Additionally, the zone would only be active during outdoor events specifically permitted by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Although the ABC permits outdoor events to serve alcohol, outside vendors typically provide these services, meaning existing businesses don’t get much benefit from those events.
Ok, so this is effectively a non-change, and the article mangled it entirely.
SB 76 would allow municipalities to designate temporary Entertainment Zones in which brick-and-mortar bars and restaurants could sell alcohol to-go on equal footing with the festival’s licensed vendors.
From the website of the bill's author.
The city can declare a temporary entertainment zone during an event which lets bars compete with vendors during the event.
It's a good thing. But it in no way changes things for the people attending the event.
We aren't setting up a Bourbon street or vegas strip situation, even though we totally should.
Edit: Also, the article says:
For one, the city first has to introduce and pass legislation to establish a framework that defines and allows the designation of entertainment zones. The ordinance would also have to revise local open container laws to make the outdoor drinking zone legal.
Why would they need to pass laws to do this when it passed at the state level? It already is legal to drink on any street at any event with the same permit this requires.
Such a strange article.