2024 Chaptered Legislation

A summary of 2024 chaptered bills amending the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Act and the code sections affected by that legislation. The text of these bills can be viewed at the California Legislative Information website.

Printable Summary

Download a printable copy of 2024 Chaptered Legislation by clicking the PDF download button.

Code Section Changes by Bill Number

AB 1940 (Villapudua, Chapter 218, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverages: beer returns.

Amends Section 23104.2 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill allows a wholesaler or manufacturer, when accepting the return and exchange of a discontinued or seasonal brand of beer, to provide the retailer with beer produced by a different manufacturer if the original manufacturer has ceased doing business, as specified. Such exchanges will be subject to the existing rules in law, including, but not limited to, that the wholesaler or manufacturer must receive ABC approval for the exchange. This bill also clarifies that the return and exchange of a seasonal or discontinued brand of beer from a retailer to a wholesaler, as authorized in current law, requires the exchanged beer to be of similar quality.

AB 2069 (Gallagher, Chapter 306, Statutes of 2024) Sale of soju and shochu.

Amends Section 23398.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill allows domestically produced soju and shochu to qualify for an exception in law currently limited to soju and shochu imported into the United States. As a result, an on-sale licensed premises with wine privileges (e.g. type 41 or type 42 license) may sell soju or shochu that is up to 24 percent alcohol by volume and derived from agricultural products, regardless of where it was produced. To qualify for the exception, the alcohol must be legitimate soju or shochu and be labeled as such.

AB 2094 (Flora, Chapter 213, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverage control: public community college stadiums: City of Bakersfield.

Amends Section 25608 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a public community college stadium with a capacity of at least 19,000 people in the City of Bakersfield for sporting events or concerts sponsored by a public community college or other events sponsored by noncollege groups.

AB 2174 (Aguiar-Curry, Chapter 308, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverages: beer caterer’s permit.

Amends Section 23320 of, and adds Section 23399.01 to, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes a beer catering permit (known as a type 91) that can be issued by ABC to a licensed beer manufacturer. The permit authorizes the sale of beer produced by or for the beer manufacturer for consumption at conventions, sporting events, trade exhibits, picnics, social gatherings, community events, or similar events held any place in the state approved by ABC.

In order to exercise the privileges of the permit, the beer manufacturer needs to apply to ABC for a catering event authorization and receive local law enforcement approval. If approved, the beer manufacturer could sell beer produced by or for them within a specified area at the event. The privileges of the permit are exclusively on-sale, meaning alcohol cannot be removed from the licensed area of the event. At all approved events, the beer catering permit holder will be restricted to only privileges authorized by their license and permit, and will be required to comply with all provisions of the ABC Act, such as completion of Responsible Beverage Service training. Violations at a catered event are grounds for discipline against the license, including suspension or revocation, as if the violation occurred at their licensed premises.

Limits on Events and Sales
A beer catering permitholder will be capped at receiving no more than 36 total event authorizations in a calendar year, and no more than two beer caterers may participate per day at a single event. At each event, a beer caterer will be limited to selling no more than 124 gallons of beer. Beer caterers will be required to maintain records of all beer sales conducted under their permit for a minimum of three years.

Associated Fees
Beginning January 1, 2025, the type 91 beer catering permit will have an annual fee of $275 that is subject to increases, as authorized in current law for other ABC license types, in amounts not to exceed annual differentials in the California Consumer Price Index. Separately, an event authorization will carry a fee of $100 when anticipated attendance is less than 1,000 people; $325 when anticipated attendance is 1,000-4,999; and $1,000 when anticipated attendance is 5,000 or more. A beer catering permit may be renewed annually at the same time as the licensee’s beer manufacturing license.

AB 2177 (McKinnor, Chapter 61, Statutes of 2024) Winegrowers: spirits of wine.

Amends Sections 23358 and 23502 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – Under current law, a winegrower is authorized under their license to produce spirits of wine and blend those spirits of wine into wine produced by the winegrower, to sell those spirits of wine to an industrial alcohol dealer (e.g. a hand sanitizer manufacturer) or to a distilled spirits manufacturer, or to destroy them. The authorization to sell spirits of wine to a type 04 distilled spirits manufacturer was codified last year under AB 1704.

This bill expands the authorization granted under AB 1704 to include any person holding a license authorizing the manufacture or rectification of distilled spirits, thereby enabling sales to rectifiers and craft distillers rather than solely type 04 licensees. This bill also makes a conforming update to the Craft Distillers Act of 2015 to reflect that the craft distillers license privilege of producing distilled spirits includes spirits of wine produced by a winegrower.

AB 2359 (Ting, Chapter 393, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverage control: neighborhood-restricted special on-sale general licenses.

Amends Section 23826.13 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill allows 10 new type 87 licenses to be issued by increasing the cap from 30 to 40 total authorized licenses in specified census tracts. Of the new 10 licenses, five may be issued, in any combination, in the following census tracts: 612000, 232000, 234000, 233000, 230030; the other five new licenses may be issued, in any combination, in census tracts 255010, 255020, 256000, 260020, 260010, 260040, 261000, or 263010. This bill also repeals the preapplication meeting requirements currently applicable to the type 87 license. Additionally, this bill grants off-sale privileges for type 87 licenses that are issued on or after January 1, 2025, unless conditioned or prohibited by ABC as part of the existing licensing process. This bill also provides that the holder of a type 87 license issued before January 1, 2025, may submit a petition to ABC requesting to exercise off-sale privileges. If ABC determines good cause exists to deny the petition, in whole or in part, ABC shall endorse the prohibition or other restriction as a condition on the license. If denied, the licensee may make a written request for hearing as prescribed in current law.

AB 2375 (Lowenthal, Chapter 714, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverages: on-sale general public premises: drink lids.

Amends Section 25624 of, and adds and repeals Section 25625 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages.(Effective July 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill requires applicants for, and holders of, type 48 licenses to provide a lid with a customer’s drink upon their request. A “lid” is defined to mean a removable cover of any size that attaches to the rim of a beverage. The lid is not required to fit all containers in which alcoholic beverages are served on the premises but must fit at least one. Licensees will be authorized to offer the lid complimentary or charge a fee that does not exceed a reasonable amount based on the wholesale cost.

Type 48 applicants and licensees are also required by this bill to update their signage mandated by last year’s AB 1013 (Lowenthal) pertaining to drug testing kits so that the sign also references lids. Specifically, the signs must read, “Don’t get roofied! Drink lids and drink spiking drug test kits available here. Ask a staff member for details.”

This bill takes effect July 1, 2025, and is scheduled to repeal January 1, 2027, unless extended by the Legislature.

AB 2378 (Calderon, Chapter 309, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverage control: licensing exemption: apprenticeship program for bartending or mixology.

Amends Section 23399.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes an alcohol license exemption for bartending or mixology apprenticeship programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards within the Department of Industrial Relations, provided all of the following requirements are met:

  1. Students enrolled in the apprenticeship program are at least 21 years of age.
  2. The apprenticeship program adopts a policy that the students may taste, but may not consume, the alcoholic beverages served.
  3. There is no extra charge or fee for the alcoholic beverages served.

AB 2389 (Lowenthal, Chapter 310, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverages: on-sale general – eating place and on-sale general public premises: drug reporting.

Adds Section 25624.5 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages.(Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill requires an applicant for, or holder of, a type 48 license to contact and provide any of the following information to law enforcement or emergency medical services when they are notified by a customer that the customer or another customer believes they have been a victim of drink spiking:

  1. A positive test result from a drug testing device.
  2. Observation of someone tampering with a customer’s drink.
  3. Verbal communication to staff that a customer has been drugged.
  4. Observation of symptoms associated with the effects of drink spiking or the controlled substances used for drink spiking.

After contacting law enforcement or emergency medical services, the licensee or their staff must, to the best of their ability, follow any instructions provided by law enforcement or emergency medical services and, to the best of their ability, monitor the customer until law enforcement or emergency medical services arrive at the premises to assess the customer. For purposes of these laws, drink spiking includes, but is not limited to, adding a controlled substance or alcohol to a person’s drink without their knowledge or consent.

AB 2402 (Lowenthal, Chapter 829, Statutes of 2024) Drink spiking.

Amends Section 25681 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2027)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill requires, beginning January 1, 2027, Responsible Beverage Service training to include best practices on how to prevent or protect a person from drink spiking and best practices if a person has been drugged from drink spiking. For purposes of this bill, “drink spiking” means putting alcohol or drugs into another person’s drink without their knowing and express consent, also known as roofying.

AB 2589 (Joe Patterson, Chapter 312, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverages: additional licenses: County of El Dorado and County of Placer.

Adds Section 23826.20 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes ABC to issue up to 10 additional new original type 47 licenses in a “retail center” in each the County of El Dorado and the County of Placer. Retail center is defined to mean “a multitenant shopping center that contains at least 300,000 square feet of retail shopping space open to the public”, and 3 of the 10 total licenses per county are reserved for premises in a retail center that contains at least 1,000,000 square feet of retail shopping space open to the public.

ABC may not issue more than 4 licenses per county in the first year this bill takes effect, and the respective county board of supervisors will be authorized to adopt and submit a resolution to ABC that further restricts the number of licenses that may be issued pursuant to the bill, as specified.

The licenses authorized by this bill will be subject to existing priority drawing laws. Existing 47s in a retail shopping center will be precluded from acquiring a license under this bill for their existing premises. Further, licenses issued pursuant to this section cannot be transferred to other counties or to premises not qualifying pursuant to this bill. Additionally, licenses issued pursuant to this bill cannot be sold or transferred for a price greater than the original fee paid. Among other provisions, these licenses may be issued as “for special use” by ABC, and the cancellation or revocation of a license issued pursuant to this bill will authorize ABC to issue an additional license during the regular priority drawing process.

AB 2991 (Valencia, Chapter 426, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverage control: retailer payments: electronic funds transfers.

Amends, repeals, and adds Section 25509 of, and adds Section 25509.1 to, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages.(Effective January 1, 2026)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill requires, beginning January 1, 2026, payment from a licensed retailer to a licensed wholesaler for the delivery of alcoholic beverages to occur via an electronic funds transfer (EFT), as specified. EFT payments pursuant to this bill will be subject to all of the following requirements:

  1. The wholesaler must initiate the EFT through the withdrawal of funds from the retailer’s bank account.
  2. The EFT must occur by the expiration of the 30th day from the date of delivery.
  3. Any costs related to the electronic payment services must be paid by the party that incurred the costs. Wholesalers cannot pay for electronic payment fees incurred by retailers, and retailers cannot pay for electronic payment fees incurred by wholesalers, and service fees must be applied in an equitable manner to the licensee to match the services they receive. Retailers are precluded from accepting a rebate, incentive, or other thing of value from a third-party payment processor for EFTs required by this bill.

This bill designates the wholesaler licensee with the power to select the third-party payment processor used to facilitate the EFT transfer. The wholesaler and retailer may agree on the third-party payment processor, but if the parties are unable to agree, they must use the third-party payment processor used by the retailer as of July 1, 2025 to pay for wholesale alcohol purchase; and, if by July 1, 2025, the retailer does not use a third-party payment processor, the parties must use the third-party payment processor selected by the wholesaler.

This bill authorizes wholesalers to choose to accept credit card payments in lieu of an EFT. If payment is made using a credit card, the retailer will bear the cost of the transaction. In addition, this bill contains a narrow authorization for other non-EFT payments. Specifically, it allows the payment of cash, check, or money order only in the following instances:

  1. During temporary service interruptions of the third-party payment processor.
  2. If accepting payment following an EFT of insufficient funds.
  3. If the retailer licensee holds an interim operating permit or a temporary permit pursuant to existing law.
  4. During the first 30 days following the issuance of a license to the retailer.

AB 3069 (Davies, Chapter 429, Statutes of 2024) Tied-house restrictions: advertising exceptions: City of Oceanside.

Amends Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective September 22, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill authorizes alcohol manufacturers (including beer manufacturers, winegrowers, rectifiers, craft distillers, distilled spirits manufacturers or their agents) to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale retail licensee that is the owner or operator of a fully enclosed arena with a fixed seating capacity in excess of 5,000 seats located in the City of Oceanside. Advertisements and sponsorships authorized by this bill will be subject to the existing requirements generally applicable to other arenas in the state with similar tied-house exceptions (particularly those specified in Business and Professions Code section 25503.6).

AB 3203 (Aguiar-Curry, Chapter 318, Statutes of 2024) Craft distillers: direct shipping.

Amends Section 23504.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill temporarily extends direct-to-consumer shipping privileges of California craft distillers from January 1, 2025, until January 1, 2026. Spirits shipped by a California craft distiller must still comply with the requirements set forth in current law, Business and Professions Code section 23504.5.

AB 3206 (McKinnor, Chapter 977, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverages: hours of sale: arenas in the City of Inglewood.

Adds and repeals Sections 23398.7 and 25631.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages.(Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill allows, until January 1, 2030, alcohol service between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. at an on-sale licensed premises operated in a fully enclosed arena with a seating capacity of at least 18,000 seats located in the City of Inglewood, as specified. The Intuit Dome, home of the Los Angeles Clippers, is the only qualifying arena. Alcoholic beverage sales pursuant to this bill must be limited to the morning immediately following a sporting event, concert, or other public or private event at the arena, and can only occur in a private area of the arena available only to members of a private club who are assessed dues in order to gain access to the area, and guests of those members. To exercise these privileges, the City of Inglewood must adopt a specified ordinance and the arena operator needs to receive a permit from ABC established by the bill.

AB 3285 (Committee on Governmental Organization, Chapter 230, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverage control.

Amends Sections 23827 and 25600 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverage control.(Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill extends the sunset date, from January 1, 2025, until January 1, 2030, applicable to provisions of law that allow specified alcohol manufacturers to donate a portion of the purchase price of an alcoholic beverage to a nonprofit charitable organization if certain conditions are met. This bill also clarifies the authorization provided in existing law for the issuance of new on-sale general licenses in counties with populations of less than 7,000 so that 1) such licenses are available if the county depends upon tourism and 2) such licenses cannot be transferred to a premises that does not meet the requirements for which the license is issued.

SB 969 (Wiener, Chapter 869, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverages: entertainment zones: consumption.

Amends Sections 23039.5, 23357, 23358, 23396, and 25690 of, and adds Sections 25691 and 25692 to, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill extends the entertainment zone provisions in law established by SB 76 (Wiener, Chapter 700, Statutes of 2023) so that they apply to any city or county rather than solely San Francisco. This bill also repeals provisions in SB 76 that limit alcohol consumption in an entertainment zone to only areas adjacent to and at the same time as a special event licensed by ABC, thereby allowing alcohol consumption in certain public areas of an entertainment zone regardless of whether a licensed special event is occurring. This means that a licensed beer manufacturer, winegrower, and on-sale licensed premises in an entertainment zone may sell alcoholic beverages, allowed by their license and local ordinance, for consumption within the entertainment zone. Specifically, those licensees will be allowed to permit consumers to leave their premises with open alcoholic beverages, not in metal or glass containers, if the premises is located within the entertainment zone, consumption of that type of alcoholic beverage is authorized by the local ordinance creating the zone, open alcohol containers only leave the premises during the hours allowed by the ordinance establishing the zone, and patrons with open containers exit the premises directly into the zone. Only alcohol purchased in an entertainment zone may be consumed within the zone, and licensees are prohibited from allowing alcoholic beverages on their premises that were acquired from another licensed location, among other various provisions. Before participating, the licensee is statutorily required to provide annual notice to ABC of their intent to do so.

SB 1224 (Ochoa Bogh, Chapter 132, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverage control: on-sale general license: County of Riverside.

Amends Section 23824 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill exempts a premises operated as the Riverside County Fairgrounds, on land owned by the County of Riverside, from the requirement of operating as a bona fide public eating place while serving alcoholic beverages if food service is available to the public at all times during which licensed privileges are exercised.

SB 1371 (Bradford, Chapter 606, Statutes of 2024) Alcoholic beverage control: proof of age.

Amends Section 25660 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes that utilization of a biometric system, as defined, that reviews bona fide evidence of majority and identity of a person and that verifies and authenticates the validity of that bona fide evidence, may qualify as an affirmative defense in a criminal prosecution or administrative hearing involving the licensee. For purposes of this bill, “biometrics” is defined to mean the unique characteristics of a person, including, but not limited to, fingerprints, iris, face, or other similar biometric characteristics, or any combination thereof. Further, a “biometric system” is defined as technology that links the identity of a person to that person’s biometrics.

SB 1495 (Wilk, Chapter 137, Statutes of 2024) Tied-house restrictions: for-profit cemeteries: City of Los Angeles.

Adds Section 25503.63 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2025)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes a tied-house exception that allows alcohol manufacturers (including beer manufacturers, winegrowers and their agents, importers who do not also hold a wholesaler or retail license, distilled spirits manufacturers and their agents, and rectifiers) to purchase advertising space or event sponsorships from the operator of a for-profit cemetery that meets specified requirements. Hollywood Forever Cemetery is the only qualifying cemetery at this time. Advertising and sponsorships authorized by this bill must comply with specified requirements.

Precedential Decision 24-01-E

Printable Document

Download a printable copy of Precedential Decision 24-01-E by clicking the PDF download button.

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

Wayel Bachir Diab

Dba: Sunrise Spirits and Food Co.

25862 Tournament Rd.

Santa Clarita, California 91355-2323

Licensee(s).

File No.:
21-520417
Reg No.:
22091883
PRECEDENTIAL DECISION No.:
24-01-E

Designation as Precedential Decision

Pursuant to Government Code Section 11425.60, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control hereby designates as its precedential decision, dated December 22, 2022, in the above­ referenced action.

This decision is designated precedential effective August 15, 2024.

Joseph McCullough, Director
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
Sacramento, California

Decision Under Government Code Section 11517(c)

The above-entitled matter having regularly come before the Department on December 22, 2022, for decision under Government Code Section 11517(c) and the Department having considered its entire record, including the transcript of the hearing held on April 28, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge Matthew G. Ainley, and the written arguments of the parties, and good cause appearing, the following decision is hereby adopted:

Administrative Law Judge Matthew G. Ainley, Administrative Hearing Office, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, heard this matter by videoconference on April 28, 2022.

Bryan D. Rouse, Attorney, represented the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

Jeffrey S. Weiss, attorney-at-law, represented respondent Wayel Bachir Diab, who was present.

The Department seeks to discipline the Respondent’s license on the grounds that, on or about July 8, 2021, the Respondents, through their agent or employee, sold, furnished, or gave alcoholic beverages to Daniella Silva, an individual under the age of 21, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 25658(a).[1](Exhibit 1.)

Oral evidence, documentary evidence, and evidence by oral stipulation on the record was received at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were provided the opportunity to submit briefs on the issue of whether the minor was required to appear in light of the recent amendments to section 25666. The Department submitted its brief on May 6, 2022. (Exhibit 12.) On May 11, 2022, the Respondent submitted its Withdrawal of Objection to the Department Not Producing the Minor at Hearing. (Exhibit A.) The record was closed and the matter submitted for decision on that date. The Director rejected the proposed decision prepared by the Administrative Law Judge on August 30, 2022, pursuant to Government Code section 11517(c).

Findings of Fact

  1. The Department filed the accusation on February 9, 2022.
  2. The Department issued a type 21, off-sale general license to the Respondent for the above-described location on August 10, 2012 (the Licensed Premises).
  3. There is no record of prior departmental discipline against the Respondent’s license.
  4. Daniella Silva was born on August 1, 2000. (Exhibit 8.) On July 8, 2021, she was 20 years and 11 months old.
  5. On July 8, 2021, various agents were parked outside the Licensed Premises, including Agent J. Perez and Agent O. Zapata. Agent Perez noticed Silva on her phone, pacing. Silva subsequently entered the Licensed Premises. Silva obtained a bottle of wine, which she brought to the counter. Agent Zapata, who followed Silva inside, saw Silva place the bottle of wine down on the counter, then exit.
  6. Agent Perez observed Silva go to her car, retrieve something, then re-enter the Licensed Premises. Silva walked to the register and paid for the wine. The clerk, Mousa Bshara, did not ask to see any identification.
  7. The agents contacted Silva. When asked, she indicated that she was born on August 1, 1998. The agents subsequently verified her identity through CHP dispatch and determined that she was actually born on August 1, 2000.
  8. The agents located a fake Washington identification bearing Silva’s name and photo. It listed her date of birth as August 1, 1998. (Exhibits 4 & 11.) Silva was unwilling to say if she used the fake identification at the Licensed Premises or not; nor did she give any information as to when she obtained the fake Washington identification. She was similarly unwilling to identify the clerk who sold the wine to her. The agents had her pull up a list of recent purchases on her phone. The most recent purchase was for $22.66 at the Licensed Premises. They took a photo of it. (Exhibit 5.) They also took photos of her and the wine. (Exhibits 2-3.)
  9. Agent Zapata contacted the Bshara. Bshara stated that he knew Silva and that he had previously seen her identification. He also stated that the identification he had seen indicated that she had been born in 1998. However, during questioning following the sale, Bshara was not sure whether the identification he claims to have previously seen was from California or from another state.
  10. Bshara testified that he had been employed at the Licensed Premises since August 2020. He first saw Silva approximately six months earlier. She had purchased alcohol from him on five or six prior occasions. The first time she purchased alcohol, he asked for her identification. The identification she showed him appeared to be accurate. The photo and physical descriptors matched Silva. Because he had seen the identification four or five times in the past, he did not ask to see identification in connection with the purchase of the wine on July 8, 2021. Bshara did not testify that the fake Washington identification seized was the identification that he claimed to have viewed on these prior occasions.
  11. Bshara further testified that he sees a lot of out-of-state identifications because the Licensed Premises is located near College of the Canyons. CalArts is also nearby. However, Bshara testified that he did not have any particular awareness of what different state identifications looked like or about any specific security features that may be contained within such identifications.
  12. Agent Zapata subsequently examined the fake identification in the office using the State of Washington website. The fake identification contains Silva’s photo, and the physical descriptors match her appearance. The identification has a number of the security features which a valid Washington identification should have, including color-shifting ink and microprinting. He could only find one flaw—the numbers on the left side of the photo were not in a straight line (the number “20” was slightly offset from the rest of the numbers).
  13. Except as set forth in this decision, all other allegations in the accusation and all other contentions of the parties lack merit.

Legal Basis of Decision

  1. Article XX, section 22, of the California Constitution and Business and Professions section 24200, subdivision (a), provide that a license to sell alcoholic beverages may be suspended or revoked if continuation of the license would be contrary to public welfare or morals.
  2. Business and Professions Code section 24200, subdivision (b), provides that a licensee’s violation, or causing or permitting of a violation, of any penal provision of California law prohibiting or regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages is also a basis for the suspension or revocation of the license.
  3. Business and Professions Code section 25658, subdivision (a), provides that every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of 21 years is guilty of a misdemeanor.
  4. Business and Professions Code section 25660 provides that:

    1. Bona fide evidence of majority and identity of the person is any of the following:

      1. A document issued by a federal, state, county, or municipal government, or subdivision or agency thereof, including, but not limited to, a valid motor vehicle operator’s license, that contains the name, date of birth, description, and picture of the person.
      2. A valid passport issued by the United States or by a foreign government.
      3. A valid identification card issued to a member of the Armed Forces that includes a date of birth and a picture of the person.
    2. Proof that the defendant-licensee, or his or her employee or agent, demanded, was shown, and acted in reliance upon bona fide evidence in any transaction, employment, use, or permission forbidden by Section 25658, 25663, or 25665 shall be a defense to any criminal prosecution therefor or to any proceedings for the suspension or revocation of any license based thereon.

    The defense afforded by this section is an affirmative defense. As such, the licensee has the burden of establishing all of its elements, namely, that evidence of majority and identity was demanded, shown, and acted on as prescribed [2]. This section applies to identifications actually issued by government agencies as well as those which purport to be.[3] A licensee or his or her employee is not entitled to rely upon an identification if it does not appear to be a bona fide government-issued identification or if the personal appearance of the holder of the identification demonstrates above mere suspicion that the holder is not the legal owner of the identification.[4] The defense offered by section 25660 is not established if the appearance of the minor does not match the description on the identification.[5]

Determination of Issues

  1. Cause for suspension or revocation of the Respondent’s license exists under Article XX, section 22 of the California State Constitution, and sections 24200(a) and (b) on the basis that, on July 8, 2021, the Respondent’s employee, Mousa Bshara, sold an alcoholic beverage to Daniella Silva, a person under the age of 21, in violation of section 25658(a). (Findings of Fact 4-12.)
  2. The Respondent argued that he established a defense under 25660 on the basis that the identification presented and examined at hearing appeared to be a real Washington driver license. The Respondent is incorrect. While the fake identification is extremely good and has a number of the security features of valid Washington identifications, the Respondent did not establish that the fake Washington identification in evidence was in fact the same identification Bshara claimed to have previously viewed. Indeed, the Respondent failed to establish that minor Silva even possessed the fake Washington identification on any of the prior occasions that Bshara claimed to have viewed her identification. Other than stating that the identification he claims to have previously viewed was from a state other than California, Bshara could not recall the state from which it was purportedly issued.
  3. The Department argued that the Respondent failed to meet its section 25660 burden since Bshara did not inspect the identification at or about the time of the sale and that, even if a prior showing of identification is acceptable, the Respondent failed to establish that any claimed prior inspection of the identification purportedly presented by minor Silva was reasonably diligent.
  4. Because the Respondent failed to establish that the fake Washington identification in evidence was the actual identification Bshara claims to have previously viewed, the Respondent cannot satisfy its burden under section 25660. However, even if it could be reasonably concluded that Bshara did previously view the fake Washington identification, the Respondent has nonetheless failed to meet its burden of establishing the affirmative defense afforded by section 25660 both because the claimed prior showing of identification here does not comport with the requirements of section 25660 and because even if it did, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Bshara was reasonably diligent in his inspection of such identification.
  5. In 1959, section 25660 was amended to remove a requirement that the checking of the identification occur contemporaneously with or immediately prior to the unlawful sale at issue for a defense under section 25660 to apply. The California Attorney General, in its opinion at 36 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 124 (1960), opined that section 25660 no longer required that the checking of a bona fide identification occur immediately prior to the selling or furnishing of the alcoholic beverage at issue for a defense under section 25660. That conclusion was based on the Legislature’s amendment deleting that very time-based requirement, “immediately prior”, from the statute’s text. The Attorney General’s opinion concluded by stating: “Thus, the evidence of majority and identity need no longer to be shown immediately prior to the alleged offense to constitute a valid defense.” (Id. at p. 126; underlining in original.)
  6. As to the weight or significance to be given a formal opinion of the Attorney General, in Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal. App. 4th 91,105, the Court stated:

    While not binding, an opinion of the Attorney General is entitled to considerable weight. (Ennabe v. Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697, 716, fn. 14.) Absent controlling authority, an Attorney General opinion as to the construction of a statute “‘“is persuasive because we presume that the Legislature was cognizant of the Attorney General’s construction of [the statute] and would have taken corrective action if it disagreed with that construction.”’” (Ibid.; see Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 1013; County of San Diego v. State of California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 68, 103–104.)

  7. The Attorney General Opinion was discussed by the Court of Appeal in Lacabanne Properties, Inc. v. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 181. That case involved the sale of alcohol to a minor in an on-sale premises. The issue was whether the section 25660 defense applies when a bartender relies upon the demand and inspection of identification by a doorperson at the time the customer enters the premises. In considering this issue, the Court stated (at pp. 189-190), “The cases interpreting section 25660, Business and Professions Code, have generally set forth three tests by which to measure the conduct of the licensee in determining whether there has been a compliance with the provisions of the section. First, the licensee who makes a diligent inspection of the documentary evidence of majority and identity offered by the customer at or about the time of the sale is entitled to rely upon its apparent genuineness. [Citations.] Second, a licensee must exercise the caution which would be shown by a reasonable and prudent person in the same or similar circumstances. [Citation.] Third, a licensee must make the inspection of the documentary evidence and his appraisal of the physical appearance of the customer ‘immediately prior’ to the sale. [Citation.]” (Quoting from Farah v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, (1958) 59 Cal.App.2d 335, 339; emphasis added.) With respect to the Attorney General Opinion, the Court observed that, “The opinion does not discuss whether the use of the phrase ‘in any transaction etc.’ requires the licensee to prove that the evidence was demanded and shown in connection with the particular transaction which is the basis of the proceedings against him.” (Lacabanne, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 181, 190.)
  8. In considering what may constitute the “transaction” for purposes of section 25660, the Court held that, “The fact that permitting the entry and permitting the consumption may be separate offenses (see Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board, supra, 197 Cal.App.2d 182, 187) does not necessarily mean that they are separate transactions when, as here, the entry is immediately followed by the sale, furnishing and consumption of the alcoholic beverage. If there is no duty to make a second demand before serving the minor, the fact that the second employee made an inadequate inquiry should not defeat the right of the licensee to rely on the original determination that the patron had shown the evidence required by law.” (Id., at p. 191.)
  9. While Lacabanne involved an on-sale transaction, similar principles may be readily applied to the application of section 25660 in connection with off-sale businesses. The Court essentially determined that “transaction” means more than an individual sale or service of alcohol and can encompass the totality of the time during which a minor may be inside the licensed premises and interacting with the licensee and employees or agents. This is a significant consideration here for two reasons. First, the Court considered that the “any transaction” language of the statute has continuing relevance and application notwithstanding the amendment removing the “immediately prior to” requirement. Second, it noted that when looking at what reasonably constitutes the “transaction,” there must be some rational temporal nexus to the evaluation of identification and the actual sale or service of alcohol.
  10. The ABC Appeals Board addressed a similar factual situation as that presented in the instant case in 7 Eleven, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (2011) AB-9081, where the false identification was displayed by the minor on prior occasions at the involved licensed premises. It concluded a defense under section 25660 could be based upon an inspection of a false identification that was done on a date or dates prior to the date of the violation at issue. While Appeals Board opinions are not precedential, they can provide guidance in factually similar cases. In holding that the section 25660 defense was established, the Appeals Board concluded by observing that, “Having found that the clerk reasonably relied on the false identification on multiple prior occasions, and under the facts in this case, where the minor was memorable and well-known to appellants, and the actual fake ID was available for examination, we believe a defense was established.” It is the Department’s position that, while the end result in that case may have been appropriate (as explained further below), the conclusion that the affirmative defense had been established is contrary to the plain language of section 25660 and the rationale of the Court of Appeal in Lacabanne because it does not consider the relationship between a prior showing and the transaction at issue. If a prior showing of identification on any prior occasion is acceptable, then the statutory requirement that identification be demanded, shown, and relied upon in any transaction has no relevance.
  11. In this matter, Silva’s false driver license had the basic required objective elements set forth in section 25660. It did not, on its face, appear to be an obviously fraudulent or counterfeit driver license. While Bshara claims to have relied on his own previous inspections of an identification when he later sold alcoholic beverages to Silva on July 8, 2021, without again requesting or reviewing her identification, as stated above the Respondent failed to establish that the fake Washington identification in evidence was the same identification Bshara claims to have viewed. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record as to when Bshara claims to have previously viewed Silva’s identification. As such, even if there was a prior demand and inspection of identification, there is no reasonable temporal nexus to the transaction at issue.
  12. In addition, the Respondent failed to establish that Bshara was reasonably diligent in his inspection of Silva’s identification on any prior occasion. The only evidence in the record is Bshara’s testimony as to how he would typically view an identification—namely, he would look at the picture, the height, the weight, and the birth date. He testified that he does nothing more than evaluate “the basics” and had no familiarity with Washington identifications, let alone any particular security features, nor did he utilize any resources to authenticate out-of-state identifications. This is simply not adequate to establish a “diligent inspection” (see, Lacabanne, supra) of any identification, let alone an out-of-state identification in an area known to be frequented by out-of-state students attending the nearby college and CalArts.
  13. Even if the Board’s reasoning in the 7 Elevenmatter is applied in this case, the Respondent has failed to meet its burden of proof as to two of the three criteria required for the section 25660 affirmative defense to apply.
  14. Notwithstanding the failure to establish an affirmative defense, it may still be reasonable to consider the totality of the circumstances in determining what level of discipline (or whether any discipline at all) is warranted. In cases such as this in which it is asserted that there was a reasonable inspection of a bond fide identification on prior occasions, if a licensee presents sufficient evidence to show that it was reasonable to believe the minor was in fact over the age of 21 based upon those prior inspections, it may be more appropriate, depending upon all of the circumstances, to consider such evidence as possible mitigation in determining the appropriate level of discipline. In the instant case, when looking at the totality of circumstances surrounding the claimed prior viewing of Silva’s identification, no mitigation is warranted for all the reasons previously discussed.
  15. However, some mitigation of the discipline is warranted given that the Respondent has been licensed for over eight years without discipline. The penalty below is reasonable in light of all considerations.

Order

The accusation is sustained. The off-sale general license is suspended for a period of 10 days, with all 10 days stayed for period of 12 months commencing the date the decision in this matter becomes final, upon the condition that no subsequent final determination is made, after hearing or upon stipulation and waiver, that cause for disciplinary action occurred during the period of the stay. Should such a determination be made, the Director of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control may, in the Director’s sole discretion and without further hearing, vacate the stay and impose the 10 days of suspension, and should no such determination be made, the stay shall become permanent.

Dated: December 22, 2022

Eric Hirata
Director

Pursuant to Government Code section 11521(a), any party may petition for reconsideration of this decision. The Department’s power to order reconsideration expires 30 days after the delivery or mailing of this decision, or on the effective date of the decision, whichever is earlier.

Any appeal of this decision must be made in accordance with Chapter 1.5, Articles 3, 4 and 5, Division 9, of the Business and Professions Code. For further information, call the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board at (916) 445-4005.

Footnotes

  • [1] All statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise noted.
  • [2] Lacabanne Properties, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 261 Cal. App. 2d 181, 189, 67 Cal. Rptr. 734, 739 (1968); 27 Ops. Atty. Gen. 233, 236 (1956).
  • [3] Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Control Appeals Bd. (Masani), 118 Cal. App. 4th 1429, 1444-45, 13 (2004).
  • [4] Masani, 118 Cal. App. 4th at 1445-46, 13 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 838; 5501 Hollywood, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 155 Cal. App. 2d 748, 753, 318 P.2d 820, 823-24 (1957); Keane v. Reilly, 130 Cal. App. 2d 407, 411-12, 279 P.2d 152, 155 (1955); Conti v. State Board of Equalization, 113 Cal. App. 2d 465, 466-67, 248 P.2d 31, 32 (1952).
  • [5] 5501 Hollywood, 155 Cal. App. 2d at 751-54, 318 P.2d at 822-24; Keane, 130 Cal. App. 2d at 411-12, 279 P.2d at 155 (construing section 61.2(b), the predecessor to section 25660).

2023 Chaptered Legislation

A summary of 2023 chaptered bills amending the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Act and the code sections affected by that legislation. The text of these bills can be viewed at the California Legislative Information website.

Printable Summary

Download a printable copy of 2023 Chaptered Legislation by clicking the PDF download button.

Code Section Changes by Bill Number

AB 416 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 653, Statutes of 2023) Sale of shochu.

Amends Section 23398.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes the same exception for shochu that already exists for soju, an imported Korean alcoholic beverage. Specifically, this bill allows an on-sale license with wine privileges (e.g. type 41 or type 42 license) to also sell shochu, an imported Japanese distilled spirit up to 24 percent alcohol by volume that is derived from agricultural products. The department has previously published industry guidance on its interpretation of the soju exception. Specifically, the department clarified that the exception applies to soju imported from any country and not solely Korea (it does not apply to soju made in the United States; imported product may be bottled in the U.S. as long as no other treatment occurs). This same interpretation and application of law will apply to shochu. Additionally, products labeled as containing a mix of soju and shochu qualify for this exception provided they meet the importation requirement and are within the ABV limit.

AB 546 (Villapudua, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverages: advertising and brandy tastings.

Amends Sections 23363.3, 25503, and 25611.1 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill clarifies that tied-house restrictions in Business and Professions Code section 25503 prohibiting manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers, except as otherwise authorized by law, 1) applies to all alcoholic beverages and not solely distilled spirits, 2) extends to out-of-state beer manufacturer certificate holders, and 3) includes providing credit or rebates (rather than solely money) for sign or advertisement placement on a retailer’s premises; all of these technical modifications align with the Department’s interpretation of current law. This bill also expressly allows a wholesaler to provide customized signs to retailers for current market price. This authorization is limited to wholesalers, meaning they are the only license group that may sell customized signs for retailers. Lastly, this bill repeals the prohibition against brandy manufacturers offering tastings at their premises in the form of a cocktail or mixed drink. Such tastings must still occur in compliance with Business and Professions Code section 23363.3.

AB 840 (Addis, Chapter 346, Statutes of 2023) Tied-house exceptions: advertising.

Amends Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes a tied-house exception that allows specified alcohol manufacturers to purchase advertising space and event sponsorships in connection with events held at specified venues located on the campuses of California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California State University Fresno, California State University Sacramento, California State University Monterey Bay, California State University Fullerton, San Jose State University, California State University Northridge, and St. Mary’s College of California. This bill also amends the existing tied-house exception for a motorsports entertainment complex in the County of San Bernardino by reducing the seating requirement from 50,000 to 25,000.

AB 1013 (Lowenthal, Chapter 353, Statutes of 2023) On-sale general public premises: drug testing devices.

Adds and repeals Section 25624 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective July 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill requires type 48 applicants and licensees, beginning July 1, 2024 and until January 1, 2027 (unless extended by the Legislature), to comply with all of the following:

  1. Offer drug testing devices (such as test strips, stickers, straws, or other devices that are designed to detect the presence of controlled substances in a drink), which have not exceeded their expiration date or recommended period of use, that test for “controlled substances” commonly used to spike drinks. These drugs may include, but are not limited to, flunitrazepam, ketamine, and gamma hydroxybutyric acid, also known by other names, including GHB, gamma-hydroxybutyrate, 4-hydroxybutyrate, 4-hydroxybutanoic acid, sodium oxybate, and sodium oxybutyrate.
  2. The drug testing devices shall be available for sale to customers, at a price not to exceed a reasonable amount based on the wholesale cost. Alternatively, they may be given to customers free of charge. 
  3. Post the following notice in a prominent and conspicuous location: “Don’t get roofied! Drink spiking drug test kits available here. Ask a staff member for details.”

AB 1088 (Rubio, Chapter 829, Statutes of 2023) Licensed craft distillers: direct shipping.

Amends Section 23504.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill temporarily extends direct-to-consumer shipping privileges of California craft distillers from January 1, 2024, until January 1, 2025. Such sales must still comply with Business and Professions Code section 23504.5. To summarize, the temporary privilege allows a licensed craft distiller to directly ship distilled spirits manufactured or produced by the licensee at its premises to a consumer only if the sale complies with all of the following:

  1. The amount shipped must not exceed the equivalent of 2.25 liters in any combination of prepackaged containers per day per consumer and shall be solely for the consumer’s personal use and not for resale.
  2. The licensed craft distiller must maintain adequate records of the shipments and provide those records to the department upon request.
  3. The licensed craft distiller must require the common carrier to obtain the signature of any individual 21 years of age or older before delivering any distilled spirits shipped to an individual in this state.
  4. The containers in which the distilled spirits are shipped must be conspicuously labeled with the words: “CONTAINS ALCOHOL: SIGNATURE OF PERSON AGE 21 YEARS OR OLDER REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY.”

This temporary privilege will now expire on January 1, 2025 unless extended by the Legislature.

AB 1217 (Gabriel, Chapter 569, Statutes of 2023) Business pandemic relief.

Amends Section 25607 of the Business and Professions Code, amends Section 65907 of the Government Code, and amends Section 114067 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to pandemic relief. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill delays the expiration of COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorizations from February 28, 2024, to July 1, 2026. This bill also eliminates the authority of the department to continue a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization beyond its expiration if the licensee has a pending application with the department for a premises expansion. As such, all COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorizations are scheduled to expire July 1, 2026, unless otherwise extended by the Legislature. This bill also extends other pandemic relief measures, unrelated to ABC, that impact food facilities and local governments.

AB 1294 (Boerner, Chapter 471, Statutes of 2023) Tied-house restrictions: advertising exceptions: County of Kings.

Adds Section 25503.62 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes a tied-house exception that authorizes specified alcohol manufacturers to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, a company that owns a facility that includes a wave basin located in Kings County in connection with activities conducted on the premises of a permanent retail licensee located at the wave basin facility. Advertising and sponsorships authorized by this bill must comply with the following requirements: 

  1. The premises of the permanent retail licensee includes a wave basin facility with a capacity of at least 9,000 individuals located in Kings County.
  2. The sponsorship or advertising space or time must be purchased in connection with the sponsorship of activities that are held at the premises of a permanent retail licensee located at the wave basin facility.
  3. Any sponsorship or purchase of advertising space must be accomplished by a written contract entered into by the alcohol manufacturer and the company that owns the wave basin facility in Kings County.
  4. An agreement for advertising must not be contingent upon or otherwise require the licensee at the wave basin facility to purchase or sell any alcoholic beverages or other products produced by the event sponsor or purchaser of the advertising space and time.
  5. The retail licensee at the wave basin facility must sell other brands of alcohol manufactured or distributed by a competing wholesaler or manufacturer in addition to any brand manufactured, distributed, or owned by the authorized licensee sponsoring an event or purchasing advertising space or time at the wave basin facility.

AB 1668 (Patterson J., Chapter 282, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverages: licenses: County of Placer.

Adds Section 23826.19 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes ABC to issue 10 new original type 47 licenses (on-sale general licenses for bona fide public eating places), but no more than four per year, in the County of Placer. These new licenses would be precluded from being transferred from one county to another or to any premises that does not qualify pursuant to this bill and are not to be sold or transferred for a price greater than the original fee paid by the seller or transferor. Licensees that currently hold a valid on-sale general seasonal license may apply for these newly available licenses. The licenses will be subject to priority drawing laws and regulations.

AB 1704 (Santiago, Chapter 375, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverage licenses.

Amends Sections 23015, 23358, 23961, and 24072.3 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective October 7, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill requires ABC to conduct its priority drawings for on-sale and off-sale general licenses through a live video feed. This bill also allows winegrowers to sell spirits of wine to a type 4 license holder (distilled spirits manufacturer); this privilege does not authorize sales to craft distillers or other license types with distilled spirits production privileges. Additionally, this bill expands eligibility for the brewpub-restaurant license exchange program. Currently, the exchange option is only available to those that have held a brewpub-restaurant license before January 1, 2020.  AB 1704 will allow the exchange of a brewpub-restaurant license that was first issued before January 1, 2020, regardless of any subsequent transfers thereof. Exchanges must still comply with the existing requirements set forth in Business and Professions Code section 24072.3.

SB 76 (Wiener, Chapter 700, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverages: music venue license: entertainment zones: consumption.

Amends Sections 23357, 23358, 23396, and 23552 of the Business and Professions Code, adds Section 23039.5 to, and adds Article 5 (commencing with Section 25690) to Chapter 16 of Division 9 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to create “entertainment zones” where people may carry and consume alcoholic beverages on public streets, sidewalks, and public rights-of-way adjacent to and during special events licensed by ABC. Beer manufacturers, winegrowers, and on-sale licensees located in entertainment zones would be authorized to sell open alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises within the local jurisdiction-approved entertainment zone if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. The premises is located within the entertainment zone.

  2. Consumption of that type of alcoholic beverage is authorized by the San Francisco government’s ordinance creating the entertainment zone.
  3. Open alcohol containers for consumption in the entertainment zone only leave the premises during the hours allowed by the ordinance establishing the entertainment zone (and only during the hours of alcohol service at the special event licensed by ABC).
  4. Patrons with open containers exit the premises directly into an entertainment zone.
  5. All alcoholic beverages in the entertainment zone are purchased only at a licensed premises located within the entertainment zone.
  6. The premises expressly prohibits open containers or closed containers of alcoholic beverages acquired outside their premises.
  7. Delivery of alcoholic beverages to consumers for consumption within the entertainment zone by the licensee or by any third-party delivery service is expressly prohibited unless the delivery is to a residential building or private business that is not a licensee.
  8. No alcoholic beverages purchased at the licensed premises may leave the premises in an open glass or metal container for consumption in an entertainment zone.
  9. Any other conditions established in the ordinance adopted by the City and County of San Francisco.
  10. In order to participate, the licensee must annually notify ABC; those with restricted privileges due to operating conditions or statutory restrictions may be prohibited from exercising entertainment zone privileges that are contrary to their operating conditions. For purposes of this provision, any restrictions on the exercise of off-sale privileges would apply to the removal of alcoholic beverages from the licensed premises for consumption in an entertainment zone.

Before an entertainment zone becomes operable, the City and County of San Francisco must adopt an ordinance on or after January 1, 2024, that establishes a process or procedure by which persons in possession of alcoholic beverages in entertainment zones may be readily identifiable as being 21 years of age or older, among other specified requirements.

Music Venues

Unrelatedly, this bill makes music venue licenses eligible for duplicate licenses, subject to the same fees charged for a duplicate type 47 license. This bill also authorizes a music venue to sell, serve, and permit consumption of alcoholic beverages to guests during private events or private functions not open to the general public within any hours of operation permitted by its license, regardless of whether any live performance occurs. A music venue would not be required to have live entertainment during a private event or private function nor would they be subject to the standard eligibility criteria to be considered a music venue under current law (impose a paid ticket or cover charge for entrance, pay artists, or other general qualification requirements to be considered a music venue as identified in subdivision (c) of section 23550) during a private event or private function. This bill maintains the core intent of the music venue license by requiring the principal purpose of a music venue is to operate as a music entertainment facility, meaning the number of private events or private functions occurring at the music entertainment facility must not exceed the number of live entertainment events occurring at the facility in any calendar year; licensees must maintain records to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

SB 247 (Wilk, Chapter 212, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverages: licensing exemptions: barbering and cosmetology services.

Amends Section 23399.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – In 2016, the Legislature approved an alcohol license exemption for beauty salons and barbershops to serve a limited amount of beer or wine to their customers at no charge during a provided service, as specified in Business and Professions Code Section 23399.5. This bill seeks to further clarify who may be eligible to use this privilege as there is no definition in law of what constitutes a “beauty salon” or “beauty salon service”. Specifically, it makes clear that it applies to an establishment licensed by, and in good standing with, the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. The clarifications in the bill are consistent with ABC’s interpretation and application of existing law.

SB 269 (Laird, Chapter 176, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverages: licensed premises: retail sales and consumption.

Amends Section 25607 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill adds craft distillers and brandy manufacturers to the shared-use privileges established by AB 1734 (Bennett, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2022). In practice, this means a beer manufacturer’s license, a winegrower’s license, a craft distiller’s license, or a brandy manufacturer’s license, that are held in any combination and under identical ownership, may overlap at the same premises without necessitating separate sales and consumption areas. Per this bill, this privilege may only be used by a craft distiller if it is at the master license locations of the brewery, winery, and/or distillery.

SB 392 (Bradford, Chapter 604, Statutes of 2023) Tied-house restrictions: advertising exceptions: City of Inglewood.

Amends Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes specified alcohol manufacturers to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale retail licensee that is the owner or operator of a fully enclosed arena with a seating capacity of at least 18,000 seats in the City of Inglewood. Advertising authorized by this bill could be placed on or in the arena and within the perimeter of the main entry area immediately adjacent to the arena, which includes an open plaza and bandshell. These advertisements would be permitted only if they are not placed on or in, or otherwise promote, a licensed alcohol retailer other than the arena or the premises located within the main entry that is wholly owned and operated by or for the owner of the arena.

SB 498 (Gonzalez, Chapter 613, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverage control: violations.

Amends Sections 23095 and 25658 of, and adds Section 24200.8 to, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes the department to consider as an aggravating factor, when determining the discipline for the unlawful sale or furnishing of alcohol to minors or obviously intoxicated persons, whether there is subsequent death or great bodily injury. This bill also increases the maximum fine amount for an offer in compromise (POIC) that an alcohol licensee may pay in lieu of license suspension as follows:

  1. An offer in compromise for retail licensees currently may not be less than $750 dollars or more than $3,000. This bill increases the cap from $3,000 to $6,000.
  2. If the petitioning retailer has had any other accusation filed against them during the preceding three years, the offer in compromise currently may not be less than $1,500 or more than $6,000. This bill increases the cap from $6,000 to $12,000.
  3. If the licensee is petitioning for an offer in compromise for a second violation of Business and Professions Code section 25658 that occurs within 36 months of the initial violation, the offer in compromise currently may not be less than $2,500 or more than $20,000. This bill increases the cap from $20,000 to $40,000.
  4. Lastly, this bill increases the criminal fine, from $1,000 to $3,000, for the sale or furnishing of alcohol to a minor that results in death or great bodily injury.

SB 787 (Dahle, Chapter 113, Statutes of 2023) Number of licensed premises: County of Nevada.

Adds Section 23826.18 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes ABC to issue 10 new original type 47 licenses (on-sale general licenses for bona fide public eating places), but no more than four per year, in the County of Nevada. These new licenses would be precluded from being transferred from one county to another or to any premises that does not qualify pursuant to this bill and are not to be sold or transferred for a price greater than the original fee paid by the seller or transferor. Licensees that currently hold a valid on-sale general seasonal license may apply for these newly available licenses. The licenses will be subject to priority drawing laws and regulations.

SB 788 (Ashby, Chapter 114, Statutes of 2023) Beer manufacturers: cider and perry.

Amends Section 23357 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2024)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill removes the requirement that a beer manufacturer must annually produce at least 60,000 barrels of beer in order to manufacture cider or perry under their beer manufacturers license. This bill does not authorize tasting, consumption, or sales to customers at the brewery, which will still require a winegrower’s license.

SB 844 (Jones, Chapter 295, Statutes of 2023) Alcoholic beverage control: retail license transfers and beer returns.

Amends Sections 23104.2 and 24044 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective September 30, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill expands the definition of “seasonal brand of beer”, which governs the allowance for wholesalers or manufacturers to accept returns of beer from retailers and is currently limited to only those commemorating a specific holiday season, so that it includes those that recognize either a season or a holiday. This bill also makes a technical and clarifying update related to public notification requirements involving pending alcohol license applications; these changes are technical in nature and consistent with the department’s interpretation and application of current law.

Precedential Decision 23-01-E

Printable Document

Download a printable copy of Precedential Decision 23-01-E by clicking the PDF download button.

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

Garfield Beach CVS, LLC & Longs Drug Stores California, LLC

Dba: CVS Pharmacy 7141

291 S. Coombs St.

Napa, CA 94559-4528

Licensee(s).

File No.:
21-543010
Reg No.:
22092061
PRECEDENTIAL DECISION No.:
23-01-E

Designation as Precedential Decision

Pursuant to Government Code Section 11425.60, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control hereby designates, in part, as precedential its decision, dated January 13, 2023, in the above­ referenced action.

The entirety of the decision, except for the portions of paragraph 19 and footnote 5 in the section entitled “Determination of Issues” identified by strikeout below, is designated as precedential.

  1. While the Department presented some evidence related to the identification element of rule 141(b)(5), it was not the Department’s burden to establish compliance with such requirements. Rather, given that non-compliance is an affirmative defense, respondent had the burden to present substantial evidence establishing non-compliance. Notably, respondent did not ask a single question of the decoy regarding the identification of Panetta as the seller of the alcohol, did not call Panetta as a witness, and did not present any independent evidence related to the identification process, instead relying exclusively on the limited testimony of the minor decoy in this regard. Simply because the Department presented some evidence while describing the sequence of events does not mean that the Department then assumed the burden to prove compliance with the rule. In any event, the limited evidence the Department presented was not substantial evidence of non-compliance. The Department is not under an obligation to present any evidence of compliance absent respondent meeting its burden of presenting substantial evidence of non-compliance. The evidence in the record here paints an incomplete picture of what did, or did not, happen, and it is not appropriate to simply fill in the gaps with speculation or to improperly shift the burden of proof to the Department. Absent sufficient evidence respondent has not met its burden to prove non-compliance with rule 141(b)(5) [Footnote 5].[FN 5] To be clear, the determination here is not a consequence of which party introduced the evidence. Rather, regardless of whether the evidence was presented by the Department or by respondent, it was not substantial evidence of non-compliance.

This decision is designated precedential effective May 26, 2023.

Eric Hirata, Director
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

Decision Under Government Code Section 11517(c)

The above-entitled matter having regularly come before the Department on January 13, 2023, for decision under Government Code Section 11517(c) and the Department having considered its entire record, including the transcript of the hearing held via video on July 12, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge David W. Sakamoto, and good cause appearing, the following decision is hereby adopted: 

Sean Klein, Attorney III, Office of Legal Services, Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, represented the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (hereafter the Department).

Jade Quintero, attorney at law, of Solomon, Saltsman, and Jamieson, represented co-licensee respondents Garfield Beach CVS, LLC and Longs Drug Stores California, LLC (hereafter collectively respondent).

On July 12, 2022, after oral evidence, documentary evidence, and evidence by oral stipulation on the record was received at the video hearing regarding this accusation, the matter was argued by the parties and submitted to the ALJ for decision. The ALJ issued a proposed decision on August 3, 2022. The proposed decision was rejected by the Director pursuant to Government Code section 11517 by Notice dated September 20, 2022.

In this matter, the Department’s accusation alleged cause for suspension or revocation of respondent’s license exists under California Constitution, article XX, section 22, and California Business and Professions Code section 24200, subdivision (a) and (b), based on the following ground:[1]

Count 1: “On or about February 26, 2022, respondent-licensee’s agent or employee, Anna Panetta, at said premises, sold, furnished, gave or caused to be sold, furnished, or given, an alcoholic beverage, to-wit: beer, to Dylan Hirschensohn, a person under the age of 21 years, in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 25658(a).” (Exhibit 1: pre-hearing pleadings, Accusation)

Findings of Fact

  1. The Department filed the accusation on April 13, Thereafter, it received respondent’s Notice of Defense and Special Notice of Defense requesting a video hearing on the accusation and the matter was set for a hearing. (Exhibit 1: pre-hearing pleadings.)
  2. On April 23, 2014, the Department issued respondent a type-21 off-sale general retail license for their premises doing business as CVS Pharmacy #7141 at 291 Coombs Street, Napa, California (hereafter the licensed premises).[2]
  3. Since being licensed, respondent has not suffered any prior disciplinary action.
  4. Dylan Hirshenshon (hereafter the decoy) was born on February 2, On February 26, 2022, he, then 18 years old, assisted the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (hereafter ABC) with a minor decoy operation at the licensed premises. The decoy’s role was to see if he could purchase an alcoholic beverage at the licensed premises despite being under 21 years of age. On that day, he was working with Alcoholic Beverage Control Agent Harkness (hereafter Agent Harkness) and a second ABC agent.
  5. Upon the decoy’s entrance to the licensed premises on February 26, 2022, he stood approximately 5′ 1O” tall and weighed approximately 220 He had dark shoulder length hair. He wore a blue jacket over a bluet-shirt. He wore long dark blue or black pants, resembling jogging suit pants. He was also wearing a dark blue or black face mask.[3]
  6. The decoy entered the licensed premises alone while the two ABC agents remained outside the licensed premises.
  7. Once inside the licensed premises, the decoy retrieved a single blue colored can of Bud Light beer that he took the sales counter.
  8. After a few minutes, respondent’s employee, Anna Panetta (hereafter Panetta), came to the sales counter. She sold the single can beer to the The can of beer was the only item sold. Panetta neither asked the decoy his age nor for him to produce any form of identification to confirm he was at least 21 years old.
  9. Once the sale was completed, the decoy exited the licensed premises with his beer.
  10. He joined the two ABC agents at their car and showed them the beer he just purchased. Approximately five minutes later, the decoy and the two ABC agents entered the licensed premises.
  11. When the decoy was about three feet from the sales counter, he identified Panetta to the agents as the selling Panetta was at the counter ringing up another customer. Agent Harkness got her attention and identified themselves to her. The clerk looked surprised. Agent Harkness next told the clerk to look towards him and he took a photo that shows the decoy, who was holding the can of beer and standing on the customer side of the counter, and Panetta on the clerk’s side of the counter. (Exhibit 5: photo) The decoy was taller than the clerk.[4] The decoy then exited the licensed premises.
  12. Prior to this date, the decoy served as a decoy on approximately three other dates, visiting approximately no less than ten licensed premises each He received no training regarding decoy operations and volunteered to participate as a decoy. The decoy was the nephew of ABC Agent Harkness, but otherwise had no other law enforcement connections or law enforcement related training or experience, e.g., being a police explorer or police cadet.
  13. The decoy did not feel nervous when acting as the decoy at the licensed premises. He visited approximately 10 licensed premises on February 26, 2022, and purchased an alcoholic beverage at four to six of them.
  14. Anthony Aguilar-Short (hereafter Aguilar-Short) has been the manager at the licensed premises for the last six months. He is in charge of store operations, including the pharmacy.
  15. He also oversees training of new employees, who receive three hours of training regarding respondent’s rules and Also, employees receive annual training, which includes videos and assessment quizzes.
  16. Respondent has a training handbook regarding sales practices at its (Exhibit A). It includes sections on procedures for retailing age-restricted products, such as alcoholic beverages and certain cough medicines. The licensed premises does not sell cigarettes. There is also training regarding detecting false identifications. The clerk herein was employed at the licensed premises for two or three years and should have been trained on the handbook’s content.
  17. After this incident, Aguilar-Short had one-on-one re-training sessions with all licensed premises employees. He informed his staff they must now check the identification of those purchasing age restricted products, such as alcoholic beverages, whether or not the customer appears old enough to make the This revised the former policy of checking identifications of those who did not appear at least 27 years old.
  18. Aguilar-Short was at the licensed premises the day of the violation herein. He spoke briefly with the agent who informed him Panetta sold to a He recalled they asked Panetta to sign a paper, possibly an admission or a citation of some kind, but he never learned for sure what she signed. Ultimately, he dismissed Panetta for selling beer to the decoy.

Determination of Issues

  1. Article XX, section 22, of the California Constitution and section 24200, subdivision (a), provide a license to sell alcoholic beverages may be suspended or revoked if continuation of the license would be contrary to public welfare or morals.
  2. Section 24200, subdivision (b), provides that a licensee’s violation of or causing or permitting a violation of any penal provision of California law prohibiting or regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages is also a basis for the suspension or revocation of the license.
  3. Section 25658, subdivision (a), provides that every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any person under the age of 21 years is guilty of a misdemeanor.
  4. Section 25658, subdivision (f), permits law enforcement officials to use persons under 21 years old to apprehend licensees, employees or agents or other persons who sell or furnish alcoholic beverages to minors.
  5. The Department adopted and published a rule regarding the use of underage Under California Code of Regulations, title 4, section 141 (hereafter rule 141):
    1. A law enforcement agency may only use a person under the age of 21 years to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages to apprehend licensees, or employees or agents of licensees who sell alcoholic beverages to minors (persons under the age of 21) and to reduce sales of alcoholic beverages to minors in a fashion that promotes fairness.
    2. The following minimum standards shall apply to actions filed pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 25658 in which it is alleged that a minor decoy has purchased an alcoholic beverage:
      1. At the time of the operation, the decoy shall be less than 20 years of age;
      2. The decoy shall display the appearance which could generally be expected of a person under 21 years of age, under the actual circumstances presented to the seller of alcoholic beverages at the time of the alleged offense;
      3. A decoy shall either carry his or her own identification showing the decoy’s correct date of birth or shall carry no identification; a decoy who carries identification shall present it upon request to any seller of alcoholic beverages;
      4. A decoy shall answer truthfully any questions about his or her age;
      5. Following any completed sale, but not later than the time a citation, if any, is issued, the peace officer directing the decoy shall make a reasonable attempt to enter the licensed premises and have the minor decoy who purchased alcoholic beverages make a face-to-face identification of the alleged seller of the alcoholic beverages.
    3. Failure to comply with this rule shall be a defense to any action brought pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 25658.
  6. Cause for suspension or revocation of respondent’s license exists under California Constitution, article XX, section 22 and section 24200, subdivision (a) and (b). On February 26, 2022, respondent’s agent or employee, Anna Panetta, upon the licensed premises, sold an alcoholic beverage, to wit: a can of Budweiser Light beer, to Dylan Hirschensohn, a person under the age of 21, in violation of section 25658, subdivision (a).
  7. The evidence established respondent’s employee, Panetta, sold beer, an alcoholic beverage, to the 18-year-old decoy. Panetta neither asked the decoy his age nor asked to view his identification to confirm he was at least 21 years of age.
  8. Respondent contended the decoy did not meet the appearance standard described under rule 141(b)(2) that states: “The decoy shall display the appearance which could generally be expected of a person under 21 years of age, under the actual circumstances presented to the seller of alcoholic beverages at the time of the alleged offense.”
  9. Non-compliance with the requirements of rule -141 is an affirmative defense. The burden of establishing such non-compliance is on respondent.
  10. In this instance, the decoy was approximately 5′ 10″ tall and weighed approximately 220 pounds. He had shoulder length dark or black hair and was casually dressed in what resembled a jogging suit. His appearance as seen in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 show an overall youthful appearing teenager that was consistent with his appearance and demeanor when he testified at the As this operation occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, the wearing of face mask by persons in enclosed public businesses to help control the spread of that disease was a common practice, if not legally required. There was no evidence the decoy wore his mask at the licensed premises for the purpose of concealing his appearance from Panetta. Panetta never asked the decoy to remove his mask so that she could view his face. Panetta did not testify at the hearing. There was no evidence Panetta, at any time, asserted to anyone she sold beer to the decoy because he appeared at least 21 years old.
  11. While the decoy purchased alcoholic beverages on prior decoy operations and felt comfortable performing the decoy role at the licensed premises, it was not established that made him appear any older than his actual age, 18.
  12. Based on the decoy’s overall appearance, i.e., his physical appearance, persona, dress, poise, demeanor, maturity, and conduct, the decoy displayed the appearance which could generally be expected of a person under 21 years of age under the actual circumstances presented to Panetta at the time she sold the decoy beer. Therefore, respondent failed to prove that the decoy did not meet the appearance standard for decoys specified in rule 141(b)(2).
  13. Respondent also contended there was non-compliance with rule 14l{b)(5), which states: “Following any completed sale, but not later than the time a citation, if any, is issued, the peace officer directing the decoy shall make a reasonable attempt to enter the licensed premises and have the minor decoy who purchased alcoholic beverages make a face-to-face identification of the alleged seller of the alcoholic beverages.”
  14. In Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (Garfield Beach CVS, Real Parties in Interest (2017) 18 App. 5th 541 the court upheld the Department’s decision that determined there was a sufficient face to face identification within the meaning of rule 141(b)(5) and it was not otherwise unfair wherein: the decoy identified the selling clerk to the officer when approximately 10 feet from the clerk; the officer informed the clerk she sold to a minor while the decoy was standing next to the officer; the clerk had ample opportunity to see the decoy and object to any perceived misidentification and did not so object; the clerk said she was sorry and, as described by the minor, she “freaked out”; and the clerk stood next to the decoy while the decoy was holding the beer and they were photographed together.
  15. According to the decoy’s testimony here, after the agents and decoy re-entered the licensed premises, and when the decoy was about three feet from the sales counter, he identified Panetta to the agents as the At that time, Panetta was at the counter assisting another customer.
  16. The decoy testified Agent Harkness then obtained Panetta’s attention and identified “them” to The decoy testified she looked surprised but did not recall if she said anything at that time. There was no evidence presented establishing what Agent Harkness said to Panetta. Panetta did not testify in this matter and there is no evidence of what she may or may not have known, perceived, or understood at the time this occurred.
  17. The decoy testified Agent Harkness then told Panetta to look towards the agent who took a photo, Exhibit That photograph shows the decoy standing on the customer side of the sales counter holding his can of beer. The decoy is facing away from the sales counter and towards the agent’s camera. His back is towards Panetta. The photo shows Panetta standing on the clerk’s side of the sales counter and somewhat looking in the direction of the agent’s camera. No other customer(s) appear in the immediate area of the sales counter. At the hearing, the decoy also characterized the Exhibit 5 photo as his identifying Panetta as the selling clerk. Immediately after the photo was taken, the decoy testified he exited the licensed premises and never re-entered. The decoy had no information as to what, if anything, occurred or was said between the agents and Panetta after he exited the licensed premises.
  18. There was no evidence presented what, if anything, was said between Agent Harkness or any other agent and Panetta other than the decoy’s testimony that Agent Harkness identified himself/them to Panetta after the decoy had already identified her to the agents when Panetta was tending to a customer. There was no evidence of any statement made by any agent at any time informing Panetta she had just sold an alcoholic beverage to the decoy or that the decoy had identified her as one who sold him an alcoholic There was no evidence of any statement made by Panetta admitting or confirming she sold beer to the decoy. Similarly, there was no information that Panetta did not understand that she had been identified as the seller of alcohol to the decoy or that she was otherwise unaware of what was occurring.
  19. While the Department presented some evidence related to the identification element of rule 14l{b)(5), it was not the Department’s burden to establish compliance with such Rather, given that non-compliance is an affirmative defense, respondent had the burden to present substantial evidence establishing non-compliance. Notably, respondent did not ask a single question of the decoy regarding the identification of Panetta as the seller of the alcohol, did not call Panetta as a witness, and did not present any independent evidence related to the identification process, instead relying exclusively on the limited testimony of the minor decoy in this regard. Simply because the Department presented some evidence while describing the sequence of events does not mean that the Department then assumed the burden to prove compliance with the rule. In any event, the limited evidence the Department presented was not substantial evidence of non-compliance. The Department is not under an obligation to present any evidence of compliance absent respondent meeting its burden of presenting substantial evidence of non-compliance. The evidence in the record here paints an incomplete picture of what did, or did not, happen, and it is not appropriate to simply fill in the gaps with speculation or to improperly shift the burden of proof to the Department. Absent sufficient evidence respondent has not met its burden to prove non-compliance with rule 141(b)(5). [5]
  20. Although respondent’s manager testified that he recalled Panetta signing some document, possibly a confession or citation, he never saw or reviewed the actual document.[6] While an agent told him Panetta sold alcohol to the minor decoy, this does nothing to advance respondent’s argument of non­ compliance with the rule.
  21. Based upon the totality of evidence presented at the hearing, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the face-to-face identification called for in rule 14l(b)(5) was not conducted in a compliant Therefore, a defense under rule 141(c) was not established.
  22. In determining the appropriate level of discipline, consideration is given to respondent’s almost eight years of licensure without prior
  23. Except as set forth in this decision, all other allegations in the accusation and all other contentions made by the parties in the pleadings or at the hearing regarding those allegations lack merit.

Order

Count 1 of the accusation is sustained. Respondent’s off-sale general license is suspended for a period of ten (10) days.

Sacramento, California

Dated: January 13, 2023

Eric Hirata
Director

Pursuant to Government Code section I 1521(a), any party may petition for reconsideration of this decision. The Department’s power to order reconsideration expires 30 days after the delivery or mailing of this decision, or on the effective date of the decision, whichever is earlier. 

Any appeal of this decision must be made in accordance with Chapter 1.5, Articles 3, 4 and 5, Division 9, of the Business and Professions Code. For further information, call the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board at (916) 445-4005.

Footnotes

  • [1] All further section references are to the California Business and Professions Code unless noted otherwise.
  • [2] A type-21 license primarily permits the license-holder to retail beer, wine, and distilled spirits to the public for consumption off the licensed premises and minors are permitted to be on the licensed premises.
  • [3] During this time frame, people commonly wore facemasks due to the Covid-19 pandemic, especially in indoor public settings.
  • [4] The clerk’s height, or estimate thereof, was never established.
  • [5] To be clear, the determination here is not a consequence of which party introduced the evidence. Rather, regardless of whether the evidence was presented by the Department or by respondent, it was not substantial evidence of non-compliance.
  • [6] Exhibit 6, a copy of a purported citation issued to Panetta, was not admitted in evidence due to lack of authentication and foundation. Although arguments concerning this were requested upon review of the proposed decision, given the ultimate determination here it is unnecessary to consider whether this exhibit was properly excluded.

2022 Chaptered Legislation

A summary of 2022 chaptered bills amending the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Act and the code sections affected by that legislation. The text of these bills can be viewed at the California Legislative Information website.

Printable Summary

Download a printable copy of 2022 Chaptered Legislation by clicking the PDF download button.

Code Section Changes by Bill Number

AB 98 (Kalra, Chapter 267, Statutes of 2022) Tied-house restrictions: advertising exceptions: City of San Jose.

Amends Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective September 13, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – Business and Professions Code Section 25503.6 (a)(1)(X) grants a tied-house exception for an arena in San Jose with a fixed seating capacity in excess of 15,000 seats. This urgency bill reduces the minimum seating threshold from 15,000 to 4,000. As a result, this urgency bill authorizes a beer manufacturer, the holder of a winegrower’s license, a rectifier, a craft distiller, a distilled spirits manufacturer, or distilled spirits manufacturer’s agent to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale retail licensee that is the owner or operator of a fully enclosed arena with a fixed seating capacity in excess of 4,000 seats located in the City of San Jose.

AB 631 (Bloom, Chapter 727, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverage control: licenses: nonprofit cultural film exhibition companies.

Amends Sections 23039 and 24045.7 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – Section 24045.7 of the Business and Professions Code authorizes the Department to issue a special on-sale general license to a nonprofit theater company that is exempt from the payment of income taxes under Section 23701(d) of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States. This license is known as a type 64 license. This bill makes nonprofit cultural film exhibition companies eligible for a type 64 license, subject to the same licensing fees as nonprofit theater companies. A “nonprofit cultural film exhibition company” is defined to mean a company that predominantly exhibits classic, foreign, independent, or rare movies by means of digital or film projection equipment for its members or the general public, or both, in a theater with a seating capacity of at least 100 seats, at least three days per week. Similar to nonprofit theater companies, a nonprofit cultural film exhibition company is not considered a public premises (it is open to all ages), may sell alcoholic beverages to ticketholders only two hours before, during, and one hour after a bona fide film exhibition of the company, and the license is only for a single specified premises.

AB 920 (Aguiar-Curry, Chapter 729, Statutes of 2022) Craft distillers: direct shipping.

Adds and repeals Section 23504.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective September 29, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill authorizes a licensed craft distiller, until January 1, 2024, to directly ship distilled spirits manufactured or produced by the licensee at its premises to a consumer only if the sale complies with all of the following:

  1. The amount shipped must not exceed the equivalent of 2.25 liters in any combination of prepackaged containers per day per consumer and shall be solely for the consumer’s personal use and not for resale.
  2. The licensed craft distiller must maintain adequate records of the shipments and provide those records to the Department upon request.
  3. The licensed craft distiller must require the common carrier to obtain the signature of any individual 21 years of age or older before delivering any distilled spirits shipped to an individual in this state.
  4. The containers in which the distilled spirits are shipped must be conspicuously labeled with the words: “CONTAINS ALCOHOL: SIGNATURE OF PERSON AGE 21 YEARS OR OLDER REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY.”

AB 1323 (Haney, Chapter 271, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverage control: tied-house exceptions.

Amends Section 25503.35 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill expands an existing tied-house exception by reducing the minimum number of seats, from 2,100 to 1,600, that must be configured in a type 71 licensed premises (for-profit theater in San Francisco) in order for the license holder to receive compensation from a beer manufacturer, winegrower, rectifier, distilled spirits manufacturer, craft distiller, or distilled spirits manufacturer’s agent for advertising space, as specified.

AB 1330 (Mayes, Chapter 272, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverage tied-house restrictions: exceptions: County of Riverside.

Amends Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes a tied-house exception for a fully enclosed arena in Riverside County with a seating capacity of more than 10,000 seats. This exception allows a beer manufacturer, the holder of a winegrower’s license, a rectifier, a craft distiller, a distilled spirits manufacturer, or distilled spirits manufacturer’s agent to purchase advertising space from the on-sale licensee that is the owner or operator of the arena, subject to the same general requirements applicable to other arena tied-house exceptions specified in Business and Professions Code Section 25503.6.

AB 1734 (Bennett, Chapter 175, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverages: licensed premises: retail sales and consumption.

Amends Section 25607 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes the holder of a beer manufacturer’s license and a winegrower’s license, that are under identical ownership, to have an overlapping premises where retail sales and consumption under each license may be combined, as specified. This change eliminates the need for separate cash registers or points of sale. To exercise this privilege, each license must either be both master licenses or both branch offices, and not a combination of a master license and a branch office; for overlapping branch offices, only alcoholic beverages produced by the licensee may be sold. For additional information, an Industry Advisory is available on the ABC website.

AB 2037 (Flora, Chapter 155, Statutes of 2022) Polling places: alcoholic beverages.

Amends Section 12288 of the Elections Code, relating to elections. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill repeals the prohibition against polling places being in an establishment where the sale and dispensation of alcoholic beverages is its primary purpose. The impact of this change is that venues containing bars, such as a veteran’s club, may be utilized as polling locations only if there is no alcohol sales or service occurring while polls are open.

AB 2210 (Quirk, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2022) Cannabis: state temporary event licenses: venues licensed by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control: unsold inventory.

Amends Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to cannabis. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill prohibits the Department of Cannabis Control from denying an application for a state temporary cannabis event license solely on the basis that the location possesses a license issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This bill also prohibits the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control from taking disciplinary action against one of its licensees on the basis of a state temporary cannabis event license being issued for a premises that utilizes the same premises as the one licensed by ABC. This bill requires that all on-sale and off-sale privileges of alcoholic beverages at the venue must be suspended for the entire day of the event and may not resume until 6:00 a.m. the day after the event has ended. This bill further provides that alcohol consumption on the venue premises must be strictly prohibited for the entire day of the event and may not resume until 6:00 a.m. the day after the event has ended. This bill contains other provisions relating to temporary cannabis events.

AB 2301 (Wood, Chapter 961, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverage sales: beer manufacturers: licensed premises.

Amends Section 25503.28 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes beer manufacturers to self-distribute beer they produce to on-sale retail licensed locations they operate that are located within a five-mile radius of their premises of production, as specified.

AB 2303 (Aguiar-Curry, Chapter 694, Statutes of 2022) Agave spirits: labeling.

Adds Section 25179 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill prohibits the use of the phrase “California agave spirits”, or substantially similar descriptions, on an agave spirits label unless the spirits are produced entirely from agave grown in California and do not contain flavoring or color additives. This does not, however, preclude the use of the word “California” on the label to describe the location of the distillery. This bill authorizes ABC to seize agave spirits labeled in violation of this bill and to dispose of them in compliance with Business and Professions Code Section 25355.

AB 2307 (Berman, Chapter 962, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverages: beer manufacturers: branch offices.

Amends Sections 23389 and 25503.28 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill 1) increases the number of authorized beer manufacturer branch office locations, from six to eight, and increases the number of those branch offices that may be restaurants, from two to four; 2) requires beer manufacturers to have held their sixth branch office license for a minimum of one year before being eligible to receive the seventh or eighth license; 3) maintains the current cap that restricts beer manufacturers to operating no more than six on-sale licenses (for example, beer manufacturers may possess retail privileges at no more than 8 locations, provided that no more than six of which may be on-sale retail licenses, like a type 41 or 47); and 4) removes the requirement that a beer manufacturer branch office must purchase beer and wine from a licensed wholesaler that is not owned by the beer manufacturer.

AB 2921 (Santiago, Chapter 294, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverages.

Amends Sections 23086 and 25503.24 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill modifies the deadline for the ABC Appeals Board to issue a determination after the filing of an appeal by requiring its completion 60 days after an appeal is submitted for decision rather than 60 days after the filing of an appeal. This bill also makes minor technical changes to existing law regarding licensees who conduct market research, including specifying that surveys, as stated, are to gather feedback.

AB 2971 (Committee on Governmental Organization, Chapter 296, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverage control: fees.

Amends Sections 23320, 23399.52, 24045.78, 24072, 24079, 25600.05, and 25600.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill makes technical amendments to the ABC Act that 1) codifies the license designation (type 99) established by the Department to track rare, one-off licenses created by the Legislature; 2) eliminates duplicative licensing fees in several instances where multiple fees are charged for the same investigation; 3) resolves several erroneous referenced code sections; 4) extends the sunset date until January 1, 2028 applicable to invitation-only event authorizations pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 25600.5; and 5) extends the sunset date until January 1, 2026 applicable to provisions of law allowing beer manufacturers to gift glassware to retailers.

SB 298 (Dodd, Chapter 980, Statutes of 2022) Brewpub-restaurant licenses: bona fide public eating place license.

Adds Section 24072.3 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill allows anyone who has held a brewpub-restaurant license as of December 31, 2019 to exchange the license for a bona fide public eating place license. The exchange would be authorized at any time upon the approval of the Department, provided the following:

  1. Payment of a $100 exchange fee (the fee may be adjusted annually by the Department pursuant to subdivisions (d) and (e) of Section 23320).
  2. Payment of the fee required for a new permanent license for an on-sale general eating place.
  3. Compliance with statutory and regulatory licensing requirements.

Licenses issued pursuant to this bill may be designated as an “on-sale general license for special use” and shall not count towards the cap on on-sale general licenses available under Sections 23816 and 23821. Any license exchanged pursuant to this bill would be prohibited from being sold or transferred for a price greater than the fee paid by the seller or transferor.

SB 793 (Wiener, Chapter 468, Statutes of 2022)Alcoholic beverages: music venue licenses.

Amends Section 23320 of, and adds Article 7 (commencing with Section 23550) to Chapter 3 of Division 9 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill establishes a “music venue license” (designated as a type 90 license) to be issued by the Department to a music entertainment facility that may be open to all ages and provide alcoholic beverage service only to adults, including beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Alcoholic beverages may only be consumed on the premises during the time period from two hours before a live performance at the venue until one hour after the live performance. This bill establishes fees in connection with the license and creates a license exchange program that allows a type 47 or type 48 license to be exchanged for a type 90 license.

SB 1011 (Committee on Governmental Organization, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverages.

Amends Sections 23826.13, 24045.6, 24048, and 24300 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill 1) authorizes the Department to conduct its licensing and enforcement hearings electronically, as specified; 2) authorizes the Department to send its license renewal and cancellation notices electronically; 3) allows license reinstatement fees to be paid using electronic payment methods; 4) clarifies that licenses issued to those in specified census tracts apply to the districts corresponding to the 2010 census; and 5) increases the cap on permits, from three to four, for special temporary licenses that may be issued annually to a nonprofit tax-exempt organization pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 24045.6.

SB 1013 (Atkins, Chapter 610, Statutes of 2022) Beverage container recycling.

Amends Section 23661.3 of the Business and Professions Code, and amends Sections 14509.4, 14510, 14547, 14549.1, 14549.2, 14550, 14560, 14560.5, 14561, 14571.5, 14571.8, 14575, 14581, and 14591.1 of, and amends and repeals Section 14571.6 of, and amends, repeals, and adds Sections 14504, 14528.5, 14570, 14571.9, and 14572.1 of, and adds Sections 14510.2, 14537.1, 14543, 14544, and 14545 to, and adds Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 14578) to Division 12.1 of, and adds and repeals Section 14549.7 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to recycling, and makes an appropriation therefor. (Effective January 1, 2024 or dates as otherwise specified)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill adds wine and distilled spirits to the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (Bottle Bill) commencing January 1, 2024. This bill, among other provisions, requires wine direct shipper permitholders to register with CalRecycle as a beverage manufacturer and distributor and requires wine direct shipper permitholders to comply with the Bottle Bill, including the reporting and payment provisions applicable to the permitholder as a beverage manufacturer and distributor. If a permitholders fails to comply with Section 14560 or 14575 of the Public Resources Code, ABC may suspend or revoke the wine direct shipper permit.

SB 1280 (Hueso, Chapter 304, Statutes of 2022) Tied-house restrictions: advertising: San Diego State University.

Amends Section 25503.6 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective September 13, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill establishes a tied-house exception that allows alcohol manufacturers (including beer manufacturers, winegrowers, rectifiers, craft distillers, distilled spirits manufacturers or their agents) to purchase advertising space at five distinct stadiums and facilities located on the University campus. The tied-house exception established by this bill is subject to the existing requirements applicable to other exceptions as identified in Business and Professions Code Section 25503.6.

SB 1370 (Pan, Chapter 732, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverages: licensees.

Amends Sections 23039 and 24045.7 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill makes nonprofit radio broadcasting companies eligible for a type 64 license, subject to the same licensing fees as nonprofit theater companies. Similar to nonprofit theater companies, a nonprofit radio broadcasting company is not considered a public premises (it is open to all ages), may sell alcoholic beverages to ticketholders only two hours before, during, and one hour after a bona fide performance, and the license is only for a single specified premises. This bill also expands a current provision in law which creates an exception to tied-house restrictions, by permitting certain licensees to serve on the board of trustees of a nonprofit theater company operating in the County of Napa, the City of Livermore, or the City of Modesto to also include a nonprofit radio broadcasting company and expands the list of cities to include the City of Sacramento.

SB 1452 (Dahle, Chapter 889, Statutes of 2022) Alcoholic beverages: licenses: Counties of El Dorado and Shasta.

Adds Sections 23826.16 and 23826.17 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2023)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes ABC to issue 10 additional new type 47 licenses in Shasta County and 10 additional new type 47 licenses in El Dorado County. The bill stipulates that while 10 additional licenses will be authorized for each county, no more than four of these licenses may be issued per year per county. These licenses would be subject to section 23961, meaning if there are more applicants than available licenses they will be subject to priority drawing. Licenses issued pursuant to this bill may not be transferred to another county nor shall they be transferred to any premises not qualify under the parameters of the bill. Further, such licenses may not be sold or transferred for a price greater than the original fee paid by the seller or transferrer. ABC may designate these licenses as on-sale general for special use.

2021 Chaptered Legislation

A summary of 2021 chaptered bills amending the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Act and the code sections affected by that legislation. The text of these bills can be viewed at the California Legislative Information website.

Printable Summary

Download a printable copy of 2021 Chaptered Legislation by clicking the PDF download button.

Code Section Changes by Bill Number

Assembly Bill No. 61 (Gabriel, Chapter 651, Statutes of 2021) Business pandemic relief.

Adds and repeals Section 25750.5 of the Business and Professions Code, adds and repeals Section 65907 of the Government Code, and amends Section 114067 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to business pandemic relief, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective October 8, 2021)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill authorizes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to allow licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded area authorized pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization, subject to the terms and conditions established in the Department’s regulatory relief, for up to 365 days following the end of the Governor’s declared state of emergency related to the pandemic. This bill allows the Department to extend a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization beyond 365 days if the licensee has a pending application for a permanent premises expansion. These provisions sunset July 1, 2024. Lastly, this bill enacts other relief measures, unrelated to the Department, that impact food facilities and local governments.

Assembly Bill No. 83 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 11, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverage control: license renewal fees: waiver.

Amends and renumbers Section 23320.3 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to business and professions, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget. (Effective March 17, 2021)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill authorizes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to waive license renewal fees for small beer manufacturers, craft distillers, or winegrowers who produce less than 100,000 gallons annually, and whose licenses expire between March 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023, provided those licenses were active between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020.

Assembly Bill No. 239 (Villapudua, Chapter 192, Statutes of 2021) Winegrowers and brandy manufacturers: exercise of privileges: locations.

Amends Section 23390 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill deletes the current prohibition on winegrowers and brandy manufacturers to refill customer-supplied containers of wine at branch offices, warehouses, or United States bonded wine cellars located away from their place of production.

Assembly Bill No. 1149 (Villapudua, Chapter 271, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverages: tied-house restrictions.

Amends Section 25503.2 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective September 23, 2021)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill allows specified manufacturers and wholesalers to merchandise (e.g., stock and arrange products on shelves, etc.) single-serve containers of wine and distilled spirits, similar to as currently authorized for beer, at off-sale retail licensed premises.

Assembly Bill No. 1267 (Cunningham, Chapter 207, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverages: advertising or promoting donation to a nonprofit charitable organization.

Amends Section 25600 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill, until January 1, 2025, allows specified alcohol manufacturers to donate a portion of the purchase price of an alcoholic beverage to a nonprofit charitable organization if certain conditions are met, including, but not limited to, that the promotion of the donation does not directly encourage consumption of alcoholic beverages.

Assembly Bill No. 1275 (Jones-Sawyer, Chapter 208, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverage control: minors.

Amends Section 25666 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill modifies the requirement that the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control produce an alleged minor for examination in a hearing on an accusation charging a licensee with violating provisions relating to providing alcoholic beverages to a minor, employing a minor to prepare or serve alcoholic beverages, or permitting a minor to enter and remain in the licensed premises. This bill maintains the requirement that the Department produce at the administrative hearing any minor used by peace officers as a decoy in underage sales enforcement operations, but removes the requirement with respect to violations involving non-decoy minors.

Assembly Bill No. 1589 (Committee on Governmental Organization, Chapter 306, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverages: appeals: tied-house restrictions.

Amends Sections 23081, 23081.5, 23083, 23088, and 25503.24 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill adds distilled spirits wholesalers to the list of licensees that a retailer is not required to purchase or sell alcoholic beverages from when selling marketing data to that wholesaler. This bill also authorizes the electronic filing of appeals to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board and electronic delivery of final orders by the Board.

Senate Bill No. 19 (Glazer, Chapter 274, Statutes of 2021) Winegrowers: tasting rooms.

Amends Sections 23320 and 23390.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes winegrowers and brandy manufacturers to operate up to two off-site retail or winetasting outlets by increasing the number of duplicate licenses they are authorized from one to two. This bill also establishes a $440 application fee for a duplicate winegrower license.

Senate Bill No. 94 (Skinner, Chapter 9, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverage control: barbering and cosmetology: license renewal fees: waiver.

Adds Section 23320.3 to, and adds and repeals Section 7427 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to business and professions, and making an appropriation therefor, to take effect immediately, bill related to the budget. (Effective February 23, 2021)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill authorizes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to waive license renewal fees for specified licensees whose licenses expire between March 1, 2021 and February 28, 2023, provided those licenses were active between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. This bill contains other provisions unrelated to the Department.

Senate Bill No. 314 (Wiener, Chapter 656, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverages.

Amends Sections 23399 and 25607 of, and adds and repeals Section 25750.5 of, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. (Effective October 8, 2021)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This urgency bill

  1. authorizes the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to allow licensees to exercise license privileges in an expanded area pursuant to a COVID-19 Temporary Catering Authorization, subject to the terms and conditions established in the Department’s regulatory relief, for up to 365 days following the end of the Governor’s declared state of emergency related to the pandemic, as specified (this provision is identical to one contained in AB 61 (Gabriel));
  2. authorizes alcohol manufacturers to share a common licensed area with multiple retailers, subject to various requirements; and
  3. allows catering authorizations to be issued for up to 36 events, rather than 24, at a single location annually, except when the Department determines additional events may be catered to satisfy substantial public demand.

Senate Bill No. 386 (Umberg, Chapter 309, Statutes of 2021) Tied-house restrictions: advertising: mixed-use district.

Amends Section 25503.6 of, and adds Section 25503.61 to, the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill broadens the current tied-house exception for the Honda Center in Orange County, expanding it to the full 95-acre mixed-use development surrounding the stadium. Among other provisions, this expansion allows alcohol manufacturers to sponsor events and purchase advertising space from the on-sale licensee that is the owner or operator of the mixed-use district, subject to specified limitations.

Senate Bill No. 389 (Dodd, Chapter 657, Statutes of 2021) Alcoholic beverages: retail on-sale license: off-sale privileges.

Adds and repeals Section 23401.5 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to alcoholic beverages. (Effective January 1, 2022)

Summary of Code Section Changes – This bill authorizes specified restaurants and certain alcohol manufacturers to sell distilled spirits in manufacturer-sealed containers (e.g. cans or bottles) for off-site consumption for which their license permits on-sale consumption if the order is picked up by the consumer and they display identification, as specified. This bill also authorizes those same licensees to sell for off-site consumption distilled spirits and single-serve wine that is not in manufacturer-sealed containers (e.g. a cocktail or margarita) if the order is sold in conjunction with a meal, it is picked up by the consumer, and they display identification, among other requirements. Before exercising the privilege of selling nonmanufacturer-sealed alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption, the eligible licensee must notify the Department of their intent to do so. The Department could restrict or prohibit these privileges by placing conditions on the license under specified circumstances. The provisions of this bill sunset January 1, 2027.