism in our public schools. Under the bill, schools are not just encouraging education about the holiday, but are instructed to include, and I quote, exercises celebrating the meaning and importance of Diwale, end quote.

That is not objective education. That's a religious celebration. And it puts students in the position of participating in practices that may conflict with their own religious beliefs, violating their and their parents First Amendment rights. No other religious holiday is afforded this kind of privileged celebration in our public schools. Why should Diwali be an exception?

But what about Christmas, you might ask? Yet California schools are hypersensitive to the impression that they might be endorsing this Christian holiday. That's why Christmas vacation is now called winter break. But there seems to be no such worry over Diwali celebrations. Why? Diwali isn't just about the vague themes of good over evil.

It involves worship and prayer to Hindu deities, like the bullet bill analysis explains. Even the Los Angeles United School District warns against this. They have guidance that clearly states, and I quote, teachers must be alert to the distinction between teaching about religious holidays, which is permissible, and celebrating religious holidays, which is not.

As currently written, AB268 violates this principle. It does not limit what those celebrations may include. Will students be expected to pray? To engage in religious rituals? The bill leaves those questions dangerously unanswered. If the bill were amended to treat Diwali like any other religious holiday, approaching it with objectivity and neutrality, we would consider removing our opposition.

But until then, we urge you to vote no on AB268. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there any individuals like to register opposition to the bill, seeing no one come forward. We will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I do have question. I guess it would be more two questions. Understanding that you this particular bill wants to, let's see, allow state employees to take a paid day off in lieu of a personal holiday. Why the difference between a state holiday versus a personal holiday?

And number two, I remember being here when Senator Wahab had the passage of SB461 in 2023, where state employees were allowed to choose or pass that would allow employees to choose to receive eight hours of holiday credit specifically for the observance of a holiday or ceremony of their religion, culture or heritage in lieu of receiving eight hours of personal holiday credit.

So we seem to have something already in statute that allows folks of any heritage or culture to be able to take a day or holiday off for their particular prerogative. So I'm kind of curious why the need for this particular bill.

Similarly to how we had a bill on Lunar New Year? It's to highlight this particular celebration, recognizing that it's already allowable under the law to take a day off. And again, as mentioned, it's not an additional day off.

It will be in lieu of personal hours, but it's in the effort to further educate and highlight the importance of this particular cultural celebration.

Okay, so I'm sorry, just for clarity, so why the difference between a state holiday versus a personal holiday?

Well, it will be designated, as was indicated under Senator Waha's previous Bill. It's written in a way to be consistent with that Bill. And so that will be the time off would be considered in recognition of the state officially recognizing this as a holiday, or at least a potential holiday someone could take off for.

It would redesignate it as a holiday day as opposed to vacation day, but it doesn't add any extra hours off for that individual.

That concludes your questions. Senator, thank you very much. I have Senator Rubio next, followed by Senator Choi.

Hi. Thank you. I just want to add my voice as a teacher, classroom teacher, elementary school teacher. You know, we have so many other celebrations that we celebrate. And I think I heard the gentleman say, you know, their children are going to be forced to celebrate something they don't believe in.

But I do have to say that parents usually who have strong beliefs will go to this school. I mean, I had a lot of Jehovah Witnesses that would let us know early in the year that they didn't want their children participating in Christmas events, Halloween and so many others that they were not forced to celebrate.

They were giving alternative items to do and they would choose to do other things. I'm just trying to clarify that they're not forced to do anything they don't want to do. Parents still have the right to ask that they not be taught things that they're not comfortable with. So that's a parent's right for anyone that's listening.

No one's going to be forced to learn anything they don't want to learn.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair. I have attended local celebration of Diwali celebration many many times. We do have a substantial number of Hindu religion people and we share many different cultures. Like Christmas time, many Hindus probably celebrate together locally.

But to make this particular sector of the population of the world to make a state holiday, I mean holidays people love that would like to take it off and get paid. But to me there are just too, it can be too many holidays that we can propose.

This one you are mentioning as a Hindu lunar also was a holiday. I mean there is a lunar holiday as well, Lunar New Year which is not related to any particular religion. Half of the world population is probably more than the Hindu group.

And still even though there was some talk, I don't think California to my knowledge has recognized the Lunar New Year as a state holiday. I wonder what the Hindu population in California and then also national population. Can you tell me if you know that the population percentage through the chair?

I don't know the exact percentage but Diwali is not just celebrated by Hindus, it's celebrated by a number of different faiths from this typically from the South Asian diaspora, but also across many ethnicities.

Do you have that data? What percentage of that particular group, not beyond the bulb of Hindu groups. I don't have that data at the moment. I mean I can probably say probably less than 5% of California population and let's suppose it's even 10%. But to kind of imposing that the small sector of the larger population.

I don't know Even if the 10%, 90% will be imposed upon taking forced holiday and the schools may choose. This is not a holiday. That's an incorrect statement. It says the schools may choose to close. May close.

Yeah. Sorry Mr. Chair, not at all. Just to clarify for the Senator, this Bill is not prescriptive and let's keep our questions relevant to the content of the Bill please. Due respect to all Members. Any other questions?

Yeah, so this will open up the question what about my cultural celebration, etc. Etc. So even though I love to celebrate with you in Diwali. And celebration, I know, just celebration of light or peace. That's good.

But Floridation of the, you know, too many groups and particularly religious inclined holiday that will bring up many different types of, you know, concerns and questions. So no matter how much I may, you know, support the Hindu groups or Diwali supporters, I think I may have to stay off today on this one.

Thank you. Thank you Senator. Any other questions or comments from ever? Senator Archuleta.

Assemblymember. Have you gotten a handle on what the fiscal impact would be to the State of California at schools and so on adding another holiday?

It's not adding. There's no fiscal impact because if someone takes, takes a holiday day they have to use eight hours of their personal leave. So there's no fiscal impact and it's permissive. So no.

School just doesn't have to do anything. And would there be an added curriculum? No, this is not a curriculum for. Schools to study and to know why. It is being celebrated.

There's no requirement religious way. Yeah, yeah, no, that's a fair question. There's no requirement of that. However, if a school district chooses to create, exercise or General teachings around Diwali, it would be consistent with existing law and in a manner that does not promote or discriminate any against any religion. Thank you Senator. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I just wanted to thank the Member for bringing this bill forward. And I remember when my kids we celebrated Yom Kippur and they would come and bring home their little dreidel that they made in kindergarten class. I think the may is important and we may celebrate as many holidays as possible in communities where these remembrances are important.

Especially in these times where so much of our diversity is under attack. I think it's important for us to have communities have access to this opportunity to celebrate things that are important to those communities and particularly to students who want to see themselves in their school calendar.

So I will be supporting the bill today and thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Thank you Senator. Seeing no one else from the Committee. Would you like to close?

I want to thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you all for the comments regarding this.

Look, you know, I grew up here in California and very happily celebrated Christmas and Easter and so many other wonderful celebrations that really truly helped me to understand my neighbors better, help me connect with my friends better and, and it's a beautiful thing. I think that that's what makes this state such an extraordinary state is that diversity.

And there's no doubt that some of our populations, our communities have grown in more recent years. That shouldn't exclude us the opportunity to be able to also help share some of our culture with the broader community as well, including in our schools, if they so wish.

And I got to tell you, oftentimes growing up Hindu felt very left out because my recognitions or our holidays were not recognized, were seen as strange and weird, quite honestly. And it's taken many, many years to try to educate the broader community about what Diwali is.

And I think this will really help to embolden and empower so many, in particular young South Asian American students going through school now so that they don't have to live through moments of shame or feeling different that I had to live through and so many others like me many years ago.

And so I really appreciate the comments and hope that we can add the volley to one more beautiful celebration in the State of California.

With that respect, we ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you for bringing the bill. Well said. The chair will entertain a motion. Senator Weber Pierson moves the bill.

[Roll call]

Thank you very much. We will place that on call. And speaking of calls, we will now move to lift some calls starting with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

All right. That will remain on call File item number four, AB 268 Kalra.

[Roll Call]

That will remain on call File item number six. AB372. Bennett.

[Roll Call]

That item will remain on call File item number 13, AB592. Gabriel.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That item remains on call File item number 14. AB822 Elhawary.

[Roll Call]

Thank. You that item.

That's 15. That could go out.

All right, that item is out. File item 15. AB 828. Gonzalez.

[Roll Call]

All right, that item remains on call. Thank you. I think we are waiting for Senator Wahab and Blakespear on one and Senator Blakespear. As respect to one item. In the interim, the Committee will stand in recession.

Committee on Governmental Organization reconvene. Purpose of lifting calls as respect to File item number 4 AB268. Call Rep.

Absent Members. [Roll Call] That's 12-0 lead.

12-0. We'll leave it open.

I'm sorry.

We'll leave that on call. And thank you, Senator Blakespear. Will remain in recess.

Senator Wahab is present with respect to the consent calendar. Please lift.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Consent calendar is out. File item number four. AB268. Kalra.

Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

That item is out. File item number six. AB372. Bennett.

Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

And the final on that 15-0. That's out. All right, that Bill is out. File item number 13 AB592.

Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

All right, that Bill is out. File item 15 AB828. Gonzalez.

Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

And that file is out. Thanks for your patience this time. Committee will adjourn.