MOORLACH UPDATE — Philosophically Consistent — October 14, 2018

Columnist Steven Greenhut provides a kind shout-out in today’s OC Register. I not only voted for SB 1421, I was a co-author and I spoke in support of it on the Senate Floor (see MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 1421 and SB 828 — May 31, 2018).

Republican state Sen. John Moorlach agreed with proponents that the public needs better access to police records. He speculated journalists or investigators may have been able to identify the recently arrested former cop accused of being the Golden State Killer had they been allowed to view his personnel records.

The suspect in the high-profile murder case, Joseph James DeAngelo, was fired by the Auburn Police Department in the 1970s after being charged with shoplifting dog repellent and a hammer from a Sacramento hardware store. DeAngelo’s minor crimes occurred during a stretch of brutal rapes and murders in the Sacramento area.

“We need more disclosure, colleagues,” Moorlach said on the Senate floor. “This code of silence has gone on for too long.”

I defended my votes with the local media (see MOORLACH UPDATE — California School District Rankings, Group 2 — August 14, 2018).

State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, co-authored the bill and believes the benefits outweigh the risks.

“I’m trying to assist to getting to the truth and getting to the truth faster,” Moorlach said. “I think there has been a credibility concern about whether we are being told the truth.”

The Sacramento Bee‘s Editorial Board echoed my concerns and supported SB 1421 (see MOORLACH UPDATE — California Cop Culture — June 19, 2018).

I was also a co-author of SB 1286 (Leno), SB 1421’s predecessor in 2016 (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Other’s Senate Bills – 1286, 443, and 899 — April 18, 2016).

Serving on the Orange County Board of Supervisors and dealing with numerous lawsuits generated by members of the Sheriff’s Department, you develop a deeper understanding of what really goes on and what needs to be done to address it. It is nice to receive a public acknowledgment of my stance and my solo Republican Senate votes.

OPINION

Greenhut: Civil liberties and

the police union spin game

By STEVEN GREENHUT

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2018/10/14/greenhut-civil-liberties-and-the-police-union-spin-game/

SACRAMENTO – The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they turn even more slowly when it comes to achieving substantial legislative reform. With little fanfare and no statement, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that allows the public to learn details from investigations of police shootings, major use-of-force incidents and officers who may have falsified reports, planted evidence or committed a sexual assault. This is a no-brainer in a free society, but it took civil libertarians 12 years of work to overcome the scare tactics of police unions, GOP legislators and other members of the Secrecy Lobby.

I’ve had plenty of issues with Brown, but his signing of Senate Bill 1421 — and his same-day signing of Assembly Bill 748, which requires police departments to release body camera footage of most use-of-force incidence within 45 days — certainly redeems his governorship in my eyes. The new laws bring us closer to the state of affairs that existed before 2006, when a dreadful California Supreme Court decision slammed the door on openness and police accountability. Since then, police agencies have had free reign to protect their worst officers.

The 2006 case, Copley Press v. County of San Diego, centered on the San Diego Union-Tribune’s effort to gain access to a disciplinary hearing involving a deputy sheriff who was appealing his termination from the force. The court found that the public has no right to learn about the goings-on in a civilian-service commission or virtually anything about misbehaving officials. It rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the public has a right to access government information and quoted from a shockingly Orwellian 1978 ruling: “There is no constitutional right to have access to particular government information, or to require openness from the bureaucracy.”

The results were predictable. Unions demanded — and gained — secrecy. Cities restricted their civilian-review boards. The public couldn’t get access to information even after the most egregious-seeming incidents. Progressive California became the most regressive state when it comes to holding accountable its most powerful officials. Things have improved slightly only because of the ubiquitous nature of cellphone cameras, but police use-of-force incidents have become such flashpoints because the public can’t trust the police departments when they can so easily hide information.

As someone who has covered some of these use-of-force incidents, I’ve learned that agencies rarely release videos or internal reports unless that information bolsters the story of the officer. Otherwise, it’s none of our business. After an officer shoots to death an unarmed person, the police tell us not to jump to conclusions — but to wait until the report is done. But after the report is done, we don’t usually get to read it. As the ACLU of Northern California explained, Copley “has effectively shut off all avenues for the public to learn about misconduct involving individual police officers.”

Since then, advocates for government openness have tried to reform Copley, but to no avail until this year. I covered an appalling Capitol hearing for the Orange County Register in 2007 in one of the earliest iterations of a Copley reform. The committee chairman saved the front seats in the room, usually reserved for legislators, for the bill’s opponents. The fix was in.

As I wrote, then-Assemblyman Jose Solorio, now a Santa Ana councilman, “gave a bizarre, rambling speech complaining about the rapper Ice-T, about rap-music lyrics in general, worrying about the effect of open government on police recruitment efforts and claiming that police already are vilified by the public. … He then offered Sen. (Gloria) Romero the chance to withdraw her bill. She defiantly refused … None of the committee members had the guts to offer a motion to vote on the bill.” The audience was thrilled at this display of power politics.

That alliance of union-backed Democrats and law-and-order Republicans has put the kibosh on such reforms in the ensuing years. I’ve been particularly steamed at the Republicans, given their constant rhetoric about limited government and constitutional rights. As I wrote for again in 2016, after yet another limited attempt to open post-Copley public records failed, “Politicians from the party of Reagan and Lincoln should instinctively know the dangers of giving government officials unaccountable power. That so few of them do is a reminder that, when many of them talk about liberty, all the rest of us should hear is ‘blah, blah, blah.’”

The final vote on SB1421 had only one Republican “aye” in the Senate and only four GOP “ayes” in the Assembly. The final A.B. 748 vote had no Republican “ayes” in the Assembly and only one in the Senate — from the philosophically consistent John Moorlach of Costa Mesa, who voted yes on both measures. It’s taken a dozen years to at least partially fix an injustice perpetrated by the court, but justice long delayed is better than justice permanently denied. I guess that makes this victory sweeter than ever.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He was a Register editorial writer from 1998-2009. Write to him atsgreenhut.

image18.png?w=660&h=165

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — California Cop Culture — June 19, 2018

If you’ve read my UPDATEs over the years, you know that I have worked diligently and professionally with the major public safety employee union while serving as an Orange County Treasurer and Supervisor. Suing them over the unconstitutionality of the granting of retroactive pension benefits was not an easy exercise to pursue. I would publicly joke that taking on a union where every member carries a firearm was not my idea of a good time. And, they were the only union to spend (waste) serious money against me in my election efforts in 2006 (including raising union dues) and 2015.

I also know that they are so powerful, that insecure candidates always want their endorsement and independent expenditure spending support. That’s what makes them so successful in negotiating their salary and benefit increases. That’s why they refer to many elected officials that they deal with as “bobble heads.” They come in and ask for benefit increases and their winning campaign financed elected officials just nod in agreement. Now you can appreciate this massive conflict of interest and why so many of California’s counties and cities are in fiscal distress.

But, public safety employee unions also protect their own, even the bad apples. They certainly did not appreciate my establishing the Office of Independent Review (OIR), which monitored their conduct, reduced lawsuits generated by abuses in the jails, and helped to improve the culture. It was no surprise to me that the OIR was dismantled shortly after I termed out.

Public safety officials are humans, just like everyone else. They enjoy fear and greed just like the best of us. And, they have no compunction to demand as much as they can get and shame those who would even insinuate that they are overpaid. They also protect their own after some of their members have been caught making inappropriate and sometimes deadly decisions.

When you are powerful, a certain air of superiority and arrogance often sets in. This hubris has gotten rather disturbing with the general public, especially when people are being killed. Some form of push back will start, and this year it is from members in the California Legislature.

So, in a state that is virtually controlled by public employee unions, with a capital city that has a very liberal newspaper, and a legislature that was just recently a super majority of Democrats in both houses, it is extremely rare to see a lead editorial in The Sacramento Bee taking on any public employee union or bargaining unit, let alone those representing public safety officials.

But, with AB 931 (which passed out of Committee this morning) and SB 1421, The Sacramento Bee has done just that in the piece below. And, this Republican agrees with the frustrations (see MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 1421 and SB 828 — May 31, 2018). It is time to change the police culture in California.

Bad cops have it too easy in California. Here’s how the Legislature can change that

BY THE SACRAMENTO BEE EDITORIAL BOARD

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article213403189.html

California’s powerful police unions are used to having their way at the Capitol. For decades, they’ve been able to coerce lawmakers into burying almost every bill that would have forced their members to accept even a modicum of additional transparency or public accountability.

But times may be changing.

On Tuesday, the Senate Public Safety Committee will consider a bill from Democratic Assemblymembers Shirley Weber and Kevin McCarty that, among other things, would impose strict new limits on when cops can use deadly force against suspects.

Not long ago, Assembly Bill 931 would have been dismissed before it was drafted. But that was before March, when two Sacramento police officers chased an unarmed black man named Stephon Clark into his grandparents’ backyard and shot him to death.

Swarmed by national media, the protests since have filled the air right outside the Capitol windows. There has been no escaping the connection between Clark and the long and growing list of Americans — disproportionately black and male — who get killed by police every year for crimes large and small, or sometimes for what turns out to be no crime at all.

In California as elsewhere, this issue has gone unaddressed for far too long. A bold stand now for more sensible police use-of-force standards would not only save lives and improve public trust in law enforcement, but would show the public that state lawmakers can assert themselves.

AB 931, pushed by Weber, D-San Diego, and McCarty, D-Sacramento, would require officers to use deadly force only when it’s “necessary” to stop an imminent threat and only when attempts to de-escalate the situation with nonlethal tactics haven’t worked. Right now, an officer can shoot a suspect when he or she considers it “reasonable” to prevent serious injury or death.

Law enforcement lobbyists insist that such a change would be drastic, but similar policies already are being tried by law enforcement agencies across the country. In Seattle, the results have been positive, with fewer officers in danger and fewer civilians killed. Training is essential, of course, and AB 931 would set aside money for that.

Officers who violate the stricter use-of-force standard could be criminally prosecuted if the law is approved — something that, under current state and federal law, rarely happens. Such prosecutions should be rare, but the tool should be available when needed.

The statutory status quo has been increasingly hard to defend for law enforcement, including the California Peace Officers’ Association and California State Sheriffs’ Association, and the public and many lawmakers are losing patience.

For example, earlier this year, lawmakers lashed out at lobbyists for opposing Senate Bill 1421 by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which would force law enforcement agencies to disclose the details of use-of-force investigations and confirmed cases of crimes committed on duty. It short, it would bring the California Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights down to a more reasonable size.

“I think you are completely and utterly out of touch with the realities of how those you are representing are perceived by major segments of California,” said Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles. “And you are not going to be able to lobby your way out of it.”

Even Costa Mesa Republican Sen. John Moorlach said: “This code of silence has gone on a little too long.” He wondered aloud if the former cop who prosecutors believe is the Golden State Killer would have been caught if not for the overly broad Bill of Rights, which is too often used as a shield by bad cops.

SB 1421 cleared the Senate and is scheduled to be heard in Assembly committee later this month. It, along with AB 931, should pass. Police unions have had their way in California for long enough.

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 1421 and SB 828 — May 31, 2018

This week, the State Senate had to address 280 bills in three days if they were to get all of the eligible Senate bills over to the Assembly for consideration in what is called the “House of Origin” deadline.  It was a grind and not all of the bills that were brought up for a vote made it out of the Senate.  And, I’m also serving on the Budget Conference Committee, which met on Wednesday and today to begin the process of hashing out the differences between Assembly and Senate budget votes over the last several months of involved and substantive subcommittee hearings (see  http://sbud.senate.ca.gov/node/141).
For a sample of how one of my occasional Floor speeches is included in an article, the Courthouse News Service provides it in the first piece below.
I was also a co-author of SB 1286 (Leno) in 2016 (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Other’s Senate Bills – 1286, 443, and 899 — April 18, 2016).  I do my best to stay consistent, so when a similar bill was introduced this year, I came on as an early supporter.
Sometimes wrongs have to be righted.  Sometimes one has to break from the crowd to make a point.  That’s why I am a co-author of SB 1421 by Sen. Nancy Skinner (D – Berkeley).  Call me a rebel, but we need to address, as Sen. Steve Bradford (D – Gardena) stated, the bad apples in law enforcement.  If not for the people’s elected representatives, who guards the guardians?
For an in depth review of another bill that I voted in favor of, the Long Beach Report provides it in the second piece below.  I voted for SB 828 (Wiener) because there are cities that are not encouraging the development required for a growing population.  This may not be the perfect solution, but it sends a message to many cities to carry their respective loads.
Now that we are talking bills, only one of my four bills that went to Senate Appropriations Committee was released from the Suspense File last Thursday.  This means that three good bills died without going to the Senate Floor to be voted on this week.
Usually, bills are held back in the Suspense File because they have a cost.  It’s ostensibly a way to control costs of bills that come out of committees.  At times, bills are amended to remove certain cost elements while preserving the intent of the bill.  That’s the theory, at least.
What really happens in the Suspense File process is exposed below in an analysis that was done to see if expensive bills were held back and low-cost bills were allowed to move forward.
Here’s what we discovered (DP = Do Pass and DPA = Do Pass as Amended):
The opposite was true.  Close to an estimated $5 billion cost in bills moved forward!!  And that’s before the agencies and departments responsible for implementing these programs jack up the cost in future annual budgets.  They only estimate costs — pin them low if they like the program or high if they don’t — and are then not tied down by their previous estimates.  You can be sure that the $5 billion number is more of a floor than a ceiling.
And, how did Republican bills do?
It’s difficult for Republican bills to even make it to Senate Appropriations.  While Republicans are one-third of the Senate, one-fourth of the bills get to this level.  Of this group, only 42 percent of Republican bills moved on, versus 83 percent of Democratic bills.  The joys.  Only one in four, overall, were not released.  Yet, only one of my four bills was released.  Go figure.
Here are the three that offended the Committee:
REVERSE BONUS:  I mentioned in a previous e-mail that there would be a reception on June 1st with a statewide candidate.  Unfortunately, he has been called to a media event and had to reschedule in the future.  If you RSVP’d, I apologize for the inconvenience.  But, with a state as massive as California, these things can happen to a busy individual this close to the election date.

Police Transparency Bill Sails Through California Senate

 


https://www.courthousenews.com/police-transparency-bill-sails-through-california-senate/ 
 
 

Aiming to pry open law enforcement records, California lawmakers on Wednesday passed a measure that would improve public access to information about officers guilty of wrongdoing and those involved in police shootings.

Proponents coined Senate Bill 1421 as a transparency measure that would uncloak details about officers who shoot suspects, falsify evidence or commit sexual assault. The proposal comes amid heightened public angst regarding recent fatal police shootings in California.

California has some of the strictest laws protecting law enforcement personnel records and prohibits police departments from sharing disciplinary records of officers who are guilty of or have been accused of serious misconduct.

The American Civil Liberties Union sponsored the bill, calling it a “long overdue” update to California’s outdated police transparency laws. The group noted 27 other states already make some form of officer records available to the public.

“For years, California law has shrouded police misconduct and use of force in unnecessary secrecy, leaving communities desperate for answers about what really happened in police shootings and completely in the dark about cases of serious police misconduct,” said ACLU of California policy director Peter Bibring in a statement.

The Democratic-controlled state Senate cleared the bill in a 25-11 vote, with one Republican voting in favor. The measure must be approved by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown before becoming law.

Republican state Sen. John Moorlach agreed with proponents that the public needs better access to police records. He speculated journalists or investigators may have been able to identify the recently arrested former cop accused of being the Golden State Killer had they been allowed to view his personnel records.

The suspect in the high-profile murder case, Joseph James DeAngelo, was fired by the Auburn Police Department in the 1970s after being charged with shoplifting dog repellent and a hammer from a Sacramento hardware store. DeAngelo’s minor crimes occurred during a stretch of brutal rapes and murders in the Sacramento area.

“We need more disclosure, colleagues,” Moorlach said on the Senate floor. “This code of silence has gone on for too long.”

In a fiery testimony, state Sen. Steven Bradford said the bill is needed to expose law enforcement’s “bad actors.” The Los Angeles Democrat and California Legislative Black Caucus member said officers should be treated the same as other professions.

“For some reason there is a double standard, there is a blue code,” Bradford said. “Not until we open ourselves up, remove the blinders of our biases and realize that [officers] are human beings and they should be held to the same accountability as everybody else, will we ever really make our community safer.”

The bill by state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, would allow access to records of officers involved in serious use-of-force investigations such as fatal shootings and those guilty of sexual assault and tampering with evidence. It has been amended to allow law enforcement to delay the release of records when there is still an active investigation or if there is a clear danger to an officer.

The names of officers cleared of misconduct would still be protected under SB 1421.

Skinner said she is open to discussing further changes to her bill with law enforcement as it moves through the Assembly.

Opponents contend peace officers have a unique and dangerous job and that their personnel records should remain closed. The California State Sheriffs’ Association, California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Association of Deputy District Attorneys oppose the bill, according to the bill’s legislative analysis.

Republican state Sen. Jeff Stone said SB 1421 would invade officers’ privacy and open them up to false allegations.

“This will ultimately only lead to unnecessary accusations, attacks potentially on police officers and a general degradation of law enforcement response to criminal activity,” Stone said.

Also on Wednesday, the state Senate passed Senate Bill 1449, the rape kit testing legislation introduced by state Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino. Leyva’s bill would require California law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories to test and analyze newly collected rape kit evidence in a timely manner. In order to prevent a backlog, newly collected rape kits would be required to be submitted within 20 days and tested no later than 120 days after receipt.

Backlogs of untested rape kits came to light in a 2014 state audit which found that fewer than half of rape kits are tested and analyzed. But some police departments have questioned whether testing all rape kits is a good use of limited resources.

The Department of Justice recommends all rape kits should be submitted to crime labs for DNA analysis.

While SB 1449 made its way through the state Senate last week, a proposed funding mechanism to allocate $2 million from the state’s general fund to help law enforcement comply with the requirement was removed.

Brown has historically vetoed bills without funding mechanisms written into them.

CNS reporter Bianca Bruno contributed to this report.

Screen Shot 2018-05-31 at 7.41.43 PM

 

State Senate Passes Land Use Impacting SB 828 With Amendments, Requires Cities To Identify 125% And Make Available For Multi-Family Housing At Least 100% Of SCAG-Dictated Regional Housing Need, Sends Bill To Assembly

City of LB opposed initial version of bill; Sen. Lara advanced it to Senate floor with “yes” vote in Committee he chairs, and voted “yes” on Senate floor but flipped his vote to “no” when Dems had sufficient votes to pass it; Sen. Nguyen votes “no”

http://www.lbreport.com/news/may18/sb828vot.htm

The state Senate has voted (May 30) to advance to the Assembly  SB 828, a highly impactful land use element-affecting bill by State Senator Scott Wiener (D, SF) that as amended could require cities to to identify 125% and make available for multi-family housing at least 100% of the city’s regionally-determined housing need (RHNA), a figure decided locally by the Southern CA Ass’n of Governments/SCAG.) The bill also adds a number of other Sacramento mandates, including preventing cities from using a lack of housing actually produced to justify lowering their updated SCAG RHNA numbers..

The bill’s text as amended is here The state Senate’s floor analysis is here.

SB 828, if approved in the Assembly, would amplify the effects of Senator Wiener’s SB 35 (enacted in 2017 without City of LB opposition) which now requires cities that fall short of producing housing units sufficient to meet SCAG-decided RHNA housing numbers to “streamline” approval of developer-desired housing projects (clerk-type approval, eliminated local minimum parking requirements, erased a number of previous CEQA-grounds for public appeals.)

A day before the Senate floor vote on SB 828, state Senator Ricardo Lara (LB-Huntington Park) [who’d voted for SB 35] voted to advance SB 828 to the Senate floor from the Senate Appropriations Committee he chairs [indicating the bill had support from Dem majority leadership.] Lara also answered “aye” (yes”) on the Senate floor roll call vote…but prior to the vote become final switched his vote to “no” when it became clear the bill had sufficient votes to pass. Senator Janet Nguyen (R, SE LB-west OC) [who voted “yes” on SB 35] voted “no” on SB 828.

The final Senate floor vote was 23-10 (Ayes: Atkins, Beall, Cannella, Dodd, Gaines, Galgiani, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener; Noes:Anderson, Bates, Berryhill, Fuller, Glazer, Lara, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Wilk; No Votes Recorded: Allen, Bradford, De León, Jackson, Newman, Stern)

SB 828 as amended now heads to the Assembly and contains the following Land Use impacting provisions:

1) Requires a city’s or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development to meet 125% of its RHNA [“Regional Housing Needed Assessment”] requirement.

2) Requires a city or county, if its inventory is not sufficient to meet 125% of its RHNA requirement, to identify zoning and other actions it will take to accommodate the unmet portion, which must be made available for multifamily housing within the jurisdiction’s existing urban service boundary.

3) Revises the data COGs [regional “Councils of Governments”] must provide to HCD [Sac’to Housing Community Development” agency] as follows:

  1. a) Specifies that the vacancy rate for a healthy housing market shall be between 5-8% for both rental and owner housing.
    b) Adds a requirement to provide data on cost burdened households, as specified, as well as on household income growth.

4) Requires HCD, in determining the RHNA, to grant allowances to adjust for overcrowding, vacancy rates, and housing cost burden based on the region’s existing and projected households.

5) Prohibits COGs from using prior underproduction of housing, or stable population numbers, in a city or county as justification for a determination or reduction in a city’s or county’s share of the RHNA. 6) Requires the final allocation plan to assign additional weight, particularly for low- and very low-income categories, to jurisdictions

As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, SB 828 advanced without any public discussion by the LB City Council or the Council’s Mayor-chosen “State Legislation Committee” (Austin, Mungo, Gonzalez) but on April 23, City Manager Pat West sent a letter of opposition stating that the City of Long Beach “strongly opposes” SB 828 [in its then-form, prior to amendments.] “While Long Beach understands the need to address the housing crisis in California, we believe there are more nuanced opportunities at the local level to meet neighborhood needs,” Mr. West’s letter said and continued:

Through responsible local land use management, Long Beach has been able to cultivate a unique and diverse urban fabric. This includes quality public parks, state of the art private developments, sustainable transportation infrastructure, affordable housing, market rate housing and other components to cities that are unique to each city across the great state of California.

The City has conscientiously worked with the private sector to facilitate housing. Over the past ten years, 1,778 new affordable units have been built, 2,093 existing units have been preserved, and 367 units have been rehabilitated. Long Beach has also supported 335 first-time homebuyers with silent second mortgages. With that said, developers build housing — cities facilitate housing developments through the provision of public service such as public infrastructure and public safety services.

Long Beach recognizes that California’s housing market is financially challenging for many individuals and families in our State. However the problem will not be solved by simply mandating cities [to] accommodate housing developments at 200 percent of a city’s RHNA [Regional Housing Needs Assessment.] [Caveat: amended version of SB 828 reduced this requirement to 100%].

Given these reasons, the City of Long Beach strongly opposes SB 828 (Wiener),

It’s not immediately clear if the May amendments to SB 828 will cause LB city management, or the City Council, to change the City’s current opposition stance to SB 828.

The state Senate’s floor analysis lists SB 828’s supporters/opponents as follows:

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18) Bay Area Council (co-source) Silicon Valley Leadership Group (co-source) Bridge Housing California Alliance for Retired Americans California Apartment Association California Asian Pacific Islander Chamber of Commerce California Building Industry Association California Business Properties Association California Chamber of Commerce California Community Builders California YIMBY City of Oakland Fiona Ma, Board of Equalization District 2 Half Moon Bay Brewing Company Heller Manus Architects HKS Architects Inn at Mavericks Mavericks Event Center McKinsey & Company Non Profit Housing Association of Northern California North Bay Leadership Council Pacific Standard Postmates San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association San Francisco Housing Action Coalition San Mateo County Economic Development Association Sand Hill Property Company Silicon Valley Community Foundation Sustainable Silicon Valley SV Angel The Two Hundred TMG Partners

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18) American Planning Association, California Chapter California Association of Councils of Governments Citizen Marin SB 828 Page 10 Cities of Long Beach, Mill Valley, Redondo Beach, San Bernardino, San Marcos, and San Rafael Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods Coalition to Preserve L.A. Coalition to Save Ocean Beach/Friends of Sutro Heights Park Cow Hollow Association Dolores Heights Improvement Club Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council Livable California Lone Mountain Civic Association Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers Marina Community Association Mission Economic Development Company Preserve L.A. SF Ocean Edge Spaulding Square Neighborhood Association Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Stand Up for San Francisco Sunset Residents for Sensible Planning Sustainable Tamalmonte Town of Corte Madera United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles 36 individuals.

 

 

 

This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach