Alex Amoroso, ABAG

Dennis Barry, Contra Costa County

Gary Binger, ULI

Guy Bjerke, HBANC

Kristen Clements, ABAG

John Coleman, KB Home

Stephen Haase, City of San Jose

John Holtzclaw, Sierra Club

Eliot Hurwitz, BCDC

Sherman Lewis, Sierra Club

Andrew Michael, Bay Area Council

Leticia Miranda, CCRL

Robert Paternoster, City of Sunnyvale

Rachel Peterson

Paul Shepherd, Cargill Salt

Doug Shoemaker, NPH

Will Travis, BCDC

Steve Wertheim, CCRL

1. Introductions
2. Review joint memos: cover memo and policy agreements
3. Request for organizational signatures
4. Strategy for joint lobbying in Sacramento
5. Upcoming CCRL / CA Policy Reform Network forums
6. September reconvening

-Final versions developed by staff of Bay Area Council, ABAG, Sierra Club

-No further revisions by Stakeholders

-Organizations already signed on: NPH, Sierra Club, KB Home, HBANC, Bank of America; other groups currently discussing in policy committees

-Possible to get an organized labor group to sign? (schedule may not allow waiting for their internal process to approve the memos)

-Based on final versions of policy memos, three bills (with companions) were proposed for Stakeholder endorsement:

1. AB 1221 (Steinberg-D & Campbell-R): sales tax / property tax swap
2. AB 531 (Kehoe) and SB 321 (Torlakson): bond acts creating new funds for infrastructure to be funneled through the Infrastructure Bank (has smart growth criteria)
3. SCA 11 and ACA 14: lower voter threshold for local bond measures to support infrastructure packages.

1. A. Michael will send policy memo to all Stakeholders again. Request for organizational signatures by week of June 23

Update on Sacramento politics:

-Several bills have been converted to 2-year bills, thus lobbying urgency has dropped

-Current conversation in Sacramento entirely focused on budget negotiations and recall effort

-Strategy: General strategy for all bills will be to find out which players blocked or might block, then meet with those interest groups and explain BAASC’s urgency and reasons for wanting action.

-ULI is working on similar issues; not a lobbying group but is now meeting with CBIA, PCL and other players to discuss their support for / concerns about specific bills. Will share any learning from those meetings with BAASC.

Update on specific bills:

-Further research needed about whether this will still be a constitutional amendment

-Meet with Steinberg & Campbell

-Would be powerful to have a local government presence at the meeting, however local jurisdictions are holding back on endorsing AB 1221. League of Cities & CSAC are in negotiation over how to stabilize revenue over a five-year period – a concept that was included as a necessary condition in the Stakeholders’ policy agreements.

-Further research needed to find out who potential bill blockers are, why they would block, explore potential meeting with them to convey BAASC support.

Next steps:

1. Research above questions about bill status. (A. Michael, D. Shoemaker, L. Miranda)
2. Small group pursue possible meeting: G. Bjerke, S. Haase, A. Michael, R. Paternoster, D. Shoemaker

-Further research needed about current version of bills. Is it broader than just transportation projects? Does the bill still lower voter threshold for packages of infrastructure? Would the bill require local governments to spend the funds according to the Infrastructure Bank guidelines (which don’t include open space)? Do smart growth criteria have any remaining value in the SCA 11 context?

-Better Stakeholder understanding needed about the positions of Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and CA Alliance for Jobs in order to be knowledgeable about other players. (Questions about whether other actors support a 55% threshold for transportation only or for any infrastructure measure.)

-Prior to any meeting, be clear about BAASC position as an alternative to what SVMG / CA Alliance for Jobs may be proposing.

1. Research above questions to update Stakeholders on current status of bill. (A. Michael, L. Miranda, D. Shoemaker)
2. Meet with SVMG, CA Alliance for Jobs to discuss current version of bill and their concerns and/or support.
3. Meet with Torlakson to convey Stakeholder support for the concepts discussed in the policy memo – perhaps not the current state of the bill but a goal to work toward.

-Bills are not moving

-Potential local government concerns with inflexibility in bill language, especially in establishing rules about how local jurisdictions should spend the infrastructure funds.

-Need additional research about degree of flexibility in current versions.

1. Research above questions about bills’ current status, send out to Stakeholders. (A. Michael, L. Miranda, D. Shoemaker)
2. Initiate a joint meeting with Torlakson; purpose will be to convey Stakeholder support for general concept of the bills.

-Strategy question: Will the Alliance work with OPR as it responds to AB 857 and prepares the Environmental Goals & Policy Report?

-Past Stakeholder discussion arrived at decision not to work on AB 857 jointly, because of significant level of Stakeholder disagreement. Specifically, AB 857 does not state that the state should establish a state policy of providing sufficient housing to meet demand – a key area of support for some Stakeholders and opposition for others.

-However, now that Stakeholders arrived at the joint policy agreements, BAASC can convey concepts that have broad support.

-Strategy consideration will be whether to jump into discussion now – have a hand in setting OPR’s recommendations, or wait until first draft of Environmental Goals & Policy Report is released, then write joint comments in response.

-Next legislative roundtable will be on housing

-Request speaker from Stakeholder Dialogue

-Will be held July 15 or 16, 1 – 4 pm, Sacramento

-Stakeholders agreed to reconvene in September to take up challenging issues again.