Senate Standing Committee on Rules

The Senate committee on rules will come to order. Before we begin today's agenda, can we please establish a quorum? Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We have established quorum. If there are no objections, I would like to take up first on today's agenda, governor's appointments not required to appear, starting with item 2G, the appointment of Paulette Brown Hinn Hines, PhD as a member of the California Transportation Committee. I'll enter. I would so move.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item is 4–0, and we will leave that for absent members to add on. Next item on Governor’s appointments not required to appear is Item 2H, Laura Capps for the Board of State and Community Corrections.

I will entertain a motion.

So moved.

Thank you, Senator Reyes for making that motion. Can we please call

[Roll Call]

Alright. That is 3–1, and we will allow, we'll come back to that for absent members to add on. Next is item for Governor's appointments not required to appear. Item 2I, Christopher Clark for the Board of State and Community Corrections. Can we. l

Well, thank you, Senator Laird, for moving that one. We can we please call the roll for that?

[Roll Call]

Alright. That has three votes, and we will, allow for absent members to add on. Next item is governor's appointments not required to appear. Item 2J, Maggie Hallahan for the Boating and Waterways Commission. I will entertain a motion.

So moved. Thank you, Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That is four votes and will allow for absent members to add on to that. Next item for governor's appointments not required to appear, item 2K, Kent Sasaki for the Building Standards Commission. I will entertain a motion.

So moved.

Thank you, Senator Reyes, for that motion. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Reyes, aye. Four votes. Alright. That has four votes. We will leave that on open for other members to add on.

Next, the last item for governor's appointments not required to appear, item 2L, Danielle n Munoz for the board of barbering and cosmetology. I will entertain a motion. So moved. Thank you, Senator Laird, for that motion. Can we please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That item is approved 5-0. Next, I'd like to take up item three, reference of bills to committees. I will entertain a motion. So moved.Thank you vice chair Grove. Can we please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That item is approved 5-0. We will now turn to governor's appointees required to appear. We're going to start with item 1A, the appointment of Tanya Pacheco Warner, PhD as a member of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Pollution Control District Board.

Doctor Pacheco Warner, welcome. You will have the opportunity to provide one to two minutes in your introduction and testimony. If you have any introductions of individuals, that are here, you're welcome to do that in your, opening statement. And we will prompt you as you get near your time.

Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me here today. Thank you to the staff members that met with me and helped me to prepare for meeting with you today. And thank you to district staff and the governor's office and the governor for once again appointing me to this board.

I want to thank my mother-in-law, Janine, and my priest, father Noah Lawson, who are here with me today. My desire to serve really comes from a place of not just from scientific and policy understandings from my career as a public health researcher, but from the real life challenges that people in the San Joaquin Valley face every day to breathe clean air.

As a pregnant mother, I was faced with having to be driven every day to a local supermarket so I could do my daily walking while battling gestational diabetes because wildfires made it too unsafe for me to walk outside. My seven year old has struggled with asthma since he was three years old, and, my second son, now also three years old, was diagnosed last month with asthma as well. Now making it a household where a hundred percent of us live with asthma.

However, as a community based researcher, I've learned that engaging with everyday people and collaboration across sectors and community make the best research and policy. One of my proudest moments in serving on this board has been the phasing out of agricultural burning, not just because of the direct and immediate public health impacts, which have been my North Star, but also because it was a perfect example of how science, leading policy, and community stakeholder engagement, were what made it a success.

Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today and for the privilege thus far of having served on the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District.

Thank you. Members, any questions, comments? We'll start with Vice Chair Grove.

Thank you. Welcome back.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today. Obviously, I represent the Central Valley, so my questions will focus on the valley. You mentioned the burn restrictions. The Valley agriculture is facing, overlapping pressures from Sigma. You know that, following, following land, burn restrictions, equipment replacement mandates, energy cost, labor pressures, and the list goes on.

How does the district evaluate the cumulative economic impact to our food producers before imposing additional requirements the industry remains so that our industry and our food industry remains essential to the Central Valley and to the state nation.

Absolutely. As a as a critical aspect to our, local workforce, the air district, when we were evaluating how to best implement this rule, the phasing out, aspect was really important and and critical that we phased out in a way that wouldn't that would minimize the impact on the growers, which is why we chose to start with orchards and then go on to the more challenging areas that would also be the most cost prohibitive to implement, which were the Vineyards.

And so the the phasing out structure for the agricultural burning was structured to minimize that impact. At the same time, we did partner with our agricultural community to ensure that we had the right technology, that we had the right implementation phases.

And I myself was part of many demonstration projects to ensure that when the technology wasn't right, that there would be proper alternatives for them to be able to, comply with the regulation at the same time as, be able to, do so in a way that wasn't, going to not only break the bank, but also be damaging to their own crops because that was would also be, counterproductive to what we were trying to do, which was ensure that this regulation worked for them as well.

And so there is an ongoing evaluation about the economic impacts, and that is something that is at of discussion, when we have updates on this item.

We just recently had another update on this item this year, and the board did direct, and I was part of that direction of an ongoing evaluation of how we can ensure that, funding is available for alternatives to burning, as well as a continuance of working with stakeholders so that we understand, the implementation strategy and that it continues to work for people.

Thank you. And the last question I have is the San Joaquin Valley attainment strategy increasingly depends on, emissions reductions from mobile sources. Those rules are now legally uncertain after Congress and the President used congressional review, the act on resolutions in 2025 to to disapprove the EPA waiver notices for California's advanced clean trucks because they realize the impact on our farmers not being able to and you can't charge a piece of equipment out in the middle of the field. Right. And so there's not electricity out there.

And so what's the strategy that you guys will have at the, San Joaquin Air Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Board for, making sure that farmers, number one, still have the equipment that they need to be able to produce the food we eat. And, the biggest complaint I have is that they're getting rid of, at pennies on the dollar perfectly good equipment. It just isn't California compliant and the other states know it.

So they offer them very low ball dollars and it's a it's a huge loss for our farmers in that situation. So what's your what's your opinion on making sure that we figure out a way to make this work?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. One of the the key aspects of that we are dealing with this year is trying to figure out what that strategy looks like. Obviously, there are things that we have to comply with with the EPA to be on track to attain our standards, and those are always challenging for the San Joaquin Valley.

So what is being drawn up right now is is a multi pronged strategy where we are relying on state mobile source incentives programs, as well as existing regulations that we have at the air district that we've implemented over the last few years.

And in addition to that, we are, looking at and and have talked with EPA about, a strategy that that is being proposed right now, to be approved by the CARB board, that would theoretically implement new strategies when those technologies do become available and they are feasible.

And that is to ensure that we continue with our goals to attain, those public health standards, while at the same time recognizing that there is a limit to what we can do right now.

I will say that in addition to that, one of the things that I am personally pushing on is and being a champion for is, the farmer program, which is a tractor replacement program, where agricultural entities are given incentives to replace their tractors for cleaner ones. And I'm a champion of that because of the direct and immediate public health benefit, but also because it is something that the farmers themselves have been really receptive to, and it's a program that has been year over year oversubscribed.

And so we know that it's a strategy that works, that it's a strategy that people will use, and it's a strategy where we can measure, the tonnage of pollution that is removed from the air.

So, so I hope that that program can continue to to exist and, and continue to be funded because it is, I think will be a critical piece that will help us in this new next phase of challenges that that remain to attain our public health standards.

Aye, hope it continues too because it has been a very effective program. I have a lot of growers that use it, but that's, his job. So thank you. I look forward to your confirmation. Thank you, madam.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional? Senator Reyes.

Sorry to hear that you and your family have now the effects of have asthma. That's something that in our community in San Bernardino area. Something that we also, have, so many children especially that suffer from that. As you do your work on on this on this board, how do you interact with your other Board Members? Especially if you find yourself at odds with your fellow board Board Members.

Yeah. Obviously, we we have a diverse a diverse board where a lot of you know, as a governor appointee, most of the other Board Members are elected officials. And, sometimes we are on different sides of the aisle. However, I can say that, as a as a public health researcher, I have really approached every single, one of our Board Members, with the the public health benefits first and foremost of what we are trying to achieve.

And at the same time, we have been out in the literal out in the fields together.

So a lot of what we do together as Board Members is actually, go out and meet with the regulated entities and understand their operations and understand, what works, what doesn't. And I think that that real life on the ground, grounding of our regulations have helped them as well as myself really understand the need and and the urgency for some of the regulations, the tougher regulations that we've pushed at the Air District.

And so I will say that, while we we often, disagree on things that at the end of the day, we have really come together in our public health goals and trying to advance those one as as we can.

And, I’m happy to say that there’s not, you know, one board member that I will say, ‘Oh, you know, they definitely would never talk to me.’ And I’ve actually co-wrote an op-ed around federal funding with one of my Republican fellow members because, again, sharing the same public health goals.

Wonderful, and and it now, it your district also has four eighty 617 communities. Arvin, Lamont, Stockton, Shafter, Shafter rather in South Central Fresno. There have been a number of bills that strengthen AB 617. And additionally, last year, the legislature adopted SB 840 by our Pro Tem. And within the package, it included $250,000,000 annually for the cap program starting 2627.

Doesn't mean we're going to get it, but that was part of the budget. But my question to you is looking across your four communities, where do you think the AB 617 process worked as the legislature intended and where has it fallen short of what the communities expected?

Yeah. Thank you for that. You know, seeing all of the communities go through from being selected communities through their very first SERPs through now some, you know, getting to the point of completing their SERPs. I think one of the things that's that's really exciting is the number of lessons learned that have actually been captured and then applied to to other communities.

And so I think that there was, there was a lot on community participation that, you know, how to properly compensate community members for participating in these very rigorous, you know, they have to learn policy and they have to do all this work, how to properly compensate them, how to provide translation to to have inclusion.

And so I think that there were a lot of a lot of bumps in the road early on in terms of this new way of this agency doing the work. And that then we saw year after year the staff coming back with us and wanting to solidify and establish, new new positions, new staff positions, new ways that they were going to be allocating the money based on community response.

And so, I will say that that when I didn't see it work a lot was early on, and I will say that the the staff was very receptive, and the board, worked with the staff to ensure that, that these programs kept going. I will say that one of the places that I think is, where I've seen a lot of success happen, has been in the Arvin Lamont, AB 617.

Again, because of being able to bring together numerous agencies, numerous, elected officials to make the the vision of of these folks really happen.

And I will say, just a few weeks ago, I was in the in the Shafter community as they were premiering you know, inaugurating a charging yard for electric school buses that had been a vision of one of the six of the that 617 community and that the board had approved their vision to reallocate some dollars that they had to that project.

And I think that that's an example of how this program has grown and become more flexible, to really not only work for community, but realize that, you know, we really need collaboration across everybody to make it work. And that's what I hope continues to happen with the program, that we continue to foster that interagency collaboration as well as, intergovernmental collaboration.

Well, thank you for that. I had a few of the questions but, I I just wanna end with one question. This particular appointment has no compensation. Why do you want it?

Yeah. I will say that that that has been a one of the things that has been asked of me many times. And the opportunity to use my particular skill set as a scientist and as a person of lived experience that grew up in the valley, not too far away from a a rail yard. You know, really, and as an immigrant that I that opportunity to connect with people across stakeholders, that's something that I really see a calling to.

And and that sense of being able to center people in policy, I think is is an important role for anybody.

And I'm really privileged to serve. And I will say that, you know, my bench is much deeper than than these two. And I have a, you know, I have a very supportive husband, supportive, family, my mother, and all so many people that really are behind me. And I think that that's very emblematic of, honestly, the the San Joaquin Valley, like, you know, very family oriented and wanting to ensure that everybody is successful in public health.

And I will say my son is probably my toughest stakeholder, because at bedtime, he will ask me how things are going with the trucks, how things are going with the tractors.

And, and so I do think that we have people from all ages really wanting to make this better and, and that they they see me as someone that will talk to them and listen to them and bring their issues forward. And I'm really privileged to do that.

I think the San Joaquin Valley is very lucky to have you. I think California is lucky to have you. I look forward to your confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Laird.

Thank you, madam chair. And first, I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to meet but this is the second time around. I've been on the Rules Committee since when we confirmed you earlier. I wanna follow-up on a couple of the questions that my colleague asked and she asked about AB 617. But my question is slightly different like what's it look like for a community to transition out?

I mean, what would the success or the deal points be if they were to be so successful that they'd move out?

Yeah. You know, I will say that there is there is already a phasing. It's not so much phasing out as phasing in. What I have really seen is that the this program has really transformed how government works. And so, for example, in Southeast Fresno, those people that serve on that committee, I have seen them go on to now serve on commissions for the city of Fresno.

I've seen them go on to be at the table in other decision making spaces. And so, I think that this, this program has allowed people, everyday people to really gain capacity to be better involved in their government overall, and they're doing it. And and I think that it's also helped educate, local government about the, the need for place based intervention.

And, so for example, before AB 617 in South Fresno, it was, it was sort of an inconvenient fact how polluted that place was in comparison to the rest of Fresno. And now, when I see, people at decision making dais talk about South Fresno, it is a given that, that there are mitigations that need to happen.

It is a given that that community is overburdened, with industrial use. And so and so that is something that that any decision making space now has to answer for. And so, I will say that as a steering committee itself and the body itself, my hope is that we can continue to look for opportunities to keep these bodies intact because I do think that they are strong. They are strong together.

And I will say that, I have seen people within these steering committees now become leaders in their own community.

And I think that that that in itself is a qualitative success of the program in in addition to the image.

But I'm just guessing that that when you actually evaluate, that's not necessarily one of the metrics. Right? That somebody has been given the capacity to engage in these issues in the broader communities. That's something that is part of your evaluation of the success of this.

Yeah.

Well, we do have, you know, we do have a community blueprint that, through CARB and it does outline how, these committees will transition and, one of the key things that we will have to deal with is is how to keep them intact and I don't think we have the answer for that yet, but I do think that there's a desire to ensure that these communities, that we are able to continue to use the tools available through us, like Helen ViroScreen, to continue to track The ongoing pollution, burden of these communities.

And I will say that, as someone who has followed this, we do have very clear data about, emissions and and the emissions reductions, and that has been one of the critical aspects of the the community plans that everybody has developed in these communities is that we we were tough in making sure that every strategy was an emission reduction strategy, but it was with that long term goal of ensuring that we will be able to say, these places are because of this existence of AB 617, we could see the reductions.

And so if ever those were to not happen anymore because of the absence, we would have a clear tool to be able to see what what are the things that helped in that community reduce emissions and how do we get back to that.

Okay. I appreciate that and I just think it's something that just in your work you should highlight the creation of that capacity in a way that people understand that it's a benefit from the program. The other thing I was gonna ask you and it's also a follow-up from Senator Reyes is is twenty years ago when I was in the assembly there were regularly bills to expand your board. There there was a feeling like it didn't capture. Expand your board.

There there was a feeling like it didn't capture a full range of people and I wouldn't doubt that the position you're in is one that was created by legislation out of that. So it's with the current configuration, do you really feel like you're getting along and and you're bringing people along or do you feel like a lot of the votes are just polarized votes and and you're not sort of working it out together among your members.

Yeah. I will say that one of the one of the interesting things that so many of our Board Members are champions of, are so many of the zero emission programs like the Clean Cars for All program. They've been big supporters of that, and they've been big supporters of Farmer, the Tractor Replacement Program for cleaner air. And, the regulations, when they have come, you know, they've been they've been challenging, but I will say that there's a lot of respect for the public health goals.

And, so while there are differences of opinions, absolutely, I will say that that, I've never felt like in a position where we weren't able to work through some some of the differences.

I will say that, you know, it is a very important and challenging air base and not just for the state of California, but for the entire country. And so I am not, you know, I am one scientific expert in the valley and certainly, if there was a deeper bench in there, you know, I would most definitely welcome it.

And I will say that, I think that, you know, my fellow Board Members are very thoughtful to to the public health goals and doing doing the hard things when when we need to.

You sort of answered the one last question I was gonna ask which is when I speak to science groups these days, I feel like I have to say, I'm sorry that you have to justify science first and then get to the science. And do you find you have to do that or do you feel like people accept the fact that there's science about the the public health issues here that people are willing to go toward?

You know, it's a very that's a very interesting question because it's one that I've been I've been dealing with over the past year as a board member. And what I have found as a public health researcher is that it's not just my fellow Board Members. It's actually the public at large that it's it's really about a public health communication problem. And so when I say climate change, people might think of a 100 different things.

And if I don't explain that in this context, what I'm talking about is that as our as our summer, season expands in the San Joaquin Valley, we are going to be faced with more ozone challenges.

That they understand that it's getting hotter. That they understand, but they don't but but when I say climate change, it means a 100 different things to a 100 different people. And so I do think that we what we're fate what I'm being faced with is a public health communication problem and and trying to do that better.

And and I will say that recently, as of as a San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District member, I was asked to, do an op-ed for our Valley, Valley Children's Hospital around asthma and kids and climate change. And it was very well received, and they republished it a couple of times.

And I didn't say the word climate change, but I talked about the challenges that we face because of our ongoing changing extreme temperature challenges that we're gonna be faced with every summer and what that means for kids' asthma, and what that means for their lungs. And, and so I am a champion of climate change policies as, you know, but as direction of the governor, as a governor appointee.

And I think as a public health communicator, I think I'm really trying to find a a way to ensure we're on the same page because we mean different things when we say big terms.

Thank you. I think those responses were were very thoughtful and I think it's why a lot of us are gonna have a comfort level supporting you for confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you Senator.

And thank you for doing it for apparently almost nothing.

Thank you Senator Laird. On that note, what does climate change mean for you?

Climate change is something very real for me as I in terms of defining it, it is about our ongoing climate patterns that are that are changing and that are, having an effect on every single place in California in different ways. Where I live, what what the challenge is that we are having longer and earlier seasons of extreme temperature, more extreme temperature events.

And, because of the chemistry and and the pollution that we're challenged with, that also means for us more air quality challenges like ozone.

And, so for me, climate change is that ongoing, very real, very documented change in our, in our climate that has changed our weather. That is mostly human caused and that we that because it is human caused, there there are strategies and ways in which we can, not only reverse but mitigate many of the effects.

Thank you. And in both your previous answers and in your current answer, you described that there are more consequences that you are seeing the people that you represent and the voices that you're uplifting than there were before. And you've described what some of those consequences are in addition to asthma. How do you grapple with conflicting policies that don't recognize that there is more happening and that actually move us backwards.

So we've seen some, you know, policies in terms of rollbacks of greenhouse gas reduction incentive programs, the rescission at the federal level of the mobile, you know, source regulations. How do you grapple with that?

I think trying to find the opportunities to to change in every single aspect will be very important. While our mobile source strategy, is dented, There are undeniable economic forces right now that are necessitating people to think differently about, how they get from point a to point b. And so for me, one of those ways to to grapple with it is how do we seek opportunities to, educate people as much as we can about the benefits, about how things work.

So for example, as I mentioned before, the clean cars for all program is not just about getting people into cleaner vehicles. There's a huge public health education component to that about how life in the San Joaquin Valley where people have to drive sometimes hundreds of miles a day to get to their jobs, how they see themselves in those vehicles. That for me is a is a critical component.

But also grappling with it in the sense of needing to balance ambition, which we need to move forward with, but also mitigation. And so with some of the ongoing regulations that we have this year, I have talked to staff heavily about not just the need for attainment, which is our bread and butter, which is what we're called to do is is meet those federal, standards of PM and ozone.

But also, how do we mitigate what we already are being faced with because it we can't just I'd we can't just give up as as it being a runaway problem, because it's just gonna get hotter and it's just gonna get more challenging. It's about how do we roll up our sleeves and think about how do we mitigate, the things that we're seeing now.

And one of those has been, for example, wildfires because anything that we can do to to mitigate that aspect will help us along as we're trying to do everything else on the on the regulation front. And so, for example, for our study sessions, ensuring that all of our Board Members really understand what Cal Fire, what the Forest Service is doing. And really working with them and trying to to, partner on on issues, whenever we can, has been really critical piece of that.

So it is about just grappling with it through education, but also, moving forward with, regulations, as well as, trying to do very real mitigating issue, right now.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have any examples of of something where you you gave that outside of the Clean Cars for All program?

Yeah. So for example, one of the one of the things that we've, been working on over the past couple of years has been around schools and and trying to ensure that schools understand the air quality better. Because so much of what we see when there's high ozone and when there's extreme heat events that are making our pollution worse. What we see are emergency department visits.

And we know that those emergency department visits happen more when when people are really little, when their children school age children, or when they're, elders.

And so we've been working with schools a lot to try to implement and having them understand and adopt policies around air pollution. So what what happens when our air quality hits a certain threshold? What will you do in sports? What will you do in recess? And so, I've been working with the air district to try to to develop, some materials, but also talk to schools around some of that as well.

And, and even in my own, child's school trying to talk about, what how air monitors work and how how what air quality means as well. And so, that is an that is one example of education, but there are other examples of of trying to ensure that we're moving forward conversations, for example, around technology for charbroiling so that we can have our local restaurants have cleaner, cleaner technology.

And while that is probably further away, we are still chipping away at it in in trying to, ensure we establish technology, establish technology works, and then having those collaborative conversations about moving things forward on that end.

Thank you. Members, any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we're going to, move this, to the public comment portion. If there are any members here of the public who wish to, speak in support of the appointee. Anyone in opposition?

Alright. Seeing none, we're gonna bring it back here. And Aye, welcome a motion if there is one. Thank you. We have a motion, by Senator Ochoa Bogue.

I will go ahead and call the roll.

Limon, aye. Limon, aye. Grove, aye. Laird, aye. Laird, aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Four to zero.

Alright. That appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate for confirmation. Congratulations, four to zero. Thank you so much. Thank you.

We will add, we will leave, this, open for absent members to add on. Next, we are going to turn to Governor's Appointments required to appear items 1b through 1d. We have Dennis Alfieri, Damascus Castellanos, and Thomas Hudnut as members of the California Horse Racing Board. We are going to welcome you to the table here. yes thank you.

Welcome. We'll have each of you go one to two minutes, and then we will take questions and comments from the committee members. So we will begin with-- to my right, so I think here, Mr. Alfieri.

Press this here?

There you go.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Dennis Alfieri, and I'm honored that Governor Newsom appointed me to a second full term to the California Horse Racing Board, and I appreciate your consideration in the confirmation process. Since I was appointed to the CHRB, I have spent a considerable amount of time digging into the critical issues surrounding thoroughbred horse racing in California.

That's where my heart is. In 2019, horse racing faced a critical animal welfare issue. The board and stakeholders dedicated considerable time and resources into addressing this challenge. Indeed, we passed 50--approximately 50, actually more--regulations designed to protect and promote animal welfare. I am pleased to report that those regulations have been very successful.

The CHRB and the California-- and California generally have become the global leaders in horse racing safety. In fact, the rules of the newer horse racing federal authority, HISA, are largely based on the California regulatory framework. Make no mistake; while we have done superlative work in animal welfare, we still have a lot of work to do. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing the work over the next four years.

To be clear, horse racing in California now faces economic challenges, notably serious competition from other states, making it difficult to keep race horses and trainers and owners here in California. I would like the opportunity to work with the Legislature, Executive Branch, and stakeholders to address these challenges to ensure that horse racing in California thrives into the future. Thank you for considering my confirmation today.

Thank you. Next, we will go to Mr. Castellanos.

Thank you very much. Without repeating everything that Mr. Dennis has said, which is very well and probably at the same sentiments I have, I would like to thank everybody on the CHRB staff and everybody on the committee's side and their staff for helping and prepare us for this.

This would be my second full term if I were to be reappointed, and in that time, as Dennis has said, we made a lot of headway. We made a lot of changes, all positive, not to everybody, but they were positive moves to make sure that we have safety in mind and the industry in mind, and that I would like to thank everybody for participating with us in.

Also, I would not-- I would not be able to do any of this if it wasn't, of course, for my family, my wife, my kids, and my grandkids. So they allow me to kinda run around and wear a bunch of different hats. So I appreciate it, along with my colleagues and everybody else that is here in the room. I thank them, too, for participating and putting up with us.

Thank you. Mr. Hudnut.

Thank you very much. I'd like to express my gratitude to a number of people, beginning with the governor for appointing me to this commission, to the prior Senate Rules Committee that confirmed my appointment several years ago, and to thank you for your service, not only to your constituents but to all of us Californians because you are emblematic of service at its best and we are grateful to you. Serving on this board has been a privilege, one that I hope to continue to do, and I thank you for your consideration today as you ponder our reappointments. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll start with Senator Laird.

Oh, you don't wanna go to somebody else?

There's too many who have questions at the moment.

Thank you. A couple of questions, and first, thank you for your willingness to serve, and I know, Mr. Alfieri, you spoke to just the crisis you faced in 2019, but I know that when we were confirming the last tranche of your colleagues, which had to be three or four years ago, and maybe one of you was in--

We took-

--were in those, that was happening right at that time still. There were some major deaths. So with regard to the equine fatalities, where do we stand now?

May I approach the committee?

You could do it from there.

Well, we have--

I'm teasing.

We have-- we will have--

We have graphics that answer that, Senator.

Okay. Would you briefly summarize the graphics for those at home that can't look at that?

Yes, I'd be happy to.

Thank you.

We went from a high number of fatalities of 81 in 2014 to 18 in 2025-- '26, excuse me. The current year. It's been a dramatic drop. You can see it-- for those who are not at home but here present, you can see it graphically, and we're very proud of that. At the same time, we have had no rider fatalities during that time and we have taken the horse and rider safety with the utmost seriousness.

And what do you attribute that drop to? What factors, regulations, and other things--

Yeah, some of the-- some of the regulations that we've instituted have been veterinary checks of all horses going out for workout and secondary checks of all horses before they go out for a race. We have increased security in barns so that there is less likelihood of there being any tampering with horses.

And we have increased rules on regulations regarding workouts of horses coming back after layoffs because our Equine Advisory Board has told us that horses coming back after layoffs are uniquely susceptible to shoulder injuries that are catastrophic in nature. So we have done a number of those things. We participate with other states and other veterinary schools in addition to UC Davis to participate in tests to see whether new devices can anticipate and predict injuries to horses. Sorry. I took up all of that time.

No, that's great because you were being responsive. Let me-- before I move on to my other question, let me ask the other two if you have anything you wish to add to that statement.

I think I would like to just add a piece that there's a lot of research that has gone on into the sudden deaths of horses and that is making some headway. It's slow, but they're making some headway in that, trying to figure out what is-- you know, what causes that and how can we get ahead of it. It's difficult, but it's something that they've always been looking into in the last few years.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Alfieri, anything to add?

Some of the things are like, we-- we're monitoring the hearts of horses. There's state-of-the-art devices to monitor, prevent the incident of a sudden death, or, you know, if there seems to be trouble ahead. We're able to tell that now. It's all because of modern technology, and the stakeholders in the sport are very much, you know, involved in this, putting lots of money into this to make sure that the safety of the horses and the riders are our priority, our top priority. So-- and that's our priority, so we're on this. We're not-- we're living off morals.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And then my other question, and I don't know who wants to take it first, is just what the impact is of the closure of Golden Gate Fields to both the industry and your agent. Knowing looks passed back and forth.

Well, it's been very-- it's been very significant. Golden Gate was the property of the Stronach Group, and it was their decision to sell it. It was always to improve the financial condition of their Southern California track. The loss of Golden Gate meant the loss of stable facilities for about 1,100 horses in the North. Those horses had to be dispersed further <unintelligible>.

Some have gone to other states, some have come to Southern California, but it decimated the number of horses available for Northern California racing, and the decline in fair racing in Northern California is the direct result.

Anything to add?

The-- I would add the betting and the participation in the racing was not there for them to sustain Golden Gate Fields any further. And then shortly after that, Golden State Racing tried to make a go at it and they ran across the same thing. They ran into debt and it just wasn't able to sustain itself.

And I would just say it sent-- it sent us into a trajectory that was a major influence on why the rest of some of the fairs, some of-- and other Northern California racing was not working, putting them into major hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and even the Department of Agriculture had to come in and send some money from their department to cover these debts. So, not the way we wanted it to start-- you know, run that way. And it started with the closure of Golden Gate Fields.

Thank you. I appreciate your response.

Thank you. Senator Reyes.

I don't know-- I'm so sorry. We're trying to cover a number of committee hearings. I don't know if the questions were asked about gambling, racing on demand. I guess not.

So industry stakeholders have explored various strategies to generate new revenue, including through various forms of gambling. In January, the operator of Santa Anita Park installed more than two dozen racing-on-demand machines, devices that allow patrons to wager on anonymized results of previously run races using a slot machine style interface. How has a board-- how is the board looking at tracks who are trying to expand their gambling options?

Well, this was a decision that Santa Anita made on its own without our involvement or prior knowledge, Senator, so we were surprised by it as anybody else.

Pleasantly surprised or angrily surprised?

I think surprised because the impetus behind it is to increase revenue. Revenue drives purses. Purses attract horses and horsewomen and men to the track. Our purse structure in California is deficient vis-a-vis other states that wanna have first-class horse racing. And so I think in general, we would be supportive of efforts to boost purses in the state.

No question about that. And this is one track's way of addressing that issue. We are officially agnostic in as much as this is now in court and we await the decision of the next hearing, which I believe is in October.

Very good.

But it also-- it is also being investigated on our end to find out what are the rules and policies of that in our current policies and rules.

And does that mean, then, that the board will be implementing policies so that other stakeholders can then figure out a way to implement gambling options?

That would be something that would have to wait until everything rolls out. If there's laws that change, then rules and policies would have to adapt.

In these lawsuits, we are not a party to them, the California Horse Racing Board, so.

Okay. I know that there were questions just as I was walking in about the health and safety of the horses. I wanted to ask, beyond existing rules and regulations, what steps has the board taken, or what steps will you take, to further enhance the health and safety of the riders?

We're pleased, Senator, that--I should knock wood, of which there is none as I answer you--that we have had no rider fatalities in recent memory in California. We have instituted a variety of improvements in the medical care and backstretch care that drivers and that riders and also workout riders, both professional jockeys and the workout riders, receive.

They're getting better benefits than they have gotten in the past, better medical care than they have gotten in the past, and certain improvements to their equipment-- certain improvements to their equipment have made their job significantly safer than it used to be.

Okay. What's the nature of the board's relationship with the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Authority, and to what extent have you encountered jurisdictional conflicts?

We-- I know. So we've-- Dennis mentioned a little bit earlier in his opening, HISA has been taking a role in our-- of our playbook basically, and they've used it, and we've been very proud of that. California has been the rules and policies that they've been going by. As far as any type of conflicts or anything, there hasn't been any conflicts.

There may be some questions of discipline that would-- that we would maybe think that would be doubled--let's say double jeopardy--and maybe excessive in some point, but those are discussed and we discuss them fully to find out and make sure that we're doing the right thing according to our policies and HISA.

Thank you.

As I said earlier, we're the-- our city, our state is the toughest regulations in the nation, no question, and that's why HISA has engaged on almost everything that we-- they look at us first and look at the other states. I mean, the other states have to live with it after they've been putting these rules into effect. So we're very tough in California.

Doesn't make them happy.

Okay. But it keeps everybody safe.

Yes. That's the bottom line.

That's what it comes down to.

And I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. And you may have mentioned in your opening, and I may be going beyond, Madam PT; this-- it isn't as though you're being paid a whole lot to be part of this board. Why do you want to be on the board?

I'm on this board because I love horse racing. I love horses. I grew up working as a wrangler in the summers, and everything about it I like and I wanna make it better.

I've been involved in this industry since 2012. It's not-- it's not something you get involved into. It's something that involved-- that you-- it's a passion.

These these people that are in this industry are generations, and these people that do these jobs, these hundreds of people that do these jobs, the various jobs that are there, it's generations. So it's not-- I quickly realized that it's not a job to them. It is a passion. It's in their blood.

It draws you in.

It's in their DNA. It's what they know, and they know it to the T, better than anybody. And so you-- as you participate with them, you are drawn in the same way and you develop a love for the sport, for the people, for everything, every aspect of it. Yes.

And I was born and raised right above Santa Anita, a few blocks. Our neighbor was Wayne Lukas, the famous trainer. Grew up as a little kid wondering what that man does. He's always impeccable taste and always worrying about these horses. What are these horses?

Anyway, I-- what Damascus just said is one hundred percent correct. What I've found over the years, these are generations of families that take pride in the backstretch. These horses are family members of these people, and we treat-- they treat the horses, and all of us are always concerned about the horses and the riders. That's the bottom line to us, and-- so I love being a part of it. I grew up in it as a young child, and our family was involved, and I wanted to continue to serve. So.

Well, thank you.

And serve California. All of California, not just Santa Anita. I see a chance for it to all come back to the North as well.

Good.

Well, I do. I do.

Yes, very good.

I'm an optimist.

Except that the Golden Gate Fields are going to be sold and we won't have a horse track there anymore.

Right. If-- that's true, Senator, but if we can improve purse structures in the South through perhaps increased gambling, perhaps through other legislative intervention or whatever the possibilities are, purse structures improving in the South, it will be the rising tide that lifts all boats and you'll see fair racing again in the North.

That's wonderful, and when you talk about legislative fixes, I speak for myself. I mean, my only connection is I once represented a jockey. I had my workers' compensation attorney and represented a jockey who had been injured in the San Diego area, and that was my first experience, and then I got to know so much about it.

And the other was, of course, is Del Mar. My brother, sister-in-law love going and we get to visit with them on occasion. But what-- for legislative fixes, for myself, because I don't have the connection and the experience and the knowledge, I would have no idea what legislative fixes might be needed. So, do keep us in mind if you think of something that would improve the sport in California and improve our chances of expanding the purse, as you say. Do let us know.

What a wonderful idea. Thank you. Yes, we're all ears, I might add.

Very good. I saw the smiles.

Thank you, Senator.

Your phone's gonna ring.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam PT.

Thank you. You mentioned a little bit about what the industry has done to try to revitalize itself to also not lose funds on this. While you're thinking about this, it is also true that there just has been a decrease in interest in the population. So how do you grapple with that and how do you try to address that in a space, you know, that isn't-- doesn't draw-- you know, making the money is one thing, right, but it doesn't draw as many individuals as it used to. How do you think about that and what are you doing about that?

It's a death-spiral, Senator. Honestly. And it's very-- it's very frustrating and it's very sad for us to witness. It comes back, I believe, to money. If we are able to generate better purses, we attract better horses. Better horses attract publicity, which in turn attract people to the track.

If we had a Seabiscuit coming along or even the horse that won this year's Kentucky Derby that felt there was a race in California rich enough for his people to run him in, that would bring people to the racetrack. It would generate a positive spin for the track and for publicity for the industry. Tracks have been notoriously weak when it comes to publicizing themselves. They're not very good at that.

There have been suggestions to tracks to make outreach to certain communities, ethnic communities where horse racing is popular and gambling is popular that have not been very well followed through on. So there is more that the industry could do. We would encourage this, but we're only a regulatory agency and can't generate marketing proposals for tracks, but we can applaud them.

The first part that Tom said is all true. The other part is the tracks have done everything and tried-- it's not everything. They've tried to do things to bring in that younger crowd to get people involved. What it is is that we do have betting. It's just the public going to the brick-and-mortar locations to participate.

And so they've done events, whether it's, you know, a beer fest or whether it's, you know, some kind of hotdog stuff or, you know, but they do try to do the concerts and stuff to try to bring in that age group to try to get them interested.

And there is some interested, but again, that age group is used to doing it through an app on a phone, you know. And so, if the avenue is there for that gambling app, that process, they'll do it, you know, and they'll still bring the revenue and they'll still increase the purses and everything else.

I agree with that, and I also take a little different view of it also, though. It's about information and getting our younger people to understand racing. They like racing. I was there last weekend, or two weekends ago, with my corgi, and it was corgi racing out in the center. And there were lots of people, several thousand there at Santa Anita, and they were families.

And the younger parents were, you know, playing their-- you know, betting on horses while their kids were playing with the corgis and everything else. And Santa Anita, as one example, is doing a lot of different events and things for families and bringing them out to the infield.

And-- but what I hear from a lot of young people-- and there's a lot of young people going to these races, but they don't-- they're looking at the old racing form and they don't even understand all the numbers and all the combinations and all these things. I think it's just, again, more and more information, and younger people learning. They're learning through AI and a few other things now to make betting actually easier and understanding handicapping and all of those things.

So I was-- I've been, lately, very-- I've been very happy to see more and more families and people coming out because the venues are putting on events, right? And so I think that we want that to continue, obviously. We want to promote-- help the stakeholders promote that and, you know. So, anyway.

Thank you. Most of your answers have focused on the challenges. The-- you know, you focused on the health and well-being of, you know, the animals involved but also the individuals involved, the financial challenges, the disconnect between current technology and absence of using it, and also just the piece about how, you know, there is a need to create greater desire. Despite all of these challenges, what are you optimistic about in terms of the revitalization of the horse racing industry?

Well, I'm optimistic to work with the Legislature and the stakeholders and others to revitalize and bring back horse racing to the state, the entire State of California. And I'm optimistic that we're gonna come up with supplemental purses, ways to supplement these purses so that these horses are not leaving the state.

And I'll give you an example. Bob Baffert, who's one of our famous trainers here in California, the best example of him--this week-- he's-- this coming weekend, he has five horses racing at Churchill Downs in Kentucky, he has three horses running at Saratoga in New York, and he only has two horses running at Santa Anita. And he is one of the most successful trainers. There are several other trainers that have left the state.

They're building barns and moving to Kentucky. And why is that? The purses are twice, double, and three times the purse than what we can offer here. We need help. We need to figure it out. If we can't have the gaming, you know, legal gaming for historical horse racing machines--that's what they're calling them; could be whatever it is--which just has to do with racing and the history of racing, right-- we're not trying to, you know, get into the gambling business.

It's just related only to horse racing. We have to figure out a way to have that support of the Legislature and all stakeholders to make this viable again as-- a viable sport in California. So I'm optimistic we can do that because I think there's a lot of support for it if we can work with you all and work with the Executive Branch and things.

Thank you.

A lot-- exactly what Dennis said and it's-- to add to that, is only the part that I am optimistic in the fact that we are gonna be able to work together--all parties, legislation, everybody--to come up with something to save the industry so that we don't lose all these jobs, we don't lose the revenue, we don't lose the industry that-- the history of California has in it. So I'm optimistic about that. I believe that's gonna happen and, Ms. Reyes, when you offered the phone call, you'll be getting a phone call. Nobody else did, so I didn't look at them. I didn't wanna put them on the spot.

Thank you.

I am not an optimist, but I live with hope.

Okay. I'll take hope.

Thank you.

All right. Well, thank you. We're going to go to Vice Chair Grove now.

Thank you. I apologize. I have three committees: this one, Health, and Energy. So I do apologize. I'm gonna start off, because you brought up Bob Baffert as an excellent trainer. He was also suspended from Medina Spirit's overdose and the horse fell to drug test when it was going into the Derby Race. So it was exonerated and it was finished 20-- in 2024. That was in 2020 or 2021 when he got suspended in a 2024, but that was a compromise in a settlement. It didn't prove him totally innocent.

So I-- obviously, my perception of the Horse Racing Board is not the same as my colleagues' and-- because I represent the Central Valley and parts of the North State. And I had been working with George Schmitt regarding--and John Harris--regarding restoring the North State Horse Racing Collaboration, along with the former Senate Pro Tem, and it just didn't work.

So, I have a real problem, and I'm just gonna say it straight up, that you guys would take money from the North to take it down South, which depleted a lot of the resources. There weren't bankruptcies regarding the purses.

Not one purse was not met unless you can show me differently based on the information that Mr. Schmitt gave me, George gave me, and John Harris's team gave me, because that was John Harris's thing before he died, his beautiful horses that he cared for, and he made sure every purse was met. So I don't buy that unless you guys can provide me that document because the information that I have shows differently. The first question I have is <inaudible> news to the North State--

Are citing concerns that... That I just mentioned, what purses...

I don't think that was the discussion of purses not being high. In other words, the purses not being enough to get the attention of these horses and of the betters. The betting is not going on enough. If you don't have enough betting at that track or at that fair, then the purses are not gonna be that high. So therefore...

But the horses were still racing in North State.

Yes. Yes.

They were still racing in North State. And the fairs were, the county fairs were still getting resources that provided activities for young people to do FFA and 4-H, and it kept the fairs open. So that was subsidizing, not subsidizing, but being a piece of the puzzle to keep these North State County fares open was the horse racing. Now they may not have been high enough, but you guys took those resources and took them down south.

No. Once Golden State Fields, once Golden State Fields. I'm sorry. Golden State Racing tried and failed, all the fairs stopped and did not file for any license after that.

So when you're saying in 2026, the California Horse Racing Board didn't deny the 2026 race states that were put in for the District Fair and Humboldt County Fair? That didn't happen?

In 2026, yes.

It did happen.

You're correct. When Golden State Racing failed, then all the fares actually withdrew from racing at that time.

There was a shortfall in purses, and it was an economic disaster. That's what it was. They were only open a few weeks. There were not enough horses. There were not enough horses to fill races. It was it was teetering on... Well, it was a disaster, not teetering. And then the North, the South had to send $600,000 back up to pay for the purses for these people that won.

Back up. Because it was generated from North State in the first place.

No. There wasn't enough betting to cover it.

There wasn't enough horses. There wasn't enough. And several and CARF went broke.

Okay. But you guys denied the racing schedule. Did you deny the racing schedule that they wanted to put horses on the track and you guys said no?

Because there were not enough horses.

Okay. Well, Mr. Harris and his team and Mr. Schmitt and his team who do horse racing up north are disputing what you're saying.

And they have. They've continued to, yeah.

And I think they had, they even made a suggestion that they would cover those purses if necessary, and you still denied it. And all they were doing, not for the money and the horse racing, but to make sure these county fairs in these North State areas, these rural areas survived. So that there was activities for the community.

We understood at the time that several horses from the North all were leaving the state. They were in Oregon and Washington and other states to the South. And so we, to keep the South, there couldn't be, there can't be two circuits right now because of the lack of funding of these purses. And so.

And horses and the horse population. So we felt or I felt that at least we have a strong circuit in the South that, as Tom said, a rising tide will raise all boats. That's what will happen and that's what's happened to a degree. But again, we're still losing. Our purses are so low that we're losing horses and horsemen.

How much money did you take from the North to the South? To the Southern Californians?

I don't know the exact number.

What's an estimate? Best guess.

There was... I don't know.

It's a percentage. Not millions. But it's a percentage.

Roughly.

I don't know. I can't answer that. I can get, we can get back to you.

For an exact number. I'm asking for your best guess of how much money you took out of the North.

We would have to look at that and get back to you.

Okay. What are the benchmarks for horse racing inventory wagering, support pursing levels, and facility readiness, and race meet agreements would the Northern California Fair Circuit have to meet before the CHRB could approve race dates in 2026? Or I mean, you denied it. So what do they have to do?

I think they need to build their horse population and trainers and everyone else and rebuild. They put forward Tehama. Tehama hasn't been open in forty years. And Golden State Racing came to us and said, we're gonna open. We're gonna get this open.

And they put out a budget. The budget was off by hundreds of thousands of dollars. They said we can do it for 50,000, or whatever the number is, 60,000. And we said, wait a minute. The CHRB inspectors went out, went to the track, came back with a full report that says it's really more like 2 million you need, not 60,000. So that's why we denied Tehama.

Why Humboldt County Fair?

I think Humboldt was the same. It, they didn't have the horse population is is really the issue. And if you can't have the horse population and you're running two horses in a race, it just doesn't work.

In my, in my opinion and my vote, I took an oath to to sit on this board and I took an oath not to do things basically by heart. If I was gonna do this job from my heart, I'd be saying yes to everything. Because as you all know, I'm the teamster. I'm the guy that looks for jobs. I'm the guy that wanna keep people working.

So I would love to make this happen every day. But financially, we would literally have to take up to close to $2 million and send that to the North. Give that to the North and let them run with it like we did Golden State Racing. Lost it. So I not only took an oath to take care of this industry, but also the state.

We're not here to throw the money around and get it lost. We wanna make sure that their structure is fine and great. Now when somebody's putting up $2 million a cap. If you read the document that Harris and them put together, George Schmitt, it's a cap of $2 million, and then after that, they'll let you know if they're gonna spend any more money on it.

They'll cover up to $2 million. That wouldn't do it. So that in my opinion, I'm only speaking for myself. In my opinion, that's why I said no because for the state and for the industry because this industry is failing as it is. So if we were to do that, then we're just draining it more.

I wanna know how much money came from the North. So I'd like that information.

We'll find you that information, Senator. Yep. Absolutely.

In a timely manner too. Absolutely.

I appreciate that.

In a timely manner.

I appreciate that because I do have huge concerns. I know, Mr. Alfieri, we've had several conversations or emails or back and forth over the last year and a half. And, again, it's the North State versus Southern California. The entire North State, every rural community, Humboldt, Tehama. And you said Tehama forty years. Golden State, explain to me how Golden State Racing is separate from the private fairs or the county fairs. Because it is separate.

They just created their own. Own organization. Their own organization.

And those people did that.

Those people, George Schmitt.

But it had nothing to do with the...

It had nothing to do with the fairs.

But you said George Schmitt had something to do with Golden State Racing?

No.

No. He did not.

No. No. No. We didn't say that. Right.

I'm making sure I correct the record.

Let me correct the record. Yes. That's right.

He had nothing to do with that. That was totally separate.

I understand.

That was the demise of the North State.

Right. I got it. I got it.

Millions of dollars committed. It was only 2 million, but I mean, $2 million to commit to the North State to keep our fairs open and keep horse racing alive in the North State. That's a pretty good chunk of money from private investors to make sure that the North State's successful.

And you guys still said no. Everything that they tried, you still said no. And you blamed it on Golden State. And Golden State was a disaster from the beginning, but that had nothing to do with John Harris and George Schmitt and our county fairs. So anyways, I'll stop. Very happy I stopped.

Can I say one thing though, Senator? The last thing I wanna see is the North closed. I wanna make it work. It was a financial decision. I'm a businessman. I look at the numbers. I look at what's happening. By the way, the South opened up their arms.

They asked, you know, everybody, the backstretch workers in the North, anybody that had to come down, they went out of their way to bring those people down, pay for their travel, move them into temporary housing, do all the things that we had to do down there, which was good on the stakeholders part.

But the last thing I wanna see is is horse racing closed, especially at the fairs. I went to the fairs. I went to the Los Angeles County Fair when I was a kid. I loved seeing the horses over there and everything. But the horses, I asked it several times. The fairs are not just predicated on only horse racing.

The families, the grandmas that bring their pies and, you know, the animal animal husbandry of all of it. You know, there's so many other things happening at the fair. I kept asking all year. Show me the numbers of the fair. Just the fair.

Forget horse racing. Is the fair still alive and well? Is it is it, what does it make any money? Does it is it in the hole? I kept asking that. I've never seen numbers from the state fairs or the county fairs. But we wanna bring horse racing back to the North. This is this is, you know, it's not an easy decision. It was not an easy decision.

Thank you. Alright. With that, this is the moment that we are going to invite any members of the public who are here. If you are here to speak in support of the nominees, please come forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Good afternoon. Justin Fanslau here on behalf of Del Mar Racetrack, Santa Anita, and the Stronach Group on behalf of Scott Wetch for them. And also representing the 6,000 plus members of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, who make up all of the horsemen and women, who have to feed all these all these tracks in support and in great thanks to the board members for their continued service. And I would ask for your support of their confirmation today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm Bill Nader. I'm the President of the Thoroughbred Owners of California. And as Justin said, 6,000 members. And John Harris, the late John Harris, was one of our board members. After his passing, he was replaced by Darren Filkins, who's the CEO of Harris Farms.

We have Andy Mathis, a trainer from the North, Ty Green, who's on the California Thoroughbred Breeders board, Terry Lovingier, and the list... We have 15 board members, 6,000 members, and we represent the owners in the state of California. And I wanna, if I can, give a brief overview of the state of the industry, which I think is important just for context.

The only thing is that this is just the time to speak in support of the nominees. So it has to be directly to them and also there's a time limit.

Okay. Okay. Well, we're speaking in support. I mean, the things that have been mentioned previously about, you know, the great attributes of California racing are we have iconic race tracks. You talked about a decline of interest.

I just wanna, we have two iconic race tracks in San Diego and Del Mar, which have hosted the world championships in 10 of the last 14 years. The Kentucky Derby, which was just run in the first Saturday of May, one of the five most watched sporting events in in America, over 20 million people watching. So there is a lot to be optimistic of, in terms of...

And, again, I appreciate your thoughts and comments on some of the questions that have been asked. This is only about the three nominees that are...

And so okay. Just context on what they were saying about ancillary revenue or secondary revenue. In the state of New York, it's over 120 million a year.

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Anybody else to speak in support? Please just your name, your position, and affiliation.

Alan Balch is my name. I'm Executive Director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers, which represents all the licensed trainers in California, north, south, fairs, non fairs, majors, minors, all the rest. Including all their employees, meaning the hot walkers, the grooms, the people who take care of the horses.

And I'm here to be in support of these three gentlemen for their roles at the California Horse Racing Board. I've been in racing for over 55 years in California, and these gentlemen are at the top of the list as to their integrity and commitment to racing, and our constituents support them. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else here in support? Alright. Seeing nobody else here in support, is there anyone here in opposition? Alright. Seeing no one else, we're bringing this back to the dais, and we will go ahead and call these for a vote if there is a motion. I will go one at a time. I will begin. So I'll entertain a motion for Dennis Alfieri as a member of the California Horse Racing Board. Do I have a motion? Thank you, Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate for confirmation with a vote of 3-0. Next, I will take a motion for Damascus Castellanos as a member of the California Horse Racing Board. Do I have a motion? Thank you, Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate for confirmation with a 3-0 vote. Next, we'll entertain a motion for Thomas Hudnut, JD, as a member of the California Horse Racing Board. Thank you, Senator Reyes, for making the motion. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate for confirmation with the 3-0 vote. Congratulations to the three of you. Thank you. Lastly, we will turn to governor appointees required to appear item 1E and 1F. The appointments of Julie Lee and Ann Patterson, JD, as members of the Delta Stewardship Council. We will welcome both of you. Great. Thank you.

You will each have one to two minutes for your opening testimony to the committee. And in the opening testimony, you're welcome to make any introductions of any guests that might be in the room here with you today. Excuse me. And we will go ahead and time you if you can reach your two minutes. We are going to begin with Ms. Lee and then followed by Ms. Patterson.

Hi. Thank you very much for having me here today. I'd like to start out by acknowledging some of the family members in the audience. My daughter Beth is here along with my, shameless plug for two adorable grandchildren, Avery and Richie.

I also have several friends and colleagues in the audience who've been mentors to me over the years, and I would not be sitting here without all of their support and wisdom over the years. Unfortunately, my husband of 23 years, David, and my other children and many grandchildren are either working or out of town or living out of state right now.

So I've told them that I will send them a link to this proceeding, probably depending on how it goes. And If it doesn't go great, I may just go visit them. So we'll get that out of the way. I had the honor of appearing before this committee several years ago, and I just want to thank you for the opportunity that you gave me to serve on the Delta Stewardship Council.

It's been one of the greatest learning experiences of my life. I totally realize I have more to learn. There's no end to what we can learn about water in California. But I feel like I also have more to contribute. Two years ago, my fellow council members elected me to serve as the chair, and I was greatly honored and humbled to accept that responsibility.

As the chair, I presided over two of the most recent appeals hearings that the council has had. I know we'll be discussing that topic today, but I did want to spend just a moment of my time here before you talking about science. One of the most amazing things I've learned since being appointed to the council was how much dedication and commitment the council has to science, research, and collaboration.

At a time when the value of scientific expertise is being debated nationally, I specifically wanted to highlight that part of our mission here today. The council provides scientific leadership and helps build trust in the Delta through several ways.

Our science programs, delta science plan, and the science action agenda guide and promote the use of best available science for both programs at departments with responsibilities in the delta and to inform policy making. As Senator Laird is fond of saying, everyone likes at least one of the co-equal goals.

And I wanted to just shine a spotlight on science today because it helps us with both water reliability and ecosystem protection and restoration. So once again, I thank you for having me here and I look forward to our discussion and answering your questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Ms. Patterson.

Thank you so much. Is my microphone? Yeah. I'm here. Just move up a little tiny bit. Great. Thank you so much. I wanna start by thanking the council staff for preparing us to be here today and to acknowledge some family that I have in the audience as well. Starting with my wonderful husband and partner, Nathan Barankin. We... Who maybe just left.

I think he was here. There he is, hiding in the corner. We just celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary last week, and we have been on this incredible journey of raising a family in California together, and I could not have done any of what I have done in my life without him. So thank you.

I also have with me in the audience my mom, who is a recent transplant to California and was an early childhood educator and Head Start teacher for a very long time and gave me the gift of relentless optimism about people.

My mother, excuse me, mother-in-law Nancy Barankin is also here, and I thank her for raising two amazing sons who are wonderful partners, including my husband. My two daughters are not here today because they're both studying for finals.

One at UCLA and the other one at McClatchy High School. But they are my why. I think like many of us, the work that we do is really grounded in our children and making this a better place for them as they grow. There is a running joke in my family, and I'm afraid I am the butt of that joke.

Which is every time we take a road trip, and we take a lot of road trips together, I will inevitably, like, interrupt the musical programming my daughters have given us to remark on some landmark in California or some interesting fact about California, and that is inevitably followed by some soliloquy of mine about how lucky they are to live in this amazing, remarkable state.

And that always ends with a lot of eye rolls on their part and can we get back to the to the programming. But I think over time, as cringey as those moments have been for them, they really I think it has instilled in both of our daughters, like, a deep love and reverence for this amazing state that we get to live in.

And I hope will, like for me, give them, you know, a goal in life of continuing to chair to, you know, steward this place for future generations. So for me, that directly leads to why I wanted to be on the council because this is about stewarding one of the most amazing places in California, among a place with so many amazing places, which is the Delta. It has been there sustaining generations of Native Americans for thousands of years.

We have drastically altered that landscape, but it is now the source of, like, so much bounty in California in terms of agriculture and supporting water reliability for two thirds of Californians. And the opportunity to be part of balancing the very, very all the people and the needs of people who rely on that system is something I'd be very honored to have an opportunity to do. So thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you. Senator Laird.

I beat out the other Senators. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me thank you for meeting. I know I was on the verge of making you late for this hearing. And when we walked out my staff member said to me we could have gone on for another hour. And I think that's true.

It was a really great conversation and really helpful and I'm appreciative for it. And I think what I'd like to do is ask you each a question that we actually talked about because I thought your responses were so important that that it'd be good to do it here.

And with Ms. Patterson and you started to get toward it in your opening statement. But I know I asked you why you wanted to do this, given sort of the level of controversy and complexity and how would you answer that?

I think it's a, it's very... There. Sorry about that. Red means on. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you so much, Senator. I think that in my experience over the last seven years working in the governor's office, the hard challenges are often the most important ones.

And if you think about the Delta, and, again, as I mentioned before, two thirds of Californians rely on water from the Delta for drinking water, to irrigate the Central Valley, to provide, you know, really support, millions of jobs for people. While we also have the Delta itself and the communities there who need that water as well, and the ecosystem restoration issues.

And so how you balance those competing interests, especially at a time where climate change is really, like, you know, on a daily basis altering the hydrology and how we get water and when we get water. That is, you know, to me the the challenge of our time and one that I just would be honored and humbled to play a part in helping to manage.

And I appreciate that very much. I think it teed up another question that we talked about and I should go in, which is what is the progress we're making on the dual goals? At this point, how are we doing? And I'll give Ms. Lee a chance to answer after you take a stab at it.

Oh. Sorry, you wanted me to go first? Oh, I apologize for that. So I think that-- you know, my sense is that we are making progress on a lot of aspects of managing the co-equal goals. I think-- you know, in our-- we have performance metrics that we use in evaluating the Delta Plan, and if you look at, you know, the progress that we have made, it shows that on reliability issues, we're making-- we're doing quite well.

On ecosystem restoration and some of the issues around subsidence, I think more challenge and a lot more work to do. I think we have made progress in that area. I was just down in the Delta two weeks ago on a tour, and we visited some wetland restoration and pilot projects on rice farming to try to deal with subsidence issues, but, you know, those are still, you know, I think from a pace and scale perspective, not what we need, and so more work to be done on that.

But I think one of the things that I was really excited to see when I came to the council recently is how data-driven the work that we do is and how we use performance metrics to try to actually quantify and see where we're doing well and where we haven't quite met the mark so that we can adapt and put resource toward the things that we still need to work on.

Thank you. Miss?

Well, I'll answer your first question about why do I want the job. Now that I've been the chair for two years, I think I've really gotten quite a better understanding of what the council does and a passion for the work that we do. As Ann mentioned in her opening statement, we do this work for the next generations.

And I was really inspired at the State of the Estuary Conference last fall that I went to when I heard from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission about SB 272 that you authored, Senator Laird, that is helping to address sea level rise due to climate change in the coastal areas of the bay. And it really made me think about how we're going to deal with these issues in the Delta, and do we have that type of on-the-grounds planning support actually going on?

And so, you know, I think for me, a lot of the work that we're doing around climate change, including our recent report called Delta Adapts that is an adaptation strategy for climate change, is something that I really want to make sure is being widely used by agencies and people in the Delta to help prepare for climate change and sea level rise.

Second, I guess our progress on the co-equal goals, as Ann also mentioned, we have 158 performance metrics that we use and track at the council and we get updated on them every single year. And I think, you know, measuring success in that way and having it publicly reported helps people understand and all work from the same baseline.

I had talked about science in my opening remarks, and I think using the science program to help build trust, especially in communities within the Delta who I don't feel like always necessarily feel like they have the right information from local agencies and state agencies about projects going on, I think we can be a real source of truth there and help move forward the goals in that way as well.

And let me ask a follow-up on that because we talked about it, and I frequently get in trouble for saying that the sides in the Delta are a lot like the Middle East. I feel like people are grounded themselves in their point of view a long time ago.

No factor, new thing has gotten in the way of it, and yet when you talked about climate, what would be a hundred-year flood with a foot of sea level rise will be a 10-foot flood in the Delta, and addressing that, you can't address it with rhetoric. You really have to bring people along to the practical situation. Given those divisions, how do you do that? How do you get through to people about what the reality of the changing climate does to the Delta?

Yeah, I mean, I think science research and collaboration is very, very important part of what we do, but also, one of the big goals of the Delta Stewardship Council is community engagement and making sure that we're really reaching out and forming relationships and building trust with people in the Delta. We've really recently put out a Tribal and Environmental Justice issue paper, and this is gonna help us elevate social science and incorporate it more into the work that we're doing.

We have a research grant program and we've also expanded that grant program to include more research projects about social science to make sure that we're including the people in the Delta. I think that you're right. There are fundamental misunderstandings or maybe even purposeful misunderstandings about some of the things going on in the Delta because certain people have agendas.

And I think having a-- knowing that there is a source of truth that is guided by an Independent Science Board and a Delta lead scientist really helps people know where to go to find the facts that we can all rely on to base our policy-making on.

Oh, would you like to add something, Ms. Patterson?

Yeah. I would just add, I think, on the social science, I think, you know, we have both people who have strong views and then people who perhaps we need to bring along who are not realizing kind of the impacts that we are likely to see in the Delta, you know, as a result of climate change and from floods, sea level rise, salinity encroachment. And, you know, I was really struck by one of the former appointees, Dr. Pacheco-Werner, when she talked about how do you speak to people.

And I think I was so excited to see the social science work being brought into our work because it's about how do we talk to people in a way that is going to make that, you know, accessible to them, and, you know, talking about not necessarily climate change or big lofty words that they may not understand what that means, or it means lots of things to different people, but about the impacts of what flooding is gonna do to their community, what salinity could do to their crops so that they're really kind of understand in tangible terms.

So I think that work that they're doing is part of both the TEJ, the Tribal and Environmental Justice, but also just the broader incorporation of social science is gonna be really important.

Thank you. And then the question I was-- the last question for Ms. Lee, we talked about-- I generally ask candidates-- this was created in your agency in 2009 and it was sort of had an express purpose at the time to approve the plan, and it was related to the project. And I asked, do you see an end? Do you see an end to your agency? And you reflected on that, and I thought that would be a good thing for you to reflect on here.

Of course. I'm happy to. When the Legislature wrote the Delta Reform Act, it was really to solve a management problem in the Delta. There's over 200 different state, local, federal agencies that all have some type of a narrow and prescribed role in our Delta, and there wasn't really an overarching plan, as you mentioned.

So the Legislature wrote that plan and-- well, they wrote the Reform Act and they tasked the Delta Stewardship Council with writing the Delta Plan, and I don't think that that mission has really gone away for us. I still feel like we have this overarching management need, and if we weren't there, then what other entity in the Delta would be making sure that the goals of the Reform Act, as the Legislature wrote them, were being worked on?

And the second thing, I've tried to talk a lot about science today, and I think that that would really be a big gap in what's going on in the Delta without the Delta Stewardship Council.

And do you think that--let's say you actually get to a point where you approve the plan and there's a project and something happens there--that we should legislatively sort of consider whether there should be some changes in the structure or the mission of the council? Is that something we should get to if we pass through that?

I mean, I think we're always willing to have conversations about what improvements we can make at the council. I think we all feel very open to that, especially, as I mentioned, we've gone through two recent appeals processes, and we expect another appeal to come back because the conveyance project was remanded back to the department. And so it would be a timing issue on when things like that would happen. We wouldn't want that to happen in the middle of some of our appeals processes, obviously, so.

Okay. Well, thank you. It's-- I know that there was a question of a previous person about how much she got paid, and I think you're in the same salary schedule as she is, which is none. And so-- just, this is one of the thorniest issues that exists in California public policy, and I just wanna thank you for your service and your willingness to serve.

Well, in the wisdom of the Legislature, they did provide four salaries for our members. So we are in a minority, I realize, for most boards and commissions, but I can tell you that our council members really earn their keep.

Well, it's probably smart when you're seeking confirmation to work-- refer to the wisdom of the Legislature. So, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any-- Senator Reyes?

It's great to see you both. Thank you for the work that you do. I'm learning so much more about the Delta and the importance of it through the various committees that the PT has appointed me to and also speaking with my colleagues who have great passion for what's going on there.

The council, when it was created in 2009, was given two co-equal goals. And I appreciate that they are co-equal, and I want to ask about that. One is providing a more reliable water supply for California. Clearly, that is for all of California so you all have the water.

My relatives from Sacramento always used to remind us, they had the water and they just give it to us. And I hated to hear that, but the truth is, it's true, and that's why that is so important to have you provide more reliable water supply for all of California. And the second is protect and restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem while preserving the Delta as an evolving place. Do you see both of these goals as co-equal?

Do you want one of us to go first?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. We definitely-- it's mandated in the Reform Act that they're equal, and I think, you know, having a statewide viewpoint about what water reliability is very important to our council. You know, as Ann mentioned in her opening remarks, the Native Americans think of the watershed all the way from Shasta down as the Delta.

And we really learned through all of our science presentations that we have every single month when we have our meetings all about how when the snow falls in the Sierras, that creates our snowpack, and if the Delta is the vital organs, the heartbeat of California, all of our watersheds and rivers are the circulatory system. And we have to look at it as an entire system.

So, yes, 27 million people in California rely on water from the Delta. I think that none of those people would want to turn their spigot on and have salt water come out. And so, getting the facts out about how important the balance in the Delta is with the ecosystem, keeping salinity at bay, making sure that the estuary is healthy, is really the other side of that co-equal goal, and it has to be co-equal because without a clean and healthy estuary, we cannot have a reliable water supply.

And I was absolutely gonna say the same thing, that they're coequal, but they're also-- the water supply is dependent on the ecosystem and so they really are mutually supporting, so I-- and I think that doesn't mean that they're not intention, right?

And we have, you know, not just the 27 million people who are relying on the Delta for clean drinking water but also an agricultural industry that feeds, you know, the California and the country and employs many, many people across our state, and so, you know, being able to balance the need for that with also, you know, the people in the Delta who both have a vibrant agricultural system and also vibrant communities that are suffering because of the ecosystem impacts of all of the exports.

So balancing that is important, and I think that is why I think-- I'll echo the comments about science because we are, through science, technology, and innovation and the kind of can-do-it-all California spirit, increasing supply and reducing reliance on the Delta for water. That's part of the strategy.

And so you're seeing, you know, communities throughout the South really lean in on other alter-- on both conservation and also, you know, alternative kind of water recycling, desalination, different options in order to make our water go farther, which is going to need to go farther as we look at how much the hydrology of California is changing because of climate change.

So I think if we all, too-- I think to the point that Julie made about, you know, how this is one system, we're kind of all in this together and I think there's an opportunity for us to sort of-- if we're informing each other and educating each other about how integrated our needs are, then we'll be able to develop, you know, better solutions for the whole state.

That's wonderful. Then I just wanted to-- just an observation that this is one board. Usually, we have boards with majority male.

Not us.

Here, it's-- we have one male and the rest of you.

Our executive officer is a female, our lead scientist is a female, and the chair of our Independent Science Board is a female.

Welcome to 2026.

That's right. Thank you so much, and thank you, Madam Chair, Madam PT.

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, members. You know, you've talked a little bit about your work and how you try to balance, right? I heard that word in your responses multiple times, how you try to balance, and one of the things I think we see in this particular area is that all stakeholders-- and there are more than two. It's-- this is not a north or south alone from my perspective. There are multiple stakeholders in this-- always seek and ask for balance yet don't always feel like it's there.

How do you two, as members of this board, balance the interest of those who live in the Delta, those who depend on the Delta, and those who believe in preservation? Sometimes these are one in the same, sometimes these are not. Can you help me answer that, please? Thank you.

I mean, I think that's one of the biggest challenges that we have. Our regulatory role is somewhat prescribed and narrow in scope, so I would say that for projects that are being created in the Delta that come under our authority, we-- our role, as prescribed by the Legislature, is to make sure that they are in compliance with the co-equal goals and the regulations that we've written from those. I think that that process is a public process.

Anyone can come and appeal a project in the Delta. I think we try to make that as accessible to everyone as we can. We've held trainings about it. We have, as prescribed by the Legislature, a process called Early Consultation, where we work with people who are going to be building projects in the Delta to make sure that they understand what the Delta Plan is and that they're in compliance with it.

So I think it's also during that process where people that have an interest in what's going on in the Delta, whether it's whether they live in it or they rely on it or care about its preservation, they have an ability to come before us and participate in that process.

So I think that's one way that we balance those interests is through our appellate authority. I think another is, as we've, you know, mentioned and kind of keep hammering home is through science. We have tried really hard to make sure that we're incorporating social science and the people that live in the Delta as a consideration in our policy-making, and I think we'll really continue to do that.

It was a recommendation from the Independent Science Board that we incorporate more social science into what we're doing. So I think making sure that we're reaching out to as diverse of groups as possible is one way that we can try to keep all the stakeholders interested and involved in our process.

And I think I'll just start by reaffirming, Madam Pro Tem, your point that there aren't just two sides. There are so many perspectives. I just was on this tour with the-- put on by the Water Education Foundation, which was wonderful, and we met with farmers in the Delta, farmers who farm in the Central Valley, people whose job it is to make sure that clean water comes out of the tap for their residents, fishermen in San Francisco who have been struggling with the closure of the salmon fishery for two years.

There's so many diverse people who rely on this water and come at this issue with very, very different perspectives, and my experience, I think, you know, working in government but also on the work of the committee--or I'm sorry--on the council thus far is you have to engage and listen to people and bring people together just when you're talking about solving hard problems like that. And so, we have multiple ways that we have done that. If you-- or, like, our Delta Adapts is a great example that had first a vulnerability study.

It was, like, how is climate change going to impact the livelihoods of people living throughout the Delta and throughout the state and then engaging them and farmers and all the different folks in both that vulnerability study and then also the Adaptation Plan? So you're bringing people into the process throughout.

Our Tribal Environmental Justice is another-- you know, we do a lot of work through that TEJ paper, but all of the work and recommendations coming out of it on early and often tribal consultation and consultation with the community, and I think, you know, I'm doing some negotiations right now. Sometimes you just have to put people in a room and listen for a moment.

And I think having stakeholders who feel very strongly about their position potentially have the opportunity to engage with people who have different perspectives is gonna help us all make better decisions, and certainly, as policymakers, help us make better decisions.

Thank you. Any other-- seeing no other questions, this is a moment where we will welcome any members of the public to come forward. If you are here in support of the appointees, please feel free to come forward and state your name, position, and affiliation.

Good afternoon. My name is Sonja Eschenburg. I'm here from the Association of California Water Agencies in support of the confirmation of both. We thank you for your leadership.

Thank you. Seeing no one else here in support, is there anyone here in opposition? All right. Seeing no one here in opposition, we are going to bring it back to the dais, members. We will do one at a time. I'm going to start with Ms. Lee. So I'll entertain a motion for Julie Lee as a member of the Delta Stewardship Council.

So move.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll call]. Four votes.

Thank you. The appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate for confirmation with the 4/0 vote, and we will leave that open for absent members. Next, I'll entertain a motion for Ann Patterson, J.D. as member to the Delta Stewardship Council.

So moved.

Thank you, Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll call]. Four votes.

Thank you. The appointment has been approved to move to the full Senate floor for confirmation with the 4/0 vote. Congratulations to the both of you. Thank you. Members, this concludes today's agenda. I want to thank all members of the public who are here. We are going to recess for any absent members. I don't believe there's any members here who have missed votes, so we will recess for absent members to come back to add on.

That is you.

Oh, sorry. I tried--

And there is no longer a need to recess, so I'm gonna go through our votes today. So we are going to start with Governor's Appointments not required to appear, starting with Item 2G, the appointment of Paulette Brown-Hinds, PhD, as a member of the California Transportation Commission. Can we please call the roll for absent members?

[Roll call]. Five to zero.

All right. That item is approved; five to zero. The next item is Governor's Appointments not required to appear, Item 2H, Laura Capps for the Board of State and Community Corrections. Can we please call the roll for absent members?

[Roll call]. Three to two.

All right. That item is approved with a three to two vote. The next item is Governor's Appointments not required to appear, Item 2I, Christopher Clark for the Board of State and Community Corrections. Can we please call the roll for absent members?

[Roll call].

Yep counts as aye.

What's that?

Yep counts as aye.

Okay.

I am. I'm done, right?

Four to zero.

Okay. That item is approved; four to zero. The next item for Governor's Appointments not required to appear, Item 2J, Maggie Hallahan for the Boating and Waterways Commission. Can we please call the roll for absent members?

[Roll call]. Five to zero.

All right. That item is approved; five to zero. Next is Governor's Appointments not required to appear, Item 2K, Kent Sasaki for the Building Standards Commission. Can we please call the roll for absent members?

[Roll call]. Five to zero.

All right. That is five/zero?

I actually vote no.

Last-- that item is approved; five to zero. The last item for Governor's Appointments not required to appear is Item 2L, Daniel N. Munoz for the board, and we actually have the five votes, so we don't need to open that. We have the reference to bills, so we just have Governor's Appointments required to appear.

We have-- oh, the-- so we're going to go to Governor's Appointees required to appear, Item 1A, the appointment of Tania Pacheco-Werner, PhD, as a member of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Can we please call the roll for absent members?

[Roll call]. Five to zero.

All right. That is five to zero. Next, we'll go-- I believe that Senator Grove was here for Item 1B through 1D. And then we will go to-- gotcha. We will go to the appointments required to appear, Items 1E. We will start with Julie Lee for a member of the Delta Stewardship Council.

[Roll call]. Five to zero.

All right. That item is approved, five to zero. Next, we'll go with Item 1F, the appointment of Ann Patterson, J.D. as member of the Delta Stewardship Council.

[Roll call]. Five to zero.

All right. That is out; five to zero. This concludes today's agenda. Thank you, everyone, for participating.