4 AM bar bill hearing set for Thursday

A State Senate hearing is set tomorrow for a bill which could potentially bump the bar last call time for 4 AM for three desert cities.

SB-58, which was introduced in its current form in December by Scott Wiener, would give 10 California cities the opportunity to take part in a pilot program which would extend each city’s last call to 4 AM.

The Senate Appropriations Committee initially delayed the hearing in late April, rescheduling it to Thursday.

The following cities would be approved for the program if the bill passes:

Cathedral City Coachella Palm Springs Los Angeles Long Beach Oakland Sacramento West Hollywood San Francisco Fresno

In a March 25 amendment to the bill, Chad Mayes, Assemblyman for the 42nd Assembly District, was added as a co-author. The most recent amendment also bumped back a possible earliest and latest start date for the program; when it was first introduced, the program could start as early as January 1, 2021, and as late as January 2, 2026, under its current version those dates slide back a year, to January 1, 2022, and January 2, 2027, respectively.

This isn’t the first iteration of the bill; last year’s version of Wiener’s bill made it through the State Assembly by a margin of 51-22 and the State Senate by a margin of 28-8. Governor Jerry Brown then vetoed it.

“California’s laws regulating late-night drinking have been on the books since 1913,” Governor Brown wrote in his message accompanying the veto. “I believe we have enough mischief from midnight to 2 without adding two more hours of mayhem.”

Palm Springs councilmembers had previously expressed support for the prospect of the program, voting unanimously to be a part of the five-year program.

“If the bill is signed into law, then it will come back to the city. We’ll discuss it in a council meeting, we’ll get public input, we’ll meet with the restaurants and bars and resident groups and business groups to get input,” Palm Springs Council member Geoff Kors said in July. Then we’ll make a decision if we want to do it, and if we do, how we want to implement it.”

Resident reactions, however, were mixed.

The following passage is excerpted from the Legislative Counsel’s Digest’s page on https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

This bill, beginning January 1, 2022, and before January 2, 2027, would require the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to conduct a pilot program that would authorize the department to issue an additional hours license to an on-sale licensee located in a qualified city that would authorize, with or without conditions, the selling, giving, or purchasing of alcoholic beverages at the licensed premises between the hours of 2 a.m. and 4 a.m., upon completion of specified requirements by the qualified city in which the licensee is located. The bill would impose specified fees related to the license to be deposited in the Alcohol Beverage Control Fund. The bill would require the applicant to notify specified persons of the application for an additional hours license and would provide a procedure for protest and hearing regarding the application. The bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol and each qualified city that has elected to participate in the program to submit reports to the Legislature and specified committees regarding the regional impact of the additional hours licenses, as specified. The bill would provide that any person under 21 years of age who enters and remains in the licensed public premises during the additional serving hours without lawful business therein is guilty of a misdemeanor, as provided. The pilot program would apply to Cathedral City, Coachella, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Palm Springs, Sacramento, San Francisco, and West Hollywood.

This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by creating new crimes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

News Channel 3 reached out Chad Mayes’ office for a comment about his choice to co-author the bill, but a reply had not been received at the time of this publication.