Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

63 and the access code is 736-2834. We are holding our meeting today here in the O Street building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in Room 1200 so we can establish a quorum later and begin the meeting. We will be holding a Bill hearing as well us two informational hearings today. We're going to begin with our informational hearing beginning with the Middletown Extension, followed by the Redding Compact.

For both informational hearings, we will be hearing from those witnesses listed on the agenda prior to taking any public comment. Once again, good morning. I'm Senator Bill Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee. Today we will begin with the informational hearing on the Middletown Extension. That will be followed by the informational hearing on the Tribal State Gaming Compact between the State of California and the Redding Rancheria.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Senate's procedure, the established policy allows for an informational hearing on the details of the compact to be followed by a vote on the Senate Floor. No vote will be taken here today. As an example, the Bill ratifying the Redding Compact is AB 854 by Assemblymember Ramos. That Bill is currently pending on the Assembly floor. Once that Bill comes to the Senate, the Bill will be referred straight to the Senate Floor for a vote of the full Senate body.

With that, let's hear from the first witness, Nathan Voegeli, Senior Advisor for Tribal Tegotiations for Governor Newsom. Good morning, Mr. Voegeli. Feel free to begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my name is Nathan Voegeli. I'm the Senior Advisor for Tribal Negotiations for the Office of the Governor. Thanks for the time to go over the Middletown Rancheria extension to their compact. I'll keep this short. Last month I went over the terms of a new compact that the Governor signed with Middletown Rancheria in March to replace the tribe's current compact, which was signed in 1999. The tribe's 1999 compact was for an initial 20 year term with a termination date of December 31, 2020.

It was automatically extended by its own terms to June 30, 2022. Last year, the state and tribe mutually agreed to extend the '99 Compact to the end of this month, which is when it now expires. Before the tribe's new compact can take effect, it must be ratified by the Legislature and submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Interior for a 45-day review.

Because the new compact cannot take effect before the tribe's 1999 Compact is set to expire, a short extension to the '99 Compact is necessary in order for the tribe to continue gaming. Pursuant to the terms of the '99 Compact, the tribe and the Governor agreed to extend the term of the '99 Compact to December 31, 2024. This should be more than sufficient time for the new compact to be considered by the Legislature and by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

Because this extension is an amendment to the 1999 Compact, for purposes of state law, the extension must be ratified by the Legislature. The extension, however, does not require the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Interior. Pursuant to federal regulations, the extension will take effect when the ratifying Bill is chaptered. Thank you for your time. I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Mr. Voegeli, are there any questions from Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much. We will now move on to anyone wanting to provide public comment. Let's begin with anybody, excuse me? I'm sorry. Anybody in Room 1200 here that wants to testify, please come forward. Seeing none. Moderator, if you please prompt individuals waiting to provide public comment, please open the lines and call Members of the public individually.

Anybody have public comment, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. We have no public comment. Mr. Chair, you may proceed.

Thank you, Moderator, and just like that, we've heard from all public testimony. Members, are there any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, that concludes our informational hearing on the Middletown Extension. Thank you. We will now move to the Redding Rancheria Compact. I believe Assemblymember Ramos, the author of the Bill Ratifying the Compact, has a few words. There you are. Good morning, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, just a quick few words on the compacts that are in front of you today, goes deeper than just gaming. This goes back to years of atrocities, genocide inflicted upon California's first people. So when we look at these compacts coming before us, let's try to paint the whole picture of what it truly means here today.

And today we'll be presenting informational only on AB 854 that will ratify a compact with Redding Rancheria, that brings those voices together, that's negotiated with the Administration of the State of California, with the Governor and the sovereign body of Redding Rancheria and their Tribal Chairman, that have come to terms and agreements that are there in front of this Legislature to be heard. These have come together with a negotiation between two sovereign bodies that have come together.

Certainly there'll be others that will be able to add light into it. But I would urge you to continue to look at these compacts that come before Senate and the Legislature. As far more than just gaming, this is years of atrocity that are coming now to light and to be able to make that solemn expression from the State of California for attesting to those atrocities and tribulations that came their way.

So, as you hear the testimony, we would urge that you would look at it in that picture, but also to remember that this is California's first people. These are areas that now have come together between two sovereign bodies, the tribe and the State of California. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. At this point in time, Mr. Voegeli, you're up again. For those of you that just tuned in or new in here, Mr. Voegeli is the Senior Advisor for Tribal Negotiations for Governor Newsom. Feel free to begin, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start by thanking Redding Rancheria Chair Potter and his team that worked to negotiate this new compact. I'll give a brief background on the Tribal-State Compacting Process and then go into the specifics of Redding Rancheria's Compact. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA authorizes a tribe to offer slot machines and other class three games that are permitted in the state if the tribe has negotiated a Class III gaming compact.

IGRA broadly limits compacts to subjects directly related to the operation of gaming activities. Class III gaming under a compact is limited to Indian lands. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 1A, amending the California Constitution to permit tribes to operate slot machines, banking and percentage card games, and lottery games on tribal lands. The Governor is authorized to negotiate Tribal-State compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature.

Once ratified, a compact must be submitted to the Secretary of the US Department of Interior for a 45-day review. During that time, the secretary can approve the compact, disapprove the compact or not act on it, not act on it, in which case it is deemed approved. IGRA requires the state to negotiate in good faith, and Proposition 5, approved by voters in 1999, allowed tribes to sue the state in federal court under this provision.

If a court finds the state failed to negotiate in good faith, then the tribe is able to proceed through IGRA's remedial process, which ultimately can result in the Secretary of the Interior issuing procedures that allow the tribe to conduct gaming without the state's agreement. Through a compact, Redding Rancheria and the governor's office negotiated a new compact to replace the tribe's current compact, which was signed in 1999. Additionally, this new compact, once it takes effect, is expected to resolve pending litigation between the tribe and the state.

In that litigation, the tribe alleged that the state failed to negotiate in good faith for a new compact and sought an order to proceed under IGRA's remedial process. The litigation has now stayed pending the outcome of this compact. The Redding Rancheria Compact reflects the government to government nature of the Tribal-State relationship and represents a successful effort between the tribe and the Governor's office to negotiate an agreement that meets the needs of both sides despite contentious litigation.

The compact term is for 25 years and includes force majeure language to address reduced operations or closures from pandemics, wildfires and other events outside of the tribe's control. The tribe has the right to negotiate an amendment if tribes in California gain the right to operate a new form of Class III gaming or lose their exclusive right to operate gaming devices Redding Rancheria currently operates the Wind River Casino in Redding in Shasta County under its 1999 compact.

The new compact authorizes the tribe to operate up to 1200 gaming devices at two gaming facilities. Under the new compact, the tribe will reimburse the state its Pro rata share of the state's regulatory costs through payments into the Special Distribution Fund, but the tribe's not required to contribute to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund.

If the tribe later seeks to operate more than 1200 gaming devices, then it may request negotiations for an increase subject to agreement on payments into the Revenue sharing trust Fund and distributions to mitigate impacts to local governments. Similar to the Graton Rancheria Middletown Rancheria Compacts I presented on last month, the Redding Rancheria Compact includes a requirement that the tribe set aside and distribute funds to mitigate impacts of the gaming facility on local governments.

The tribe agreed to annually distribute 1% of its net win to neighboring jurisdictions for this purpose, and the governor's office agreed that the tribe could credit large, one-time payments against future obligations for up to five years. While the tribe may operate up to two gaming facilities, the compact includes specific requirements relative to the tribe's lands, known as Strawberry Fields. Under IGRA, a tribe is generally prohibited from conducting gaming on lands taken into trust after 1988.

There are exceptions to this prohibition, two of which are the restored lands exception and a two part determination. Under the restored lands exception, a tribe may game on lands taken into trust after 1988 for a tribe that has regained federal recognition. Under the two part determination exception, a tribe may game on the land if the Governor concurs in a decision by the Secretary of the Interior that gaming on the site would be in the best interest of the tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community.

The restored lands exception is a determination made solely by the Secretary of the Interior, whereas a two part determination requires the governor's concurrence. In 2003, Redding Rancheria requested the US Department of Interior take Strawberry Fields into trust.

That request was denied by Interior in 2010. Following litigation, the tribe and Interior signed an MOU agreeing that Strawberry Fields would qualify for the restored lands exception under IGRA if the tribe permanently closed its Wind River Casino before it started gaming at Strawberry Fields. In 2020, Interior notified the tribe that it was withdrawing its participation from the MOU and noted that the tribe was able to pursue gaming at Strawberry Fields through the two part process.

Due to the complicated history, it's not clear whether Interior will treat the tribe's request for Strawberry Fields to be taken into trust as restored lands or through the two part determination process. This is reflected in the compact, which does not support one approach or another. Instead, the compact would allow the tribe to game at Strawberry Fields only after the land is taken into trust for gaming and only if it has closed its current facility.

If the land is taken into trust for gaming through the restored lands exception, then the decision is solely in the discretion of the Secretary of the interior. If it is through the two part process, then the Governor retains full discretion whether to concur or not with Interior's decision. Beyond these particulars, the compact includes standard controls for fair play, honesty and the integrity of gaming operations.

The tribe will comply with state alcohol laws, and minors under 21 are prohibited from gaming or being in areas where alcohol may be consumed. The tribe also committed to providing a nonsmoking area and State of the art ventilation. Redding Rancheria's compact includes standards for patron disputes, torts, and employment discrimination comparable to the Graton and Rancheria Middletown Rancheria compacts I reviewed previously.

Employment discrimination standards extend to all classes protected in California, and the tribe will maintain a General liability insurance policy of at least $10 million to address tort claims of patrons and others lawfully on the gaming facility premises. Additionally, the tribe commits to ensuring minimum wage rates at least as stringent as California's, and to maintaining and complying with a Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance, or TLRO. The TLRO functions as the mechanism for a bilateral contract between the tribe and a labor organization with corresponding commitments by each.

The TLRO establishes a binding arbitration process to address collective bargaining and other disputes. Finally, the compact is structured to encourage good faith negotiations to resolve disagreements through a meet and confer process. Litigation is available, however, if the dispute resolution process is not successful.

In conclusion, the Governor's office and the tribe work together to negotiate a compact that would end the ongoing litigation, ensures the tribe and its Members are the primary beneficiaries of its gaming and provides protections to those at the casino while mitigating impacts to local communities. Thanks for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Mr. Voegeli, would you mind just pausing just for one second before questions? We've got a quorum here. I want to establish the quorum. Secretary, please call the role.

Dodd? Dodd here. Wilk? Wilk present. Alvarado-Gil? Archuleta? Archuleta here. Ashby? Ashby here. Bradford? Bradford here. Glazer? Jones? Nguyen? Ochoa Bogh? Padilla? Padilla here. Portantino? Portantino here. Roth? Rubio? Seyarto? Seyarto here.

So we have a quorum. So thank you, Mr. Voegeli. Any questions for Mr. Voegeli? Senator Wilk?

Yeah, I have one. So when the Assemblyman was making his opening remarks, he was just talking about all the tragedies that have befallen California's first people. I was wondering, when you were negotiating that compact, if you're aware of the massacre that occurred at Strawberry Fields?

I can't talk about specifics during the negotiations or what we were talking about. I am aware of the issues that have been raised related to that. As far as determinations relative to the connections, cultural connections and those things, those issues fall under the realm of the Department of Interior.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Voegeli, I appreciate.

Thank you.

Your testimony here today. What's that? Well, I mean, I do have one question here. Obviously, there's been some concern over Strawberry Fields provision that creates a precedent in compact negotiation and that this commits the Governor to concur on the possible two-part determination. Can you comment on those concerns?

Yeah, I'd be happy to take both. As far as creating a precedent, there are other compacts that include and contemplate lands being taken into trust subsequent to the signing of the compact, different provisions related to that. Most recently, the two of the compacts that were approved by the California Legislature last year were both approved by the Department of Interior.

One of those compacts includes provisions that entitled the tribe to request negotiations that would reopen the compact in order to add new lands that are acquired in trust. Other compacts previous to that have specific provisions that allow those lands to be gamed on without going through the renegotiation process. As far as the governor's discretion, the compact takes no position one way or the other on whether restored lands or a two-part determination is appropriate process.

If the two-part process is ultimately used, the Governor retains full discretion in making that two-part concurrence decision and would include, of course, looking at impacts to the surrounding community, which is part of the consideration for the two-part process.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, now we'll move on to Chairman Jack Potter, Jr., Chairman of the Redding Rancheria. Good morning, Chairman Potter.

Good morning.

Please begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Esteemed Committee. My name is Jack Potter, Jr. And I am the Chairman for the Redding Rancheria Tribe. Thank you for scheduling this informational hearing on AB 854, a Bill to ratify the Class III gaming compact negotiated between the Redding Rancheria and the Governor's office. I appear here today to represent my tribal council and my people.

The Redding Rancheria is made up of the Wintu people. 23 years ago, the Redding Rancheria and the State of California came to a historic compact agreement that created a shared regulatory scheme for gaming within our historic lands. That compact agreement has proved mutually beneficial for our tribe and the State of California. It has allowed the Redding Rancheria people and our surrounding communities to grow, thrive and prosper. As that historic compact agreement reaches its expiration, I stand before you today to ask that you renew your trust in our tribe and the promise that Indian Gaming offers my people and all Californians who earn a livable wage at our gaming enterprise.

Wind River Casino has been operating since 1993. At its inception, our tribe committed to using gaming revenue to provide essential governmental services to our people and prosperity to our entire community. We have done just that. From 2019 through 2021, the Redding Rancheria's gaming operation has injected $349,000,000 into the local economy.

Because of our shared success, the Redding Rancheria has been able to open multiple health facilities to serve all Native Americans in our area, as well as other underserved, non-native members of our community. We recently provided over 50 local non-indian owned businesses with grants to help them recover from the pandemic. Gaming has allowed us to not only provide higher education to our members, but also fund a scholarship program open to all Native Americans within our area.

Gaming has also allowed us to give generously to our local primary, middle and high schools. Through the gaming permitted under the Historic Compact Agreement, it is safe to say that our tribe has improved the lives of tens of thousands of Californians. We have operated for 23 years, always paying wages above industry standards and offering a generous benefit package that includes health insurance, 401K benefits, sick and vacation leave, as well as many paid holidays.

In the 23 years, we have never had a labor issue, and so we readily embrace including the Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance within the new compact, and welcome unite here to continue to collaborate with us for the benefit of our most valued asset, our employees. The area presently known as Shasta County has always been our home since time immemorial. We are the stewards of our land. Our Wintu ancestors lived, hunted, fished on the very lands upon which we intend to game, known as Strawberry Fields.

Just as that land provided the means of survival for our ancestors, with this new compact, it will provide a means of survival for future generations of our people. Just as our ancestors invited neighboring tribes and settlers to share in the bounty of the land, we too shall make sure our community is included in the successes this land will bring. This is why Shasta County expressly supports our plans to relocate our gaming facility to Strawberry Fields.

Our people have been the stewards of this land, and our tribe takes this role seriously. Let us continue our journey together as partners, friends and sovereigns. I ask that you support AB 54 and the ratification of the compact negotiated between the Redding Rancheria and the Governor's office. Thank you, Jack Potter, Jr., Chairman.

Chairman, appreciate the comments. Do any Members have any comments? Seeing none. Chairman Potter, how close is the tribe?

I think we have one comment

No, that's okay. You go ahead and I'll just add a little color. Go ahead.

Okay.

No, a lot of times you end up asking the same question I've asked. So once you ask, and if you miss one, I'll ask it.

Okay. So, Chairman, how close is the tribe getting to Strawberry Fields land taken into trust? Where are you in that process?

With Washington, DC. It's still back there. And we're moving along, as you guys are aware. Red tape and everything. It takes a while, and sometimes we believe it's going to be in a month, and then administrations change, and then it puts you back a little bit, and then you just move forward. And so I believe, hopefully by the end of this year, if everything goes as planned.

Thank you. Any other questions? I made sure to look in the eye.

I'm going to ask one. First of all, very impressed with all that your tribe has done, not only for the tribal people, for everybody in the community. And I'm somebody who believes in tribal sovereignty, so you're definitely going to have my vote on the floor. And this is way more complicated. A lot of the other compacts. So I do have a question.

Again, we don't know which method we're using as outlined by the Governor's office, but a question I would have is the intention of the Rancheria to submit, if they submit a part two determination, are we going to allow impacted communities to weigh in on that project?

We would follow all laws that are on the books and all policies. And if it allows that? Yes. We've been open with the public and have had public hearings and everything at every step of the way.

Great. Thank you, Chairman.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comments and answering those questions. At this point in time, we're going to move to anyone wanting to provide public comment, please come forward.

Begin with witnesses here in 1200 before we move on to the teleconference service.

Chairman Dodd, Vice Chairman Wilk, and Members of the Committee. My name is Steve Williams. I'm President of the Shasta County Residence for Responsible Community Development, and I'm here today to speak in opposition to this compact. I want to make it clear we are not opposed to the compact for gaming at their current site. What we are concerned about is there's widespread community opposition for development at the Strawberry Fields. Chairman Potter referenced the Board of Supervisors or Shasta County.

I don't need to tell you all how controversial our Board of Supervisors is at this time. The City Council and the City of Redding unanimously opposes this project at the Strawberry Fields, and that vote was taken this year. The concern here is that in the governor's compact, he has specifically specified, or the compact specifically specifies, the Strawberry Fields as a potential future gaming site. In previous compacts, as Nathan Vogely mentioned, there was reference to potential future sites, but not to a specific site.

And we have grave concerns about this specific site. No concerns about the development of their existing location, possibly no concern about development at a future location, but very serious community, widespread community opposition to development at the Strawberry Fields. Our concern is simply this, that by referencing, specifically referencing the Strawberry Fields in this compact, you have set the stage, and the communication is already filtering in to the community that the Governor supports development at the Strawberry Fields.

And I'm not sure that's true, I'm not sure the Governor has taken that position. But that messaging is beginning to trickle into our community by virtue of this language being included in the compact, and that is of great concern to us. So our ask is simply that we take a pause, a word the tribe has used, and question whether it's appropriate to include this language referencing the Strawberry Fields in the compact. As we know it could be the restored lands process that's used by the interior.

It could be the two-part process. And if everybody's familiar with the two-part process, it does require weighing in by the different communities. City of Redding, City of Anderson, City of Shasta Lake, neighboring tribes, our State of California has a voice in all of this, so we strongly support the two-part process.

I see nothing wrong with the community having an opportunity to weigh in if our community is in favor of development at the Strawberry Fields, let the process unfold, let everybody understand that process, and I would stand down, but that's not what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing is widespread community opposition to developing at this specific location. It's an inappropriate land to be used for this purpose. It's a landlocked. It'll have a horrible traffic impact. It's right on the banks of nature in the river.

There are hundreds of homes in close proximity to it. All I've ever heard is that this is not the right place, and I thank you. I hope you can take some consideration to this one provision in the compact. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Chairman, Committee. My name is Andrew Alejandre. I'm the tribal Chairman for the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians. I thank you for this time today, and I stand here on behalf of my people. And to start and to be clear, Paskenta fully supports the compacting efforts of California's federally recognized tribes, including those of the Redding Rancheria. We know and understand the importance of the compact, and for many tribes, it is part of what creates sustainability within our tribal communities, improving the lives of our people.

However, the inclusion language to authorize class three gaming at the Strawberry Fields lands that are not yet held in trust for a tribe or not immediately adjacent to a tribe's trust or reservation land is unfamiliar, defeats federal law and sets a dangerous precedent. Federal law requires a public dialogue, input from local, tribal, state, municipal, and county governments about whether class three gaming on such lands will be detrimental to the surrounding community.

The proposed compact's inclusion of language to authorize class three gaming at the Strawberry Fields bypasses that requirement. Local governments will be cut out of the process if this compact references Strawberry Fields for class three gaming. Because the Redding Rancheria already operates a successful class three gaming operation known as the Wind River Casino in Redding, California. federal law IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act prohibits the Secretary of Interior from taking Strawberry Fields into trust.

Unless the Secretary, with the concurrence of Governor Newsom and the consultation with nearby tribal and local governments, makes a determination that class three casino resort at Strawberry Fields, one, would not be detrimental to the surrounding community and two, would be in the best interest of the Redding Rancheria.

This law is set out in Section 20719 of title 25 of the United States Code and Related Regulations of Secretary of Interior. The proposed compacts authorization of class three gaming at Strawberry Fields bypasses that requirement that local and tribal governments have a say in the critical question whether class three gaming would be again detrimental to the surrounding community.

Class Three gaming at Strawberry Fields must be assessed in correspondence with a public dialogue about whether it would be detrimental to the surrounding community and not by order in Redding's proposed compact. And as you heard, Assemblyman Ramos' comments. I strongly agree with his comments, which I want to vocalize the most important part of my testimony.

If you would, I ask that everyone here think about your family, your people, your ancestors, those who came before you, the way they lived, the adversity they faced, and how they survived, which may all have been the important factors as to why you are here today. The land you know as Strawberry Fields was once a home to many tribes in the greater Northern California. It was a place of my people and many others, the Wintun and the Nomlaki people who migrated there.

The land you know as Strawberry Fields once was a place of gathering, trade, fishing, and ceremony. There will be villages where these were homes to many of Northern California's first people. And unfortunately, the land you know as Strawberry Fields is also the home to one of the largest massacres of Native people in American history. American history. For decades, my people and other tribal nations' ancestors have faced many challenges and endured many sacrifices that I truly believe have allowed my generation to exist.

But today is a challenge that they cannot fight. So I am here to fight for them so their spirits can continue to rest in the lands that you know as Strawberry Fields. A place that should be protected, respected, and memorialized, not built on blood. And at this time, I'd like to introduce Dorothea Theodoratus. She is here with me today to elaborate on the history of Strawberry Fields.

Dr. Dorothea Theodoratus is an anthropologist historian who has committed her life's work to the history of California Native people and has assisted Paskenta and many others to successfully seek tribal recognition. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members. I started working in California. Can you hear me? I started working in California with Native people in 1959. So I've worked over 60 years with four years out to get a Ph.D. at Syracuse. So I've been doing it for a very long time. I want to tell you a little bit about Strawberry Fields. First of all, it's located in Wintu tribal territory. Redding Rancheria was purchased in 1922, established by the BIA for itinerant workers.

That was a time that many Indian people worked as itinerant agricultural workers, and that's wonderful. They had jobs. However, it was a great number of people, and today that Rancheria, which finally it fluctuated. The population fluctuated, and the government had a very hard time getting people onto it. But by 1939, the government ordered them to bring forth a government. They were forced to do that, and they now have nine different tribes on that Rancheria, which is wonderful. It gives homes and so forth.

However, the Rancheria itself is on Wintu land and is on an archaeological site. But they want to propose a casino on the Sacramento River. I'm not at all against casinos. I've done so many compacts, probably more than anyone in the country, and most of them have casinos now. I think that's wonderful. And they're doing great things for their communities. The Strawberry Fields was first noted in 1830 in the John Work Expedition, and it had on it six very large villages which had unusually high population.

Many Wintu people, and Nomlaki, who are Wintuan, came here to fish for salmon, and they came for ceremony. And in 1880, well, a linguist.

Ma'am, I got to tell you, I can give you a minute more. I appreciate you being here, but this is just way over what we're considering today. So out of respect to you, I'll give you one more minute.

Okay. I'd like to say that as you mentioned earlier, or as one of you mentioned, it had a large massacre which was proposed by Fremont. And he heard there were a thousand people on the river. And he came up and he massacred up to six or 700 of them. This whole area is a burial ground, and that concerns me. Fremont then made a killing squad that killed as many Wintu.

He set people out to kill as many Windu as he could, and many people were killed and their scalps were taken and this state and the government paid for them. To be eligible for a restored tribe, you must have a significant historical connection. This is Wintu land. It's represented by the Wintu people and the tribe, Wintu tribe has a historical connection. The nine tribes at Redding Rancheria does not have a historical connection to this land.

Anybody else in the room wishing to testify on this issue?

Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Committee. Frank Molina, on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. Moderator we're going to move to comments, public comment via the teleconference service.

For public comment, press 1 then 0 on your telephone keypad. We will go to line number 10. Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you for taking my call. Chairman and Committee, my name is Gary Rickard. I am the Chairman of the Wintu tribe of Northern California. First, let me state that I am not opposed to the Wind River Compact, but I do oppose the fact that there is the Strawberry Fields being considered in the compact. I will fully support the compact with that portion taken out.

With that said, let me tell you, Redding Rancheria was made up of three different tribes, the Yana, the Pit River, and the Wintu. The Wintu tribe is made up of nine bands, very distinct bands with very distinct territory. The territory you're considering as the Strawberry Fields is the indigenous territory of the Dau Nam Band of Wintu. So unless the Members of Redding Rancheria are all Dau Nam that is not their ancestral territory.

But I'm sure there are Members there that are Dau Nam but as a whole, that is not Dau Nam people. Also, I oppose that the tribe having been made up of three separate tribes you would be allowing people to come in from other tribes, such as Pit River and if there are any Yanas left there come on to the Dau Nam band of Wintu's ancestral home and build a casino, as Dorothy said, on the blood-soaked fields of the Strawberry Fields.

I feel very strongly about this and it is very wrong to want to build on that field. Thank you.

Caller.

We will go to line number 11. Please go ahead.

Good morning Chair Dodd, Vice Chair Wilk, and Members of the Committee. My name is Mary Ocasion. I am representing the Churn Creek Bottom. Excuse me. Homeowners and Friends Organization and I'm speaking in opposition to the Reading Rancheria Tribal State Compact unless it removes references to the class three gaming on Strawberry Fields lands.

Chern Creek Bottom Homeowners and Friends has a membership of approximately 200 households and our mission is to maintain agricultural zoning and the rural lifestyle enjoyed by our residents and surrounding communities as well as to preserve it for future generations. Our organization has long opposed the placing of the 232 acres of land at the north end of Churn Creek Bottom into Tribal Trust for purposes of constructing and operating a new casino. This new casino would result in the loss of fertile agricultural land, harm the rural communities.

Excuse me, could you please wrap up? We've gotten this testimony before. Normally at this stage, we're taking just your name and your position out of respect for everybody particularly sovereign governments. I've let it kind of go on, but please wrap up.

Okay. We are against this land being converted to trust land and are against a casino in its accompanying land of commercial and retail activity on prime agricultural land. As a result, we must oppose this compact which references Strawberry Fields. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next caller.

We will go to line number nine. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Dodd and Members of the Committee. This is Sarah Dutschke, Chairperson for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians. On behalf of the Ione Band and also the California Tribal Business Alliance I'm calling to fully support Redding Rancheria's compact and to encourage the Legislature to pass Assembly Bill 854, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Next caller.

We will now go to line number 12. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chairman Dodd, Vice Chair Wilk and Members of the Committee. My name is Tiger Michaels. I'm a board member of the Shasta County Residents for Responsible Community Development. I would like to line my comments along with our President, Steve Williams. Approximately one-half of the Redding Rancheria's 232 acres lie in the Sacramento River floodplain which I have seen several times in the past 50 years.

Underwater flooding and an increase of flooding due to any construction in this area is of great concern to all residents in this area. With the release of 60 to 70,000 cfs, the majority of the floodplain is underwater and at 80,000 cfs, it's all underwater. The building of a casino and proposed buildings will change the serenity of this area forever.

Pollution of noise from autos, trucks, and people, lights from parking lots and buildings, stormwater runoff from paved-over areas and buildings from a 24-hour operation would be devastating. Development, pardon me, development in this portion of Churn Creek Bottom would encroach on wildlife open space. Any loss of disrepairing habitat in the Bottom land would have an impact on the native populations of desert, pardon me, of deer, coyote, bobcat, river otter, beaver, eagles, osprey, east ducks, turkeys, and salmon.

The casino buildings in this lower elevation property would dramatically increase the traffic in the already very busy intersection of South Bonnyview Road, Bechelli Lane, Turn Creek Road, and the Interstate Five interchange.

Thank you, sir.

Save Mart Shopping Area and Turn Creek Road and Costco Shopping Center on South Bonnyview and Bechelli Lane are all up 60ft on higher ground that is now higher ground than that the proposed casino.

Sir, I would ask you to wrap up.

We not include any reference to Strawberry Field sites.

Next caller, please. Moderator.

Thank you for your consideration.

Do we have any other calls, Moderator?

We have no further public comment. Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Having heard all the testimony, Members, are there any final questions on the Redding Compact? Yes, Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the Governor's staff can come up and kind of confirm on this whole Strawberry Field whether it should in the compact, should not be in the compact. Would this be an opposition to the federal. It's kind of confusing. You've got lots of comments out there about it.

Yeah. So there's several things going on. But what I'll say is that as part of the Department of Interior's process both for restored lands and under the two part determination they conduct an environmental review. There's an environmental impact statement there's a draft statement release, and it's currently available to the public. So the environmental impacts are something separate from the compact. As far as the compact, the compact specifies that only if the land is taken into trust can the tribe game on it.

So it would have to go through those federal processes and be taken into trust previous to that.

Then are you confirming that the Governor has not made a determination that the Strawberry Fields will be automatically allowed gaming?

Yeah, I said it earlier, but I'll say it again. The Governor, if there's a two-part process, the Governor retains full discretion to make a determination whether to concur or not an interior's two-part determination.

Will the Governor have to work with the local and the tribal communities to make that determination?

There's no regulatory process for the governor's concurrence. I'll say one of the key concerns for the governor's concurrence, and one of the things he looks at is whether there's detrimental impact to the surrounding communities. That's been the case in the two prior two-part determinations that this Governor has made, and I think you can count on that going forward.

Okay, thank you.

Anybody else? Mr. Fogley, thank you very much. Chairman, did you want.

As a sovereign leader of my nation and my country, which is Wintu Country, I would like to address some of the things I've heard here today. It affects my heart. And, yes, Dr. Dorothea is correct. There are nine tribes affiliated with Redding Rancheria. Those nine tribes are El Palm, Nomti Palm, Numsu, Walmock, Winemam Dau Nom Dau Palm, Hennex, Ball Palm, and Numsu. Those are the nine bands of northern Wintu people.

Our country begins at Mount Shasta and ends in Cottonwood Creek, the Shasta and Tama County line. There were massacres in our land because gold was there. I am a descendant of one of those massacres. I know where the massacres happened, and it did not happen on that land there. Happened on Bloody Island, where Chairman Alejandra talks, where the Nomlakis came up. That was a border town. The Yana people came. The Wintu people and the Nomlaki they would have gatherings there on Bloody Island.

That massacre happened there. That's 11 miles away from this land. The other land, the massacre she talks about is that present-day Redding. Take yourselves back to 150 years ago when the people just got here in our country. Redding was established downtown. If you're familiar with Shasta County, where Turtle Bay is, if you go, that burial land is fenced off. That is where that massacre happened. That is where we gathered fish, because the river is narrow and thin there.

At Strawberry Fields, the water is too deep. We didn't gather fish there, but we did have big times and we would go what is known as Shasta 47. You could look that up, and that is that massacre. That is that large burial there where there are hundreds and hundreds of my people. And it affects me to hear these things. I know my land. I know my country. I know what we went through. And it hurts me to relive it and relive it and relive it.

It truly bothers me. And I shouldn't have to stand here to address these things and relive it. I am a descendant of a baby that was found nursing on her dead mother. That was my great-great-grandmother. But I'm here today, and I'm able to speak before you to just ask that our compact get approved and moved forward so we can continue to rebuild our nation.

Each California tribe is in the State of rebuilding their nations, either from the massacres, our winter numbers, and Chairman Rickard, that is my family. I cannot help that some tribes are federally recognized. Some tribes are not recognized. That is the Federal Government and the process they put the people through. I'm not in charge of that, but I'm here to testify and ask for support of this so we can rebuild. And it also provides services to the non-recognized Wintu people.

We provide burial, medical, food, and clothing. They come to the Rancheria and apply, and we assist them, even though they're not recognized. We, as the Wintu people, provide services for our people, and we understand that one day they will be recognized. And we do support letters so they can regain federal recognition because we were terminated and we are rebuilding. But there are nine tribes or bands, and Chairman Alejandre is from the central Wintun people. We're Wintu. They are Nomlaki Wintu.

Then we have our southeastern Patwin, which is Calusa. Cachil Dehe Wintu, and Cortina. Kletsel Dehe Wintu people. Then you have your southwestern Patwin, which is Yocha Dehe. In traditional times, our country went from Mount Shasta all the way down to Vallejo, but there was four triblets, the Wintu proper, from Cottowood Creek up the Nomalaki, from Cottonwood Creek down to Tombs Creek. Their traditional land, now, based on testimony of his grandfather, is Tahema and Glenn County. You could pull that recognition thing up.

Then you have your Southwestern and your Southeastern Patwin within those triblets there was states or bands. The Wintu people had nine. The Nomlaki had people had 11. Southeastern Patwin had 12. Southwestern Patwin had 14. That is the Wintun Nation. But we are Wintu people from Northern California. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the individuals who called in to participate and were here today to participate. I want to personally thank Mr. Vogely for all of his work on these compacts. If you were not able to testify via the teleconference service, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Governmental Organization Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us.

We'll now move on to our Bill hearing, but I think I'll let the do a two minute pause to the meeting here.

So we're back in. So we will move to our bill hearing. We have 15 bills on today's agenda. However, file item number 14, AB 1679 has been pulled by the author. As a reminder, individuals wishing to provide public comment on today's hearing, the participant number is 877-226-8163, access code 736-2834. We have already established quorum, but before we hear our first bill, let's take up the consent calendar. Secretary, please call the roll. I guess what we need first is a motion on that. Wilk moves. Thank you, Senator.

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

That has 10 votes. We'll keep that on call. Now let's move to our first author. Our first author is Assembly Member Ramos, who's been here, testified from the very beginning in that hearing. We're going to hear your bills now, Assembly Member. Please come forward. That will be item number seven, AB 349. Is that the one you want to start with, or would you rather prefer the other one? Yes. Okay. 1459.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I am here to present AB 349, which would authorize Patton State Hospital, which is located in my district, to enter into an agreement with a nonprofit or local government to provide housing and mental health services to the Inland Empire's homeless population.

As it stands, the County of San Bernardino identified a 25.9% increase in homelessness since its last point in time count and found that 44.1% of those counted were identified as being homeless for one year or more and having a disabling condition such as mental illness, chronic health condition, and physical disability. The City of San Bernardino has seen a 175% increase in homelessness over the past five years, which has led them to recently call for a state of emergency.

What we are seeing at the local level is an ongoing need for mental health services as well as housing for those who are homeless. This is an urgency for a solution, and my bill aims to provide one component to that. A successful model of this approach also lies in the state of California, in the City of Norwalk, where award winning Homes for Life foundation entered into an agreement with the Department of State Hospitals to operate on the former grounds of the Metropolitan State Hospital.

Through this model, the program has assisted thousands in transitioning in long term community housing. We have a starting point for construction, a similar life changer. By converting surplus state property at Patton State Hospital and collaborating with our local governments and nonprofits, we have a sharing point for San Bernardino to move forward. With me today to testify in support is Mayor Helen Tran of the City of San Bernardino.

Good Morning Chairman, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Helen Tran, and I'm the mayor of the City of San Bernardino. It is an honor to speak with you today in support of Assembly Bill 349. In the past year, San Bernardino County's homeless population increased by 26% based upon the recent, most recent point in time count. The problem is getting worse. 36% of the county's homeless were counted in the City of San Bernardino.

In February of this year, the City of San Bernardino declared a homeless state of emergency, joining California cities Los Angeles and Long Beach. At a great cost to the city, San Bernardino is implementing a comprehensive plan to address homelessness from shelters, to affordable housing, to integrating service providers, and cleaning up our city. One program I'd like to tell you about is our COS team. COS stands for Community Outreach and Support team, created in March of this year, just three months ago.

The COS team is made up of a fire department, EMT, county behavioral health worker, police officer, and a support dog. The COS teams respond to mental health emergencies in San Bernardino, most of which involve homeless individuals. In many cases, the team is able to diffuse the situation and stabilize the individual. However, in some cases, the individual must be put on a 24 or 48 hours hold for evaluation. A doctor can extend this period to 72 hours.

Do you know what happens to a homeless individual after the help period is over? They are released. There is nowhere in our region to send them, even if they wanted servIces. That is why AB 349 is so critical. AB 349 with authorized Patton State Hospital, located in the City of San Bernardino, to enter into an agreement with the nonprofit or county or local government to provide critically needed housing and mental health services to the Inland Empire's homeless population. This facility will provide hope to our homeless friends and family that suffer from a mental illness. We strongly urge your support for this effort and the passage of AB 349. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody in the room wishing to testify in support? Seeing none. We're going to move to witnesses on the phone line. Moderator?

Witnesses, if you have support for this bill at this moment, press one, then zero. We have no support for item 349.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition in the room. Seeing none. Is there anybody in the room at all in opposition? Seeing none. Moderator will check online.

Opposition to bill 349, please press one, then zero. We have no comment, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. So we have questions on the dais. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Sorry. Good morning, Member Ramos, twice today. Good to see your presence and your smile. Welcome today. I do have a couple of questions and express concerns. I think it's great that, thinking outside the box, making sure that we're utilizing the Patton Hospital, which happens to be in my district and within my district. And I also want to welcome Mayor Helen Tran, who's a very good friend and have the highest respect for.

So since working on this bill, it has come to my attention that Patton State Hospital, which also houses the criminal insane for the state of California, is reducing the number of officers, security officers on the campus from where they are right now. And I don't quite remember the numbers, trying to look for the number to half of what they currently have in the security for the facility.

So I'm kind of curious to know whether or not the bill at all addresses the issue of the security that is being proposed to be cut in half by, I believe, the beginning of next month, and how the local residents have been expressing if they received any concerns from the local residents or even the council of the Highland City Council.

Also, wanted to know if there had been, I know that there were some concerns with the senior center that is also located at the Patton State Hospital, and if there were any accommodations made or any agreements made within the or amendments made in the bill protecting their ability to stay in the facility in conjunction with the possible lease of the rest of the facilities in that state.

Thank you, Senator. And I'll address the questions and the first ones that pertain specifically to the bill and within this Committee. In the bill, on the second page in Section 10 A, it says, providing services to elderly persons. So we took that amendment, put it in there, made sure that that was clear, that the senior centers are part of that. Now, I met with the City of Highland, with the mayor and the city manager. They stressed no concern over this bill.

As a matter of fact, I believe the County Board of Supervisors has it in front of their body today to take a vote to support this bill as one of the components to a solution for homelessness. The other area that you brought up, as far as the guards and the reducing of the funding for those guards, that's something that's being taken up in the overall budget and the budget constraints that will be coming to both houses, that's where that discussion is taking place.

Alright, and one last question with regards to the condition of the facilities. Is there any component in the bill that would actually allocate funding to refurbish some of the buildings? As you probably already know, many of the facilities at that institution right now are very dilapidated. So is there any means by which you're trying to mitigate the condition of those buildings?

Well, the first step would be to get this bill off of both houses and to the Governor for signature. The next step would be to be able to contract with nonprofit or with one of the local jurisdictions. And at that point, that's where the funding and the discussion of how to upgrade or build on surplus property would be taken into account.

Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator Ramos, I'm going to support your AB 349, and I'll move it at the appropriate time, because in my district, in the City of Norwalk, at Metropolitan Hospital, you're going to try to duplicate what has already been done in Los Angeles County. There at Metropolitan Hospital, they are providing help for the needy, help for the homeless, those that really need help. It has, as you mentioned, a collaboration from the county, the state, and the cities surrounding the area.

And I think you've done that. You've reached out to the communities. You mentioned, Highland and all the surrounding cities in San Bernardino County. I think that this will open up doors. The issues about homeless is not just LA County, it's throughout the state, and we have to be proactive. You're taking that step, and I think that you're absolutely right. You will find dozens of units that will come together dealing with affordable housing, dealing with mental health. It will be a team effort.

You will see the success, and I think we will realize that success in years to come. So, as mentioned, I will move it at the appropriate time. And congratulations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Assembly Member Ramos, for bringing this forward. I think this is really an important part of trying to solve the housing and homeless situation that we find ourselves in. And I think that everyone's kind of putting their piece in, LA County, the San Gabriel Valley, with my housing trust, and now with this. I think it only complements, everything complements each other. And I know that there's questions about staff, and I've heard those concerns.

But as you articulated, we're just here trying to move the bill forward to make sure that we have it on the table and everything as it pertains to funding will be addressed later, and discussions about the support for the community will be addressed in the supervisors in San Bernardino County. I want to thank the mayor for coming all the way down here to advocate on behalf of her beautiful community. But I think it's an important step.

And I know that all those concerns that people have will be ironed out through the process. And I also very strongly want to move this forward and support your bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Anybody else? Seeing none. Assembly Member Ramos, would you like to close, please?

Just thank you. And thank you for the comments. And at this time, I'd urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much. The bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Bill has 10 votes. We'll put that on call. We're now going to move on to file item number eight, AB 1459. Assembly Ramos, please feel free to begin.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Senators and Committee Members. AB 1459 will ensure that the rich history of California's first people is showcased at the state Capitol. The Bill would require that as we build the new state Capitol building, theAnnex, that we incorporate a mural in one of the main hearing rooms. This is another important step in providing representation and changing the culture from within the Legislature towards California's first people. For generations, California's first people have endured genocide, forced assimilation, denial of civil rights and other grave injustices. But we have also survived and prevailed with the resiliency of our ancestors and those that testify here in these chambers. This is the history that should be showcased to educate all who walk the halls of the Capitol to honor California's first people. Representation truly does matter. Cultural change truly does matter. And what's happening here in the state Legislature is that cultural change. And this mural, a mural dedicated in a hearing room to California's first people, will continue to move that endeavor forward. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll now move on to lead witnesses in support. Seeing none. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify in support? Seeing none? We'll move on to lead opposition witnesses. No opposition either way. Nobody in the room. Moderator, can we move now to the conference line to see if there's any support or opposition to AB 1459, please.

Support or opposition to AB 1459, please press one, then zero. We have no comment. Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, moderator. Anybody on the dais wishing to address this issue? We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Would you like.

Mr. Chair, can I make just real brief comment?

Sure.

I'm so sorry. I should have been getting your attention sooner. I just want to really take a moment to commend the author I think we've overlooked. You just talked about this cultural change, but I personally want to thank you because you have been that pillar, that staple in our institution, bringing all these issues forward. You're the first Native American that we have elected here, and I want to just give credit where it's due. And I want to just say how thankful I am, as you know, as a strong supporter and we worked on other issues. The culture change has come because you've been pushing some of these issues. And I just want to say thank you personally on behalf of our body that you've continued to educate as many people as you can. And with that, I want to strongly support these efforts. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Senator Rubio. Assembly Member, you can close

Well, thank you. And it truly is a chance to continue the endeavor for that cultural change and give to the elders here in the State of California and those that are still in the grounds of the State of California that are still crying out, tell the state who we truly are as California Indian people. Tell them the truth. And honoring a mural in one of the rooms, in the hearing rooms will continue to move that step forward. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. This Bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Secretary, please call the role.

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

That's 12. Bill has 12 votes. We'll put that Bill on call.

We are going to move to Assembly Member Kalra who has been waiting patiently. AB 261 Good morning, Assembly Member.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 261 would establish the California Golden Chantrell as the official state mushroom. California has an extensive history of establishing state symbols. These symbols create tangible opportunities for the public to learn about their state's historical, cultural and ecological features. Over a quarter of the 41 existing state symbols recognize unique species that currently call California home. However, there's currently no official state mushroom, despite Fungi's historical and cultural significance to many of the state's indigenous tribes. Mushrooms also play a key role in carbon sequestration, plant growth, and pollution mitigation, which highlights their potential to help counter the impacts of climate change. AB 261 would address this shortcoming by designating the California golden chanterelle as the official state mushroom. As the name implies, the California golden chanterelle is a distinctly Californian species. It forms relationships with the numerous oak trees living throughout the state and is a popular edible mushroom amongst a growing population of foragers. Therefore, AB 261 will provide the public with the 'Golden' opportunity to celebrate not just the critical role of fungi, but also their state's rich history, culture and biodiversity. With me to refine supporting testimony are Dr. Gordon Walker, a board Member of the Sonoma Mycology Association, and Lalima Glucincamp, 10th grader and mycology enthusiast.

Good morning.

Good morning. Chair and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Dr. Gordon Walker. I am a biochemist who studied the fermentation of wine at UC Davis. After finishing my PhD, I dove deep into mushrooms, fostering a serious fascination with fungi. I currently share my exploits with over two and a half million people worldwide on social media. So believe me when I tell you, people love mushrooms. Although they can be cryptic, fungi are everywhere, from our fields and forests to our food and wine, even inside of us. Now more than ever, it is important that we recognize them as ecologically crucial comrades in the fight against climate change. Fungi are nature's recyclers, bringing balance back to the carbon and nitrogen cycle while stabilizing our environment and decomposing waste, fungal based biotechnologies are being used to help clean up pollution, make next generation foods, and produce sustainable micro materials. As a mushroom hunter, there is no other state I would rather live in than California. Thanks to the coastal and alpine biomes, I can hunt mushrooms year round. Our beautiful state has a wide variety of incredible mushrooms, but the crown jewel standing out amongst all of them is the California Golden Shantrell Cantrillis Californicus. They are Mycorrhizal mushrooms that associate with iconic historic oak trees, able to reach massive sizes. I found a two and a half pounder last year, bigger than my head thanks to all that rain. The Golden Chantrell is a delicious, edible mushroom that is a favorite among foragers. Highly regarded for its meaty texture and nutty earthy flavor. They grow around the state. But as a resident of wine country, I can tell you that the chantrells of Napa and Sonoma are just as fine as the grapes grown there. Recognizing a state mushroom helps set a precedent for California as a leader in the conservation of not just flora and fauna, but also funga. I came here at the behest of the voters to humbly ask you that you move Bill 261 and ensconce the California Golden Chantrell Cantorellis Californicus, as the official state mushroom of California. Thank you for your time. Probably a white, maybe a vionier, something kind of buttery. Keep it going through.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. I had to go there. Go ahead.

I was going to say, if he's an expert, I got a question for him because I'm not familiar with this mushroom. Is there any magical qualities?

You know what I tell people? All mushrooms are magical. That one especially. But not in the way that you're thinking.

All right. Very good. Thank you.

Now that I've lost total control over the meeting. Senator, you're out of order. All right. Anyway, Ms. Lima, come on up. Bring some decorum back to this meeting.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Lolly McGuicenkamp, and I'm a sophomore at Berkeley High School. As long as I can remember, I've had a very strong connection and love for mushrooms. So I'm here to ask you to vote yes for AB 261 to establish the California golden chanterelle as a state mushroom. The California Golden Chanterelle is a mushroom unique to California and also the largest chanterelle in the world. It was originally dismissed as the cantharellus cibarius, a common species from France that most Chanterelle species were mistaken for. But in 2008, the year I was born, it was recognized as its own unique Chanterelle species, special to California. Making the golden chanterelle, the state mushroom would spread awareness that mushrooms aren't just for consuming or cooking, but are also an important part of California's biodiversity and their intricate living organisms that have helped humans since time immemorial. Mushrooms, in particular, chanterelles, play a big part as a communicator in California's ecosystems. They provide a web of support, feeding the trees and getting nutrients from them in return, but also connecting their whole habitat. In some sort of way, the relationship between mushrooms and their ecosystems is like how Californians uplift each other, providing a net of community, connection and support. You might be wondering why we need yet another state symbol. But every time you choose to add another one, we find a new way to celebrate California and our unique culture and biodiversity here. I've been lucky to see the small but gorgeous world of fungi from a young age. But not everyone has those unique experiences. This is why we need a state mushroom, to spread awareness about how amazing mushrooms are. And of course, the California Gold Chanterelle matches us, The Golden State, perfectly. Thank you for your time.

Well done. Thank you very much for being here today. I hope your teacher recognizes what a great job you did. Okay, anybody else in this room that wishes to testify in support, please come forward now.

Thank you, chair Members. My name is Noah Whitley, and on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps and the California State Parks Federation, we are in support of this Bill.

Thank you. I can't imagine there's anybody in opposition, but if there is, please come forward now. Okay, so now we'll move to witnesses testifying in both support and opposition on the teleconference line. Moderator.

For support or opposition to AB 261, please press one, then zero on your keypad. One moment. We have two people that have queued up.

Good afternoon. My name is Alan D'Souza. I'm a Member of both Mycological Society of San Francisco and Sonoma Micrological Association. And I lead on the state Mushroom Destination Project. And today, representing thousands of California mushroom enthusiasts, we strongly support AB 261, designating casserole as Californicus, the California Golden Central as our state mushroom. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

We now go to line number 13. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Ken Buegeleisen from this Sonoma County Mycological Association, also in support of this Bill just recognizing California has a very large diversity of fungi and it is time to name a golden mushroom as the state mushroom. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other calls, Moderator?

We have no further comment.

Thank you. Moderator any. Bring it back. Any of our Members have any questions or comments?

Yeah, I plan to support the Bill today. So what I love about this job in General is just you learn something new every day. So in 1976, we learned that California wine is better than French wine, in the judgment of Paris. And we just learned this morning that in 2008, California mushrooms are better than French mushrooms because we have our own. So with that, very excited, and I don't know if we've moved the Bill, but I will move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Senator Bradford.

I'm still not convinced these are not psychotrophic. Are you sure, Mr. Kalra?

You have a sampler?

These are actually non psychedelic edible mushrooms. Senator Wiener may have a different suggestion for a msuhroom. Today we are putting forward the California agenda.

Wilk seems to have a different understanding as well.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I just wanted to make sure that the public knew, and I just read here that the cost of a pound of Chanterelle mushrooms is $224.

Very expensive. Works well in California.

So I just thought I'd put that out there because I think I missed it if it was mentioned, but I did not hear that. So I just wanted to put that on record. So very special. Very special.

Senator Alvarado-Gil.

This process is new to me of kind of bringing forward fungi and other items as indicative of California's history. But I just want to ask the author why this mushroom above all the others?

Well, thank you, Senator, for the question. I didn't choose it. The people did. Nine different mycological organizations proposed species leading to six different candidates. After expulsion of duplicates, these candidates were pitted against each other, kind of like in a mushroom madness in a public poll where the California golden Chanterelle prevailed. So these are experts in fungi that actually came together and made the choice and brought it.

Very nice. Very nice. And is this mushroom native to California?

It is native to California, yes.

And is it a protected species?

I don't believe it's a protected species, no. But it is native to California.

I think it's protected by the price.

Protected by the economy. It is very much California, then. I would say that sounds like a Bill idea for capital mushroom here. Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

No.

Are you sure? Senator Portantino?

I was going to say there's been enough shrooming going on this Bill.

With that, we have a motion by Senator Wilk. Would you like to close Assembly Member?

Well, Chair Dodd, I appreciate your support. I always knew you were a fun guy. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

The motion is due pass from the floor. Secretary, please call the roll.

Dodd? Dodd aye. Wilk? Wilk aye. Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil aye. Archuleta? Archuleta aye. Ashby? Ashby aye. Bradford? Bradford aye. Glazer? Jones? Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Ochoa Bogh? Ochoa Bogh aye. Padilla? Padilla aye. Portantino? Portantino aye. Roth? Rubio? Rubio aye. Seyarto? Seyarto aye.

That Bill has 12 votes, and we'll put that on call. Thank you very much. Well done. Does anybody have more fun than on the GO Committee? Nobody? Senator Rebecca Bauer-Khan. Assembly Member, please come forward.

Yeah, and this is a really fun Bill.

We've got file item number three, AB 267.

Just got a promotion. I'm coming back, guys.

Just as long as you recognize it as such.

That's why I said. But I don't know. That's a hard act to follow, y'all, I have to say, so. A little afraid I'm going to be embarrassing. I'm going to be boring all of you now. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I'm here to present AB 267, which updates the flammability standards for tents to a requirement that protects customers while no longer requiring dangerous chemicals. Fire retardant chemicals are known to be toxic to humans, especially our youngest Californians, who are exposed to the various tents that they camp and sleep in. We've updated these standards for other products, but not for tents. Other countries, such as Australia, the EU, Japan and Korea, and 54 states have updated this. So it is time for California to follow the way. With me today in support are Kim Suarez, a raw material specialist with Marmot Outdoor brands, and Lexi Girdlefield with the California Outdoor Recreation Partnership.

Could you name the 54 states?

No. This isn't my time.

Next lead witnesses in support. I can't believe I did that.

Good morning. Chair Dodd, Vice Chair, Wilkins. Senators, thank you for having us today. My name is Lexie Gritlefeld. I'm the Director of California Outdoor Recreation Partnership. We are a nonprofit organization that represents the outdoor industry on advocacy in California. And we're serving as the lead sponsor of AB 267, the No Toxics Tent Act. Under a 45 year old outdated law, California currently requires tent manufacturers to add flame retardants to tents. And these tents contain carcinogens that are harmful for humans. Sorry, I have a little tears in my eyes from the mushroom talk right now. But right now, basically, our industry is so focused on sustainability and promoting healthy lifestyles to the outdoors, and we're asking the State of California to let us produce our products without harmful chemicals. Right now, we have multiple Members in support of this Bill, including the Outdoor Industry Association, San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society, Sierra Business Council, Green Science Policy Institute, REI, the North Face, Columbia Sportswear Company, Nemo Equipment Company, Hilleberg the tent Maker, Hip Camp, Alpine Parrot, Theo Tapui, Totemco, and many others. While California is usually the leader on topics like this, unfortunately, California is currently one of the last six states still to hold this requirement. 44. All good. We are grateful for Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan's support on this issue and her leadership. And thank you for your time, and we hope we can gain your support for this Bill today.

I thought maybe we were giving a promotion to DC and Puerto Rico and a few others. While you're giving me the promotion,

Other witnesses in support in the room here, please. Please come forward.

Hi, good morning. Chair Dodd, Vice Chair Wilk and Senators. My name is Kim Suarez. I'm a materials specialist at Marmot and a former product developer at Patagonia. Marmot is an outdoor brand based in Sonoma County, and we've been making tents for almost 50 years. I'm here today to express Marmot support for AB 267. We are asking that the requirement is amended to update standards for tents with an occupancy of 14 or less. It means as much to us on the brand side as it does to the consumer to make sure that our products are nontoxic and sustainable for our customers and the environment. AB 267 promotes a healthier opportunity for California's outdoor participants and allows our industry to be more environmentally sustainable. While tents used to be made out of very flammable materials decades ago, today we manufacture tents made out of polyester and nylon. And the flame retardant standards are very outdated and unnecessary. Thank you to Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer Kahan for authoring this critical Bill. We hope that you will join us in support of a healthier outdoor community in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Megan Subers, on Behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Thank you, chair and Members, my name is Noah Whitley. And on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, we are in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to. If there's any lead witnesses in opposition or anybody in the room in opposition, please come forward. Seeing nobody, we're going to now go to the teleconference service moderator and ask if there's anybody in support or opposition of SB. Excuse me. AB 267

For support or opposition to AB 267 at this moment, please press one, then zero. We have no comment Mr. Chair.

thank you very much. We're going to move back to our Members. Senator Ashby.

Yeah. Thank you so much, Assembly Member. This is a good Bill. I read this earlier. I just wanted to point out one thing. You did exempt kids play tents. So the ones that little kiddos use that they don't actually sleep in, that would be kind of in the backyard or something like that. Right.

So there are other bills that deal with toys, so that's not covered by the Bill. Yeah.

Right. So they're not included in this one, right?

I believe that's correct. These are recreational tents. Yeah. I want to make sure I'm not misstating the fact.

I'm pretty sure in my read through they were excluded and it was just for camping.

That's right.

And I think that's important because otherwise those tents shouldn't be held to the same standard. Be really difficult to manage that. But also, I did not know that Marmot was in Sonoma County. That is the thing I learned today that is very cool and exciting and happy to hear about that. My family is an avid camping family. We even have one of the tents that goes on top of the Jeep. So this is really cool. We have a lot of your product at my house. And I thank you for bringing the Bill forward and thank the firefighters for supporting it. It is a motion. Thank you.

Okay. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

This is an opportunity for you to camp safely while collecting those mushrooms and perhaps making a good, pretty penny on them. Thank you.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Ashby. The motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Senator, Secretary, please call the role.

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

Bill has 12 votes. We will put that on call. Okay, we're going to move now to file item number four. AB 298. Assembly Member Mathis, good morning. Free to begin.

I thought the good looking Mathis was, the brains of the operation was going to present this one. Through the chair the better looking mathis. Exactly. And the brain.

Good morning.

Senators. Chairman. Today I'm presenting AB 298, which will allow a blind Veterans monument inside our state Capitol. It would be an American flag plaque with our pledge of allegiance on it, placed inside the Capitol to allow our veterans who have lost their sight the ability to feel like they are part of the state, part of the country, and have a place to go. America is home of more than 158,000 blind veterans and 13% of our wounded troops returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. With that, also notable, the cost of this would be absorbable, very minimal, and these types of monuments are usually done through nonprofits in partnership with the state. With me today is Dana Nichol with REEB government relations and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Dana Nichol with REEB government relations. We represent the American Legion, AmVETs, California State Commanders Veterans Council, an umbrella group of 22 veteran service organizations, the Military Authors Association of America and the Vietnam Veterans of America in support. According to various statistics, there are 130,000 to 158,000 blinded veterans in the US. Historically, California has represented about 10% of all military and veteran statistics. Therefore, the state has between 13 and 16 thousand blinded veterans. It is proper that the California provide a way for this cohort of wounded veterans to be honored. Memorials are also help veterans and their families participate in the healing process. Thank you, Assemblyman Mathis, for carrying this Bill. Thank you, Committee.

Thank you very much. There are any other support witnesses in the room? Is there any opposition in the room? Moderator could please go to the phone service to see if there's any opposition or support for AB 298, please.

For support opposition to AB 298, please press one, then zero. At the moment, we have no comment.

Thank you very much. Moderator we're going to move now to our Members. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. I think it'll be great to have some of our veterans, when they're accompanied by their families, to be able to reach out and touch the flag and to know that when we walk by that we remember those who served, those who were lost in battle, but those that are still with us. That even though they can't see, they are not forgotten. And as the chair of the Military Veterans Committee, I look forward to this Bill and I thank you for bringing it forward, and I move it at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Anybody else wishing to comment? Seeing no comments, would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Archuleta. The motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Mr. Chairman, we're presenting AB 1452, which would simply allow us to have an Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait Veterans Monument at the Capitol. This would work with nonprofit organizations very similar to the Blind Veterans Monument. Speaking in support today is Dana Nicholl from REEB government relations.

Bill has 11 votes. We'll put that on call. We'll move on now to file item number six, AB 1452

Through the chair, may the better looking Mathis present.

Absolutely

Good morning, Chairman and Senators. I am presenting AB 1452.

Excuse me, we have Committee rules. You're going to have to present the Bill first, and then we'd love to have you testify. The other Mathis didn't check with the chair, and I'm terribly sorry. I love your tie.

Could the other Mathis come over here? And we want to give him the time that he deserves. Over there.

Good morning, Chairman and Senators. AB 1452.

What's your name, sir?

I am Luke Mathis.

How are you doing, Luke?

Good.

Please proceed.

AB 1452 will allow an organization honoring veterans of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait to construct a monument on the state grounds. The cost of this monument is minor and absorbable. Joining me is Dana Nichol with REEB government relations.

Mr. Nichol, you're really going to follow that?

Thank you, Assemblyman Mathis. Thank you, Luke. My name is Dana Nichol with REEB government relations. Again, all of our clients are in support of this American Legion, AmVETs, California State Commanders, Veterans Council, Military Authors Association of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America. Veterans Memorials honor the sacrifice made by the men and women who lost their lives in the defense of our country. A memorial to those who lost their lives in the recent wars in the Middle East would follow in the hallowed tradition of establishing permanent remembrances at state capitals to those who paid the ultimate price for their countries. All state capitals in the national capital are part legislative and part historical. They contain the symbols of national outlook and reflect the values the citizens through monuments and symbology. If society does not honor those who died for it, then that society loses its sense of shared cultural values and respect. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the room? Anybody else in the room opposed to this? Seeing none moderator we're going to move to the phone lines to see if anybody is in support or in opposition to AB 1452, please.

For those in support or opposition to AB 1452 at this moment, please press one, then zero. We have no public comment.

Thank you moderator we'll move back to our Members. Senator Archuleta

Once again, Assembly Member, thank you for your presentation and your representation to your son. Thank you, young man. I know that he's in a high school academy, in Military high school Academy. And I look across and I see my two sons who served and went on to West Point at their academy and served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait. And I know you're teaching them God, country and perseverance to never stop ever thinking about our POWs, our MIAs, and also to acknowledge this great country. Follow your father's footsteps. He's leading you in the right direction. And as you're leading us. Assembly Member in the right direction with this Bill, I wholeheartedly approve it, and I will move it at the appropriate time. And to follow the Amvets and DFW, Vietnam Veterans of America, all the units. I know they're behind it, and I thank you for bringing it forward. Congratulations.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Alvarado-Gil

Assemblymember Mathis, thank you and your family for being here today to propose these bills in front of us. I just want to speak on behalf of the family members of service officers that have not only given their lives, literally, but have also dedicated their lives to serving our country. I can remember 1991 seeing my brother march on the stage in Annapolis Naval Academy and just feeling so proud of that. But what I didn't know was that for the next decades, I would never see him and be able to spend those holidays with him. And every headline that I read about the Iraq War, Afghanistan I knew that he was serving, but I also knew that the sacrifice of not being able to have that relationship with my only brother meant gifting him to our country. So here we are, years later, and I continue to miss him. And I continue to see him serving our country and know that there is a sacrifice in all that is done to protect our freedoms and our flag. And I want to thank you for honoring our men and women with this monument. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, for putting that personal stamp on this Bill. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Would you like to close?

Senators again with the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait Monument. For me, one of the things I did not know when I first ran for office, that I would be the first millennial Purple Heart recipient elected to state office in the country. And when I was asked to run this, I was like, I don't know how I feel about doing a monument that I may 1 day be on. But there's a lot of brothers and sisters in arms that have signed that dotted line, who have paid that sacrifice, and for their families, for them, for their children. It's meaningful and it's significant, and it's great to see California finally step up and say, hey, we are going to start doing monuments again at our Capitol, and we're going to get updated, and we're going to recognize our veterans. So with that, I ask you for your support and your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member, the motion is due passed to Appropriations. Committee Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Bill has 13 votes. We'll put that Bill on call. We're now going to be moving to item number nine. AB 416. Assembly Member Muratsuchi, good morning. Feel free to begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senators. I'm presenting here this morning Assembly Bill 416, which is a simple but culturally important Bill for both the Japanese and the Korean cultures. This Bill, on its face, simply would allow any licensee that can sell beer and wine to also sell Shochu, an imported Japanese alcoholic beverage that contains no more than 24% alcohol by volume.

Currently, under California law, they are only allowed to sell this Japanese shochu as soju, which is a Korean liquor that is culturally distinctive in the way it's distilled, as well as the additives that are added to soju. This would be like requiring tequila to be labeled as whiskey or scotch or bourbon or any other culturally distinctive drinks to be mislabeled. Here in support of this Bill, we have two witnesses.

Yutaka Endo, the Vice President of Takara Sake USA, which also manufactures Shochu, which, by the way, I want to mention that I know a lot of people. We had some sake in Japan, Senator Archuleta, and we had a chance to travel together. But actually, there's more Shochu sold in Japan than Stocky. And so I look forward to introducing anyone that's interested in the joys of drinking Shochu.

But here to testify further difference of the two drinks is Mr. Eto with Takara, and also John Mccarthy with Mccarthy Hospitality.

Please proceed. Good morning. Chair Dodd and Vice Chair Wilk and Members of the Committee. My name is John Mccarthy. I'm from Mccarthy Hospitality, LLC. I'm a professional chef, restaurateur and lawyer. I come before you on behalf of the Japanese Sake and Shochu Makers Association, and there are more than 1000 Members and ask that you approve AB 4116. I also represent many supporters of the Bill who are comprised of California based importers, distributors, restaurateurs.

More than 60 letters have been filed with this Committee on Behalf of those folks. This legislation is a very straightforward attempt to allow Japanese Shochu distillers to properly label the product as Japanese Shochu. As Assembly Member Muratsuchi pointed out, they're currently required to label as soju. This is culturally offensive. Also, it causes market confusion between the two products. So we're doing respect to both the Japanese culture and the Korean culture in separating these two products.

AB 4116 does not seek to alter or amend any other aspect of the law. It merely is a labeling issue. So we thank you for your consideration, AB 4116, and ask that you approve it. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Chairman, Mr. Dodd and Vice President, Mr. Buke and committees Members. My name is Yutaka Etos. I'm a Vice President and Directors of Takara Sake USA, which was formed in 1983 in Berkley, California. Ever parent company in Japan's Takara Group has been making Shochu and other products for more than 100 to 150 years. At this time, Takara is the number one producers of Shochu in Japan. I appear before you today's ask support for AB 416.

AB 416 is critically important to Takara and others similar Japanese Shochu distributors. Currently manufacturers Shochu does have an average of 24% or less and the current regulations is required to label the products as Korean Soju if we wish to sell to California type 41 licensees Sochu holds a very special and culturally significant place in Japanese cultures. Similarly, Korean suju holds a similar position in Korean cultures.

While the names and descriptions of the products are similar, there are significant differences in the manners in which the products are manufactured, and products used. In the disrespect in Japan, Shochu is considered the native spirit. The current state of the labeling requirement offends both cultures in significant ways. Recovering Japanese distributors to label their products as Korean products is obviously offensive. Similarly, labeling the Japanese products as Korean products when the Korean traditions. Moreover, the market confusions caused by their labeling.

The requirement that services to both countries and the customers in California. So thank you very much for your considerations of AB 416 and thank you on behalf of Takara Sake USA and many Japanese and Japanese American supporters of the culturally important registration. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Edo. Now, is there any other support witnesses or any witnesses at all in the room here wishing to testify in support of this Bill? Seeing none. I don't think there's anybody in opposition. Seeing none. Moderator can we go to the phone and see if there's any opposition or support for AB 416? For support or opposition for AB 416, please press one, then. Zero. We have no public comment. Thank you. We're going to go back to our Members. Senator Arcelleto?

Yeah, I'll move the Bill. And yes, indeed, we had a great time in Japan and the culture, and I'm so happy that now we can distinguish between the two. And I think it's necessary. So I welcome the Bill and I'm moving at appropriate time. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Anybody else wishing to speak? Seeing none. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. The motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please, would you like to close, sir? Respectfully ask why? aye vote. Please call the roll.

Dodd? Aye. Dodd, aye. Wilk? Aye. Wilk, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Bradford? Bradford, aye. Glazer? Jones.? Nguyen? Aye. Wynn, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Portantino? Aye. Porntino, aye. Roth. Aye.

Roth, aye. Rubio? Rubio, aye. Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto, aye.

Bill has 13 votes. We'll put that on call. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member we're going to move to file item number 10. Assembly Member that's AB 570. Assembly Member Gallagher, feel free to begin. Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senators for the opportunity to present AB 570. This Bill ensures that underfunded county service areas, which are formed for the sole purpose of fire protection, are able to receive grants from the Special District Fire Response Fund. Prop 19 directed some of the resulting revenue to firefighters and emergency response services. One of these funds includes a special district Fire Response Fund to help support fire protection in the state's most underfunded areas. AB 450 helped implement Prop 19 by directing Cal OES to administer the Special District Fire Response Fund and establish a grant application process. However, neither Prop 19 or SB 450 contemplated that both fire districts and county service areas provide fire protection to many regions, and that's the reason for the Bill. So current law in allocating monies from the Fund only references special districts that provide fire protection services. This would put CSAs on equal footing by adding them to that part of the statute and ensuring that they can also get these vital grant funds. And with me to testify and support is Sutter County Fire Chief John Shalowitz.

Morning, Chief.

Morning, Senator Dodd, Members of the Committee, thank you for having me today and allowing me to testify on this Bill. Special districts and county CSAs operate essentially the same. The only difference is that a county CSA uses the county Board of Supervisors as their board instead of having their own board. I thank Assemblyman Gallagher for recognizing the fact that we are an underfunded community. There's CSAs that are struggling across the state, and with the new funding, with the Special District Response Fund that is out there, I want to be able to have the same chance as other special districts that are financially challenged across the state and allow other CSAs to have that same chance to be in the competitive grant process that Cal OES and Firescope will be managing. I urge you to support this, and I thank you for your time today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support in this room? Seeing none. Any opposition? Seeing none. We'll move to the phone lines. Moderator for both opposition and support of AB 570.

For support or opposition for AB 570 at this moment, press one, then zero. We have no public comment, Mr. Chair.

Okay, move to our Members. Anybody have any comments? May have a motion to support, motion by Senator Alvarado-Gil. Senate Member Gallagher, would you like to close?

Just ask for your aye vote and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. The motion is due passed to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Bill has 13 votes. We'll put that on call.

Thank you Senator.

Thank you. Do we have any other authors? We are looking for Senator, Assembly Member Berner or Patterson. While we're here? We got the time. Let's start off with the consent items that are before us.

Consent items

Yeah, I'm just going to look here. The ayes are 10, noes are zero. Please call the roll.

Absent Members Glazer. Portantino, Portantino aye. Roth, Roth aye. Rubio, Rubio aye.

Bill has 13 votes. They'll remain on call. We'll open up file item number two. AB 261 by Assembly Member Cauldron, Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members Glazer, Jones. Roth. Aye. Roth, aye.

Bill has 13 votes. We'll keep that on call. We'll move now to item number three. AB 267 by assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. Please open the roll.

Absent Members Glazer, Jones, Roth, aye. Roth, aye.

Also has 13 votes. We'll leave that on call. We'll move to item number four. AB 298. assemblymember Mathis, please open the roll.

Absent Members Alvarado-Gil, aye. Alvarado-Gill, aye. Glazer, Jones?

Roth, aye. Roth, aye.

Bill has 13 votes. We'll keep that on call. And we are going to move now back to file item number 13. AB1668. Assemblymember Patterson.

Newbie, over here, you know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Members appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1668. AB 1668 would give Placer county the opportunity to add 10 more type 47 alcohol licenses, as you know from being from Napa, and many of you from being from touristy areas. Placer county has a significant portion of Lake Tahoe, and with the pandemic and things like that, a lot of people are moving there.

Tourism has actually gone up, and Placer County is one of the fastest growing regions in the state. And so, as a result, we've had our businesses unable to obtain additional liquor licenses to support their restaurants and busInesses. And so we just have a simple request, consistent with past requests, add 10 more licenses for Placer County. And with that, ask for your support.

Terrific. Anybody in? Support in the room? Seeing none. Anybody in.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I didn't move fast enough. On the behalf of or Izzy Swindler from Shahyoter, Antoine Schmalzer and Lang on behalf of those Placer County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Doesn't look like there's anybody in opposition. Phone Lines Moderator could we see there's anybody in support or opposition of AB 1668, please? For support of support or opposition for AB 1668, please press one, then zero. We have no public comment, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Moderator we'll move this now back to discussion of Members. Anybody wishing. Senator Wilk. I'll move the Bill, Senator. Assembly Member Patterson, would you like to close? Sure.

Well, I hope every Bill goes as smooth in the Senate and ask for your support.

Okay. With that, we have a motion by Senator Wilk. Thank you, Assemblymember Patterson. So the motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the role.

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

Bill has 13 votes, but we'll put that on call. Thank you, Assembly Member Great.

Thank you, Senators. Appreciate it.

This is the last Bill, so any Senators that are not here, we're going to keep the roll open for five minutes.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll now move to final item number 12. AB 1294. Assembly Member Boerner, please feel free to begin.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Members, good afternoon. I'm here to present AB 1294, an important measure for the sport of surfing in California. AB 1294 creates an advertising exemption from the state's tide House restrictions specifically for the surf ranch, located in Lamore, California, closely modeled after similar tidehouse exemptions that SPA has approved before. The exception would permit specified alcohol manufacturers to advertise their products at Surf Ranch and provide an important source of revenue to the venue.

I'd like to first take a moment to summarize the recent amendments agreed to in the Assembly, including incorporating feedback from ABC to further narrowly tailor the bill's exemption. Two add one additional license to the definition of authorized licensee. Exclude wine and spirit wholesalers licensees from the definition of authorized licensee to address concerns from the wine and spirit wholesalers.

For those of you who do not know, Surf Ranch is the first of its kind surf venue, offering surfers a perfect six foot barreling wave traveling over 2300ft, yielding up to a minute long ride in a converted water ski lake known as a wave basin.

Since its inception in 2015, Surf Ranch has hosted surfers from around the world at competitive and corporate events throughout the year, attracting thousands of visitors to Kings county and local businesses while employing close to 100 full time and part time jobs in the part of the state with limited job opportunities. In fact, a month ago Surf Ranch hosted Surf Ranch Pro and I was able to go and look at it live in person. It was really great.

If you haven't had the opportunity, you should really take it. It's one of the major stops in the World Surf League's professional surfing tour, bringing some of the best surfers in the world to California and attracting thousands of spectators for an event streamed live to a global audience of surf fans. Every year, the California Legislature Awards tide House advertising exceptions to a variety of professional sporting venues, such as baseball and football stadiums and basketball arenas.

AB 1294 would simply provide a similar exemption for a venue that's home to professional surfing. The exemption will provide an important source of revenue to sustain Surf Ranch's operations, grow the tourism economy in a remote part of the state, and promote surfing as an official state sport. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and with me here today, I have Pat Joyce on the behalf of World Surf League to testify in support of the belt. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll be brief. Pat Joyce on behalf of the World Surf League here in support of AB 1294. We appreciate the author's work to provide a narrowly tailored advertising exception to the state's tight house restrictions for Surf Ranch located in Kings County. Like the author said, Surf Ranch is one of two stops in the professional surfing tour in California, and the venue has quickly become an emerging tourism destination for surfers in California and around the world.

Surf Ranch has close to 100 full time and part time employees, and many of the local businesses in the area rely on the economic activity generated by visitors traveling to the area. The events hosted at Surf Ranch provide important marketing opportunities for brands trying to reach key demographics who care about surf culture. The marketing revenue in return goes back to promoting the sport of surfing and tourism in the local region.

AB 1294 will further increase marketing opportunities at Surf Ranch by creating a narrow exception to the state's tight house restrictions by permitting an authorized licensee to purchase advertising space and time from a retail license holder. In this case, Surf Ranch. It's an important measure for the sport of surfing and will help expand the sport's reach in the Central Valley, a region of the state that traditionally does not get exposure to our state sport. And ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jeffries. So we're going to go through. I've got you down here. So I don't think there's anybody else in support in the room. Doesn't look like there's anybody in opposition. Moderator, could we see if there's anybody on the phone lines in support or opposition of this Bill, please? AB 12 supporter opposition. AB 1294. Press one, then zero and we have no public comment.

Mr. Chair. Okay. Senator Padilla.

Mr. Chairman. I'll move. I've already moved it.

Senator Bradford moved this surfing Safari. Forget anybody else. Senator Will? Yeah. I don't have another Committee till 130, so I thought I'd take this opportunity. So just a couple of things. One, if you've not been to this facility, it is awesome. It is awesome. In fact, Senator Jones Chief of Staff's son, works there, and so this is great. The one thing I do need to correct you on, though the locals call it Lemore.

Lemore?

Yes.

Did I say Lemore?

Yeah. I do it, too. It's Leemore. Sorry, I just don't want you. They run you out of town. If you ever go down there again.

I know.

If I ever go down there again.

I don't want to be like it is.

Lee Moore.

Thank you for the correction.

We'll have to go on a Senate geo field trip at some point. John. Senator Nguyen.

And just because I'm from Surf City, USA, we're the better place for surf. Sorry. I think we can argue, Janet, between you and me. I'm sorry. Senator Nguyen. We can argue about who has the better surf spots because I represent.

The Bill has been moved by Senator Bradford. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. The motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

Dodd, aye. Dodd, aye. Wilk? Aye. Wilk, aye. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Bradford. Bradford, aye. Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Jones. Nguyen. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Padilla. Padilla, aye. Portantino. Portantino, aye. Roth? Roth, aye. Rubio. Rubio, aye. Seryato?

Aye. Bill has 14 votes. That Bill is on call. So we have everybody. The Bill is out because everybody's here. Thank you very much for pointing that out. So we'll start at the very beginning. Sorry, Senator Roth. Just like the military, we have order here most of the time anyhow. Okay, so we're going to start with the consent calendar. The vote is 130. Please call the roll.

Absent Member is Glazer Jones. Glazer, aye Glazer, I Jones.

Bill has 14 votes. That's out. We'll now move to file on Member two. AB 261 by Assembly Member Callera. The vote is 130. Please call the roll.

Absent Members Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Jones.

Bill is 14-0. That Bill is out. We'll move to item number three. AB 267 by assemblymember Bauer-Kahan Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Jones 14-0.

That Bill is out. Move to item number four. AB 298 by Assemblymember Mathis. Secretary, please open the roll. Roll is 130.

Absent Members Glazer, aye. Glazer,aye. Jones 14-0.

That Bill is out. We'll now move to file item number six. AB 1452 by Assembly Member Mathis. Secretary, please open the roll at absent.

Members Glazer I laser I. Jones.

Just voting now in Committee 140. The Bill is out. We now move on to file item number seven. AB 3349 by Assembly Member Ramos. Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members Wilk. Glazer, aye. Glazer, aye. Jones? Ochoa Bogh. Roth? Aye. Roth? Aye.

12-0. That Bill is out. Now move to pile item number 81459 by Assembly Member Ramos.

I think I heard you.

Just 1 second.

Excuse me, are we interrupting your phone call, Senator?

Absent Members Glazer? Aye. Glazer? Aye. Jones? Roth? Aye. Roth, aye.

What's the number? 14-0. We will move to file item number eight. Do we do that?

Yeah. Nine. We'll move to file item 9416 by somebody Member Marasucci. Secretary, please open the roll.

Absent Members Glazer, Glazer aye. Jones.

14-0. The Bill is out. Item number 10. 56570. Assembly Member Gallagher, please open the roll.

Absent Members Glazer, Glazer aye. Jones 14-0.

That Bill is out. File item number 12, 1294 by Assembly Member burner that one's out. That was already out. So now we'll move to file item number 13, 668 by Assembly Member Patterson.

Absent Members. Glazer. Glazer I. Jones 1400:140 that Bill is out.

We have concluded the agenda. The Governmental Organization Committee is adjourned. He stays on a phone call.