The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20220215 07 - Lobbyist Consideration CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 02/15/2022 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to hire a state lobbyist. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Determine whether the City should consider hiring a lobbyist to represent the City in Sacramento; and, (2) If hiring a lobbyist is deemed acceptable, provide direction to Staff on how to proceed with negotiating the desired state lobbying services based on the proposed options. FISCAL IMPACT: Award of the professional services agreement was not included in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget, therefore would require an additional appropriation based on the Council’s preferred option. Thus, there is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommended action tonight until a professional services agreement is presented to the City Council at a later time. Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Proposal from Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) (page A-1) B. RPPG Pricing Addendum (page B-1) C. Proposal from Joe A. Gonsalves and Son (Gonsalves) (page C-1) BACKGROUND: In recent years, due to the increase in state legislation that directly affects cities, particularly as it relates to local land use authority, the City has created a more active legislative program, including authoring more letters on bills of interest, creating a 1 Legislative Corner on the City website (rpvca.gov/LegislationCorner), and adopting the City’s first 2022 Legislative Platform. Addressing the City Council’s legislative priorities, as outlined in the 2022 Legislative Platform, requires a multi-pronged approach, and the City would benefit from the expertise of a legislative consultant (lobbyist) to provide guidance and advocacy services when appropriate on state legislation. By implementing and maintaining a more active legislative advocacy program, a legislative consultant can ensure that the City Council and Staff would be fully apprised of evolving state initiatives that may affect the City’s key priorities, programs, or operations. In addition, having a legislative advocate with a physical presence in Sacramento will help build relationships with key elected officials and their offices to ensure that the City’s priorities have a greater chance of being met. Based on these reasons, Staff seeks the City Council’s direction on whether to pursue retaining a lobbyist firm to provide comprehensive state legislative advocacy and consulting services. DISCUSSION: Should the City Hire a State Lobbyist? The four Peninsula cities originally considered issuing a joint request for proposals (RFP) for lobbyist services, focused on housing and local land use control, as the joint cities share policy positions on this matter. Due to anticipated costs, Rolling Hills Estates declined to continue moving forward with a lobbyist, satisfied with representation from groups such as the League of California Cities (Cal Cities). In September 2021, an RFP was released on behalf of the joint cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills, and Rancho Palos Verdes. Palos Verdes Estates declined to move forward shortly after the RFP was released due to cost concerns. The joint cities received proposals from Joe A. Gonsalves and Son (Gonsalves) and Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) (see Attachment A). In November, Staff from Rolling Hills and Rancho Palos Verdes held interviews with the two firms and determined that RPPG best suited for the cities’ needs. RPPG was established in 2019, providing holistic legislative, political, communications, research, and operational counsel. During the interviews, Staff was impressed by the firm’s knowledge of local land use issues and its actions to preserve local control. For example, while they were unable to stop Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9, Statutes of 2021), they worked closely with legislative staff to close loopholes in the bill that would have allowed additional density. SB 9, as passed, requires ministerial approval of lot splits and duplexes, allowing up to four units on a single-family lot. RPPG helped ensure additional units were not allowed. 2 RPPG has strong connections in Sacramento and an excellent reputation for providing quality service. The firm’s advocates demonstrate a high aptitude for policy and technical expertise of the City’s most important priorities. RPPG would provide the following services: • Provide legislative and lobbying services to assist the City in further developing its legislative agenda and securing funding. • Track, review, and analyze an introduced and amended legislation and regulatory proposals that may affect the City or its citizens and regularly inform the City on these matters. • Consult and develop strategic documents. • Represent the City at policy-related meetings, hearings, etc. to deliver comments and provide the City with a consistent presence in Sacramento. • Negotiate with authors and sponsors of bills to resolve concerns or stop bills where resolution is not possible. • Foster relationships with legislators and administration officials: make meeting recommendations, schedule arrangements, and strategize on messaging. For example, RPPG would monitor a bill as it is introduced that aligns with the City’s Legislative Platform, and would pass information on the bill and a recommended position to City Staff. Staff would bring the bill before the City Council, and once the City Council takes a position on the bill, RPPG would represent the City to the author and at hearings, where applicable, working with the author to make any changes to bills and/or gather support for the City’s position. Through this process, RPPG would save significant Staff time in reviewing and preparing legislative materials, as well as establish on-the-ground presence in Sacramento, surpassing Staff’s capacity to lobby for the City’s positions. On January 10, 2022, the Rolling Hills City Council considered hiring RPPG as its lobbyist but declined to pursue it, primarily due to cost concerns. Thus, leaving the City of Rancho Palos Verdes responsible for responding to RPPG’s proposal. With the City’s increasingly active legislative advocacy program, hiring a consultant such as RPPG would augment the City’s ability to influence state policy, exceeding the current capabilities of Staff. If the City Council finds that a state lobbyist is warranted at this time, Staff recommends providing direction on the following proposed options for legislative consulting services. City-Desired State Lobbying Services In response to the joint-city housing-focused RFP, RPPG proposed a monthly retainer of $3,250 per city per month for its services. However, since the other cities declined to move forward with a joint lobbyist, due to the change in scope of work, RPPG is now proposing a modified monthly retainer of $3,500 for a single-city housing and land use- focused contract. Furthermore, if the City were interested in RPPG’s support in broader measures, beyond housing and local land use policies such as pursuing assistance with 3 the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation project, its standard monthly retainer is $4,500 (see Attachment B). Due to the change in scope from their original proposal, Staff is seeking City Council direction on preferred service level based on the following options for a one-year contract if a state lobbyist is desired: Option A: Housing and Local Land Use Lobbying Only: RPPG offers cities a housing and local land use-only service option for a discounted monthly retainer of $3,500. With this option, the services listed in the previous section would only be provided with respect to housing and land use policies. The majority of the bills the City takes a position on involve housing and local land use policy, which is a founding principle of the City. Option B: Full-Service Lobbying Services: With a $4,500 monthly retainer, RPPG would represent the City on all of its adopted positions. This retainer would also include support in acquiring funding for the Portuguese Bend Landslide Remediation Project. On February 1, 2022, the City sent formal request letters to Senator Allen and Assemblymember Muratsuchi, requesting that funding be appropriated for the project as part of the state budget cycle. Utilizing a lobbyist such as RPPG to have a consistent presence in Sacramento, working on building relationships , and establishing connections, may assist the City’s funding request. The City does contract with Blais and Associates for grant writing services, which the City has used to assist Staff in finding and applying for funding opportunities, including the Portuguese Bend Landslide. However, Blais and Associates is not a lobbying firm and cannot provide services past the initial application process. A firm such as RPPG could provide those lobbying services with funding opportunities as they relate to the annual state budgeting process. Option C: Direct Staff to Reconsider Alternate Proposals: The City Council may consider directing Staff to further explore the other proposal received, which provided similar services to RPPG at a slightly reduced rate (see Attachment C). Staff did not correspond with Gonsalves to determine if the reduced joint- cities rate of $3,000 per city per month would be retained if only one city moved forward. Other cities’ contracts with Gonsalves tend to have a $4,000/month retainer for all state legislative advocacy efforts. Based on the City Council’s preferred option, Staff will return with a professional services agreement to be awarded with specified not-to-exceed amount, contingent on selected monthly retainer, for state lobbying services. 4 The City could select one option at this time and evaluate other options if it decided to continue seeking lobbyist services past one year. CONCLUSION: Given the City’s increased focus on legislative affairs and desire to have a more consistent voice in Sacramento, Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on hiring a state lobbyist and, if desired, the preferred service level. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Direct Staff to re-solicit proposals. 2. Take other action, as deemed appropriate. 5 Proposal for State Lobbyist on Legislation Relating to Local Control and Housing Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Renne Public Law Group, LLP [DBA Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG)] Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Government Affairs 1100 11th Street, Suite 231 Sacramento, CA 95814 sgonsalves@publicpolicygroup.com (916) 849-5536 A-1 Table of Contents I. Transmittal Letter II. Firm Profile a. Firm Resources b. RPPG Current Client List and Conflicts Check III. Approach and Work Plan a. The RPPG Approach b. Relationships c. Scope of Services d. Sample Project Plan IV. Proposed Staff and Staff Background a. RPPG Strategic Advisors b. Specific Roles and Responsibilities: Advisors and Support c. Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Organizational Chart V. Firm Qualifications VI. Fees VII. Review of Professional Services Agreement VIII. Sample Work Product A-2 Transmittal Letter September 23, 2021 Ashford Ball Senior Management Analyst 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Ball On behalf of Renne Public Law Group [DBA: Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG)], we are pleased to submit our proposal for state lobbyist services on legislation relating to local control and housing for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills (Joint Cities). Renne Public Policy Group (RPPG) is a full-service state lobbying and consulting practice that strives to advance the interests of California local public agencies and the companies that align with public entities. We do so effectively and efficiently, without compromising on ethics or integrity. RPPG is a division of Renne Public Law Group (RPLG), founded by Louise Renne, the City of San Francisco’s elected City Attorney for 16 years. RPPG provides our clients with a keen understanding of California’s evolving legislative and political landscape, which is critical when making policy, legal and operational decisions. RPPG is a fairly young practice of the Renne Public Law Group. Since we launched in 2019, we wanted to take a different approach from how we saw other firms representing their clients. This has enabled us to do things differently—to be proactive, creative, and nimble. To build a culture of likeminded professionals from diverse backgrounds who want to come to work and where clients feel valued. Our goal is to provide our clients a holistic approach of legislative, political, communications, grant writing, research and operational counsel. We refer to it as the “wraparound service approach”. We have brought in a former legislative staffer and seasoned legislative advocate, Sharon Gonsalves and one of the League of California Cities’ (LCC) top lobbyists, Dane Hutchings and have paired them with a team of Policy and Strategic Advisors made up of senior RPLG lawyers, municipal policy experts, and senior local government officials. Most notably, former LCC, Deputy Executive and Legislative Director, Dan Carrigg. At RPPG, we understand the reasons that your cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, communities with beautiful open spaces and residents who prize their quality of life, are concerned about threats to local control and land use authority. These concerns are reinforced with the Governor’s recent signature of Senate Bills (SB) 8,9 and 10. While California has many housing challenges, they are certainly not all the fault of local government. Local governments have a responsibility to set the planning table, but this has already been addressed by layers of state laws. Yet, legislators and state officials often find it easier to focus on local planning and land use, rather than grappling with the broader realities of private markets; identifying billions needed for subsidized housing; taking on developers, labor, environmental and other powerful interest groups, or addressing the state’s own policy failings. A-3 Policymakers should recognize that each California community is different, and overriding local authority deprives every resident and local elected official their opportunity to craft solutions that fit their unique needs. With this influx of new housing laws, and more to come, it is difficult for any agency to be able to track and assess the impacts that these measures may have on your communities. While associations such as the League of California Cities have and continue to serve a valuable purpose, as a statewide organization, their level of focus on specific issues can vary. This is why we feel it is so important that the Joint Cities partners with a firm that can provide a uniquely tailored wraparound service approach with its strengths rooted in Council relations, public affairs, housing, land use policy. The halls of the California State Capitol are a constant whirl of activity as legislators, staff, and lobbyists for a multitude of interest groups engage in crafting laws and the state budget. In this fast- paced environment, opportunities and threats to local agencies can quickly emerge. RPPG recognizes that advocating for the interests of public agencies requires policy expertise, active engagement, and multi-pronged actions which includes monitoring pending legislation, developing legislative proposals, negotiating amendments, and, when necessary, a coordinated public affairs campaign. These tactics form the foundation for an effective legislative advocacy strategy. As outlined in this proposal, our advocacy approach recognizes California’s evolving political and operational landscape, shifting policies, and volatile fiscal environment to best position our clients for successful outcomes. We propose to work closely with the Joint Cities’ staff to devise a comprehensive strategy that advances your legislative priorities. It is our sincere hope that we can partner with the Joint Cities and serve as your voice in Sacramento. Sharon Gonsalves, RPPG’s Director of Government Affairs will act as the Project Manager and primary contact for this proposal. Sharon may be reached at (916) 849-5536 and is located at 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, CA. As the founding partner of our firm, Jon Holtzman has the authority to negotiate on behalf of and bind the firm in an agreement. Jon may be reached at (415) 848-7200 and is located at 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA. Regards, Jon Holtzman, Founding Partner Renne Public Law Group, LLP © Sharon Gonsalves Director of Government Affairs Renne Public Policy Group, A Division of Renne Public Law Group, LLP © A-4 Firm Profile Effective March 1, 2018, the well-established law firm Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, Public Law Group (of 17 years) divided into two separate firms, one of which is Renne Public Law Group, LLP (RPLG). Specifically, as part of the firm’s separation, RPLG was required to obtain a new federal tax ID number. Renne Public Law Group’s mission is to advocate for local public agencies and nonprofits. Louise Renne, who served for 16 years as San Francisco’s elected City Attorney, serves as the Chair of our firm. We represent a myriad of public agencies throughout the State of California on legal matters, and legislative matters including large agencies such as the San Diego Regional Airport Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority, City and County of San Francisco and the City of Los Angeles, to smaller entities such as the Town of Corte Madera and City of Belmont. For a full list of RPLG legal clients please visit our website at https://rennepubliclawgroup.com/clients/ . Firm Resources RPLG and RPPG have a combined team of 38 legal and legislative professionals comprised of attorneys, lobbyists, senior advisors as well as administrative, legislative, and operational support staff. A full list of our team members can be found on the RPPG and RPLG websites. We have two offices, located in San Francisco and Sacramento, respectively. As detailed throughout this proposal, the RPPG practice area is led by our Managing Director, Dane Hutchings who has over 12 years of direct legislative experience. He is supported by legislative advocate and Director of Government Affairs, Sharon Gonsalves (Proposed Project Manager) as well as by our firm’s Policy and Strategic Advisors. RPPG’s group of Policy and Strategic Advisors support our clients’ overall advocacy strategy by providing unique and experienced perspectives on the real- world impacts of pending legislative, regulatory and administrative proposals—leveraging their experience for the betterment of our clients. Moreover, having Dan Carrigg, the former League Legislative Director and Land Use Lobbyist with decades of experience on housing and land use issues, on our team uniquely positions RPPG to be an asset to the Joint Cities. RPPG Current Client List and Conflicts Check (as of September 21, 2021) RPPG operates with the highest level of transparency, ethics, and standards. As such, we are providing the Joint Cities with a full list of our current lobby and/or political consulting clients. As a boutique firm and a newly established practice area, our success stories will continue to grow as we continue to grow our business. At present time RPPG currently represents the following clients in either direct legislative advocacy, general consulting and/or grant writing and research: • City of Redwood City • City of Belmont • City of Foster City • City of Corona • City of Carlsbad • City of Eastvale • City of Menlo Park • City of Bakersfield • City of Mountain View • Town of Hillsborough • Town of Atherton • City of Santa Rosa • California Association of Code Enforcement Officers • City Clerks Association of California • San Diego County Regional Airport Authority • Interwest Consulting Group • GovInvest Inc. • San Bernardino Community College District • California Public Private Alliance A-5 In assessing our current list of clients, we do not foresee any current or potential conflicts. Should a potential conflict arise, RPPG will run a “conflict” check with the Joint Cities prior to accepting the legislative advocacy/political consulting client work in question. Approach and Work Plan The RPPG Approach At RPPG we strive to be a necessity for our clients, not a luxury. This means finding ways to show true return on investment. However, ‘value’ itself is dependent on the individual needs of the client. Whether it be advancing a beneficial state policy, stopping a piece of determinantal legislation, advocating for increased General Fund or grant dollars—or by providing detailed policy and political information that informs the client. Whatever the need, we pride ourselves on creating a custom approach to each client that we have the honor of representing. We work incredibly hard for our clients because each client that partners with RPPG has placed their trust in us—not just to represent their interests in Sacramento, but to be a trusted messenger of their brand and story. As detailed by the examples below, we do the work, and we take nothing for granted. While that may sound oversimplistic, in our experience there are a lot of firms that solely rely on their “relationships” to advance their clients’ interests. While relationships are critical, politics is an environment that rewards tenacity and hard work. As we have seen in 2020 and 2021, policy proposals can move rapidly, often with little notice or transparency. The RPPG team’s decades of experience provides a unique understanding of the political process. We stay in close contact with state lawmakers, Capitol consultants and legislative staff, are always watching for new amendments and monitoring the actions of other stakeholders, legislators, and administration officials—so we know what is coming before it surfaces publicly. Staying active, nimble, and persistent allows our team to successfully advocate for our client’s interests during this trying time. RPPG is a “boots-on-the-ground” lobbying firm. We spend significant time in the halls of the Capitol, consistently meeting with decision-makers, educating legislators about our client’s needs and interests, and monitoring activity so that we know what’s coming before it surfaces. We also have significant experience navigating the Appropriation and Budget process and making direct contact with key Legislators and the appropriate members of their staff. However, in this era of uncertainty and confusion stemmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, advocates must stay vigilant in representing their clients. In 2020 the “halls” of the Capitol remained empty throughout the last nights of the legislative session. As COVID-19 continues to be a threat, we have seen this trend continue throughout 2021. This is important to highlight as the Joint Cities considers what type of firm, they want looking out for their interests. By maintaining regular contact with the Joint Cities, staff will have real-time accounts of what is happening in Sacramento. We will ensure the Joint Cities’ interests are represented by forming coalitions with like-minded interest groups such as other local governments and stakeholders as needed. We also will utilize our close working relationships with a variety of business groups, environmental groups, and labor – both public employee and private construction unions – to help the Joint Cities meet its legislative needs and further its interests. A-6 Relationships Relationships are central to every outcome in government affairs, and none more so than direct relationships with Legislators, policy committee consultants, administrative leaders, and the Governor’s office. It is no secret that some of the most aggressive polices being pushed statewide in areas of housing, homelessness, and land use come from a contingent of Bay Area lawmakers. It is important that the Joint Cities partner with a firm that has strong ties not only those who represent your communities, but those Northern California legislators and the Administration that continue to advance these polices. The RPPG team is confident in our deep and personal relationships with an overwhelming majority of legislative offices, policy committee consultants, as well as, with members of the Governor’s Administration. These relationships have been established not only through our firm’s partners, who have deep ties to the Newsom Administration dating back to when the Governor served in local government—but through each of our team member’s direct work with legislators and staff. These relationships have been established over time and built upon a strong reputation of being hard working and honest policy brokers. With her history working both inside and out of the Capitol, Sharon has built a strong network of reliable legislative, regulatory, and administrative contacts. Between RPPG’s current clients and combined experience working with virtually every legislative office while at the League of California Cities, both Dane and Dan have established and maintained strong working relationships with most legislative offices in the Capitol including key legislative committee staff, consultants, and administration officials. Collectively, our team utilizes our specific networks to advance the interest of our clients. It will be important to identify those critical legislative members, policy committee consultants and department/agency leads to meet with on a regular basis. Waiting until an issue is present to build a relationship typically means you are too late, which is why the RPPG team will create a list of individuals to meet with early. Additionally, it will also be critical that the City Councils are provided the resources, information, and tools to develop their own relationship with state elected officials. Additionally, we would inventory individual political relationships of local officials with state legislative and administration officials. Having a clear understanding of the strengths of current relationships allows your advocacy team to better develop bill specific strategy. This is vital to success at the critical moment a vote on a controversial bill takes place. Scope of Services Our proposal for consulting services on legislations relating to local control and housing offers a communicative and responsive team approach to representing the Joint Cities before the State Legislature, Administration, and Executive Branch. We propose to provide regular written and verbal communications to the City Councils and staff to ensure that the Joint Cities are up to date on our advocacy efforts, individual tasks, and timelines for meeting milestones. Regular communication is a critical part of helping the Joint Cities stay informed and involved throughout the entire state budget and legislative processes. RPPG can also offer federal monitoring, review and letter writing as well as state and federal grant writing and research services, but given that the RFP’s Scope of Work focuses primarily on state advocacy, we have not included here. A-7 Our team’s wide breadth of experience with local governments, coupled with our extensive network of strong relationships with key legislators, staff, and organizations, positions RPPG well to represent the Joint Cities. Under this proposal, our services include but are not limited to: • Legislative Review, Tracking and Advocacy: Track, review and analyze any introduced and amended legislation and regulatory proposals. Advocate on legislation, regulatory proposals of interest to the Joint Cities and any state budget issues impacting the cities. • Annual “Deep Dive” Review: RPPG understands the importance that Agency staff plays in fully understanding the intricacies of operations, funding, and legislative priorities. RPPG will conduct an annual “Deep Dive” meeting (in person or via Zoom in accordance with COVID-19 restrictions) with key Joint Cities staff to gain a deeper legislative, political, and funding priority insight. This approach helps your advocacy team best position the Joint Cities for success. • Assist in further developing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform: Should the Joint Cities seek to modify a State Legislative Platform, RPPG would work with each City Council and staff in an inclusive process to develop and execute a legislative platform that adequately reflects the Council’s policy positions. The purpose of a legislative platform is to clearly outline policy positions on various State legislative issues that have a direct impact on the Joint Cities. The priorities throughout the platform are intended to assist the Mayor, Council Members, and staff to proactively and appropriately address legislation, to promote the Joint Cities interests, and preserve local legislative authority if and when necessary. This document would also provide your advocacy team direction on priority issues and matters that impact the Joint Cities ability to operate effectively, while allowing your team to be proactive and nimble throughout the legislative session. Once adopted, a legislative platform serves as a living document that should be amended as policies and priorities change. • Representation: Represent the Joint Cities at policy-related meetings, conferences, events, regulatory proceedings, legislative hearings, and other appropriate venues to deliver comments, testimony, and provide the Joint Cities with a consistent presence in Sacramento. RPPG will also present to the Joint Cities’ City Council meetings to provide legislative updates as requested. • Relationship Building: Continue fostering relationships with legislators and administration officials. Our firm will make meeting recommendations, schedule arrangements, and strategize on messaging in advance. This approach ensures that we have laid the groundwork for to advance your policy goals and any bill proposals throughout the year. • Education Tour: RPPG is prepared to conduct an education tour in the Capitol to drive awareness on the issues that matter to you most. This will ensure that the appropriate A-8 communication channels with legislative staff and legislators remain open throughout the 2021-2022 legislative session and beyond. • Targeted Engagement with Statewide Local Government Association and Local Agency Partners: Our proven working relationship with the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special District’s Association, the California Fire and Police Chiefs’ Associations, and other statewide local government advocacy organizations will ensure that RPPG can communicate the Joint Cities’ policy positions—and when appropriate, work in a blended strategy to achieve success. • Document Creation and Review: Consult and develop strategic documents, draft policy position, regulatory and budgetary letters, customized priority legislative tracking matrix, budget analysis, and background papers for the Joint Cities to ensure the Joint Cities are up to speed and its voice is consistently heard by policymakers and stakeholders. Sample Project Plan Below is a detailed timeline that outlines how and when we would implement our workplan and work with City staff to develop a custom plan to meet the needs of the Joint Cities. Specific dates and deliverables are subject to change should the Legislative calendar be modified. Action Deliverable/Goal Upon Contract award – Dec. 2021 Collaborate with Joint Cities’ staff to develop an annual legislative advocacy plan to guide our efforts during the legislative session, using as an initial base the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Legislative Policy Guidelines. Foster new and established relationships with Legislators and key Administration officials shortly after contract commencement. Our firm will make recommendations for meetings, schedule arrangements, and strategize on the messaging in advance. Develop an advocacy strategy that identifies legislative champions and key stakeholders, including coordination with other municipalities and organizations with similar legislative objectives. Advocacy plan Develop target list of key policy committee staff, the executive branch, and other key elected officials for engagement. Upon Contract award – Dec. 2021 Develop language and supporting materials. Develop a clear communication plan, including a regularly scheduled conference call, along with written reports. Legislative Tracking Matrix A-9 Meet with each City department to establish the Joint Cities’ legislative priorities. Devise a matrix for timely reporting of bills relevant to the Joint Cities. Oct. -Dec. 2021 Develop ideas for sponsored bills and shop for authors to carry legislation on behalf of the Joint Cities. Collaborate with the Joint Cities to modify annual legislative advocacy plan to reflect changing priorities. This will guide our efforts during the legislative season, focusing on key issues of importance to the Joint Cities. 2022 Advocacy Plan Sponsored Legislation (2022) January – February 2022 Identify and secure authors for sponsored legislation. Meet with policy and fiscal committee staff and/or Administration or Executive Branch staff to build an understanding and support for sponsored legislation. Review Governor’s January Budget Proposal and identify possible funding opportunities for the Joint Cities. Build a coalition for sponsored bills Draft fact sheets, background materials, talking points, and other materials as needed City specific detailed budget analysis. A-10 February – December 2022 Meet with potential opposition to understand and mitigate potential concerns about bills relevant to the Joint Cities. Draft letters of support, opposition, and/or amendments to address our concerns. Track and analyze proposed new laws and regulations; and provide general advocacy on legislation important to the Joint Cities. This includes proactive information-gathering that keeps the Joint Cities up to date on relevant state agency/department regulations and administrative policies. Monitor budget process for potential positive/negative impacts. Engage when needed. Testify in policy committees on bills for which the Joint Cities have an active position, or recruit and prepare City personnel to testify where appropriate. Draft end of session report providing progress on legislative activities, results on targeted legislation. Develop recommended positions on legislation and state budget proposals Usher sponsored bills successfully through legislative process Produce regular legislative reports Negotiate with authors and sponsors to resolve concerns or stop bills where resolution is not possible Bill position letters and televised testimony Annual Report Attached to this proposal you will find samples of the work product that we provide our clients. We strive to produce quality analysis on pending legislation and amendments that is timely, thorough, and straightforward. In our experience our analysis has not only been used as a tool for legislators to learn about the operational effects of a bill, it allows the City Council and staff to truly understand the implications of legislation to their city. Proposed Staff and Staff Background Project Manager: Sharon Gonsalves, Director of Government Affairs— Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills RPPG proposes that Sharon Gonsalves, a registered lobbyist with the State of California serve as Project Manager and primary contact for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. In this capacity, Sharon will direct the Joint Cities’ legislative focus and priorities. She will represent the Joint Cities in meetings with the State Legislature, state agencies, applicable boards and commissions, and the Governor’s office. Specific activities include but are not limited to, testifying on behalf of the Joint Cities in all applicable legislative policy committees, regulatory A-11 boards and commissions and working directly with the Southern California legislative delegations and office of the Governor. Sharon, with assistance from RPPG legislative and advisory staff, will conduct legislative review, analysis, and technical expertise in all policy areas important to the Joint Cities in order to provide full policy and political counsel. As project lead, Sharon will ensure transparent communications and information sharing with Joint Cities’ staff. Sharon’s approach and established relationships have proven successful in both advancing beneficial legislative efforts as well as stopping legislation detrimental to clients. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • Over 15 years of Legislative Advocacy and Capitol Staff Experience • Strong Policy Background in Natural Resources, Public Safety, Housing and Transportation • Proven Success in Navigating State Budget Process • Strong Relationships with Key Legislative, Administrative and Executive Officials More About Sharon: Sharon has spent her career advocating for legislative and funding priorities of municipalities throughout California—brining over fifteen years of state legislative and local government advocacy experience to the City’s advocacy team. Specializing in the complex legislative process, Sharon has a proven track record of leveraging her strong relationships in the Capitol, Administration, and key government agencies to advance the goals of her clients. Sharon has expertise in the policy sectors of housing, transportation, local governance, and natural resources both as a former legislative staff member and as a local government lobbyist. Spending nearly a decade working in both houses of the State Legislature, Sharon has a unique understanding and experience in navigating the State’s complex budget process. She has been able to leverage her relationships within the California Legislature to secure California State Budget earmarks—providing local fire districts and police departments much needed funding for those communities. Sharon served as Legislative Director for State Senator Anthony Cannella (R, Ceres). Senator Cannella served as Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. During Senator Cannella’s tenure, Sharon was instrumental in negotiating on major statewide environmental and transportation issues important to the District, including Proposition 1, The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 and SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased transportation funding and instituted some much- needed reforms. SB 1 provided the first significant, stable, and on-going increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades. During her time as a legislative staffer, Sharon developed an intricate understanding of the legislative and budget process and maintained an extensive bi-partisan network of relationships with Members of the California Legislature. Prior to joining RPPG in September of 2020, Sharon was a Senior Associate at Townsend Public Affairs representing a number of local public agency clients—specializing in those from the Central Valley and Inland Empire. Sharon has helped secure millions of dollars by advocating for the creation of funding opportunities and writing successful grant applications. For two years prior to the passage A-12 of SB 5 by Senator DeLeon in 2018, Sharon worked with the author and stakeholders to advocate for funding specifically for the operations and maintenance of existing parks. Ultimately, Proposition 68, the Park, Environment, and Water Bond Act of 2018, included $425 million for public agencies on a per capital basis specifically for park improvements. After years of discussion and debate, Senate Bill 200 (Monning) was signed in 2019 by Governor Newsom and created the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. Initially the original version of SB 200 contained a fee on agriculture entities which would create a fund to help these troubled water systems. Sharon’s clients, the cities of Turlock, Reedley and Parlier, had long struggled to update their water wells to address contamination. Though efforts had been made by the State Water Board, over 300 communities still lacked access to safe and affordable drinking water. Most of these communities are served by small water systems that are unable to provide water that meets public health standards for contaminants such as arsenic, nitrates, and uranium. After multi-year negotiations the bill in its current form, SB 200, was amended to remove the fee and create the fund using a yearly appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). In her commitment to advocate for local agency funding opportunities, Sharon has also written several successful grants for fire departments that benefit operations and improve the health and wellness of firefighters. Some examples include: Client Grant Program Award Amount City of Orange Cove FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Vehicle Acquisition $541,615 City of Sanger FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Implementation of a comprehensive health and wellness program for Department Firefighters. $26,940 North Central Fire Protection District FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Regional request to purchase new SCBA equipment $282,189 East Contra Costa Fire Protection District FEMA Fire Prevention and Safety Purchase of Fire Trailer for Community Education $13,894 In an effort to further regional partnerships from all areas of government, Sharon participated in several advocacy trips with the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) and the County of Fresno Council of Government (CFCOG). She has also worked with Congressional and federal agency officials to advance the funding and infrastructure priorities of her clients. Sharon has utilized the relationships she has built over the years in her work advocating for local governments. Under Governor Newsom’s administration she has worked with key members of his leadership team both in his legislative office and various agencies to move the policy and funding priorities of her clients forward. A-13 Secondary Contact: Dane Hutchings— Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills RPPG proposes that Dane Hutchings, a registered lobbyist with the State of California, serve as a legislative advocate and secondary contact for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. In this capacity, Dane will work in collaboration with the Project Manager, to represent the Joint Cities in meetings with the State Legislature, state agencies, applicable boards and commissions, and the Governor’s office. Dane will also, review and track legislation, provide analysis and leverage his close working relationships with legislative members, staff, policy consultants and agency officials to advance the Joint Cities’ legislative priorities. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • Over a Decade of Legislative Advocacy and Public Affairs Expertise • Former Federal Policy Liaison and Lobbyist, League of California Cities • Strong Council Relations Background • Proven Background in Coalition Building • Strong Relationships with Key Legislative, Administrative and Executive Officials More About Dane: For over a decade, Dane Hutchings has been advocating for the best interests of both public and private entities. He is a seasoned legislative advocate and political strategist with a keen understanding of the California political process and landscape. Dane brings a unique understanding of California local government operations, service delivery methods and revenue sources. Prior to leading the Renne Public Policy Group, Dane worked for the League of California Cities as a Legislative Representative and Federal Policy Liaison. He acted as the key strategist, advisor and advocate on issues including areas labor relations policies, privacy and technology, governmental transparency, workers compensation and other issues related to local government operations. As an expert and thought leader in California public sector retirement, Dane has been asked to work directly with local agencies to help them understand the implications of rising pensions and OPEB liabilities. In 2019, Dane presented to the Modesto City Council during a Council budget workshop, providing a statewide overview of the California Public Retirement System (CalPERS). Moreover, Dane was asked to work with City staff and employee bargaining units on CalPERS related issues. As the Federal Policy Liaison, Dane worked across multiple policy areas of importance to local government, including housing, tax, infrastructure, transportation, public safety and environmental policy. Working in conjunction with the National League of Cities, Dane fought to protect federal programs critical to local governments, such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships, Choice Neighborhoods and Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). Upon his departure from the League of California Cities, Dane received a career achievement award for his “…leadership, dedication and tenacity in advancing the quality of life for all California cities”. A-14 While at the California Grocers Association, Dane represented over 300 members in the retail food and supplier industry. He specialized in labor and employment, healthcare, retail food and general business issues. Dane worked directly with local governmental bodies, staff and their organizations on local and statewide polices that ensured continuity for his clients while preserving local government authority. Dane’s direct experience in public affairs provides a distinctive approach on how an effective issue- based “inside-outside” communications/advocacy strategy can support legislative priorities by providing political cover for legislators as well as the governor’s office. Dane ‘cut his teeth’ working as an Account Executive and Government Relations Advocate at Ogilvy—a premier and influential multi-national public affairs and advocacy firm. Dane engaged in multiple issue-based campaigns specifically designed to support legislative strategies for both public and private sector clients. RPPG Strategic Advisors With 2,000 or more pieces of legislation introduced by the California Legislature each year, it is critical that our clients have a complete understanding of the potential impacts that these measures may have on their agencies. Our Policy Advisors are a dedicated team of municipal policy experts, seasoned legislative advocates and former high-ranking local agency staff that will provide a holistic policy and political perspective to best position the Joint Cites with the information needed for success. Under the direction of the Project Manager, RPPG proposes the following Policy and Strategic Advisor for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills state legislative advocacy and advisory team: • Dan Carrigg, former League of California Cities Deputy Executive and Legislative Director More details regarding specific roles, responsibilities, and qualifications for each RPPG Advisor are outlined below. Collectively, the RPPG team and Advisors have represented and/or advised local agencies in policy issues including but not limited to: • Land use, housing, planning, zoning, water, and sewer utility matters • Transportation and infrastructure legislation and funding • Privacy, technology, and consumer protection issues • Environmental policy including, clean air and CEQA policy • California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) consulting and advisory services • Public sector contracting policy • Various labor relations policies including anti-contracting, employer paid release time, union- agent evidentiary privilege • The Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, sunshine legislation, and other laws governing local government decision-making and operations A-15 Specific Roles and Responsibilities: Advisors and Support Dan Carrigg—Senior Advisor: Policy and Legislative Strategy RPPG proposes that former League of California Cities, Deputy Executive and Legislative Director Dan Carrigg, act as the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills’ Policy and Legislative Advisor. Under the direction of the Project Manager, Dan will analyze, and draft legislation as well advise the Joint Cities on strategies for engagement. Dan’s distinguished career and relationships with Administrative agencies, policy committee chairs and consultants will be leveraged to complement the Joint Cities’ advocacy strategy. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • 30 years of Legislative Advocacy Experience • 25 years Specifically Advocating for Local Government • Strong Relationships with Agency Officials and Policy Committee Members • Seasoned Legislative Advocate and Expert in California’s Legislative, Political, and Budget Process More About Dan: Dan Carrigg is a political consultant and thought leader in California public policy directly impacting local government. With extensive experience in legislative analysis, strategy, and advocacy, and an excellent reputation for hard work and tenacity, Dan spent nearly 25 years with the League of California Cities—beginning as the League’s housing and land use lobbyist, then holding increasingly responsible advocacy roles including both Legislative Director and Deputy Executive Director of this prominent statewide local government organization. Until retiring from the League in October of 2019, Dan supervised the League’s legislative and public affairs program, developed policy, managed the League’s legislative and public affairs teams, drafted and reviewed legislation, reviewed and analyzed ballot measures and testified before the Legislature. Dan offers RPPG clients a deep policy background and strong political acumen on state housing policy, including understanding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, issues affecting transit-oriented development, tax increment financing, SB 375, Cap and Trade and other policies. Dan is also familiar with CEQA and the political challenges associated with past streamlining efforts and has a practical understanding of public contracting and construction projects. Prior to taking on the role as the League’s housing and land use lobbyist, Dan worked as a senior consultant for the California State Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee from 1991-1996. Throughout his career, Dan has worked on many high-profile issues, including representing the League as part of the transportation coalition to pass SB 1. In the past, Dan led the League’s successful negotiations on the Lowenthal/Mullin RHNA reform measures of 2004, that resulted in reduced controversy over this process for over a decade. He was directly engaged in the effort to protect local property tax, sales tax and (Vehicle Licensing Fee) VLF funding via the VLF-property tax swap with the passage of Proposition 1A of 2004. Later, he advocated to secure revenue for local governments in Prop 1B, the 2006 transportation bond, and defeat a legislative effort to take nearly $1 billion in city and county road maintenance funds. He also worked to preserve local authority during the legislative A-16 wrangling leading to the enactment and implementation of SB 375 of 2008, which coordinates transportation and land use planning. More recently, in 2019, Dan worked closely with the Newsom Administration to draft critical elements, including the Local Government Planning Support Grants Program, that offers funding assistance for regions to assist with local housing planning and was incorporated into AB 101, a 2019 housing budget trailer bill. Prior to his work with the League, Dan drew on his background in construction to represent the Department of General Services and the Division of the State Architect on state real estate, construction and public contracting from 1996-1998, including working to enact design-build contracting authority for state office projects. His career began with a fellowship on the Assembly Desk during the term of former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown. Itzel Becerra— Legislative and Grants Assistant RPPG proposes that Itzel Becerra, serve as Legislative and Grant Assistant for the Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills. Under direction from the Project Manager, Itzel will attend all necessary public hearings and meetings in and around the Capitol as necessary to advance the interests of the Joint Cities. She will track relevant legislation and amendments for the Joint Cities and monitor all relevant legislative hearings. Additionally, Itzel will organize calls and meetings with the Joint Cities, Legislators and legislative staff, the Governor’s Administration, and other stakeholders. She will also draft and provide position letters, briefs, and updates in a timely manner. Itzel will also work with the Joint Cities’ staff to ensure all Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) quarterly filings are processed. APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE: AT A GLANCE • Local Government Association Experience • State Legislative Process Experience More About Itzel: Prior to joining RPPG, Itzel most recently worked for the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) as a Professional Development Assistant. There she worked directly with CSDA member agencies to connect them with educational resources and trainings. In addition, she oversaw registration for all association events and manage the promotion of upcoming events. Prior, she served as a Public Affairs Intern with CSDA, where she assisted the Advocacy and Public Affairs team tracking legislation, conducting research, and drafting articles for the association’s weekly electronic newsletter. Itzel also contributed to CSDA’s public outreach campaign “Districts Make the Difference.” Itzel gained knowledge and experience of the California legislative process while participating in the Sacramento Semester Program. Offered through CSU’s Department of Political Science, the program allows students to immerse themselves in California politics. As Legislative intern for Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D, Sacramento), Itzel staffed measures and executed various legislative duties during her tenure. A-17 Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Organizational Chart Sharon Gonsalves Director of Government Affairs Dane Hutchings Managing Director Dan Carrigg Senior Advisor, Policy and Legislative Strategy Itzel Becerra Legislative and Grants Assistant A-18 Firm Qualifications Below are narrative examples directly attributed to RPPG advancing the interests of local government along with details of related work performed. These examples illustrate our team’s approach, tenacity, and political acumen. Examples include but are not limited to: Client: City of Redwood City (Demonstrated Skills: Legislative and Executive Branch Advocacy, Coalition Building, Client Communications, Advancing Priority Legislation) AB 2553 (Ting) Shelter Crisis (2019/2020 Legislative Session) AB 2553 is a statewide expansion of a limited pilot program (AB 932, Chapter 786, Statutes of 2017) set to expire that would allow all local agencies upon the declaration of a shelter crisis build temporary shelters for their homelessness population. At introduction, the measure was very limited—simply expanding the current program statewide and did not address concerns specific to Redwood City’s community needs. In response, RPPG was successful in working with the Author’s office to expand the measure to include language that permits 24 hour “safe parking” programs for cars and recreational vehicles on land owned or leased by the City without the risk of creating a tenant/landlord relationship. RPPG also worked directly with the Assembly and Senate Housing committee staff as well as the Republican Caucus and the Newsom Administration to garner bipartisan support to include an urgency clause. This increased the vote threshold from a simple majority vote to a two-thirds vote. However, this allowed the legislation to take effect immediately upon the Governor signing the bill. Given the issue was so critical to Redwood City and the surrounding community, RPPG worked with City staff to engage the community—drafting template “request for signature” letters for different constituencies who were supportive of the bill. These included sample letters customized for specific for local businesses, homeless rights advocates, and community activists. On September 25, AB 2553 was signed by Governor Newsom. Years Performed: 2019-Ongoing work Client: City of Belmont (Demonstrated Skills: Developing sponsored legislation, legislative and Executive Advocacy, Coalition Building) SB 640 (Becker) Transportation Financing: Joint Projects (2021/22 Legislative Session) Since the enactment of Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1) cities have a new dedicated source of revenue to address their local streets and roads projects. However, under current law, two or more jurisdictions are unable to issue a single bid to address a project of mutual interest (e.g., a throughway that stretches between multiple cities/counties). On behalf of the City of Belmont, both Dane and Sharon worked with Senator Becker’s office to carry a piece of legislation that would enable more local flexibility of “SB 1” monies by allowing for a joint project submittal as well as a streamlined reporting requirement to ensure accountability and transparency remained intact. A-19 RPPG strategic Advisor, Dan Carrigg drafted the proposed legislation—working with the client directly to ensure the language addressed their needs. Sharon worked with the California Transportation Commission (CTC), developed the talking points, fact sheet and other support materials and Dane worked to build a coalition of support consisting of the League of California Cities, the American Public Works Association, California Asphalt Pavement Association, and dozens of municipalities across the state to support the measure. Together our team was successful in garnering bi-partisan support for the bill as it moved swiftly through the process. On July 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 640 into law. Years Performed: 2020 – Ongoing work Client: Town of Hillsborough and Town of Atherton (Demonstrated Skills: Non-Lobbying Consulting, Client Communication, Document Creation, Council Engagement). Given RPPG’s reputation for expert policy analysis and council engagement, our firm was approached by the Towns of Hillsborough and Atherton to help provide legislative consulting services (non- directly lobbying work) on the issues of housing, land use and wildfire as it pertains to development. The distinction between lobbying and non-lobbying is specific to RPPG’s ability to legally interact with any State legislative, regulatory, or administrative official on any piece of state policy with the intent to influence. Non-lobbying work is centered specifically around educating the client directly and providing direction for them to engage on their own should they choose to do so. Over the past 6 months, RPPG has met with key staff from each agency to develop customized messaging documents used to communicate effectively with constituents, walked them through the State Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process and how current legislation will have an impact on process. Moreover, we provided policy-based educational study sessions, bill tracking documents and specific legislative analysis for each Client to ensure they were up to date on the flurry of land use legislative proposals advancing through the legislature. Staff from both Town’s saw value in helping educate their respective councils and constituents on the “Sacramento” rapidly shifting (political) realities in these incredibly important policy areas. As of July 1, the Town of Atherton renewed their consulting agreement for an additional 12 months, while the Town of Hillsborough moved to increase their scope of service and are now a full lobbying client with RPPG—enabling RPPG to being formal engagement with the Town’s legislative delegation and other stakeholders. Years Performed: 2021 – Ongoing work A-20 Fee Proposal for State Lobbyist on Legislation Relating to Local Control and Housing Joint Cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills A-21 Due to the fluctuating demands of the legislative calendar as well as strategy and planning for the following legislative cycle, RPPG does not bill clients on an hourly basis for direct legislative consulting and support work. Based on the anticipated scope of work, RPPG proposes a flat retainer fee for all services outlined in the RFP. This proposed pricing includes all items outlined in the work plan (detailed above), work performed by RPPG primary staff, advisors, and operational/administrative support – including all costs associated with all quarterly (required) FPPC filings. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION FEES 1 Legislative advocacy as outlined in scope of work. $9,750.00/monthly flat fee retainer agreement ($3,250 per month per agency - $117,000 total annually) 2 As needed travel budget not to exceed $5,000.00. Costs associated with travel include, milage at federal per mile rate and overnight expenses if requested to attend in-person council meeting. Note: No expense shall be incurred without direct authorization from client $5,000.00 annual A-22 Professional Services Agreement RPPG has reviewed the Professional Services Agreement provided with the Request for Proposal and do not have any questions or concerns. RPPG does not take exception or request any changes to the requirements and conditions outlined in the RFP. A-23 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com March 9, 2021 To: Ann Ritzma Town Manager, Town of Hillsborough From: Dane Hutchings Managing Director, Renne Public Policy Group Re: Governor’s Wildfire Preparedness and Response Efforts Dr. Ms. Ritzma: Yesterday, March 8, Governor Newsom held a press conference at Shaver Lake in Fresno County to discuss the State’s Wildfire Preparedness and Response Efforts. Joined by Tom Porter, Director of CalFire and Wade Crowfoot, Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, he outlined financial investments that will be made as California prepares for another dry year and potentially devastating fire season. When elected Newsom charged Chief Porter with doing a 45-day report which identified 35 priority projects to protect California, five of which were completed prior to the Creek Fire and all were key to the improved response. The State is looking to mirror what Shaver Lake and Fresno County are doing throughout the entire state in terms of at regional collaborative approach to meet the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. Secretary Wade Crowfoot of California Natural Resources Agency emphasized in the past 2 1/2 years, Governor Newsom has directed over $700 million in additional funding to build CalFire’s response capacity. Although California has the most sophisticated Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fighters in the country, warming temperatures are creating more challenging and dangerous wildfire conditions. Last year, five of the six biggest fires happened at the same time. As a result, Newsom developed a taskforce, creating the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action plan, released in January, which contains a suite of things the State needs to do in three major categories: • Increase resources for infrastructure hardening within communities. • Investment and protection around communities • More forest management and reintroduce controlled fires. Governor Newsom reminded everyone that he proposed in January to reinvest a record amount, $1B, in the initiatives outlined in the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action plan. He then took the opportunity to formally announce a deal with legislative leadership to draw down $536M to get the ball rolling now, and he is confident this will be signed by Tuesday, April 13, 2021. A chart outlining the breakdown is attached. A-24 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com Two weeks ago, the State pushed almost $81M to support CalFire to hire 1400 firefighters to start preparing for wildfire season. Although the State can’t make up for 50 years of lacking wildfire preparedness, they have a plan to connect tribes, private, state and regional plans with the US government. The State doesn’t want to spar with US forest service, even though they cut budgets while the state increased theirs. The state of California only owns 3% of forested land, but they are still willing to partner and collaborate as evidenced by: • Signed MOU with US Forest Service committing to double forest management, 1M acres minimum. • Will do more C130s, have more Blackhawk helicopter crews. • Promises more suppression, prevention-, regional-, short- and long-term strategies. Reporter Q & A 1400 jobs, who is getting them? Are there local recruitment efforts? Newsom: To be exact 1399 positions. Budget that includes additional $143M is in front of the legislature for 30 more fire crews, have added new engines in the last year, there will be local, state, etc. components. Chief Porter: Those jobs are going to be local throughout the state. Will be adding the jobs throughout California as part of strategy that they had already been moving on. There will be permanent, seasonal, and corps members jobs throughout the state. Newsom: We want Helitack teams (team of firefighters who are transported by helicopter to wildfires) to be operational by May 1 because fire season has already started. Why are you making this announcement in Fresno County specifically? When you said the Central Valley is disproportionately impacted, bipartisan lawmakers from the Central Valley sent a letter asked you to declare a state of emergency, are you prepared to do that? Newsom: We are prepared to do all sorts of things, not necessarily declare the state of emergency, but every commensurate part of that letter. Coming back here in particular, I attach a lot of emotions to these fires and I’ve been to too many. Especially with the Creek Fire, we ran into federal, state, private and county jurisdiction issues? Are efforts being made to make preventative efforts uniform throughout the state? Newsom: Because of the patchwork of jurisdictions, the funding we’re putting out supports regionalism in order to do just that, to knit these pieces together, but you just heard the Chief say that the efforts to do that have been underway for some time. ### A-25 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27/21 Statewide Rezoning of Single-Family Neighborhoods & Urban Parcel Splits Prepared by RPPG Senior Policy Advisor, Dan Carrigg** Senate Bill 9 (Atkins) as amended (04/27) proposes to rezone by state statute, virtually all parcels within single-family residential zones i in California allowing for the creation of (when combined with state Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law) at least four units, and under several scenarios up to six ii units (see endnote below). Further, the measure authorizes urban lot splits, without any local discretionary public hearing or review iii—including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)iv, as follows: • Single-Family Residential Zones: Permits the division, partial or full tear down of an existing single-family home to create two separate residential units, eligible to be sold separatelyv. Since the measure also operates in conjunction with ADU law, it will allow at least two more units to be built on the parcel without public review. All local ordinances vi that would physically preclude construction of the two units cannot be enforced. ADU law has separate authority enabling the construction of additional units. Parking is limited to one space per unitvii, and must be eliminated entirely if within one-half mile of transit or if there is a car share vehicle within one block. • Urban Parcel Splits: Permits urban lot splits in residential zones to create two new viii parcels no smaller than 1,200 square feet, provided that one parcel shall not be less than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision ix. Prohibits the application of local requirements that would physically preclude the construction of two units to be built on each split lot x. Authorizes a local government to impose a one-year owner occupancy requirement to utilize the lot-split provision. However, as drafted there is a sunset date which eliminates the owner-occupancy provision in five yearsxi. Note: This is the only sunset provision in the measure. • Area Limitations: Parcels must be located in a US Census designated urban area or urban cluster xii. Parcels within the Coastal Zone are also included xiii. Limitations apply for hazardous waste sites, land designated for conservation, or within a historic district, as those various terms are defined. If a parcel is located in an earthquake fault zone, floodplain or regulatory floodway, the development shall be constructed in compliance with applicable state and local requirements. • High Fire Hazard Zones: Units can be built under SB 9 within a fire hazard zone if they comply with state fire hazard mitigation measures and applicable building standards xiv. • Parcel Occupancy Limitations: The development cannot affect units occupied by a tenant within the prior three years xv, units subject to local rent control, units that have been withdrawn (Ellis Act) from rental housing within the prior 15 years, or units restricted by covenant for low- and moderate-income households. • Single-Family Home Demolishing: A single family home may be demolished entirely if a tenant has not lived in the home during the prior three years, otherwise only 25 percent may be demolished, unless a greater percentage is allowed by local ordinance. A-26 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com • Setbacks: Provides that local building setbacks cannot be greater than what is applied to an existing structure and requires those same setbacks to be applied to a structure constructed in the same location and the same dimension as the existing structure xvi. Related conditions include: o Stipulates that a proposal shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures that meeting building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow a separate conveyancexvii. o Permits local governments to require four-foot setbacks from the rear and side lot lines in other circumstances xviii. o Requires units that are proposed to be connected to an on-site waste treatment system to have a percolation test completed within the prior five years, or if percolation has been recertified, within 10 years. • Parking: Authorizes a local agency to require parking of one space per unit, but prohibits a parking requirement if: o The project is within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit stop, as defined xix. o There is a car-share vehicle xx located within one block of the parcel. • Zoning: Authorizes the proposed development to comply with local “objective” zoning, subdivision and design standards, but states that such standards cannot have the effect of precluding xxi the development of two units. Defines these terms to mean standards that are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion and involve no personal and subjective judgement by a public official. Stipulates that local agency shall require that any units constructed under this provision that are to be rented shall be for a term longer than 30 days. (Avoids vacation rentals)xxii o Prohibits a local agency from being required to permit an accessory dwelling unit on parcels where an applicant constructs units in compliance with this section and also subdivides the lot into two separate parcels.xxiii o Authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions but stipulates that the adoption of the ordinance shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).xxiv Comments: 1) Voters Deserve a Voice on Proposed Elimination of Single-Family Zoning: It is difficult to conceive of a more aggressive law the Legislature could attempt to pass affecting the nearly seven million California homeowners who have scrimped and saved to acquire and maintain their piece of the California Dream, a single-family home. The Legislature should not leap to the enactment of a sweeping statewide law without the proper reflection, due diligence and true public transparency on what such a proposal really means for millions of Californians and the state’s future economy. SB 9 deserves much more public sunshine than is permitted in the COVID-impacted Legislature where public transparency and access has become even more limited. Enacting such a law without broader transparency and consultation with the voters would be reckless. The origin of this bill supposedly is based on recent experiments in Minneapolis and Oregon. A primary narrative being used in support of this measure is centered around the characterization that all single-family home development is derived from racially motivated biases that tie back to the abhorrent practice of “redlining” tactics. Polarizing and divisive messaging such as this often overshadows the rationale policy-based arguments being expressed by local agencies. If such a proposal has merit, then all affected Californian’s A-27 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com deserve an opportunity to fully understand it and weigh in via an advisory ballot measure put to the voters in November 2022. 2) Inequitable Impacts: A March 2021 nationwide study found that the share of single- family rentals owned by institutional investors rose to 24.5% in 2015 from 17.3% in 2001. Combined across all housing types, institutional investors now own a majority (52%) of the country’s 47.5 million rental units and their share has been growing xxv. It is likely that the disruption caused by SB 9 will have inequitable impacts depending on wealth. Flipping homes to duplexes and splitting parcels down to 1,200 square feet are likely to affect middle/low-income neighborhoods and homeowners more than wealthier individuals— creating more market rate rental units and less new home ownership opportunities. 3) Lack of Due Process and Transparency: Much is made in the Legislature of the value of public engagement and transparency when local governments make decisions. Local officials must comply with rigorous transparency requirements under the Brown Act. The benefits of CEQA are also strongly defended, to ensure that both the public and decision makers are fully informed and have the opportunity to mitigate environmental impacts. Yet, SB 9 discards public transparency and environmental principles. Without any due process for those affected, including an opportunity for local hearings, community input, or even compliance with CEQA, the Legislature will allow most single-family neighborhoods to become the target of “buy, flip and split” speculators who are free to demolish homes and replace them with units jammed up against four-foot setbacks, with little to no parking, while avoiding compliance with local laws and ordinances that apply to others. It is inequitable to upend single family zoning and destabilize existing neighborhoods without adequate due process to those locally affected. 4) What about New Subdivisions, and State Policy to Preserve Homeowner Equity? The premise behind SB 9 is to eliminate single family zoning. But then why does SB 9 not specifically address new subdivisions? It is inconsistent to upend existing single-family neighborhoods, while allowing new subdivisions to be created under the one home per parcel model. Developers and home sellers should also be required to disclose whether the provisions of SB 9 apply to a neighborhood. State housing policies that mention single- family homes in a positive way, would also need to be revised or repealed, such as Section 50007 (HSC) : The Legislature finds and declares that the large equities that the majority of California residents in most economic strata have now accumulated in single-family homes must be protected and conserved.” 5) Upends State Housing Element Planning: The state already has numerous housing laws in place that ensure that the California’s housing needs are incorporated into local plans, via local zoning. Recent changes in laws governing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) have drastically increased housing allocations in the 6th Cycle to most communities. Local housing plans (elements), in turn, must be approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Over 98 percent of cities and counties have obtained such approvals, and the state recently significantly strengthened enforcement provisions to ensure full accountability. The expanded zoning of single- family parcels in SB 9 is completely disconnected from the local housing element planning process. Uncoordinated development will create strains on local infrastructure, impact response times, and create distrust among the public in the validity of local housing plans. 6) Destabilizing Economic Impacts: The purchase of a home is typically an individual’s largest investment. Establishing a state policy that permits 4-6 multi-unit development on A-28 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com adjacent single-family parcels with no public process will destabilize single-family neighborhoods. Developers focused on market opportunities will out-bid average families and drive-up prices in desired areas. Those families concerned about protecting the value of their investment, and/or seeking to obtain/preserve the traditional benefits of single- family neighborhoods (less noise, traffic, etc.) will opt to move to more rural settings exempt from SB 9—contributing to additional sprawl--or add to economic and social divisions by increasing demand for living in homeowner’s associations where such activities would be prohibited via CC&R’s. Business location and retention decisions may be affected as well, since local quality-of-life for those making the decision is a major factor. 7) Governor’s Position on SB 9 Will Likely Determine Outcome: Governor Newsom holds the power on this measure. Last year, SB 1120, a virtually identical bill, made it all the way through the Legislature. It passed both the Senate and the Assembly, and only stalled from being taken up on the last night of session because of a midnight procedural deadline had passed. SB 9 is authored by the Senate Pro Tem Atkins; it already made it through the Legislature once, as SB 1120, and is anticipated to do so again. That means the fate of this measure will likely come down to a decision by Governor Newsom. While the Governor clearly supports additional housing production, he has opted–so far--to do so in a measured way, by increasing accountability for cities and counties to adopt state approved housing element plans and allocating billions in state funding to address homelessness and support affordable housing development. In his most recent budget proposal, he also proposed a special unit at the Department of Housing and Community Development to monitor local housing activities. Furthermore, the Governor has already addressed this policy issue area by signing (AB 725 (Wicks), Ch. 193 of 2020) which requires metropolitan jurisdictions to zone for at least 25 percent of allocated units for moderate and above moderate-income housing on parcels allowing at least four units in the next (7th) RHNA Cycle, which allows for such requirement to be incorporated into local planning. Moreover, the Governor’s own life choices support the referral of the SB 9 proposal for an advisory vote by California voters. When Governor Newsom was inaugurated, he opted to purchase a single-family home on several acres in the suburbs, reported to be the most expensive home ever sold within the region, rather than living in the Governor’s mansion in downtown Sacramento. California voters deserve a similar opportunity to decide whether they want to continue to have the opportunity to achieve and maintain benefits of single-family home and associated quality of life for their own families. Citations and Additional Comments i US Census data indicates there are nearly 6.9 million detached homes in California. State and local historic zones are proposed to be exempted, but most other limitations are of relatively minor impact to the massive and sweeping scope of this bill. This ** Dan Carrigg is a Senior Policy Advisor with the Renne Public Policy Group. As the retired Deputy Executive and Legislative Director with the League of California Cities, Carrigg brings a wealth of experience to the firm in legislative analysis, policy development, strategy, and advocacy on a wide range of issues affecting local government. His expertise in California housing and land use policy is truly unmatched—having spent nearly 30 years as a land use legislative advocate and former Assembly Housing and Community Development Policy Committee Consultant. A-29 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com measure is silent on how/if it applies to homes within common interest developments, or homeowner’s associations, where development is tightly regulated by codes, covenants and restrictions (CC&R’s) that are agreed to by contract and administered by local association boards under the Davis-Stirling Act. California homeowners can take little comfort in the reliability of any potential exceptions in this bill. The Legislature’s objective of eliminating single-family zoning statewide is clear, so this law can be expected to be amended in the future to further its intent. The passage of multiple bills in recent years to expand ADU laws are an example of how the Legislature can be expected to quickly widen this law once it is established. ii While the bill continues to be represented as allowing a total of four units, the language fails to clearly impose such a cap, and does not recognize scenarios when more than one unit may already be on a parcel prior to using SB 9. All of these issues could be addressed with language added to SB 9 that clarified a hard cap of four units. Here are several scenarios where more than four units could be created on a parcel: 1) Getting to 5 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and a JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU laws), then seeks a lot split to build two more units under SB 9 Sec. 66411.7. Nothing in Sec. 66411.7 appears to prohibit a developer from building two more units as part of a lot split. The language in Sec. 65852.21 does not apply because in this case the developer did not apply to split the SF home into a duplex. 2) Getting to 6 units: A developer buys a SF home, adds an ADU and JADU to the property (using existing ADU/JADU laws), then uses SB 9 to split the SF home into a duplex. So far, so good. This would be a total of 4 units on the parcel. As this bill is represented, that would be it, and the lot-split section should not be used. But where in the bill is that clear? A close reading of the language does not appear to prohibit the developer from also applying for a lot spilt and building two more units. A weakness in the language referencing ADU’s in Sec. 65852.21 (e) is that it only appears to contemplate a developer proposing ADUs in concert with an application under SB 9. The language states that a local agency “shall not be required to permit…” ADUs if both sections in SB 9 are used. But what if the ADUs were previously approved several years earlier and are already on the parcel? This is a problem created by not having a hard cap of four units in the bill. Since all such interpretations are ministerial, disputes over vague language will have to be settled in court. 3) Duplex and ADU/JADU Wildcard: Because there is not a hard cap of four units in SB 9, another scenario presents itself involving interpretations of ADU/JADU Law and duplexes. A developer buys a SF home and applies to convert it into a duplex under SB 9. Each duplex unit under SB 9 is eligible to be separately sold. So…how will ADU and JADU law be interpreted to apply to each individual duplex unit? This is not clear either in the law or in SB 9. If ADU and JADU law interpreted to allow for two units for each unit in a duplex, then that would be another way to get to six units. Under this scenario, however, SB 9 (Sec. 65852.2 (e)) does appear to prohibit adding both ADUs and using the lot split section. All this confusion could be addressed with amendments imposing a hard 4-unit cap. iii SB 9 prohibits local agencies from requiring the dedication of a right of way to a newly created parcel created in a backyard. Easements for public services and facilities, or access to a public right of way may be required. Presumably, for a parcel with no access to the street, the residents would park on the street and cross the front parcel on a path along the property line. Section 66411.7 (a) (3) (A) in SB 9, limits lot splits to parcels within single-family zones. iv It is hard to imagine a bigger CEQA exemption than proposed by SB 9. If a city or county proposed such zoning changes locally CEQA analysis would apply. SB 9 is designed to work around environmental analysis by dictating specific zoning criteria in state statute and requiring locals to approve applications “ministerially” without public review. Thus, the state Legislature is avoiding environmental reviews in a proposal that rezones virtually all of the single-family lots in the state v It is not legally necessary to formally divide the parcel to create two units. Condominiums or townhouses could be created that can be sold separately. It is unclear how ADU/JADU law will be applied in this circumstance. vi Many local ordinances that can be ignored by developers under this law can result in significant environmental and community impacts. Applying such an edict statewide with no understanding of the myriad of conditions that may apply to an individual existing parcel makes no sense. For example, some communities have ordinances seeking to preserve heritage trees, maintain views, or allow space for a community bike path. SB 9 preempts the application of such any such ordinances that physically preclude the development of units. viii SB 9 has been represented and understood as allowing for an existing single-family parcel to be split to allow one new parcel where two units can be built. The problem is, however, that the language does not quite say that. Sec. 66411.7 (a) (1) says: “ The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create “two new parcels” …provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.” In the following paragraph (2) it refers to “both newly created parcels.” This language leaves room for a future dispute over whether a developer could maintain that a total of three parcels can be created: the existing/original parcel, plus two new parcels. This language should be tightened up. ix Major social equity issues are raised with this provision. 1,200 square foot parcels are shockingly small, and will be further limited by four-foot setbacks for ingress and fire access. This will result in units crammed together with no green space, areas for children to play and certainly no parking. This small square footage will likely have the most impact in poorer A-30 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com neighborhoods with small lots that are already densely developed. Executive homes on larger parcels, however, will be less impacted. For instance, a half-acre parcel that is split would have more room for greenspace and parking. x SB 9 prohibits a lot that has been split pursuant to its provisions from being split again. It also prohibits an owner of a parcel, or, and any person acting in concert with the owner, to split adjacent lots. These provisions are of no comfort to those concerned about retaining neighborhood integrity. Unlike a local city or county, the Legislature is removed from any direct implications from what this bill actually means to a neighborhood or a homeowner. If SB 9 is allowing parcels as small as 1,200 square feet, why wouldn’t legislators entertain changes next year to this provision on behalf of developers who have their eyes on larger lots? Also, for those who think that 1,200 square feet is a minimum, consider that SB 9 requires locals to allow two 800 sq. ft. units on that lot. Also, the limitation on a developer splitting adjacent lots enables multiple work arounds for savvy investors and attorneys who can maintain separate ownership of adjacent parcels, and nothing stops an investor or development corporation from freely targeting every other parcel on a block for this activity. The prohibition in the bill on converting properties that are/have been occupied by tenants within three years, will focus investor attention on acquiring owner-occupied properties to convert into rentals, thus accelerating the conversion of a neighborhood from ownership to rental housing. xi The homeownership provision is touted as an improvement on the bill from last year’s version, but such a provision is of little value since it sunsets on January 1, 2027, while the law itself has no such sunset date. Savvy investors can simply buy a desired property, build a duplex and wait-out this short timeline before applying for a lot split. xii This exception will increase demand for living on rural parcels outside of these urban census tracts and contribute to further sprawl. Those that have more resources will likely pay a premium to live on parcels not subject to the uncertainties of SB 9. Realtors will likely have to disclose whether a property is within an SB 9 zone. xiii It is surprising that the Coastal Act is included in this bill. How this measure interacts with the application of the Coastal Act, approved by the voters, deserves additional examination. xiv At a time of increasing wildfire dangers, this provision makes little policy sense. Fire hazard areas often have narrow roads with limited ingress and egress. Allowing between four to six units on parcels in these areas with limited parking may impede equipment access and increase public safety hazards. Here is the cross-referenced language: “Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.” xv This limitation is of minor relevance. The economic potential offered by SB 9, far exceeds the impacts of purchasing a desired property and living in for several years, while plans to develop it are prepared. Still given the delay, developers will likely avoid a rental occupied home in a neighborhood and focus on owner-occupied homes, which will accelerate the conversion of a neighborhood to rental properties. xvi This allows for the full teardown, including the garage. xvii “Conveyance” in real estate terminology means “sale.” xviii This allows the entire back half of the property to be used without any open space, other than walking paths. This also will create privacy issues when windows look onto adjoining properties, or other disputes when building remove heritage trees and block views. xix Corridor with bus service at 15 minute intervals during peak commute hours, and includes existing rail or bus transit stations, ferry terminals served by bus or rail transit, or major transit stops included in regional transportation plan. These distances bear no real correlation with reality. Most residents living in units subject to SB 9 will have cars. Most Californian’s need cars to get to work, take children to school, shop, visit doctor’s offices etc. In most areas of California, outside of urban core areas, transit is insufficient for the variety of most needs. Many also consider transit to be unsafe, and (more recently with COVID) unhealthy. xx This reference in the bill only mentions a “car share vehicle” within one block but does not mention a car share parking space. A clever developer could park a car share vehicle permanently on the property, or on the street in front of it, and argue that no other parking is required. xxi There is no way of fulling knowing what this exemption from applicable local ordinances really means. Such an exemption means that the laws of a community will apply unequally. For instance, a family that wants to add more room to an existing house cannot do so because of a view ordinance, but a developer who buys the property next door is free to use SB 9 to split the lot and put multiple units on the property blocking the views of others in violation of the ordinance. How is this equitable? xxii Likely difficult to enforce with numerous tenants inhabiting properties. xxiii Footnotes 2 describes ways this can be worked around. xxivLocals are provided little real authority in this measure. No doubt, they will be heavily blamed by residents for the widespread impacts of SB 9 and the absence of any due process for those affected. A-31 SAMPLE DOCUMENT FOR JOINT PENINSULA CITIES SB 9 (Atkins) As Amended, 4/27 Published August 9, 2021 SB 9 (Atkins 04/27/21) RENNE PUBLIC POLICY GROUP| 1100 11th Street, Suite 200-231, Sacramento, Ca, 95814 www.publicpolicygroup.com xxv Myklebust et al. Cashing in on Our Homes: Billionaire Landlords Profit as Millions Face Eviction (Mar. 2021) Bargaining for the Common Good; Institute for Policy Studies; Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund https://ips-dc.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/03/Cashing-in-on-Our-Homes-FINAL-revised.pdf (as of Aug. 5, 2021) at p. 7 A-32 Scope of Work • Legislative Review, Tracking and Advocacy: Track, review and analyze any introduced and amended legislation. Advocate on legislation, regulatory proposals of interest to the City and any state budget issues impacting the City. • Annual “Deep Dive” Review: RPPG understands the importance that staff plays in fully understanding the intricacies of operations, funding, and legislative priorities. RPPG will conduct an annual “Deep Dive” meeting (in person or via Zoom in accordance with COVID-19 restrictions) with key staff to gain deeper legislative, political, and funding priority insight. This approach helps your advocacy team best position the City for success. • Assist in further developing the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Housing and Local Land Use Legislative Platform: Should the City seek to modify a State Legislative Platform, RPPG would work with Council and staff in an inclusive process to develop and execute a legislative platform that adequately reflects the Council’s policy positions. The purpose of a legislative platform is to clearly outline policy positions on various State legislative issues that have a direct impact on the City. The priorities throughout the platform are intended to assist the Mayor, Council Members, and staff to proactively and appropriately address legislation, to promote the City’s interests, and preserve local legislative authority if and when necessary. • Representation: Represent the City at policy-related meetings, conferences, events, regulatory proceedings, legislative hearings, and other appropriate venues to deliver comments, testimony, and provide the City with a consistent presence in Sacramento. RPPG will also present at the City Council meetings to provide legislative updates twice a year or as necessary. • Relationship Building: Continue fostering relationships with legislators and administration officials. Our firm will make meeting recommendations, schedule arrangements, and strategize on messaging in advance. This approach ensures that we have laid the groundwork for to advance your policy goals and any bill proposals throughout the year. • Education Tour: RPPG is prepared to conduct an education tour in the Capitol to drive awareness on the issues that matter to you most. This will ensure that the appropriate communication channels with legislative staff and legislators remain open throughout the 2022 legislative session and beyond. • Targeted Engagement with Statewide Local Government Association and Local Agency Partners: Our proven working relationship with the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, California Special District’s Association, the California Fire and Police Chiefs’ Associations, and other statewide local government advocacy organizations will ensure that RPPG can communicate policy positions—and when appropriate, work in a blended strategy to achieve success. B-1 • Document Creation and Review: Consult and develop strategic documents, draft policy position, regulatory and budgetary letters, customized priority legislative tracking matrix, budget analysis, and background papers to ensure the City is up to speed and its voice is consistently heard by policymakers and stakeholders. Fee Proposal Due to the fluctuating demands of the legislative calendar as well as strategy and planning for the following legislative cycle, RPPG does not bill clients on an hourly basis for direct legislative consulting and support work. Based on the anticipated scope of work, RPPG proposes a flat retainer fee for all services outlined in the RFP. This proposed pricing includes all items outlined in the work plan (detailed above), work performed by RPPG primary staff, advisors, and operational/administrative support – including all costs associated with all quarterly (required) FPPC filings. ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION FEES 1 Legislative advocacy and representation as outlined in scope of work specific to local control and housing. $3,500 Flat fee monthly retainer agreement ($42,000.00 annual) 2 Legislative advocacy and representation as outlined in scope of work for all policy areas, including funding advocacy through the State budget process. $4.500.00/month flat fee retainer agreement ($54,000.00 annual) 3 As needed travel budget not to exceed $5,000.00. Costs associated with travel include, milage at federal per mile rate and overnight expenses if requested to attend in-person council meeting. Note: No expense shall be incurred without direct authorization from client $5,000.00 annual ### B-2 Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Anthony D. Gonsalves Jason A. Gonsalves Paul A. Gonsalves PROFESSIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION 925 L ST. · SUITE 250 · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3766 918 441-0597 · FAX 916 441-5061 Email: goosalves@goosalvi.com September 14 , 2021 Ashford Ball, Senior Management Analyst City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Ball , I have enclosed a proposal introducing the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Rolling Hills to our firm , Joe A. Gonsalves & Son. By way of background, our firm was founded by my father, Joe A. Gonsalves , in 1975. He served as a member of the California State Assembly from 1962 through 1974. Prior to that, he served as a Dairy Valley Council Member including two years as Mayor of the city of Dairy Valley, which is now the city of Cerritos. In January 1977, I joined the firn1 after having worked for the California State Senate. Shortly after I joined the firm, we incorporated ; and we are now known as Joe A. Gonsalves & Son. The political process in Sacramento is truly complex. In the three plus decades I have been lobbying in Sacramento I have had the opportunity to master such complexities, which enables our firm to be successful when representing our clients on particularly difficult and controversial issues. In December of 1998 , my son, Jason joined our firm to assist with our lobbying efforts. That gave our firm the proud distinction of being the first to have three generations oflegislative advocates working on behalf of their clients, which continued until my father passed away in July 2000. Jason has successfully represented our clients before the Legislature and various State Agencies in the areas oflocal government finance, utilities and commerce, water, public employees ' retirement, workers' compensation, environmental regulation, telecommunications , and conflict of interest issues. In October of 2004, Paul, joined our finn after most recently serving as a legislative aide to fonner Assemblymember Rudy Bermudez. Prior to working in the Assembl y, he received a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in Public Administration from San Diego State University. Paul has successfully represented our clients before the Legislature and vario us State Agencies in the area of transportation, environmental quality, water, affordable housing, local governance and telecommunications. Our firm continues the proud tradition of being one of the more prominent and successful firms in Sacramento. C-1 I have enclosed a list of our present clients. As you can see, we represent a large number of cities. We believe our base of client cities has provided us the unique opportunity to work with each member of the Legislature. Recognizing the number of Legislators coming out oflocal governments, we have established relationships prior to them being elected to the Legislature. In addition, I have enclosed an outline of both our legislative and grant funding accomplishments. Please note this is a partial list as it would be impossible for me to fully communicate the level of success we have enjoyed in representing our clients. Our firm charges a retainer on a monthly basis and contains a 30-day cancellation clause, as we are confident in our ability to provide your cities with an unparalleled level of service. We respectfully propose a monthly retainer of $9,000.00 per month. The retainer is all inclusive of the services we would provide for the City. We do not charge for any additional costs unless you require us to meet outside of Sacramento. Please note, we understand and appreciate your request for proposal is to represent your three cities collectively and if selected, we would be honored to do so. In addition to our collective representation, we would respectfully propose that our firm also represent each of your cities on any/all individual needs (i.e., redevelopment dissolution, grant assistance, etc.) your cities may encounter, at no additional costs to each City. Simply put, our finn prides itself on our ability to successfully represent our client cities on a wide range of issues and resolving such matters is our priority. Our contract lists our scope of services in very general terms. We purposely do this to ensure that each client has the flexibility to request any assistance you may require in Sacramento, such as setting up meetings with the appropriate legislators, Governor's office or the various state departments. Should you have any changes you would like to make in the contract, please feel free to discuss those with me. Additionally, we do not assign clients to a specific lobbyist in the firm. Instead, you have access to all the firms' employees at any time. We represent a very distinguished group of clients other than cities. For example, Long Beach Transit, providing transit services throughout the Long Beach region ; and Access Services, the only paratransit service provider in Los Angeles County. In addition, we represent Willdan, which provides professional services to over 400 public sector clients throughout California, Arizona and Nevada. I strongly believe it is this blend of special people who assist us in being as effective as we are. Our firm operates on a very personal and professional level , always working hard to accomplish our clients' goals. The late Senator, Ken Maddy, coined our finn the "Gonsalvi". When asked what he meant by the nickname, Senator Maddy responded, "you're like alumni , when you guys are working an issue you are everywhere". Still today the members of the Legislature refer to us as "the Gonsalvi". I would recommend you contact any Legislator and ask them about our firm. In addition , we encourage you to discuss our representation with our clients. C-2 We want you to know that we would be honored to represent the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, and Rolling Hills as your legislative advocates. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. C-3 Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Anthony D. Gonsalves Jason A. Gonsalves Paul A. Gonsalves PROFESSIONAL LEG! SLAT! VE REPRESENT A Tl ON 925 L ST. · SUITE 250 · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3766 916 441-0597 · FAX 916 441-5061 Email: gonsa1ves@gonsalvi. com SCOPE OF WORK Our firm is extremely confident in our ability to meet the objectives and scope of work outlined in your proposal. We will work cooperatively with your management staff and other consultants to ensure a high level of legislative and administrative success in Sacramento. We utilize every asset available to us and we will personally meet with each Member of the Legislature, their Staff and the Governor's office to ensure such success. Our strategies will vary depending upon the issues as well as Sacramento's ever changing political climate. Once we have received direction from your Cities and the facts regarding a specific matter, we will immediately work with your staff on the following steps: • • • • • • Identify potential Legislators whom can support our cause Meet with the members of the Legislature Meet with the pertinent committee consultants Identify and meet with interest groups, lobbying firm s and /or coalitions who can be supportive Identify and meet with interest groups, lobbying firms and /or coalitions who may be in opposition. More than likely, we have a personal relationship with the opponents and or the firms that represent them and by reaching out early we find we are able to neutralize organizations that otherwise may have been opposed. Assuming legislation is necessary, we will meet with each Member of the various committees the legislation will be referred to in an effort to secure their support for our pos ition prior to each hearing. We often times tell our clients: "our expertise is the legislative and regulatory process, we are not experts in your specific City", which means we will continue to work with your management and technical staff in order for each ofus to have a clear understanding of the many issues we expect to provide assistance on. Our firm prides itself on being upfront and honest with the Members of the Legislature, which ensures we will never do anything to embarrass ourselves or the Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities. As previously noted, we expect to be in constant communication with you and your staff. Whenever you and/or your staff requests something from our finn we will get to work on it immediately and report the information back to you. C-4 We provide your Joint Cities with a weekly report which we send out every Thursday or Friday depending upon the legislative calendar. We tailor our weekly report to ensure it provides a specific update on the legislative proposals identified/adopted by the Cities. Additionally, we will provide the Cities with a monthly written and/or oral report of legislative activity, as requested. Our firm lists our scope of services in very general terms. We purposely do this to ensure that each client has the flexibility to request any assistance you may require in Sacramento, such as setting up meetings with the appropriate legislators, Governor's office or the various state departments. Our firm works at the direction of your Agency's management team to ensure a high level of Legislative and Administrative success in Sacramento. We utilize every asset available to us and we personally meet with each Member of the Legislature, their staff, the Governor's office and Administration to ensure such success. Relationships and respect matter in Sacramento and we are extremely proud of the personal and professional relationships we have with the Executive Branch, State Agencies as well as the members of the Legislature. Our long-standing presence in Sacramento enables us to successfully represent your Cities. Our firm reads every introduced bill, all subsequent amendments and sends all bills of interest to your Cities throughout the year. In addition, we provide each City a "weekly report" with the status of all bills either watched, supported and/or opposed by your Agency. In addition, as the legislative proposals develop, we will provide you with fact sheets and analysis of the bills affecting your Cities. Additionally, we actively sponsor bills on behalf of our client's as well as maintain a constant line of communication with the Members of the Legislature and their staff to ensure we are apprised of upcoming proposals. Our firm will assist in preparing written correspondence on any/all issues of importance to the Cities. That said, we do not unilaterally adopt positions on behalf of our clients. We work very closely with the Cities management team under the direction of the Mayor's and Council. Whenever your Agency adopts a position on legislation and/or proposed regulations, we cover all bases. We meet with the Author's office, the Committee Consultants (both Democrat and Republican), Legislative Leadership, all pertinent stakeholders, and provide testimony in each Committee in order to ensure your cities positions are known and ultimately supported . In addition, we proactively identify any/all funding opportunities for your cities. We recommend you request our firm set-up a series of "action days" in Sacramento to meet with the various State Agencies and Legislative Committees to seek their input on any funding opportunities that may be available. We actively participate in Sacramento's ongoing activities and we coordinate with the cities C-5 management team to determine your legislative priorities and provide you with regular updates/"weekly reports" of said priorities specific to each City. Ongoing communication with your Agency enables our success. We make ourselves available at the Agency's convenience and we will continue to work proactively with the Agency's management team on the development and most importantly, successful implementation of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities Legislative Priorities. Our entire firm intentionally uses the same gonsa lves@go nsa lvi .com email address. We do this in order to ensure each member of our firm is aware of the issues of importance as we coordinate our collective efforts . Whenever we take on an issue, all three lobbyists actively advocate on your behalf. It would be a tremendous honor for our firm to represent your Cities, one we take very seriously. Transparency and ethics are of upmost importance to our firm. There has been a Gonsalves walking the halls of the State Capitol since 1962 and we will never do anything to compromise "our" reputation (the Gonsalves' or the Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities). PROFILE OF FIRM The Gonsalves family's participation in the legislative process dates back to 1962 when our founder, Joe Gonsalves was sworn in as the first member of the California State Assembly from Portuguese ancestry. Joe served in the State Assembly until 1974 and, in 1975, he founded Joe A. Gonsalves & Son. In 2005 a newspaper reporter asked a high-ranking legislative staff member if he/she thought future generations would join the "Gonsalvi" at which the staff member responded "you sort of hope they do, it's hard to imagine this place without a Gonsalves." The Members of the Legislature and their staff know and respect us in Sacramento and as importantly they know we respect them. Without your integrity one cannot lobby and our integrity never waivers. We have three full time lobbyists in our firm and each lobbyist is fully engaged in our representation of your Agency. Anthony Gonsalves, President and Legislative Advocate for Joe A. Gonsalves & Son, began lobbying in 1977 after having worked for the California State Senate. Shortly after, we incorporated; and we are now known as Joe A. Gonsalves & Son. The political process in Sacramento is truly complex. In the three plus decades Anthony has been lobbying in Sacramento he has had the opportunity to master such complexities, which enables our firm to be successful when representing our clients on particularly difficult and controversial issues. In December of 1998, Jason Gonsalves, Secretary and Legislative Advocate for Joe A. Gonsalves & Son, joined our firm to assist with our lobbying efforts. That gave our firm the proud distinction of being the first to have three generations oflegislative advocates working on behalf of their clients, which continued until Joe passed away in July 2000. Jason has successfully represented our clients before the Legislature and various State Agencies in the C-6 areas oflocal government finance , utilities and commerce, public employee's retirement, workers' compensation, environmental regulation, telecommunications, and conflict of interest issues. In October of 2004, Paul Gonsalves, Legislative Advocate for Joe A. Gonsalves & Son, joined our finn after most recently serving as a legislative aide to former Assemblymember Rudy Bermudez. Prior to working in the Assembly, he received a B.A. in Political Science and a minor in Public Administration from San Diego State University. Paul has successfully represented our clients before the Legislature and various State Agencies in the area of transportation, environmental quality, affordable housing, local governance and telecommunications. Our finn continues the proud tradition of being one of the more prominent and successful firms in Sacramento. I have enclosed a list of our present clients. As you can see, we represent a large number oflocal government agencies. We believe our base of clients has provided us the unique opportunity to work with each member of the Legislature. We also represent a very distinguished group of clients other than cities. For example, Long Beach Transit, providing transit services throughout the Long Beach region; and Access Services, the only paratransit service provider in Los Angeles County. In addition , we represent Willdan, which provides professional services to over 400 public sector clients throughout California, Arizona and Nevada. I strongly believe it is this blend of special people who assist us in being as effective as we are. We recommend you contact any Legislator and ask them about our firm. In addition, we encourage you to discuss our representation with our clients. Our firm is very proud of the accomplishments we have been able to achieve, both fiscally and legislatively, for all of our clients. I have enclosed an outline of both our legislative and grant funding accomplishments. Please note, this is a partial list as it would be impossible for me to fully communicate the level of success we have enjoyed in representing our clients. An invaluable element of our success is the ongoing communication we maintain with the management team. In representing the Palos Verdes Peninsula Cities , our firm will work closely with your management team to prepare and achieve the Cities priorities. Our firm maintains wonderful relationships, both personal and professional , with all members of the Legislature, which enables you to establish and maintain an ongoing presence in Sacramento. PROJECT TEAM Our firm intentionally does not divide up workload . We have three full time lobbyists in our firm and each lobbyist is fully engaged in our representation of your Cities. As an example, when a sponsored bill is being heard in committee, we will have each of us in committee. One of us will provide testimony, one may be meeting with Members and/or staff in their offices, and one will likely be pulling a member out of committee to request their support. It is very difficult for one lobbyist to actually lobby an entire committee alone. All three of us will be avai lable for the duration of the Scope of Work. C-7 Our entire finn intentionally uses the same go nsalves@ go nsal v i.com email address. We do this in order to make sure each member of our firm is aware of the issues of importance as we coordinate our efforts. Whenever we take on an issue, all three lobbyists actively advocate on your behalf. As you know, we are a family finn with three lobbyists, Anthony Gonsalves (father), and his two sons, Jason and Paul Gonsalves. As with most family businesses you can safely assume the organizational structure, with one significant difference, we consider each and every one of our clients to be "the boss". Personnel: • Anthony D. Gonsalves -President: (44 years) • Jason A. Gonsalves -Vice President: (23 years) • Paul A. Gonsalves -Lobbyist: (17 years) • Sasha Spangler -Office Assistant (21 years) • Stacey Scambray-Office Assistant (5 Years) COST PROPOSAL In our contract we charge a retainer on a monthly basis. The retainer is all inclusive of the services we would provide for your three Cities. We do not charge for any additional costs unless you require us to meet outside of Sacramento. As previously mentioned , we understand and appreciate your request for proposal is to represent your three cities collectively and if selected, we would be honored to do so. In addition to our collective representation, we would respectfully propose that our firm also represent each of your cities on any/all individual needs (i.e., redevelopment dissolution, grant assistance, etc.) your cities may encounter, at no additional costs to each City. Simply put, our firm prides itself on our ability to successfully represent our client cities on a wide range of issues and resolving such matters is our priority. Our finn respectfully proposes a fee schedule of $9,000 per month. C-8 Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Anthony D. Gonsalves Jason A. Gonsalves Paul A. Gonsalves PROFESSIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION 925 L ST. · SUITE 250 · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3766 916 441-0597 · FAX 918 441-5061 Email: gonsa.Ives@gonsalvi. com CLIENT LIST ACCESS SE RV ICES 3449 Santa Anita Avenue El Monte, CA 91731 Andre Colaiace, Executive Director (213) 270-6000 AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL EVENTS, INC. dba TNT FIREWORKS 555 North Gilbert Street Fullerton, CA 92833 Tad Trout, President (714) 738-1002 BURRTEC WASTE & RECYCLING SERVICES, LLC 41-575 Eclectic Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Frank Orlett, Vice President (760) 340-590 I CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF DUI TREATMENT PROGRAMS "CADTP" 218 North Glendora A venue La Puente, CA 91744 Barbara Aday-Garcia, Chair (626) 862-2215 CALIFORNIA CITY MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION "CCMF" 2533 Brown Dr. El Cajon, CA 92020 Ken Pulskamp, Executive Director (844) 226-2411 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY 2111 Palomar Airport Road Carlsbad, CA 92011 John Stoecker, Financial Advisor (760) 930-1221 CALIFORNIA PRODUCER-HANDLER ASSOCIATION 313 Casa Linda Drive Woodland, CA 95695-4722 Amos DeGroot, President (530) 662-1228 GALE BANKS ENGINEERING 546 South Duggan A venue Azusa, CA 91 702 Gale Banks, President ( 626) 969-9600 GATEWAY WATER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY "GWMA" 16401 Paramount Blvd. Paramount, CA 90723 Grace J. Kast, Executive Officer (626) 4 85-0338 IRVINE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST One Civic Center Plaza, Third Floor Irvine, CA 92606-5207 Steve Holtz, Neighborhood Services Manager (949) 724-6612 LONG BEACH TRANSIT Post Office Box 73 I 1963 E. Anaheim St. Long Beach, CA 90801 Tracy Beidleman, Government Relations Manager (562) 489-8485 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Alicia Dunkin, Legislative Affairs Liaison (714) 378-3268 PACIFIC EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. 11837 Kemper Road, Suite 2 Auburn, CA 95603 Walt Stockman, President (530) 888-1010 C-9 PORT OF STOCKTON 2201 W. Washington Street Stockton, CA 95203 Kirk DeJesus, Port Director (209) 946-0246 PORTUGUESE GOVERNMENT 3298 Washington Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Maria Joao Lopes Cardoso, Consul-General (415) 346-3400 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY WATER ASSOCIATION 725 North Azusa A venue Azusa, CA 91 702 Tony Zampiello, Assistant Executive Officer (626) 815-1305 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT "SCAOMD" 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Wayne Nastri, Executive Officer (909) 396-3203 TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 46-200 Harrison Place Coachella, CA 92236 Mike Darrell, Chairman (760) 625-6067 WILLDAN GROUP, INC. 240 I East Katella A venue, Suite 300 Anaheim, CA 92806-6073 Frank Tripepi, Senior Vice President Business Development (714) 940-6300 C-10 CITY OF ARTESIA 18747 Clarkdale Avenue Artesia, CA 90701 William Rawlings, City Manager (562) 865-6262 CITY OF ATASCADERO 6500 Palma A venue Ata scadero, CA 93422 Rachelle Rickard, City Manager (805) 461-5000 CITY OF BANNING 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, CA 92220 Doug Schulze, City Manager (951) 922-4860 CITY OF BARSTOW 220 East Mountain View Street, Suite A Barstow, CA 923 11-2839 James Hart, City Manager (760) 255 -5 I 95 CITY OF BELLFLOWER I 6600 Civic Center Drive Bellflower, CA 90706-5494 Jeffrey L. Stewart, City Manager (562) 804-1424 CITY OF CAMARILLO 601 Carmen Drive Camarillo, CA 930 I 0 Greg Ramirez, City Manager (805) 388-5307 CITY OF CARSON 701 E . Carson Street Car son , CA 90745 Sharon Landers, City Manager (310) 952-1728 CITY OF CERRITOS Post Office Box 3 I 30 18 I 25 Bloomfield A venue Cerritos, CA 90703-3130 Art Gallucci , City Manager (562) 860-03 I 1 CITY OF CHINO 13220 Central A venue Chino, CA 91710 Matthew Ballantyne, City Manager (909) 334-3302 CITY OF COMMERCE 2535 Commerce Way Commerce, CA 90040-1487 Edgar P. Cisneros, City Administrator (323) 722-4805 ext. 281 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dan Fox, City Manager (909) 839-7010 CITY OF ELK GROVE 8401 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, CA 95758 Jason Behnnann, City Manager (916) 4 78-2249 CITY OF FAIRFIELD 1000 Webster Street Fairfield, CA 94533 Stefan Chatwin, City Manager (707) 428-7400 CITY OF FILLMORE 250 Central A venue Fillmore, CA 93015 David Rowlands, City Manager (805) 524-3700 I CITY OF FOLSOM 50 Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630 Elaine Andersen, City Manager (916) 461-6010 CITY OF FONTANA 8353 Sierra Avenue Fontana, CA 92355 Mark Denny, City Manager (909) 350-7659 CITY OF GLENDORA 116 East Foothill Blvd. Glendora, CA 91741-3380 Adam Raymond, City Manager (626) 914-8201 CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS 21815 Pioneer Blvd . Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716 Linda Hollinsworth, City Manager (562) 420-2641 ext. 236 C-11 CITY OF HEMET 445 E. Florida A venue Hemet, CA 92543 Christopher Lopez, City Manager (95 I) 765-2300 CITY OF INDIAN WELLS 44-950 El Dorado Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 Chris Freeland, City Manager (760) 346-2489 CITY OF INDUSTRY 15625 East Stafford Street City oflndustry, CA 91744 Troy Helling, City Manager (626)333-2211 Ext.114 CITY OF IRWINDALE 5050 N. Irwindale Avenue Irwindale, CA 91 706 William K. Tam, City Manager (626) 430-2217 CITY OF JURUP AV ALLEY 8930 Limonite A venue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Rod Butler, City Manager (951) 332-6464 CITY OF KERMAN 850 S. Madera A venue K erman, CA 93630 John Jansons, City Manager (559) 846-9384 CITY OF LA MIRADA 13700 La Mirada Blvd. La Mirada, CA 90638 Jeff Boyton, City Manager (562) 943-0131 CITY OF LA PUENTE 15900 E. Main Street La Puente, CA 91744 Bob Lindsey, City Manager (626) 855-1500 CITY OF LA QUINT A 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Jon McMillen, City Manager (760) 777-7000 CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS 24035 El Toro Road Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Kenneth Rosenfield City Manager (949) 707-2620 CITY OF LAKEWOOD 5050 Clark A venue Lakewood, CA 90712 Thaddeus McCom1ack, City Manager (562) 866-9771 CITY OF LOMITA 24300 Narbonne A venue, PO Box 339 Lomita, CA 90717 Ryan Smoot, City Manager (310) 325-7110 CITY OF LYNWOOD 11339 Bullis Road Lynwood, CA 90262 Ernie Hernandez, City Manager (310) 603-0220 Ext. 200 CITY OF MARTINEZ 525 Henrietta Street Martinez, CA 94553 Eric Figueroa, City Manager (925) 372-3505 CITY OF NORWALK 12700 Norwalk Blvd. Room 3 Norwalk, CA 90650 Jesus M . Gomez, City Manager (562) 929-5700 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73 -510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Randy Bynder, Interim City Manager (760) 346-0611 CITY OF PALMDALE 38300 Sierra Highway Ste. A Palmdale, CA 93550-4798 Jim Purtee, C ity Manager (661) 267-5100 CITY OF PARAMOUNT 16400 Colorado A venue Paramount, C A 90723-5050 John Moreno, City Manager (562) 220-2225 C-12 CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA 2729 Prospect Park Drive Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Cyrus Abhar, City Manager (916) 851-8700 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA l 0500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9 I 730 John Gillison, City Manager (909) 477-2700 CITY OF REDDING 777 Cypress A venue Post Office Box 496071 Redding, CA 9600 I Barry Tippin, City Manager (530) 225-5095 CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 East Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 9 I 770 Gloria Molleda, City Manager (626) 569-2104 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 3 I I Vernon Street Roseville, CA 95678 Dominick Casey, City Manager (916) 774-5362 CITY OF SANT A CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 9 I 355 Kenneth W. Striplin, Ed.D (661) 255-4905 CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS 11710 E. Telegraph Road Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager (562) 868-05 I I ext. 7510 CITY OF SIGNAL HILL 2175 Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 907 Hannah Shin-Heydom, City Manager (562)989-7302 CITY OF SIMI VALLEY 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063-2199 Brian P. Gabler, City Manager (805) 583-670 I CITY OF SOUTH GATE 8650 California A venue South Gate, CA 90280 Chris Jeffers, Interim City Manager (323) 563-9503 CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS 2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd. Thousand Oaks, CA 90280 Andrew Powers, City Manager (805) 449-212 I CITY OF TORRANCE 3031 Torrance Blvd. Torrance, CA 90503 Aram Chaparyan, City Manager (310) 328-5310 CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS 6136 Adobe Road Twentynine Palms, CA 92277 Frank Luckino, City Manager (760) 367-6799 CITY OF VACA VILLE 650 Merchant Street Vacaville, CA 95688 Aaron Busch, City Manager (707) 449-5100 CITY OF VALLEJO 555 Santa Clara Street Vallejo, CA 94590 Greg Nyhoff, City Manager (707) 648-4576 CITY OF VICTORVILLE 14343 Civic Drive Victorville, CA 92393 Keith Metzler, City Manager (760) 955-1681 CITY OF WEST COVINA 1444 West Garvey A venue, Room 305 West Covina, CA 91790 David Cannany, City Manager (626) 939-8401 C-13 CITY OF WHITTIER 13230 Penn Street Whittier, CA 90602 Brian Saeki , City Manager (562) 567-9999 CITY OF WILDOMAR 23873 Clinton Keith Rd , Ste. 201 Wildomar, CA 92595 Gary Nordquist, City Manager (951) 677-7751 WINDSOR. TOWN OF 9291 Old Redwood Hwy, Bldg 400 Windsor, CA 95492 Ken MacNab, Town Manager (707) 838 -1000 C-14 Joe A. Gonsalves 8l. Son Anthony D. Gonsalves Jason A. Gonsalves Paul A. Gonsalves PROFESSIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATION 925 L ST. · SUITE 250 · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-3766 916 441-0597 · FAX 916 441-5061 Email: gonsalves@gonaalvi.com PROJECT FUNDING SECURED BY: JOE A. GONSALVES & SON Project Name Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Client Roseville Public Library City of Roseville Pomona Public Library City of Pomona Irwindale Public Library City of Irwindale Beaumont Library District City of Beaumont Torrance Public Library City of Torrance Santa Fe Springs City Library City of Santa Fe Springs Rancho Cucamonga Public Library City of Rancho Cucamonga Hemet Public Library City of Hemet Folsom Public Library City of Folsom Safe Routes to School City of Redding Grant Amount S $10,000 $8,500 $5,000 l $95,000 J I $] 6 ,075 $19,000 $561 ,982 $28,657 $23,000 $373 ,700 C-15 Safe Routes to School City of Alameda $276,900 Safe Routes to School City of Concord $436,400 Safe Routes to School City of Claremont $450,000 Safe Routes to School City of La Puente $387,000 Safe Routes to School City of Palmdale $449,800 Safe Routes to School City of South Gate $449,500 Safe Routes to School City of Thousand Oaks $332,000 Safe Routes to School City of Eastvale $150,100 -------- Safe Routes to School City of Fontana $254,200 Safe Routes to School City of Moreno Valley $416,700 Safe Routes to School City of Wildomar $] 70,800 Safe Routes to School City of Placentia $409,000 Safe Routes to School City of Pomona $900,000 Proposition lB Trade Corridor Improvement Port of Long Beach $299,795,000 Fund State Highway Operation and Protection Port of Long Beach $200,205,000 Program C-16 Statewide Park Development & Community City of South Gate $2,000,000 Revitalization Program Statewide Park Development & Community City of Rosemead $3,134,066 Revitalization Program Statewide Park Development & Community City of Rancho Cucamonga $3,941 , I 36 Revitalization Program Statewide Park Development & Community City of Paramount $4,580,902 Revitalization Program Safe Routes to School City of La Puente $664,470 Bruggemeyer Memorial Library City of Monterey Park $8,845 ,850 -- Camarillo Library City of Camarillo $15,621,473 Fairfield Cordelia Library City of Fairfield $4,100,385 .,_ --------- Fontana Library City of Fontana $14,900,075 Lawndale Library City of Lawndale $7,300,132 -------- National City Public Library City of National City $11 ,112,814 Redding -Shasta County Library City of Redding $12,177,532 ----------~----- Victoria Gardens Library City of Rancho Cucamonga $7,752,688 SF Bay to Stockton Ship Channel Deepening Port of Stockton $17,500,000 Project --------------------------------- C-17 Sacramento River Deep Water Channel City of West Sacramento Port $10,000,000 Project of Sacramento Gateway-Valley Grade Separation City of Santa Fe Springs $25 ,570,000 Washington Bl vd Widening & Reconstruction City of Commerce $5 ,800,000 Project - Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement Port of Long Beach $250,000,000 --- Ports Rail System Pier F Port of Long Beach $4,650,000 Ports Rail System Track Realignment Port of Long Beach $23,960,000 --~- Port Rail System Pier B Realignment Port of Long Beach $4,180 ,000 -----· ---- Port Terminal Is land Track Realignment Port of Long Beach $3,790,000 Port Computerized Train Control Port of Long Beach $11 ,850,000 Reeves Ave Closure and Grade Separation Port of Long Beach $31 ,180,000 ------------- - ----- Navy Mole Storage Yard Port of Long Beach $5,930,000 New Cerritos Rail Bridge/Triple Track S. of Port of Long Beach $38,330,000 ---------------------------- West Basin road Rail Access Improvements Port of Long Beach $47,560,000 Pier 400 Second Lead Track Port of Long Beach $3 ,670,000 ----- Sunset A venue Grade Separation City of Banning $ I 0,000,000 C-18 Corridor Logistics Access Project (Cherry C ity of Fontana $30,773,000 Street) Corridor Logistics Access Project (Citrus City of Fontana $23,600,000 Street) Corridor Logistics Access Project (Riverside City of Fontana $14,096,000 Street) Glen Ridge Apartments City of Carlsbad $5,92 1,777 CalHome City of Roseville $600,000 CalHome City of Chino $400,000 -- Ca!Home City of Vista $600,000 -· ------ --- ---- CalHome City of Redding $600,000 ---·--- Ca lHome City of Fairfield $600,000 CalHome City of Yuba City $600,000 -------- - -------------·------ Palmdale Transit Village City of Palmdale $2,200,000 Santa Barbara Estates, Units 3 & 4 City of Redding $132,300 ---------------- Santa Monica C ity of Fairfield $1,080,000 Central Station Town Homes C ity of Fillmore $480,000 Westerner Mobile Home Park City of E lk Grove $250,000 ------------- C-19 Mountain View Terrace Apartments City of Beaumont $2,960,000 Westview Terrace Apartments City of Banning $2,833,000 ------- CalHome City of Pomona $900,000 Ca lHome City of Fairfield $900,000 CalHome City of Simi Valley $900,000 Workforce Housing Reward Program City of Concord $324,800 Workforce Housing Reward Program City of Roseville $20,240 - Workforce Housing Reward Program City of West Sacramento $54,880 Computers, Vehicles for Sheriff Station Ci ty of Bellflower $30,000 ~ -. ~ ------------ Restoration of Camarillo Ranch City of Camarillo $493 ,000 Cascade Park City of Monterey Park $225,000 -----· ---------------- Community Center City of Irwindale $150,000 Mae Boyer Park City of Lakewood $750 ,000 ----------~------~ ------ Historic Roseville Project City of Roseville $250,000 Preservation of Camarillo Ranch City of Camarillo $492,605 School Bus Replacement City of Ventura $300 ,000 --------------- C-20 Langley Senior Center City of Monterey Park $350,000 La Loma Park Renovation City of Monterey Park $150 ,000 Sleepy Hollow Community Center City of Chino Hills $250,000 Alternative to Gang Programs City of Bellflower $50,000 Performing Arts Center City of La Mirada $400,000 ERAF Adjustment/Correction City of Laguna Niguel $600,000 Pavement Improvement Program City of Lakewood $700,000 East Ventura Park City of Ventura $250,000 Police Services City of La Mirada $500,000 Sports Complex City of Redding $10,000,000 --------- Youth Facility Improvements City of Palmdale $500,000 Tiger Field Improvements City of Redding $500,000 ---------------- BOE Use Tax Refund City of Redding $1 ,500,000 Total Project Grants $1,208,628,639 C-21 This bill would, instead of separate allocations to the central and southern zones, establish a maximum of 49 racing weeks per year in the combined central and southern zones. The bill would also require the board to allocate from those weeks a minimum number of weeks to certain racetracks in the central and southern zones that were used to conduct thoroughbred race meetings prior to 2012 and would authorize the board to allocate from those weeks a maximum number of weeks to certain racetracks in the southern zone that were not used to conduct thoroughbred race meetings in the southern zone prior to 2012 .• Signed by AB 1074 (Atkins) Horse Racing Go,ernor Authorizes the California Horse Racing Board. notwithstanding any o ther law, to allocate racing days to a fair in the northern zone to be conducted by the fair or, at the request of the fair, to authorize the board to license a racing association that was licensed by the board to conduct racing meetings in California prior to 2010 to conduct live horse racing at the fair AB 1303 (Hall) Horse Racing : Satellite Wagering during the dates allocated to the fair by the board. -Signed by Governor Would require a city or county, including a charter city or charter county, to apply for a coastal development pennit to remove or restrict the use of a beach fire ring, as defined, and would require that application to include specified information. The b ill would not affect the applicability of a specified provision relating to ambient air quality standards, emission standards, or air polluti on control programs or facilities established by the State Air Resources Board or an air pollution control or air quality management district. • Defeated AB 1102 (Allen) Beach Fire R ings L.egs1lat1on This bill would increase the amount that is required to be deducted 10 an am ount not 10 exceed 2% in the northern. central. and southern zones. and would provide that this amount Thoroughbred racing: northern, central, in the n011hem zone, if adjusted by the board. may be a di fTerent percentage of the handle and southern zones: auxiliary o ffs ite for different associations and fairs, but only if all the associations and fairs a1,,ree to the AB 2011 (Cooper) stabling, training, and vanning. differing percentages. -Signed by the Go,crnor Proposed to pennit the legislative body of a city to provide by ordinance, without submitting the ordinance to the voters of the city for approval , for the election of members o f the legislative body by district if the voters of the city previously rejected such an ordinance .. AB 1383 (Hernandez) District-Based Elections Defeated L.c1,~s la 11on Proposed to pennit the legislative body of a city to provide by ordinance, without submitti ng the ordinance to the voters of the city for approval, fo r the election of members of the legislative body by district if the voters of the city previously rejected such an ordinance. AB 2715 (Hern andez) District-Based Elections Defeated l.egislation Requires the Department of Veterans Affairs, in voluntary cooperati on with local government entities in Orange County, to design, develop, construct, and equip a state- owned and state-operated Southern California Veterans Cemetery to be located at a specified site in the City of Irvine. Subject to specified requirements described in federal law, the bill would make honorably discharged veterans, their spouses, and eligible AB 1453 (Quirk-Silva) Southern CA Veterans Cemetery dependent children eligible for intennent in the cemetery. -Signed by Go,ernor Al lows a n owner of residential property in the Cities of Palmdale and Lancaster in the County of Los Angeles or the City of Ukiah in the County of Mendocino, or an agent of the property owner, to register vacant real property with the local law enforcement agency and to execute, under penalty of perjury, a Declaration of Ownership of Residentia l Real AB 1513 (Fox) Resdential Property Property. -S1i:ned b} Governor Requires. by July I, 20 15, the Department of General Services to complete a long-range planning study of the state-controlled and owned office buildings in the Count y of Sacramento and the City of West Sacramento, i ncluding the headquarters of the State Board of Equalization (BOE), for the management of the state's space needs in the Sacramento region. The bill would require the Director of General Services to issue one or more reques ts Dept. of General Services: State for proposals for the planning. des il,'11 , construction, and acquisition of facilities AB I 656 (Dickenson) Buildings recommended by the Legislature based on the planning study. -Signed b} Governor This bill would authorize the calcula tion to be made with a combination of census tracts and census b lock 1,,roups. The bill would also revise the conditions to require, among other things. an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide, countywide, or citywide annual median household income. The bill would also authorize an authority to carry out a community revitalization plan if the census tract or census block 1,,roups within the community revitalization and investment area are within a disadvantage AB 2492 (Ale jo) Community revitalization. community, as prescribed -Signed b} the Go, ernor This bill would repeal the provisions specifically relating to Ventura County and the expenditure oflocal transportation funds there. This bill would also require the Ventura County Transportation Commission to post on its Internet Web site an annual report for 5 Local Transportation Funds: Ventura years, beginning September I , 20 14. on transit service within the county. Signed i>> S B 203 (Pavlcy) County Go,emor Includes within the definition of"local agency executi ve" any person wh o is a deputy or assistant chief executive officer, and any person whose position is held by an employment S B 40 7 (Hill) Local Government Con tracts contract between that person a nd the local agency. -Signed b} Go,emo1 ··-.. C-22 The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 defines "biomass co nversi on," to mean the controlled combustion used for the production o f heat or electricity of specifi ed materials for the purposes of the act. This bill would revise the definition of the term "biomass conversion" to mean the production of heat, fuels, o r electricity by lhe controlled combustio n of, or the use o f o ther noncombustion thermal tec hnologies on, those specified S B 498 (Lara) Solid Waste: Biomass C onversion materials. -~1gned by Go , emo r Specifies that the results oflhe survey are 10 be considered by the local agency in making its decision lo approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The bill would authorize the local agency to disapprove the map ifit finds that the res ult s of the survey have not demonst rated the support ofal least a majorit y of the park's homeowners. -S igned h) SB 510 (Jackson) Land Use: Mobile Home Parks Go>vcmor Provides Iha! an advertisi ng dis play advertising businesses a nd activities w ithin the boundary limits of, and as a part of, an individual redevelopment agency project, as the project boundaries existed o n December 29, 201 1, may remain and be considered an o n-premises display, until January I , 2023, if the advertising display meets specified criteria. This bill would auth orize, on and after January I , 2022, the appl ic able city, county, or city and county 10 request from the Department of Transportation a n extension for good cause, as specified, Advertising Displays: Re d evelopment beyond J anuary I, 2023. not 10 exceed the expiration of the redevelopment project area. - SB 684 (Hill) project areas Signed b) Go,crnor This bill would extend the pilot program in those counties un til Janua1y I. 20 19 . Effective January I.2019. and until January I. 2026. the bill would make an individual whose license ha s been suspended for driving a motor vehicle when he or she has a certain blood-alcohol concentration and who is eligible for a restricted driver's license eligible for a restric ted driver's license without serving any pe riod of the suspens ion if the person meets all other Driving Under the influence: ignition el igibility requirements and the person install s an ignition interlock device. -S igned by the SB I 04 6 (Hill) interlock device. (;ovemor Current law designates illnesses and conditions that constitute a compensable i nj ury for various employees, such as California Hi ghway Patrol members, firefighters, and certain peace officers. These injuries include, but are not limited to , hernia, pneumonia, heart trouble, cancer, meningitis, and exposure to a biochemical substances, w hen the illness or condition d evelop s or manifest s itsel f during a period when the officer or employee is in service of his or her employer, as speci fied. This bill would expand th e coverage of the above provisions relating to compensable injury, to include all peace o fficers described AB 2052 (Gonzalez) Workers Comocnsati on under specified provisions of law. -\ etoed by Go,emo r Would require solicitations of custo mers by a community choice aggregator contai n, and communication by th e community choice aggregator to the public or prospect ive and existing customers to be consis tent with, spec ifi ed information and would require th at the implementation plan filed by a community cho ice ag1,'l'egator completely describe certain matter required to be d isclosed under existing law. The bill would authorize the Public Utilities Commission to require that a community choice aggregator, wh en regis tering with Electricity: C ommunity Ch oice the commission, provide ad ditional information to ensure compl iance with basic cons umer AB 2 14 5 (Bradford) A!!l!l'egatio n pro tecti on and o ther rules and o ther procedural matters. -\ etoed by Go ,crnor C urrent law requires that aggregate d is ability payments for a si ngle injury occurring o n or after certain dates be limited, as provided. This bill would provide tha l the above-specified leaves o f absence without loss of salary a re payable in addition to the maximum agb'l'egate disability payments for a single injury that is applicable 10 all workers. The bill would mak e Workers Compens atio n: Disability these provisions appl icable to all c laims, regardl ess of lh e date o f injury. -Vetoed by AB 2378 (Perea) payments Gu,ernor Thi s bill would authorize the Los Angeles County Fair, subject 10 approva l by the board , 10 conduct li ve racing meetings at another site wi thi n or outside o ft he County of Los Angeles S B 721 H orse Racing in accordance with specified provision s. -Signed by Governor Reallocates vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues to recently incorporated c ities and 10 c ities AB 1098 (Carter) Vehicle License Fees: allocation that annexed inhabited terri tory. -Vetoed by G,l\ emor Infrastruc ture financing districts: voter Eliminates the vo ter approval requirement for a city or county to create an infrastructure approval: r epeal. fin ancing district (IFD) and expands the types o f projec ts that may be financed by an IFD. S B 214 (Wolk) Vetoed b) Go,emor Expands the types of facilit ies and projects that can be financed under the infrastructure financ ing district (!FD) law , reduces th e vot er threshold for the c reati o n of an IFD and the Loc al govemme nt: infrastrnc ture and issuance of bonds for the IFD, authori zes an !FD to utilize the powers provided under the Po lanco Redeve lopment Act (Polanco Act), and renames !FD law 10 the Infras tru cture and revitalization financing districts. Revitalization Financing Di strict (IRFD) Act. -Vetoed by Go, emo r AB 21 44 (J. Perez) This bill establishes a uniform disi ncorporation process for any c ity with a po pulation ofless th an 150 persons as of Ja nuary I , 2010. and allows that c ity's respecti ve county board of Loca l Govemments: C ities supervisors to vote lo continue the existence of that ci ty within the county's boundaries in AB 46 (J. Perez) certain circumstances. -Defeated Leg1 sla11 o n Property taxes: TEA fonnula a ll ocation C larifies how property la xes will be distributed 10 the C ity of Si mi Vall ey o nce the City mainte nance or improve ment d istric ts: beco mes the successor agency after the dissolutio n of the City's maintenance distri ct. - C ity of S imi Valley Signed b) G O\crno r AB 468 (Smyth ) Appropriates funds lo the Infill Incentive Grant Program and to the Transit-Orient ed Community Development Development Pro gram created by Proposition IC: Housin g and Eme rgency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006. -Signed b) Go,emo1 AB 1585 (J. Perez) .. Partial Li! •• C-23 associated with the dissolution of RDAs and addresses substantive issues acti vities, repayment ofloans from communities, use of existing bond proceeds, and the d isposition or Redevelo pme n t retention of former RDA assets. In addition, the bill includes a variety of measures designed to enhance compliance related to administrative processes, affordable housing. -Signed b} Go,em o1 AB 1484 (Bud2et) Loca l p la nn ing: infill and Tan sit-orie nte d Proposed to establish parking standards for new transit-oriented development. -Defeated develo pmen t. Le grs lau on AB 7 10 (Ski nner) Makes changes to elibrjbi lity criteria and the requirements developed and used by the Comm unity Development B lock Depanment of Housing and Community Develop ment to allocate funds under the federal AB 232 (V. Perez) Program : Funds Community Block Grant Program to cities and coun ties. -S1h'lled by the Go,crno1 Prohibits a city or cou nty from requiring a minimum number of off-street parking spaces in Local Governme nt: Parkin g: transit-intensive areas, according to a specified form ula for residential and nonresid ential AB 904 (Skinner) Re quirements a reas. -Defeated Le gi s lati o n Provides that if a city, county, or city and county has an ordinance in place that requires the local entity lo repair sidewalks. a repeal of the ordinance shall become effective only if the repealing ordinance is approved by voters on the measure in a consolidated or general election. Makes these provisions applicable to chaner entities. Prohibits such local en tities from imposing a fee, charge or assessment, except a voluntary contractual assessment for AB 2231 (Fuentes) S idewalks: Re pa irs such repairs, unless the ordinance is repealed. -Defea ted Le1,rjslati on Prohibits a water d istrict located in a county with a specified population and where a t least 80% of the area of the district is included w ithin the boundaries ofa water replenishment Municipa l Water Districts: W a ter district from having specified aut hority relating to the storage of grou nd water. -Signed b> S B 1386 (A. Lowenth al) St o rage: Groundwate r Go,emo r Authorizes the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), notwi thstanding a superior coun decision, to issue emission reduction credits to "essential public services" South Coast Air Q ua lity M a n agement and exempt facilities or equipment, consistent with SCAQM O ru les; adds an urgency clause; SB 827 (Wright) D istrict: CEQA: permits. and, sunsets the bill on May I, 2012. -S igned b~ Go,ernor This bill adds a n additional seat on the board directors of the South Coast Air Qual ity Management District for the City of Los Angeles, makes clarifying provisions regard ing which cities are represented by which geob'l'aphical city selection commitlee, and deletes prohibitions on a member serving more than two consecutive terms as chair on specified air S B 886 (McLeod & Li e u) Man agement d istricts: d istrict board qua lity management districts. -Signed b) Go,ernor Deletes the 20 IO sunset date on the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMO) authority to impose an additional SI fee on motor vehicles that are registered with in its distri ct boundaries to fund programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. Increases, from 2.5% to 5%, the amount that SCAQMD may spend on its administrative SB 164 6 (Pad illa) A ir Pollution Fee costs. -S igned b) Go,ernor Authorizes the continuation of the allocation o f tax increment reve nues to the Glendora Community Redevelopment agency from its Project Arca 3 . Current ly, the amount of tax increment revenue is limited by a cap adopted by the agency in 1976. This measure provides for annual allocation of the !,'l'Cater of either $2.6 million or the b'l'0SS tax increment received in 2007-08 by the agency, commencing in 2008-09 through life of the project. - S BX3 8 (Duchenv) State and Local Government Signed b) Go, ernor Shifts the horse racing industry's $40 million annual obligation to fund the network of California Fairs from license fees imposed on horse racing wagers to the General Fund . Provi des various measures of economic s timulus for the horse racing industry. -Signed b) SBX2 16 (Ashburn) Horse Racin g: Licen sing fees GoH~rnor Prohibits a local agency from entering into any form of agreement with a retailer that would involve the shifting of any amount of Bradley-Bums local tax proceeds if the agreement results in a reduction in the amount of revenue that is received by another local agency from Local agencies: sales a nd u se tax: the sa me retailer ifil is located within that other local agency. and continues to maintain a SB 27 (H a ncock) reallocation . physical presence and location there. -Signed b, Go,ernor This bill aut horizes the Director of the Depanment of General Service to sell , lease o r exchange approximately three acres of state-owned real propen y located at 875 Cypress Avenue. in the City of Redding, that is specificall y not declared surplus to the State's needs and is c urrently used by the Depanment of Forestry and Fire Protection as its Shasta-Trinity State property: Department o f Forestry Uni t Headquaners, for the purpose of consolidating operations on or near the Redding S B 178 (Aanestad) a n d Fire P rotection Airpon. -Signed b) Go,ernor Revises the defini tion of "remote interest" in the existing conflict o f interest statute penaining to government officials in order to allow a government entity to en ter into a Confl ict of interest: remote interest in a contract with an investor-owned utility (IOU), if the purpose of the contract is to provide AB 906 (Hill & Smyth) con tract. e nergy efficiency. -Signed b, Go,ernor Prohibi ts a local public entity, as defined , from exercising its rights under applicable federal bankruptcy law unless granted approval by the California Debt and Investment Advisory AB 155 (Me ndoza ) Local Governme nt Ban kruotcv Commission (CDIAC), under COIAC's terms and conditions. -Dtreated Legsilation Lan d use: sales and use tax a n d propeny Sales Tax Sharing -Proposed to shill local government Bradley-B ums sales and use tax AB 680 (Steinbern) tax revenue from situs to population. -Defeated Legislation .. Partial Li! •· C-24 Proposed to exchanges a ponion of a city's or county's locally levied sales tax revenue for an A B 1221 (Steinbere:) Sales Tax Sharine: equivalent amount ofpropeny ta x revenue from the state. -Defeated Legi.,lation As the chief negotiator for the Assembly Republican Caucus, Assemblymember Keene has repeatedly said "Proposition IA would not have happened without the Gonsalves firm". Our firm is recognized as the leading contract lobbying firm responsible for brokering the compromise that ensured local governments Bradley-Bums sa les tax revenue was Constituti onally protected. Proposition I A was passed by the California Assembly by a vote of64-13. It was approved by the California State Senate by a vote of34-5.-Prop IA pa"ed with 9.411, 198 (83. 7%) vote., in ft11•or. SCA 4 (To rl akson) Prop I A -Local Government Guaranteed a minimum share of propeny taxes to I 00 + Cities that did not levy a propeny SB 709 (Lo ckyer) No & Low Tax City Legislation tax rate (or levied only a very low rate) prio r to Proposition 13. -Si11ned by Gm•emor Allocated an additional I cent per year up to 7 cents of the Propeny Tax to all No & Low AB I 197 (B rown) No & Low Tax City Lee:islation Tax Cit ies. -Signed by Gm•emor Authorized the Chino Valley Unified School District to tran sfer specified surplus propeny Sull)lus Property: C hino Valley Unified previously acquired from the state, to the City of Chino Hill s, in the County of San AB 1981 (Huff) School Distr ict Bernardino, subject to cenain conditions for development o f a park. -Signed by G1wemor Authorized all cities and counties in Cal ifornia to designate areas which city officials and willing propeny owners may enter into contractual assessments to finance the installation of Contractual assessments: energy distributed generation renewable energy sources and energy efficiency improvements.- A B 8 11 (Levin e) efficiency improvements Signed bJ• Gm•emor Allows the City of Simi Valley to survey, lay out, own and operate for burial, five or more AB I 932 (S myth) Simi Valley: public cemeteries acres of public land for burial pull)O ses. -Signed b~ Go, ernor Deletes the 20 IO sunset dale on the South Coast Air Quality Ma nagement District's (SCAQMD) authority to impose an additional $1 fee on motor vehicles that are registered within its district boundaries to fund programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. South Coast Air Quality Management Increases, from 2 .5% to 5%, !he amount that SCAQMD may spend on its administrative S B 1646 (Pad ill a) District: air ooll ution fee costs. -Signed by Govem(lr Specifically defined Access Services (AS I), lhe transit agency which provides transponation SB 1124 for people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for Los (Loe. Gov. C mt) Local Government Omnibus Act of2008 Angeles County as a public agency under state law. -Sig11ed bJ· Gm•emor Added the Angora Fire, which occurred in 1he Lake Tahoe Basin in June of 2007, to 1he list of disasters e ligible for full stale reimbursement oflocal agency coSIS under the California SB l308 (Coxl Disaster Assistance Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA). • Si11ned by Govemor Reinstated the VLF bump for newly incoll)Orated C ities after Proposi tion I A. • Signed by AB 1602 (Laird) Local Government Finance Gm·er11or Repeals the 55% cap in Santa Clara County on tax equity allocation (TEA) funding for the Tax Equity Allocation formula: County county's four no/low-property-tax cities starting in the 2006-07 fiscal year (FY). -Signed bJ AB 11 7 (Cohn) of Santa C lara. Go•rernor Allows the Cerritos redevelopment agency to extend 1he time limits on their plans withoul AB 13 42 (Napolitano) Redevelopment Plans making findings of blight. -Si11ned by <iovemm This mea sure would request 1he Depanment ofTranspona1ion, in coopera tion with 1he Business. Transportation and Housing Agency, the Trade and Commerce Agency, the California Transponation Commission, and other appropriate panies, 10 prepare a proposa l for a "Global Gateways Development PrOf,'1"3m" to enhance intermodal freight access. - SCR 96 (Ka rnett e) lntennodal Freight Access Signed by G~over11or Requires that for pull)Oses of reponing and transmitting any use tax, with respect 10 1he lease ofa motor vehicle, the place of use shall be the city and/or county in which the lessor's place SB 602 (Wrie htl Local Use Tax: Leased Vehicles of business is located if the lessor is a new motor vehicle dealer. -Signed by C,ovemor This bill provided recycled water producers. retail waler suppliers, and e ntities respon sible for groundwater replenishment. the ability to cooperate in joint studies to determine the feasibility of providing recycled water service and recycled wa ter for groundwater A B 609 (Marnett) Recvcled Water replenishment, as soecified. -Signed bJ Gm•ernor This bill provided that, until January I, 2002, neither a public agency 1ha1 operates flood control and water conservation activities, nor its employees shall be liable for an injury Flood Control and Water Conservation caused by the condition or use of unlined flood control channels or adjacent groundwater AB 20 23 (Gallet!OS) Liability recharge spreading grounds. -Signed by Go,•emor. Thi s bill , until January I, 2002, required the State Depanment of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), over the next t wo years, to conduct statewide monthly retail milk price surveys and a public information program that provides the surveys findings, and to repon back to the SB 41 9 (Speier) Dairy Products Legislature. -Signed bJ· GOl'em"r "Partial List"' C-25 Establishes a racetrack backstretch employee labor relations process; requires the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) to adopt housing standards for employee housing at racetracks; and, authorizes CHRB lo perm ii racing associations to accept "advanced deposit wagers," as AB 471 (Hertzberg) Horse Racing defined. -Signed bJ Govemor. This bill would required an educational travel organization, that arranges educational travel programs 10 enter into a contract with an educational institution containing a specified itemized s1a1cmcn1 of services prior lo arranging an educational travel program. -Signed by SB 142 (Boatwril!hl) Sellers of Travel <ioreruor Authorized lhe cities participating in lhe Magnolia Power Project 10 aggregate their elcc1rici1y loads and provide direct electricity access 10 their residents on an opl-in basis. - AB 80 (Havice) Aggregatio n : Magnolia Power P roject Signed by Go,·emor .. Partial List .. C-26 1ty Manager s Office February l , 2016 Mr. Jason Gonsalves Joe A. Gonsalves & Son 925 L Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Jason, As you are all too familiar, the dissolution of redev elopment hit West Covina very hard. For these past few years, we have been fortunate to have had such a great relationship with you and y our family 's firm . I am convinced that if it was not for your involvement and advocacy for our community, we would not have our Finding of Completion, approval of our Long Range Property Management Plan, and a repayment schedule on the $11 .5 million settlement. It is very possible that West Covina could have been on the brink of bankruptcy, if you had not convince the Department of Finance that our new City Council and C ity Manager were committed to resolving the issues of the past. As we move forward , it is rewarding to know that you will be at our side, as we seek repayment of our former Redevelopment Agency/City loans and to resolve the remaining ROPS issues that we need to complete. Once this is a11 done, we can finally focus on the legislative priorities of interest to West Covina. On behalf of the City of West Cov ina, I wish to thank you and the Gonsalves Family for over 10 years of friendship and dedicated service to our community . I lo ok forward to many m o re ! Sincerely, co~ C hris Freeland City Manager 14 4 4 West G arvey Ave nue• West Covina • CA 91790 • Ph o ne (626) 93 9-8 4 0 I • Fax (6 2 6 ) 939 -8406 C-27 '"~ ii0sE1iLLE C AL I F OR N I A September 27, 2016 Jason Gonsalves Joe A. Gonsalves and Son 925 L St #250 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Jason, City Manager 311 Vernon Street Roseville, California 95678 I wanted to thank you for your excellent work concerning Roseville's meetings with the California Department of Finance (DOF) to discuss the City's 2016-17 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) Determination. Because of your outstanding relationship with the DOF we had the opportunity to meet with the department on several occasions regarding their determination of our ROPS. Your guidance, insights and refined understanding of the most recent redevelopment dissolution "clean-up" legislation were critical to the positive outcome of the meetings, which resulted in the DOF approving the repayment of more than $7 million of redevelopment loans to the City, which they initially had disapproved. As the City was developing its response to the DOF's initial determination, some individuals were recommending the City should bring a lawsuit against the DOF instead of attempting to resolve the concerns through the "Meet and Confer" process . However, staff chose to follow your recommendation to work with DOF and attempt to resolve the issue in a non- litigious manner. Our staff was confident in your recommendation because of the outstanding relationship staff has with you and the entire Gonsalves & Son organization. We knew we could rely on the strong interactions you have with DOF and your tremendous understanding of the dissolution law to anticipate a successful outcome. I am very pleased that we once again followed your valuable advice, which resulted in such a noteworthy outcome for our City. I realize the entire Redevelopment Dissolution process has been wrought with many difficulties over the years. However, we have found the process to be less problematic than many other municipalities, in part, due to your recommendations and help with understanding the implications and outcomes of legislation and assistance with DOF. We appreciate the outstanding work you continue to provide to Roseville in understanding and effectively working with the legislature, state departments, agencies and state wide organ izations . ensen City Manager (916) 774-5362 •Fax• (916) 774-5485 TDD (916) 774-5220 • citymanager@roseville.ca .us • www.roseville.ea.us/citymanager C-28 April 14, 2016 Anthony Gonsalves Joe A. Gonsalves & Son 925 L Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Anthony, I wanted to take a moment to personally thank you, Jason and Paul for the outstanding lobbying service that Joe A. Gonsalves & Son provide to the City of Commerce. You have done a wonderful job representing Commerce before the California State Legislature over the years, which is attributed to the personal and professional relationship that you have established with legislators and their staff members. This unwavering reputation has been invaluable to the legislative success you've had for Commerce . In all sincerity, I truly appreciate the personal and professional attention you and your sons provide to Commerce. My city is fortunate and privileged to have a lobbying firm that represents my community in an honest and ethical manner and is well respected in our State Capitol. Your father would be proud of the continued commitment to great customer service that you and your amazing sons provide, not only to Commerce, but to your many client cities as well. Once again, thank you and I look forward to our continued working relationship fo r years to come. Sincereiy, Tina Baca Del Rio Mayor Pro Tern City of Commerce 2535 Commerce Way · Commerce, California 90040 • (323) 722-4805 • FAX (3 23) 726-6231 Tina Baca Del Rio Mayor Pro Tern C-29 Jason Gonsalves From: Sent: To: Subject: alien parker <allenjparker@yahoo.com> Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:02 AM Jason Gonsalves Re: Assm . Brown follow-up Jason: Thanks for all your assistance this past year -you are the best lobbyist I've worked with over the years -and I look forward to our continued relationship in 2015. Michael McKinney, the Mayor's former Chief of Staff -his last day was yesterday -was working with Brown's office; and the Mayor has not selected a replacement. So please advise Larry if he has any questions regarding this matter to feel free to contact me . Also, I'd appreciate if you'd forward him my email to you. Again, thanks for all your assistance; and have fun tonight. Allen On Wed, 12/31/14, Jason Gonsalves <Jason@gonsalvi.com> wrote: Subject: Assm. Brown follow-up To: allenjparker@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2014, 8:29 AM Allen, Thank you for your responses to the email I forwarded you from Assm. Brown's office . As we discussed last week, my understanding is the Mayor and/or his office Assm . Brown requesting her assistance with Secretary Laird and CalFire . That said, I share your belief that politics could impede solutions and based upon the responses the Assm. Received from Cal Fire they do not seem interested in being part of a solution . Assuming you are in agreement? I will thank the Assm. for her support and let her know there is nothing more we need at this time as the City will continue working with the local stakeholders and the Court. In addition, please know Supervisors Hagman, Gonzalez and Rutherford are all former clients and personal friends . In addition, Supervisor Rutherford's new COS, Andy Takata is a former CM, client and friend. If and when you feel w e can assist you with the County please do not hesitate to contact me . Happy New Year and here's to a successful and less stressful 2015! Sincerely, Jason Should you need to reach me you can do so at your convenience on my cell phone at: (916)402 -9505 ... Jason A. Gonsalves C-30 Joe A. Gonsalves & Son From: Sent: To: Subject: Daniels, Linda < Linda.Daniels@cityofrc.us > Wednesday, September 17, 2014 6:07 PM Joe A. Gonsalves & Son Rancho Cucamonga land sale Jason - I wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your advice on the land transactions we were doing in Rancho Cucamonga. We just received the second approval on a land transaction from DOF . Two down and one more to go. Thanks for listening to our issues and sharing your insights -we went for it and it was accepted. My heart is still beating fast I am so happy. Hope you are doing well. Linda Daniels C-31 Jason Gonsalves From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Jason, Charlie Honeycutt < CHoneycutt@cityofsignalhill.org > Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:16 PM Jason Gonsalves Retirement After a fulfilling 32-year career at Signal Hill, the time has come for me to retire. My last day will be Friday, November 1. I wanted to personally thank you for all you've done to help me and the City of Signal Hill. You've been a tremendous advocate for Signal Hill and your efforts to save the Library will benefit this community for decades. I wish you could have seen the joy on the faces of community members as they entered the Library for the first time at last Saturday's grand opening. You would have felt how important the Library is to the community. Please extend my gratitude to your dad and Paul. You guys are the best! Charlie Honeycutt City Manager City of Signal Hill (562) 989-7302 C-32 April 14, 2016 Anthony Gonsalves Joe A. Gonsalves & Son 925 L Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Anthony, I wanted to take a moment to personally thank you, Jason and Paul for the outstanding lobbying service that Joe A. Gonsalves & Son provide to the City of Commerce . You have done a wonderful job representing Commerce before the California State Legislature over the years, which is attributed to the personal and professional relationship that you have established with legislators and their staff members. This unwavering reputation has been invaluable to the legislative success you've had for Commerce. In all sinc e rity, I truly appreciate the personal and professional attention you and your sons provide to Commerce. My city is fortunate and privileged to ha ve a lobbying firm that represents my community in an honest and ethical manner and is well respected in our State Capitol. Your father would be proud of the continued commitment to great customer service that you and your amazing sons provide, not only to Commerce, but to your many client cities as well. Once again, thank you and I look forward to our continued working relationship for years to come. Smcereiy, Tina Baca Del Rio Mayor Pro Tern City of Commerce 253 5 Comme rce Way • Commerce, California 90040 • (323) 722 4805 • FA X (3 23) 726 -6 23 1 Tina Baca Del Rio Mayor Pro Tem C-33