KP public affairs
bs
Together Michael Kahl and Frederick Pownall built KP Public Affairs into the largest public affairs management firm in California. Each had established his own, very successful advocacy practice beginning in the 1970s. In 1996, they joined together to create the modern firm, offering advocacy and analysis in a steadily expanding program of client services. Public Relations was added as an essential component of effective representation in 1998. In 2004, KP Public Affairs successfully completed the transition of the firm's management and ownership to a larger partnership of senior professionals. And in 2005, the company further expanded the scope of its representation through a merger with the lobbying firm Manning & Associates.
Greg Hayes, a well-known communications professional in Sacramento public relations and media circles, has been hired on as a lobbyist as KP Public Affairs.
He’ll provide strategic guidance on policy, regulatory consulting and lobbying services for KP clients, according to a news release.
Hayes has extensive consulting and legislative experience.
Most recently, he served as communications director for state Sen. Kevin de León, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last year, Hayes participated in the development and passage of Proposition 39, with de León as the campaign co-chairman.
Hayes also has worked as a strategist for several Sacramento public affairs companies, including Hill & Knowlton Inc. and Runyon Saltzman & Einhorn Inc.
==
KP Public Affairs
www.ka-pow.com/
-
Be the first to review
1201 K St #800, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 448-2162 |
KP - Jonathan Ross - KP Public Affairs
www.ka-pow.com/go/kp/professionals/jonathan-ross/
-
KP - About Us - KP Public Affairs
www.ka-pow.com/go/kp/about-us/
-
KP - Michael Burns - KP Public Affairs
www.ka-pow.com/go/kp/professionals/michael-burns/
-
KP - Professionals - KP Public Affairs
www.ka-pow.com/go/kp/professionals/
-
Find a Lobbyist - Institute of Governmental Advocates
www.californiaiga.org/directory.html
-
**Tony Francois** of the Pacific Legal Foundation,
December 2012 – Present (2 years 8 months)Sacramento, California
Sacramento Strategic Resources
February 2012 – November 2012 (10 months)Sacramento, California
:{ :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:
**California Farm Bureau Federation**
2003 – 2007 (4 years)Sacramento, California Area
McQuaid Bedford & Van Zandt LLP
Law Clerk for national firm's water and property law practice.
bs: He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger School.
[Upon leaving the military, Mr. François attended law school at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, where he earned the American Jurisprudence Award for Pre-Trial Civil Practice, and from which he graduated cum laude with a J.D. in 1996. He went on to private practice in water and environmental law, assisting in the litigation of numerous water right claims before the Nevada State Engineer and in the Snake River Basin Adjudication, including the adjudication of Wayne Hage’s Pine Creek water rights, as well as the defense of private water rights in the long running series of litigation against the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District brought by the federal government.
In 2003, Mr. François joined the California Farm Bureau Federation as their California government affairs representative on all water issues, and in 2007 he joined KP Public Affairs, California’s largest contract lobbying firm, where his government relations practice included water policy, greenhouse gas regulation and energy policy, and environmental regulation.
Mr. François joined Pacific Legal Foundation’s National Litigation Center in 2012. He and his family reside in Sacramento.](https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&q=related:www.californiaiga.org/directory.html+kp+public+affairs+calobby&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0CE8QHzAFahUKEwjQztSO6vbGAhXGoogKHQrzBJ0)
PLF Client Highlight
"A 20 year battle is over, thanks to Pacific Legal Foundation. My father would be proud. Thank you PLF for your support."
Coy Jr. and Linda Koontz
==
Max Stevenson of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, who has been working on groundwater monitoring;
* Tony Francois of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who will talk about laws relating to groundwater;
* Jack Rice of the California Farm Bureau, who keeps up on legislation in Sacramento; and
* David Guy of the Northern California Water Association, who will discuss the results of the Proposition 1 water bond on the Nov. 4 ballot.
==
n appeal to the High Court is due to be filed soon by the Lunny family, owners of the 80-year-old oyster farm, after a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled against them in theirfight for survival against the U.S. Interior Department.
The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to do right by the environment, the economy, and the rule of law, by agreeing to review the federal government’s controversial decision to shut down Drakes Bay Oyster Co. in the Point Reyes National Seashore north of San Francisco.
An appeal to the High Court is due to be filed soon by the Lunny family, owners of the 80-year-old oyster farm, after a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled against them in their fight for survival against the U.S. Interior Department.
Residents of Northern California and beyond know the oyster farm as a regional treasure. Forty percent of oysters harvested in California come from Drakes Bay. Of its 30 longtime employees, a number live at the site with their families. Drakes Bay’s farm is a major recreational and educational resource, drawing tens of thousands of visitors each year to learn about sustainable marine agriculture and sample rich nutritious marine products. The farm’s operations have been praised over the years for an ethic of environmental sensitivity and harmony.
But it’s not just the future of this Bay Area institution that’s on the line. The Lunnys’ lawsuit asks fundamental questions about accountability in government, especially in the area of environmental policy. Shouldunelected regulators be permitted to operate in a vacuum, essentially as a law unto themselves, so their decisions are shielded from meaningful review by the courts, even when environmental quality could be compromised?
One of the most important federal environmental statutes — the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA — is designed to foster accountability. When a federal action would affect the environment, NEPA says the impacts must be carefully studied and reported to the public.
But the National Park Service did not comply with NEPA when it decided against extending the decades-old lease that has allowed the oyster farm to serve as one of the country’s primary providers of this sustainable and healthy food source.
Yes, the feds did produce a partial, deceptive, and self-serving report. It was so sloppy that no self-respecting environmentalist would let it stand in any other context. Sen. Dianne Feinstein slammed it as “flawed ... with false and misleading science.”
Now, regulators are claiming they didn’t have to do any analysis at all, let alone a comprehensive NEPA review, because they weren’t okaying a new land-use project, merely bringing an end to an existing one.
Surely that’s a distinction without a difference, because the environment can potentially be affected as much by closing down a facility or project as by starting one up. Still, the 9th Circuit panel — or at least the majority in the 2-1 decision — bought the government’s hair-splitting interpretation of NEPA. It reasoned that regulators can excuse themselves from providing a NEPA analysis or reporting to the public, merely by asserting that their decision to alter an existing land use is “good for the environment.”
The government’s stance in this dispute is sadly ironic. Drakes Bay oyster farm is integral to the agricultural heritage on which the National Seashore is founded, and for decades the feds partnered in preserving that heritage. Now, they’re furiously cutting corners as they abandon it.
Environmental organizations are also raising eyebrows by taking the government’s side. Friends of the environment don’t usually endorse government avoidance of environmental laws — especially “sunshine” mandates for openness.
A robust NEPA study would allow regulators and the public to know the full consequences of closing the oyster farm. For one thing, the underwater racks on which oysters are grown would have to be removed, requiring a barge-mounted generator and electric hoist that could disturb the sea bed and shoreline. Water quality could also permanently suffer from the loss of the shellfish that filter nitrogen and phosphorus from the estuary.
So now it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide whether NEPA will be enforced in a rigorous way. In supporting the Lunnys’ request that the court take the case, the property-rights-oriented Pacific Legal Foundation will argue in an amicus brief that agencies can’t exempt themselves from environmental review on their own say-so.
Transparency and honesty. That’s all that NEPA asks of bureaucrats, if correctly interpreted and applied. On matters such as the oyster farm’s future, the public deserves to know all the facts and implications, in the full light of day.
Tony Francois is an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Pacific Legal Foundation Challenges San Jose’s New-Housing Penalty – By Tony Francois, Senior Staff Attorney
Posted on 01. Jun, 2015 by AOA of California, INC. in all
Facebook Twitter Email Linkedin Digg
SACRAMENTO, CA: On, April 8th, the California Supreme Court heard an oral argument from Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) in a challenge to San Jose’s “Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,” which imposes a significant financial penalty on the providers – and purchasers – of new homes.
Donor-supported PLF is the leading watchdog organization that litigates for limited government and property rights nationwide. In challenging the San Jose ordinance, PLF represents the California Building Industry Association – free of charge, as with all PLF clients.
PLF Senior Staff Attorney Tony Francois argued the case before the California Supreme Court.
The ordinance requires builders of developments with 20 homes or more to set aside 15 percent of the new units at below-market prices. As an alternative, a builder would have to pay an “in lieu” fee of $122,000 for each of the below-market units that would otherwise have to be supplied.
Although the plan is billed as an “affordable housing” program, it promises to raise costs on new housing and deter development. The legal challenge argues that the ordinance violates constitutional property rights because it imposes a financial penalty on builders with no showing that their new home construction creates a need for new affordable housing.
In essence, the program transfers the cost of “affordable” units from the public generally to homebuilders (and to the buyers of new, market-priced homes).
“Under basic constitutional principles, government may not single out specific individuals or groups of property owners to bear the burden of paying for needs they didn’t create, and for general social programs that are the responsibility of the entire community,” said Francois. “Politicians are not permitted to extort property owners by demanding property that is unrelated to the permits they are seeking.”
The case is California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose. More information, including PLF’s briefs, a podcast, and a video statement, may be found at: www.pacificlegal.org
Artists angered as developers challenge Oakland's public art requirement
By Mike Blaskymblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com
POSTED: 07/24/2015 10:00:29 AM PDT0 COMMENTS| UPDATED: ABOUT 15 HOURS AGO
OAKLAND -- Many Bay Area cities have required developers to put a small percentage of their project costs toward public art projects for years, and Oakland officials were happy to join those ranks when city officials approved their own art requirement in December.
But city officials were surprised this week when a group representing regional builders sued Oakland over their new 1 percent requirement, claiming the requirement violated developers' First Amendment rights by forcing them to pay for someone else's speech -- in this case, someone else's art.
"The Ordinance requires the Association's members to install only those forms of public art approved by the City in violation of the right of the Association's members to refrain from conveying government mandated messages," wrote lawyers in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court.
But cities like San Francisco, Emeryville and Napa have never been sued for their similar art ordinances. So, why Oakland, and why now?
The city's numerous artists have an opinion.
"It's arrogance from developers," said Eric Arnold, a spokesman for the Community Rejuvenation Project, a nonprofit group specializing in community murals. "It's not asking too much of those who are building in Oakland, basically changing the nature of the city, to support art that will keep Oakland cool."
The BIA's lawyers say they picked Oakland because the ordinance is timely and new, having been approved in December and implemented in February.
But builders are really trying to keep costs down in Oakland's booming real estate market, according to development lobbyists.
The costs for building in San Francisco and Oakland are about the same, said business advocate Greg McConnell, president of the Jobs and Housing Coalition. But the revenue generated by the San Francisco building is nearly double.
"The projects won't pencil out (in Oakland) because the revenue isn't sufficient," McConnell said.
The BIA also claimed in the suit that art fees amounted to an unfair exaction, because there's no evidence new development has a negative impact on public art.
McConnell agreed. From a developer's point of view, he said, the fee is really a tax.
"There has to be a nexus between eliminating some problem that development incurs and the fund you're trying to create," he said. "The simple question is, what is the relationship? How does new residential or commercial development adversely affect public art?"
Mayor Libby Schaaf, who championed the art ordinance while still a council member, said the ordinance doesn't prohibit developers from picking the artist of their choice.
It was based almost exactly on Emeryville's ordinance, she said, which is one of the least restrictive and pro-developer art ordinances in the region.
"There's no review of content, none at all, because it's private money," Schaaf said. "It's designed to hold large-scale developers to a certain aesthetic standard, which is very much in the city's purview and interest."
The city's attorneys are evaluating the lawsuit, she said.
Cities across the region are requiring more development impact fees from builders as officials struggle to build more housing and keep rents in check.
Oakland is considering -- but hasn't adopted -- affordable housing fee requirements because officials are worried higher fees would scare off developers.[sj has, tf foights]
McConnell said Oakland is clearly moving toward more development fees, however. Those percentages might seem small, he said, but they compound.
"It just all adds up, and that hurts developers," he said.
The BIA's lawyer, Tony Francois of the Pacific Legal Foundation, said adding new fees for developers is simply the wrong approach. Only more housing will solve the housing crisis, he said.
"This is a backwards policy response to Oakland's need to facilitate increasing housing production," Francois said. "They need to be making it easier to build instead of adding costs."
Making life easier for builders is the BIA's job. The statewide California Builders Association was behind the lawsuit challenging San Jose's 2010 ordinance requiring developers set aside 15 percent of its building units for affordable housing.
"It's not like they pick on Oakland," McConnell said. "They pick on what they consider to be anti-development practices."
Arnold said he thought the lawsuit was ridiculous and insulting. Developers in Oakland have a choice between paying for their own art or contributing to the overall art fund. That doesn't harm their right to free speech, he said.
"It's a ridiculous stretch of the First Amendment," Arnold said.
And the lawsuit comes as public art is being celebrated in other cities. San Francisco plans to add $50 million in public art on Treasure Island in the next several years, in part funded by their 1 percent art requirement, he said.
Arnold said Oakland officials are already bending over backward to support developers, but they just want a bigger piece of the pie.
"These developers are acting like this is highway robbery," he said.
There are more artists in Oakland per capita than anywhere else in the world, according to the city. Arnold said developers should remember they're working in that community.
Many artists make their living with public art projects, which have decreased since the state ended redevelopment funding in 2012.
"Public art is how cities become art cities," Arnold said. "You don't become a world-class city without world-class art."
Mike Blasky covers Oakland City Hall. Contact him at 510-208-6429. Follow him at Twitter.com/blasky.
==
- Aerojet-GenCorp
- Airbnb, Inc.
- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
- Albemarle Corporation
- American Technologies, Inc.
- Association of Community Human Service Agencies
- California Academy of Cosmetic Surgery
- California Ambulatory Surgery Association
- California Business Roundtable
- California Integrated Physician Practice Coalition
- California Licensed Foresters Association
- California Manufacturers and Technology Association
- California Mortgage Bankers Association
- California Orthotic and Prosthetic Association
- California Restaurant Association
- California School Boards Association
- California Small Business Association
- California Society of Anesthesiologists
- Capitol Station 65, LLC
- Carpet Collectors
- CEMEX
- Cisco
- Citigroup
- Colgate-Palmolive
- Comcast Corporation and Affiliated Entities, Including NBC Universal Media, LLC
- Daimler
- Deloitte LLP
- Dow Chemical Company
- Embassy of Japan
- Ernst & Young LLP
- Forest Landowners of California
- Gencorp
- General Electric Company & Subsidiaries
- Genworth Financial, Inc.
- Grant Thornton LLP
- Hawaiian Gardens Casino
- Hearing Healthcare Providers California
- Herbalife
- Hertz Corporation
- ICL-IP America Inc.
- KPMG LLP
- Lockheed Martin Corporation
- Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
- Lyft, Inc.
- Menzies Aviation
- Mojave Water Agency
- Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California
- Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
- Payment Assurance Technology Association
- Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business
- PETCO
- Pew Charitable Trusts
- Precision Castparts Corp. and affiliated companies
- PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
- Primerica Life Insurance Company
- Public Storage
- Recurrent Energy, LLC
- Saint Agnes Medical Group
- San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority
- Shell Oil Company
- Sunol Aggregates
- Surgical Care Affiliates
- Tenaska
- UST Global
- Veritec Solutions LLC
- Western Municipal Water District
- Western States Petroleum Association
- Westlands Water District
- Willow Springs Water Bank
- Wine Institute