Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

The participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 736-2834 we are holding our committee hearings in the O Street building. I ask all members of the committee to be present in the room 1200 so we can establish quorum and begin our hearing. We have 17 bills on today's agenda before we hear presentations. We cannot establish a quorum so that will not be in order. So we have Senator Ramos, Assembly Member. Ramos, Assembly Member, welcome. You may present. File item number one, AB 341.

Assembly Member, you can be at the lecter right up here's. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Today I am presenting AB 341, a Bill that has brought together a working group consisting of co sponsors from car clubs and tribal governments. This working group set aside differences to work on a common goal of preserving jobs, economic vitality in the State of California.

This Bill would allow for mutually agreed upon growth for card clubs with currently 20 tables or less while creating a moratorium to protect the economic stream of economies that rely on the gaming industry.

The hard work of compromise by the cosponsors of this Bill shows that when setting aside disagreement and focusing on areas of agreement the art of give and take to reach agreement is possible and to their testament to move in one accord to present a Bill of compromise that sits in front of you today.

The hard work on this Bill by the working group of the bill's co sponsors, the Kuwia Band of Indians, Hawaiian Gardens, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Commerce Casino, Recon Band of Mission of Le Seno Indians, King's Card Club, the Samonol Band of Mission Indians, Saniz Band of Chumash Indians and the Saboba Band of Lucento Indians all work together in one accord and this should not be taken lightly and represents a responsible and reasonable approach towards future gaming expansion in the State of California.

With me today to testify in support is Chairman Charles Martin from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and Joy Horn, General counsel of the Commerce Casino and Hotel. Good morning, Chairman Martin. How are you this morning? Good morning, Chairman Dodd. Good morning, Chairman Dodd. Members of the Committee, my name is Charles Martin and I am Chairman of the Moranga Band of Mission Indians. As Assembly Member Ramos has stated, I'm here today as one of six tribal co sponsors of AB 341.

In addition to our tribes, many other tribes are also in support of, including the California Nation's Indian Gaming Association, which is comprised of 47 of the 71 gaming tribes in California and Tassin. Our coalition came together in the fall of last year in order to work on a compromise on the reinstatement of California's cardroom moratorium.

Morongo drafted and began circulating drafts in the fall, working with Cnaga and Tassa tribes, ensuring that all tribal Members, all Member tribes, had an opportunity for input and discussion all before the bill's introduction on January 302023. You will also hear from the cardroom industry whom we work with on creating this compromised measure. The moratorium should never have expired because it provided California with a sensible policy as it relates to cardroom expansion, tribal exclusivity, and oversaturating California's gaming market.

For over 20 years, California voters have consistently opposed unfettered expansion of gaming across California and have stood with Indian tribes in support of gaming on federally recognized tribal sovereign lands. We believe AB 341 is a compromise that provides a balance by allowing measured growth of the cardroom industry that is consistent with California voters support of tribal gaming. I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you gentlemen and ladies this afternoon or this morning. Thank you. Do we have a quorum?

We're going to take a pause here. Can you call the role, please? I'm Secretary.

Dodd. Here. Dodd. Here. Wilk Alvarado, Gill. Here. Alvarado-Gil. Here. Archuleta. Here. Archuleta. Here. Ashby Ashby. Here. Bradford Glazer. Here. Glazer. Here. Jones Jones. Here. Nguyen. Ochoa bogh. Here. Padilla. Here. Portantino. Roth. Rubio. Seyarto? Here. Seyarto. Here.

Great. We have a quorum, please. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Committee Members. My name is Joy Harn and as General counsel for the Commerce Casino and Hotel, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of AB 341 this morning. AB 341 has accomplished what only last year seemed impossible, unifying tribes and card rooms to protect against an unlimited expansion of gambling, while at the same time allowing measured growth for smaller card rooms and protecting local revenues that are so critical to our host cities.

It provides certainty for tribes and card clubs and avoids the need to ask the Legislature to enact legislation on this topic every few years. California card rooms are fundamental assets in many local economies, serving as the single largest tax source for revenue for several city General funds. Cardroom tax funds essentially Fund essential public safety and health services, senior and youth services, including meal and transportation systems, while also generating significant employment and secondary business activities throughout the state.

The Legislature has an established history of limiting the expansion of gambling while allowing for predictable growth of gaming tables over a period of time. Beginning in 1995, the Legislature acted to restrict the expansion of existing games. Since that time, moratoriums have been enacted without interruption until last fall. It is time to put a moratorium back in place to ensure the viability of all existing card rooms, the economic security of their cities, and to allow for healthy growth of our smaller card rooms.

As it has been 10 years since any increase in the table number of tables in a local ordinance has been permitted, it is also time to allow for this modest growth that's been set out in AB 341. Without this well reasoned Bill, gaming throughout the state will expand. AB 341 provides security to those in the industry and is consistent with previous legislation that permitted incremental increases in the number of licensed tables subject to local government approval.

AB 341 recognizes that stability in the gaming industry is important to card rooms, tribes and local communities dependent on revenues and jobs created by the industry. For all of these reasons, we're pleased to be a co sponsor of this important legislation. Thank you.

Now let's hear now let's hear from any other support witnesses in the room. Please come forward. We're looking for your name and your organization and whether you and your support. Mr. Chairman, Members Trent Smith, on behalf of Artichoke Joe's support. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Frank Molina, on behalf of the San Diego Band of Shumash Indians in support. My name is Bosetti, Chairman of the Ringcon Bandel of Sanu Indians. As a co sponsor of this Bill, we definitely support it.

We definitely have worked hard and compromised, and hopefully, as the Bill moves forward, we can finalize some differences we may have. I want to make it clear to the Committee, by supporting this Bill, we do not condone the illegal activity that's going on by the card rooms and the fact that the Attorney General will not enforce a law. I want that part of the record. But we do support this Bill moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.

Charles Wright, on behalf of the Samoanwell abandoned mission Indians in support. Marvin Pinella, on behalf of California cities for self reliance. That includes the cities of Compton, Carhei, Hawaiian Gardens, commerce and support. Thank you. Morning, Chairman and Members. Nick Broka, on behalf of the Agua Caliente Band of Kuwa Indians in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members Ed Manning with KP public affairs on behalf of Hawaiian Gardens Casino in support. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Members Mel Osaga, on behalf of Crystal Casino and oceans 11, both in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members PameLA Lopez, K street consulting on behalf of the Tuli river tribe, in support. Morning. Holly Fermini De Jesus with Lighthouse public affairs on behalf of Park West casinos, in support.

Mr. Chairon. Members Mike Belode, on behalf of Club one casino and the Deuce Lounge Casino in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Heather Garina, on behalf of Seven Mile casino and Stones gambling Hall, we support.

Good morning. Jarrett Blondian, on behalf of Capitol Casino, casino, Merced Casino, Madeira and Asin vine in support. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And Members Brian Lundgren of Platinum and advisors on behalf of the communities for California cardrooms in Support.

Good morning. Susan Jensen, Executive Director of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jason Bryant, on behalf of Players Edge services, Kings and West Lane casinos in Stockton. Thank you. And Fred Jones, on behalf of California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion. Thank you to those witnesses. Now we're going to move to lead witnesses in opposition. It's my understanding there are three, and together you'll get four minutes. I am of the understanding that you've worked that out. Who gets what time. So as soon as you start. Good morning, Chairman dotted Members of the Committee. I am here today.

My name is Cody Martinez and I'm the tribal Chairman of the Sequan band of the Kumya Nation, San Diego, California. I am here today to respectfully oppose Assembly Bill 341 in its current form on behalf of Sequan. I think it would be helpful for the Committee to understand why Sequan changed from support if amended to an opposed unless amended position on this Bill. Early in the legislative process, Sequan was asked to review draft language for AB 31.

Once reviewed, our tribal council voted to support the language. However, the language that later came out of the Legislative Council was different than the work product that we were asked to review from the tribal card room work group. The original language stated, this ordinance shall only apply to a gambling establishment that operates fewer than 20 gaming tables. Once this language returned in Bill form, it read, this ordinance shall only apply to gaming establishments that operate 20 or fewer gaming tables.

This small but extremely important change will allow one card club owner that has interest in multiple card rooms to expand in our backyard. I am somewhat confused because the intent of this moratorium is to expand small card clubs. Card clubs allow for modest growth. However, it seems to me that this legislation opens a door to expansion that is not consistent with the intent of this legislation. I have communicated our concerns to the author and asked that the original language revert to the original version.

The current language revert to the original version. Excuse me. However, the chair expressed last Monday that he will not allow any amendments to AB 341 which to the Sequan tribe seems to impede the legislative process. We have been told that the tribes and card rooms have concerns with our proposed amendment. However, I have not heard from a single tribe or card room that they oppose our proposed amendment. In fact, every single tribe that I have personally spoken with have been nothing but supportive of our efforts.

The Sequan tribe have been honest brokers and will continue to do so because that is who we are as a tribe. I appreciate the Committee's time and the opportunity to share Sequan's concerns with you. I look forward to an honest and open dialogue going forward on this Bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next, you've got about a minute and a half for both of you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.

My name is Dustin Murray and I am the tribal administrator for the Shingle Springs band of Mewk Indians. We are opposed to AB three for one, for two primary reasons. First, the definition of a small card clubs is entirely too broad and creates the greatest expansion of card room gaming in California history. Second, the number of card rooms with 20 tables or less are highly concentrated in Northern California, directly and directly impacting the customer base for Red Hawk casino. For those reasons, I urge you.

No vote. Thank you. Thank you. Morning. Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Committee Members. My name is Jeff Butler. I'm a partner at the Denton's law firm and represent the Yochidihi band of Wintoon Indians. I have two issues to raise. The first is AB 340. One's carve out for the San Jose card rooms. And the second is illegal gaming. The AB 341 carve out for the San Jose card rooms is not proper.

That those card rooms already have 49 tables each and that carve out allows them to get 15 more tables. This is completely inconsistent with the whole purpose of AB 341 is stated. And second, you might say, who cares? Because the card rooms play legal games, but they don't really. And this is not just the tribe's opinions.

The state Attorney General runs the Bureau of Gambling Control, and that Bureau of Gambling Control has concluded that the card rooms play blackjack, which is illegal, and that the card rooms also do not rotate the player dealer position, which is something that it must do under California law. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Butler. Okay, now we're going to move on to those in the room that are opposed. Please come up and state your name, organization and opposition.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Paula, treat on behalf of Pachanga Band of Indians and the Kalusa Indians. We're tweeners, so we think the moratorium needs to go back on. But we definitely know and support the amendments that are being asked for.

Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. Now we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. This includes anyone in either support or opposition. Reminder to state your name, affiliation and position only. I'm limiting the me too's to a total of 10 minutes. I'm not sure we're going to have that much, but. Moderator, if you could please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 341. Feel free to open up the lines and call the witnesses individually.

Thank you. If you'd like to speak in support or opposition of this Bill, please press one and then zero at this time. And. One moment. They're just taking a second here. To queue up once again, please press one and then zero. We do have a few. One moment. And first we'll go to line number 13. Line 13, your line is open. Please unmute your phone or pick up your handset. We'll move on. Line 12, your line is open. Line 12, your line is open.

We'll move on. We'll go to line number. Line number nine. Line number nine, your line is open. Line number nine, your line is open. I'm sorry. We'll move on. There are no others in queue at this time.

Just for fairness, could you just call it one more time? Operator. And let's see if.

Yeah, please queue up again. Line numbers. If you want to speak in opposition or support for this Bill, please press one and then zero it will open your lines and announce your numbers. Okay, so, one moment. We got a few extras this time. We'll go to line number 12.

Yes, this is Mark English with 500 club casino and Clovis in support.

Thank you. We'll go next to line number 13.

Yes. Stand safe. Limelight card room. Cal Prop services in support.

Thank you. We'll go next to line number 10. Line number 10, your line is open.

Travis Tyler, on behalf of Livermore casino in support.

Thank you. We'll go next to line number nine.

Clark Rosa, Capitol Casino. Me, too.

Thank you. And last, we'll go to line number 19.

Hi, this is Tom Candy Hustler. Casino, Lucky Lady Casino in support of AB 341.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further in queue at this time.

All right, thank you. Appreciate the support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring it back for discussion for our Members. Senator Glazer. Great. Thank you, Assembly Member, thank you for all the work that you've done in this space. This is not an easy thing to negotiate. And I know that you've put in a lot of time and good work to try to find this sweet spot. That's the build that's before us today. I know that.

Certainly a bright line for me, and I'm sure for you, is this exclusivity of gaming, tribal gaming, that was enacted in our state constitution a few decades ago. Now it seems, and I know for me it's a bright line, because every Bill that touches this space is kind of evaluated in that place of exclusivity, that protection of the tribal gaming options that are in our compacts.

So one of the concerns that has been raised, not just on this Bill, but over time, has been this issue of legality of the games. I wondered if you could speak to the issue of the legality of the games that are currently being played. And would anything in this legislation restrict or limit in any way the concerns that have been raised about the legality of games? Certainly, this Bill deals strictly with a moratorium.

Moratorium in 20 years, and allows modest growth from card clubs to move forward over that 20 year period. Currently, 20 tables or less could expand by 10 tables. This deals with that component of it. With a moratorium that expired last year. The question as far as the legality of the games being played has been looked at by different attorney generals, but no ruling in the State of California has deemed them illegal to this point.

If they were deemed illegal, we would be putting that inside the Bill. But currently, in the State of California, there is no legality saying that these games are illegal at this point, which has been going on. The debate has been going on for well over 15 years. So we want to make sure that we set the moratorium, that we continue to work with card clubs and tribal groups to ensure that modest growth and also to protect the economy in the State of California.

Do you have any opinion about why that issue hasn't been settled, why it still hangs? It's a wound that hasn't been resolved over all these years. Any opinions about why it hasn't been taken care of, that the games are clear as to who can play what and where? I think that opinion is better resting with the Attorney General and the Gambling Control Commission. Do you have any thoughts about the concerns that the Sequan Chair has raised in regard to the number? Certainly.

Chairman Cody's been a good friend of mine and continues to be a good friend. We have utmost respect for him. We'll continue to discuss those components. Do you feel that his concerns have merit, that the numbers should be less than 20 versus 20 or more? I think that the discussion continues to be furthering along the process, and we're open to look at those issues moving forward. Thank you. And just in closing, I want to just acknowledge the hard work of Chair Dodd in this whole effort.

I know that the engagement last year was difficult for everyone, certainly the chair of our Committee here today. But I just want to put on the record my respect for his efforts in difficult circumstances. So I really appreciate that. And I know it hasn't been easy, but I know it has laid the foundation for the work that Assembly Member Ramos has brought to us today, and I thank you for that. Thank you, Senator. Senator Archelada. Yes, thank you. Thank you, assemblymember.

I appreciate your leadership in your community, and certainly with this Bill, this compromise, obviously, you had your name on it for years past and you didn't even know it. And it took you and Senator Dodd to come together along with other Members that has finally reached this compromise. And I'm so glad in my district, we have casinos at card clubs, and we so appreciate what you've done, your hard work. And when it's appropriate, I'd like to move the Bill. Thank you. Senator Portantino. Yeah.

I just obviously want to echo the sentiments of the hard work that the author and the chair have been putting into this conversation. It's a difficult place to have this conversation, and it's obviously long standing issues with lots of tradition and lots of discussion. And so I appreciate the chair, excuse me, the author, referencing ongoing conversations. Mr. Chair, my understanding is that those conversations are going to continue if the Bill gets out today. And so just wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct.

It's correct. All right. Thank you, Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just wanted to kind of underscore some concerns that I share with Senator Glacier. More specifically, Mr. Butler mentioned some things specifically considering the constitutionality of some of the games that are being played at the card rooms. And I appreciate your explanation on this Bill that's not being addressed specifically in this Bill. But at some point in time, we've got to make sure that the playing field, no pun intended, is fair and understood.

And sitting here, I don't know what it's going to take to get to that point. I know that this Bill strikes at some very important core principles for me, one being a free market proponent, but also balancing that against current state law and constitutional law and the rule of law, deciding who gets to play what games. So that's kind of where I'm at on this regarding specifically the concerns raised on the number of tables. I appreciate the chair of appropriations bringing that point up.

I appreciate chair Dodd bringing that up. I think today I'll probably lay off and see what happens between here and appropriations, since I'm on appropriations, but look forward in General concept of the Bill. I'm supportive. I'm just hoping that we can get those final couple things worked out. No. Senator Kadia, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the work of the author and appreciate the reassurance that the dialogue, of course, will continue.

And I'm happy when the time is appropriate to be in support of moving the Bill. But I will just put a couple of comments in first. I mean, the whole reason we're here in the premise is to make sure that we don't have an unintended saturation that doesn't dilute what we're looking at in terms of the demand, on the demand side of the market, frankly, and respect the legal construct both constitutionally and what the Legislature has done in recent years.

And the whole debate, it seems to me, about the data, at what point does that tip in the wrong direction? Right. The size of the operations, the number of tables and then the level of growth that we're going to permit in the coming decade.

I haven't seen anything yet that seems to convince me, based on some kind of clear analysis, that the discernment between a 19 threshold and 20 threshold is going to tip it one way or the other, that ultimately in the net is going to disrupt that balance and then disrupt the whole statutory premise of the policy, what we're trying to achieve here. I'd be very interested to see some of that data, frankly.

Also, I just want to put in the record that some of the folks that are directly affected by this and are in support of it are in my district and employ folks at livable wages and are positive contributors to my community.

So I'm happy to be in support of moving it forward, but also want to continue to encourage parties to get creative to address, not necessarily maybe the number, but the underlying dynamic that everyone seems to be making assertions about, some of which, frankly, I haven't either been approached by folks and should have been. And I haven't seen any data that seems to prove those assertions out.

And it would be very helpful if we're going to have a debate, to have some data that seems to back that up. And I know that some of the opposition folks who are here, I'm happy to get educated about that, but I'm disappointed that that work hasn't been done. And so where we are here, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to be in support of moving the Bill forward at the right time. Thank you. Anybody else? Senator Alvarado-Gil.

Thank you, chair. Assembly Member Ramos. You know, I hold you in high esteem, and I was surprised to see this Bill come to us so early and did some research on my own. I, too, share Senator Padilla's thoughts that I seen at the list of opposition.

These are tribes that are right in my backyard, and I would have wanted that direct conversation with me as well, because I know the purpose and I know that the strength that our tribal community brings to my district and partly for me, representing 13 counties, I'm bound to have legislation in front of me where I have to make tough decisions.

And this is one of those, this is one that I have tribes on both sides of support and of opposition, and neither side had conversations with me as well. So I am actually going to lay off this Bill and encourage my district representatives in both opposition and support to have those conversations with me.

So if this Bill were to move out of this Committee in order for me to also be educated, have those conversations about specific concerns, but I think that's going to be my best position, to show respect for all the tribal tribes and card rooms in my district.

Seeing nobody else. Assembly Member Ramos, would you like to close, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the questions. And this is truly a compromise that has come together. We've been able to put people together in the same room for over a year to discuss these issues that haven't traditionally sat down with each other for over 30 years. So this is truly a Bill that has been worked upon.

And at the end of session last year, I presented a Bill on the Assembly side that would have granted a one year extension to the moratorium, that would have been able to have this dialogue move forward. And what's in front of you today is the results of that compromise and that discussion that has been going on for over a year.

Presentations were made on behalf of the sponsors to CnIGA, which is the largest Association of tribes, and they supported it, voted to support Tassin again presented, they voted to support. On the card club side, you've seen the many that stood up to support. Now, in the art of compromise, it's not 100% here and 100% here. We're probably at about 90% and 90%. And that shows that the work that was put together, it was fruitful and voices were heard.

We do hear the concerns of those that stood up and spoke, and we acknowledge that, and we will continue to further the dialogue on those issues. But the work in front of you is the result of that hard work that has taken place over the year and really over 30 years on these areas. So the art of compromise is by nature an act of give and take. And that's exactly what this Bill does in front of you.

It's the compromise that was worked out between those parties, from the car clubs and the tribes, to work to a compromise of where we're at today. For over 30 years, we've been trying to get people together to talk about these issues. What stands in front of you today within this Bill is that articomise, I ask for your. I vote to move this Bill forward so we could continue the dialogue moving forward. I would ask for your. I vote. Thank you, Assembly Member.

This Bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do pass due. Appropriations Committee secretary, please call the roll.

Dodd, aye. Dodd, aye. Wilk, aye. Wilk, aye. Alvarado Gill. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, Aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Bradford. Bradford, aye. Glazer, aye. Glazer, aye. Jones. Nguyen. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. Portantino.

With the understanding that the conversation will continue. And the motion was, it was do passed to the Appropriations Committee. So I expect those conversations to take place before it gets to my Committee. Thank you. Aye. Horntino, aye. Roth? I. Roth, aye. Rubio. Seardo.

Nine. Bill has nine votes, but we'll put that on call for absent Members. We're now going to move on to file item number two. Thank you. SB 18. Yeah, we'll do the consent. Do you mind? We're going to move to the consent items. This includes file item number seven, SB 792. Final item number 10. SB 346. Final item number 12. SB 844. File item number 16, SB seven. Seven. One. File item number 17, SB 884. Do we have a motion on the calendar?

Did you say file item seven is also on consent? Yes, I did. Okay, thank you. Motion. Motion by Senator Archuleta. Secretary, please call the role in the consent calendar.

Dodd, aye. Dodd, aye. Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye. Alvarado Gill. Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Bradford. Bradford, aye. Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Jones. Aye. Jones, aye. Nguyen. Nguyen, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Padilla. Aye. Padilla, aye. Portantino. Portantino, aye. Ross. Ross, aye. Rubio Seyarto. Seyarto,aye.

Bill has 13 votes. We'll place that on call. Okay, we're going to move now to file item number two, SB 18. Senator Mcguire, good morning.

Hey, good morning, Mr. Chair. It's really good to see you. And first and foremost, Mr. Chair, I want to say thank you, along with your Committee staff for all your work on this Bill. I also want to say thank you, Mr. Chair, for your co-authorship.

We are a partner in so many ways, both at home and on this, and I'm truly honored to be able to work with you on this. And I also want to say thank you to tribal leaders and advocates who have been working with us on this critical Bill. Mr. Chair, here are the facts. Native Americans in California are disproportionately represented among the state's homeless population and have higher rates of poverty, overcrowded and substandard homes, more than any other population in the golden state.

The rates of tribal poverty is more than twice that of the rest of California's population. And according to census data, approximately 9% of tribes have homes that lack complete plumbing and 7% lack kitchens. Homelessness among indigenous residents up to double that of the general population. And despite the clear need, the overwhelming majority of tribes are unable to access existing housing programs through the State of California because they conflict with tribal sovereignty, laws and culture.

They also are often too restrictive for tribes to meet threshold and compliance requirements, and they are mismatched to meet the needs that are unique to tribal lands. And even when there is dedicated money for tribes within the state, it often goes unspent. In 2019, in an effort to be able to address this, an Assembly Bill was passed which we're grateful for, Assembly Bill 1010 that allowed tribes eligibility for most of the state's housing programs.

Since that Bill passed, only 13, 13 of 109 tribes have been awarded state funds. This is unacceptable, and what we know is that the current state programs don't fit the unique needs of tribal communities. That's why we're here, to address the challenges by creating a new and separate housing program for tribes specific to tribal lands, which would be created in consultation with tribal leaders and tailored to the needs of California's tribal communities.

It's really similar to what we already see with the Joe Cerna Fund that is focused on farm worker housing. We've also taken a similar approach to this in other policy areas. There is now a separate pot of funds for forest health and wildfire firefighting with tribal communities. The Bill will support the construction of new homes and the renovation of existing ones. Simply put, SB 18 is a housing program designed by tribes, for tribes.

Have with us today Ms. McGill, who's a grants analyst for the Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority. I want to thank her for her work, along with Ms. Brown, the Executive Director of housing for the Wilton Rancheria. Mr. Chair would respectfully ask for an Aye vote at an appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. So now we'll move on to lead witnesses and support. Please.

Hi, good morning. My name is Leanne Brown. I am of Mojave and Miwok descent. I am a Member of the Tuami band of Miwok Indians. I am the Executive Director for Wilton Rancheria. Thank you, Senators, for your time this morning. And, Mr. McGuire, thank you for allowing us and supporting this Bill and getting us here. So, just a few things. Native American tribes in the areas have some of the worst housing in the United States, across the United States.

California, the tribes are pushed up in the hills and the mountains along the coast. Running water is an issue. Infrastructure is another issue that we face. We also have tribes who are smaller, larger. A lot of funds that they receive from HUD and other grants are not even enough to have capacity for staff, which makes it a challenge to apply for grants.

So I just want to say having the AB 1010 and allowing the tribes to have a portion of these funds really helps the tribes, and it is not looked at in a bad way. We're actually thankful that we have the opportunity to apply for these grants and have excess funding that we can help build these tribal housing. The issue is one, capacity. A lot of the tribes just don't have capacity.

My office alone has two people, and that's not enough to do a grant at the size that say Homekey wants us to do. I was looking at Homekey yesterday. I need to hire somebody to do just that grant. And those are some of the issues. Some of the other issues are that state rules and regulations don't match with HUD rules and regulations. So when we have HUD funding, we have specific rules that we have to follow.

When we have state money and we try to combine them, those laws conflict with each other, so that hinders a lot of the programs that we have. So having this chance to be here to ask for this Bill for tribes, by tribes, to put it to where we can utilize those funds so that we can apply as a tribe, as a government to the state funding. Thank you.

Next speaker. Good morning.

Hi. Good morning. Thank you, Committee, for the time today, and thank you, Senator McGuire, for really taking charge and helping us get to the historic moment. I am Mariah McGill, and I work for Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority. We're a tribally designated housing entity that carries out affordable housing activities on behalf of eight federally recognized tribes in Northern California. In my nine years at Northern Circle, we alone have applied six times through four HCD programs.

We have three awards, one signed standard agreement, and no homes built. In nine years, no homes built. The fact that California is in a housing crisis is well known. It's discussed throughout the state, but the severity of the crisis in Indian country is understated. While waiting for standard agreements and for homes to be built, we still have individuals and families experiencing homelessness, overcrowded households, rent burdened families and elders. We have elders dying on our waiting list before they can get the homes that they deserve.

We have tribal Members living in storage containers and in tribal trailers. Not only do we have all of this, but we have a waiting list that stretches around the block. Our communities have failing infrastructure, substandard housing and land that is unbuildable if they have land at all. In 2019, AB 1010 passed and changes began with the revitalization of the California Indian Assistance Program and additional funding streams through HCD.

Although this legislation sparked changes, we found that the funding and the programs were still plagued with inconsistencies and discrepancies that challenged tribal sovereignty and pushed tribes beyond their capacity. From November of 2021 through early December of 22, HCD received 21 letters from 12 tribes requesting to waive or modify 60 sections within the NOFA. Senate Bill 18 of passed supports tribes and tribal entities to meet their housing needs from concept to occupancy. Please know that this Bill is historic.

It is something that can be replicated and it starts here with your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your. Anybody else in the room wishing to testify in support, please state your name and your organization in support, please. Morning.

Thank you Chair and Members. Galen Dobbins with the California Coalition for Rural Housing in support.

Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in enthusiastic support.

Brian Williams, I'm with the Redwood Valley Rancheria Little River Band of Pomo Indians, Vice Chairperson and I'm here to support.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the room or any lead witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. Anybody in opposition? Nope. So what we're going to do is move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Moderator, could you queue people up if any.

On the phones, if you'd like to speak in opposition or support, please press one and then zero. We'll go to line seven.

Morning. My name is Magdalene Warden. Serve as a tribal Council Member on behalf of Guidiville Indian Rancheria. I'm asking for unanimous support for ending housing insecurity within communities by moving SB 18 Bill. Thank you.

Once again, just your name, your organization and whether you support or oppose. Thank you. Next.

We'll go to line 28.

Hi, this is David Quintana. On behalf of the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake in support.

Thank you. We'll go next to line 27.

Sylvia Hernandez with the National Association of Social Work California Chapter and we are in support.

And we have no further in queue Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Moderator. Okay, at this time I'm going to bring this back to our Members. Anybody have any questions, comments? Motion? Senator Rubio.

Yes, thank you. I will be moving the Bill when appropriate, but I think it's an important Bill and I'm really glad you brought it up. There are so many challenges that are specific to tribal communities and not only housing. I mean, there's a slew of things that they're having to content with. So I am happy to move the Bill and I'm happy to co-author the Bill as well. Thank you.

Okay, so we have a motion by Senator Rubio. Would you like to close, Senator McGuire?

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair. We respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you as well, Madam Senator.

Okay, the motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

12. That's 12 votes. We're going to keep it on call for absent Members. Thank you. Senator Mcguire. What's that? Where are we? Well, where is it here? Here it is. Here we are.

We'll now move on to file item number five, SB 498. Senator Gonzalez, good morning. Feel free to begin when ready.

Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here today to present SB 498, which promotes stronger enforcement and greater compliance with alcohol beverage control licensing regulations by increasing the allowable limits for petitions for an offer and compromise, as well as increasing the fines for furnishing alcohol to a minor to keep up with the cost of living.

Specifically, this Bill increases the fine for selling to minors from $1000 to $3,000 and increases the limits on petitions for an offer and compromise from 3000 to 6000 for the first violation, from 6000 to 12,000 for a subsequent violation within three years, and from 20,000 to 40,000 for a second violation that occurs within 36 months of the initial violation.

Additionally, SB 498 authorizes ABC, when determining the appropriate level of discipline, to consider the outcome of the violation for selling alcohol to a minor or an obviously intoxicated person. With this enhanced authority, ABC will be able to aggravate penalties based on whether there is a subsequent death or great bodily injury caused to the minor or any other person. In my district, we have become aware of multiple businesses, unfortunately openly breaking the law and selling to minors.

Unfortunately, a tragedy had to happen in order for a business to get their license suspended and eventually revoked. The Awaita family, Joseph, Rehan and Omar, were killed by an underage driver who is drinking and driving. By allowing ABC to consider the outcome of violations, SB 498 will help prevent future fatalities and tragedies. Testifying in support of this measure today I have Tyler Bernano Curley, manager of government affairs for the City of Long Beach. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Now let's hear from lead witnesses in support. Got two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Tyler Bernano Curley. I'm the manager of government affairs for the City of Long Beach. We're proud to support Senate Bill 498, which aims to bolster public safety and address challenges that communities face related to the illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to minors and intoxicated persons. In recent years, as the Senator mentioned, Long Beach and other communities across California have experienced the impacts of violations to the Alcoholic Beverage Control act.

The Long Beach Police Department has handled more than 600 cases related to the illegal sale of alcohol to minors since 2000, and we currently see an average of over 50 cases per year. We work closely with ABC to enforce violations and engage in proactive efforts to reduce the availability of alcohol to minors. Statistics have shown the minors under the age of 21 have a higher rate of drunk drug.