Assembly committee advances bill letting cities create 'hospitality zones' with later last-call hours

Assemblymember Haney’s AB 342, authorizing local “hospitality zones” with later alcohol service, was advanced by the Assembly Governmental Organizations Committee as amended and will go to the Committee on Appropriations.

The bill would authorize local governments to permit specific venues within designated hospitality zones to extend last-call to 4 a.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and official state holidays. The legislation as amended includes a five-year sunset, a study of impacts, a delayed implementation date and requirements for local safety, transportation and community considerations.

AB 342’s sponsor framed the bill as a pro-business, pro–local-control measure designed to help downtowns and tourism-dependent economies recover. “AB 342 is a bipartisan, pro business, pro local control bill that allows local governments to create hospitality zones,” Assemblymember Haney told the committee, saying zones would help cities “support businesses and attract visitors, residents, and tourists.” He described the bill’s guardrails — the five-year sunset, study, and delayed start date — as part of a narrow approach intended to balance economic and safety concerns.

Supporters told the committee the measure would help California compete for conventions and visitors as several large international events approach. AJ Rosito of the California Hotel and Lodging Association said California’s tourism industry “drives $150,000,000,000 in travel related spending” and argued that a well-managed entertainment zone can help destinations attract visitors. Chris McCauley of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce said AB 342 could help revitalize downtown Los Angeles ahead of the World Cup, Super Bowl and 2028 Olympics.

Opponents warned of public-safety risks and urged caution. Raul Verdugo, director of advocacy at Alcohol Justice, said California’s long-standing uniform 2 a.m. last-call practice has helped limit alcohol-related harms and that AB 342 “poses a significant threat” by permitting extended hours. The California Council on Alcohol Problems and some public-health witnesses likewise urged the committee to wait for results from a recent pilot program before expanding late-night service.

Committee members expressed concern about public safety while acknowledging the bill’s economic arguments. The committee adopted amendments — including the five-year sunset, the delayed effective date, and a study and oversight provisions — intended to give localities discretion while requiring them to consider public safety, transportation and community feedback in creating zones.

Because the committee did not have a quorum when debate concluded, members held the final roll call until a later time; once a quorum was reached the committee recorded the motion to pass the bill, as amended, to Appropriations.

Votes at the committee roll call recorded by the clerk show named members voting both for and against; the committee reported the bill out to Appropriations by recorded vote (final tally recorded in committee: yes 13, no 2, not voting 2).

If enacted, AB 342 would not compel cities to adopt hospitality zones; it would give local governments authority to create them and require local planning that takes into account law enforcement input, transportation planning and community feedback. The measure also requires an evaluation of the pilot period and sunsets after five years, as amended.

The bill drew a large coalition of hospitality and tourism supporters — including trade associations, local chambers, nightlife and venue groups and ride-hailing companies — and several public-health and safety organizations opposed or urging more study. The committee will send the amended bill to the Appropriations Committee for fiscal review.

Additional procedural notes: committee staff and sponsors said the implementation date was moved to June 1, 2026, contingent on regulations; the bill requires a study and sets a five-year sunset. Those implementation and evaluation details were part of the adopted amendments.