SB 58 brought sharply contrasting testimony from business and tourist interests (supportive) versus groups and individuals prioritizing public safety (opposed.)

SB 58's author, state Senator Scott Wiener (D, SF) described his bill as allowing flexible local control as a five-year "pilot" project, enables City Councils in its ten named cities to decide where to allow 4 a.m. hours (one neighborhood, one street, some days of the week or some periods during the year), noted that Uber and Lyft now offer ride share services and contended there's no data showing a relationship between service hours and drunk driving.

Opponents countered that peer reviewed data do show a relationship between closing hours and accidents and said the bill doesn't provide local control as alcohol-related accidents aren't locally controllable since drunk drivers drive beyond where they drink and thus affect public safety in surrounding cities.

The 4 a.m. alcohol bill may become an issue in LB-S.E. LA County state Senate race as one of the candidates, LB Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez, pleaded guilty in 2012 to a misdemeanor DUI charge (recently dismissed after completing probation) before her election to Council office after crashing the vehicle she was driving in OC (no other persons injured.) Gonzalez is endorsed by SB 58's author, Senator Wiener, and the state Senate district goes beyond half of LB to include several S.E. L.A. County cities with Councilmembers running in the state Senate race.

[Scroll down for further.]

Sen. Wiener told the Committee that the ten cities listed in his bill (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Long Beach, West Hollywood, Palm Springs, Coachella, Cathedral City and [recently added] Fresno) had requested inclusion in the bill...which isn't accurate regarding Long Beach. As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, in late 2017 LB Mayor Garcia -- who doesn't have authority to set City policy (Council voted action does so) -- simply told Senator Wiener (without seeking public input or Council voted approval) that Long Beach sought inclusion in the 2018 version of the 4 a.m. bill which was supported by the Downtown Long Beach Alliance and the LB Area Chamber of Commerce.

Quoted in a Nov. 2017 release from Sen. Wiener's office, Mayor Garcia said the 4 a.m. closings "clearly would not work citywide for us, it does give the city and local law enforcement the flexibility to allow special events in the Downtown Entertainment District. This option has been supported by the Downtown Long Beach Business Alliance, which manages our business improvement district."

Sponsor

Sponsor

It's the third time Senator Wiener has sought to extend alcohol hours to 4 a.m. His first bill sought to do so statewide and failed passage. He reworked his second bill (SB 905), framing it as a "local choice" measure allowing 4 a.m. alcohol hours in cities whose City Councils approve it. It passed the state Senate and the Assembly in 2018 but was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated in his veto message that "[w]ithout question, these two extra hours will result in more drinking. The businesses and cities in support of this bill see that as a good source of revenue. The California Highway Patrol, however, strongly believes that this increased drinking will lead to more drunk driving. California's laws regulating late night drinking have been on the books since 1913. I believe we have enough mischief from midnight to 2 without adding two more hours of mayhem."

SB 58 is basically the same 4 a.m. bill as last year's SB 905, and if it passes the state legislature, it would be up to Governor Gavin Newsom (a former SF Mayor) to decide whether to veto it or let it become law.

Sponsor

In 2018, third dist. Councilwoman Suzie Price voiced her personal opposition to the previous 4 a.m. bar bill. On May 31, 2018 and again in her June 8, 2018 newsletter, Councilwoman Price explained her position: "I oppose allowing expanded hours of alcohol sales in Long Beach. Providing more time and access to alcohol presents increased concerns and opportunities for impaired driving, and creates an increased likelihood that people leaving bars are on the road in the early morning hours the same time as commuters beginning their day. I have seen the terrible and tragic affects of too many DUI cases, and would be very concerned with the potential dangers to our many Long Beach communities."

Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D, LB) voted against last year's bill but Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D, NLB/Paramount) supported it (and was a named Assembly co-author.)

To date, no LB Councilmember has agendized an item to take a position on SB 58 or to refer the matter to the City Council's State Legislation Committee. That Committee, chaired by Councilman Al Austin includes Councilwoman Gonzalez as its vice-chair. It didn't discuss last year's 4 a.m. bar bill and hasn't agendized this year's measure. In 2017, Councilman Austin filed paperwork to seek the state Senate seat, but announced on Feb. 1, 2019 that he had decided not to actively further for the seat and to date hasn't endorsed any candidate. Councilman Austin's wife is District Director in the L.A. office of Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D, Los Angeles), who was an Assembly co-author of SB 905 and recently joined as an Assembly co-author of SB 58.

Sponsor

Sponsor

If SB 58 were enacted, neither Mayor Garcia nor "local law enforcement" would decide where and when the 4 a.m. closures would apply in Long Beach; a LB City Council majority would decide in process specified in the bill:

[State Senate committee legislative analysis text]

Under this bill, the local governing body of a qualified city must establish a task force, including at least one member of law enforcement and one additional member of the CHP, which will be responsible for developing a recommended local plan. The local plan must, among other things, show that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the additional service hours, identify the service area in which licensed premises would be eligible for additional service hours and further identify the area that would be affected by additional service hours, show significant support by residents and businesses within the additional hours service area, include a public safety plan created by local law enforcement including crime statistics and data derived from various public safety agencies, and show that transportation services are readily available during additional service hours.

Based on the assessment, the local governing body must adopt an ordinance that satisfies the local plan and submit that ordinance to the Department of ABC. The on-sale licensee, wishing to obtain an additional hours license, must submit an application for the additional hours privilege, as well as a nonrefundable application fee of $2,500.

Upon receipt of the ordinance, the Department of ABC is required to review the ordinance to ensure compliance with the provisions of this bill. The Department of ABC is prohibited from issuing an additional hours license to an applicant within a qualified city if the ordinance from that qualified city does not meet all of the local plan requirements of this bill.

Each qualified city that chooses to participate in this pilot program is required to provide the Legislature with a report on the regional impact of the additional hours licenses within one year of the first additional hours license being issued in that city, and then once each year thereafter. The report is required to include information on any impact the additional service hours had on crime rates in the city, including arrests for driving under the influence and domestic violence.

Additionally, the CHP is required to provide the Legislature with a report on the regional impact of the additional service areas including information on any additional costs incurred by adjacent cities, counties, and law enforcement as a result of the additional service hours within five years of implementation of this bill.

Prior to the Committee hearing, the State Senate committee received support/opposition on SB 58 as indicated below:

[Source" Committee legislative analysis]

SUPPORT:
213 Hospitality
California Hotel & Lodging Association
California Music & Culture Association
Central City Association of Los Angeles
City of Coachella
City of West Hollywood
San Francisco Bar Owner Alliance
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Travel Association
Teamsters
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

OPPOSITION:

Alcohol Justice
Alcohol & Drug Abuse Prevention Team
Alcohol Policy Panel of San Diego County
Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc.
Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association
Boyle Heights Stakeholders Association
California Alcohol Policy Alliance
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Council on Alcohol Problems
SB 58 (Wiener) Page 12 of 13
Coalition to Ban Billboard Blight
County Behavioral Health Directors Ass'n of California
DogPAC San Francisco
Institute for Public Strategies
Koreatown Youth & Community Center
Los Angeles Drug & Alcohol Policy Alliance
Monument Youth Drug and Alcohol Coalition
P3 Partnership for a Positive Pomona
Paso Por Paso, Inc.
Public Health Institute
Pueblo Y Salud, Inc.
San Fernando Valley Partnership
San Marcos Prevention Coalition
Saving Lives Coalition
Spa-2 Communities in Action
Tarzana Treatment Centers
United Coalition East Prevention Project
The Wall Las Memorias Project
West County Alcohol Marijuana and Prescription Drug Coalition
Women Against Gun Violence
Women’s Christian Temperance Union

The Committee's legislative analysis summarized arguments pro and con below:

[Committee legislative analysis text]

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, the California Hotel & Lodging Association writes that, “California must compete with Chicago, Washington D.C., New York City, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Miami Beach, and New Orleans, all of which have late-night service hours beyond 2 a.m. SB 58 would align California with at least 15 other states where local jurisdictions have the authority to decide alcohol beverage service hours.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The California Alcohol Policy Alliance, and Alcohol Justice, jointly write that SB 58 "[i]n 2018, Senator Wiener introduced SB 905, which would have allowed nine cities to decide for themselves in a half-baked, so-called ‘pilot project’ to extend sales from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m. The legislature ignored the overwhelming evidence that 76% of the state’s population would be turned into unwitting ‘Splash Zone’ lab rats suffering increased public health and safety harms. They passed the bill, but Governor Brown, heeding the advice of the CHP, wisely vetoed the bill with these words: ‘I believe we have enough mischief from midnight to 2 without adding two more hours of mayhem.’" Additionally, the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California writes in opposition to SB 58 that, "[e]very year approximately 10,000 people in California die from alcohol-related, preventable harm. Alcohol-related harm costs SB 58 (Wiener) the state $32 billion annually, an amount which includes the costs of alcohol-fueled crime and violence, injuries, traffic accidents, loss of work hours, and illness related to the abuse of alcohol. Adding more hours of alcohol sales will only increase these problems and costs.

Developing.

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to incumbent Long Beach officials, development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.