California 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate Bipartisan · 1 D · 1 R cosponsors

SB 264 — Wine growers: tasting rooms.

Last action — August 30 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the application, issuance, and suspension of alcoholic beverage licenses. Existing law defines a licensed branch office with reference to certain winegrower and brandy manufacturer facilities for which a duplicate license has been issued. Existing law prohibits a winegrower or brandy manufacturer from selling wine or brandy to consumers, or engaging in winetasting activities, at more than one licensed branch premise. Existing law limits the effect of this prohibition in connection with other premises, as specified. Existing law generally provides that a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is a misdemeanor. This bill would revise the prohibition described above to allow a winegrower or brandy manufacturer to sell wine or brandy to consumers, or to engage in winetasting activities, at up to 2 licensed branch premises. By broadening the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. August 30 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  2. August 14 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 19. Noes 0.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Referred to Com. on G.O.

  5. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 1273.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  7. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 1094.) (May 16).

  10. Set for hearing May 16.

  11. April 8 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  12. Set for hearing April 8.

  13. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0. Page 437.) (March 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Set for hearing March 26.

  15. Referred to Com. on G.O.

  16. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 15.

  17. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Glazer

Co-sponsors (2)

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 19 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10002
Republican 2000
Democratic 7000
Total 19002
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (21)
Member Party Vote
Salas — Yea
Brough — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Gray — Yea
Daly — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Low — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Special Consent SB264

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 27000
Democratic 9000
Republican 2000
Total 38000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (38)
Member Party Vote
Rubio — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Beall — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hill — Yea
Roth — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Chang — Yea
Pan — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Total 6000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Total 6000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (6)
Member Party Vote
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 15 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12001
Republican 1000
Democratic 2000
Total 15001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Dodd — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Allen — Yea
Borgeas — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Hill — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Chang — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Nielsen — Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety agriculture
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 264 do?
(1) Existing law, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the application, issuance, and suspension of alcoholic beverage licenses. Existing law defines a licensed branch office with reference to certain winegrower and brandy manufacturer facilities for which a duplicate license has been issued. Existing law prohibits a winegrower or brandy manufacturer from selling wine or brandy to consumers, or engaging in winetasting activities, at more than one licensed branch premise. Existing law limits the effect of this prohibition in connection with other premises, as specified. Existing law generally provides that a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act is a misdemeanor. This bill would revise the prohibition described above to allow a winegrower or brandy manufacturer to sell wine or brandy to consumers, or to engage in winetasting activities, at up to 2 licensed branch premises. By broadening the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors SB 264?
SB 264 is sponsored by Glazer, Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca (Democratic), and Flora, Heath (Republican).
What is the current status of SB 264?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 264?
Track SB 264 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 264

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 264

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →