Friday, February 16, 2018

Central SoMa Plan Legislative Package Available for Review - March 1st Planning Commission Hearing

The legislative package for the Central SoMa Plan is now available for review here

The legislative package includes the proposed Central SoMa Area Plan and other affiliated changes to the City’s General Plan. It also includes proposed amendments to the City’s Planning Code and Zoning Maps, as well as other documents that would help implement the Plan, including the $2 billion public benefits program, as well as guidance for design of new buildings and redesign of the neighborhood’s streets. Finally, for those of you who have been following this Plan closely, it includes a series of documents that detail how it has evolved since the release of the 2016 Draft Plan (so that you do not have to try to figure it out yourselves).

On Thursday, March 1st this legislative package will be before the Planning Commission for their “Initiation,” which is the first legal step necessary to turn this proposal into law. The meeting will be at City Hall in Room 400. The hearing starts at 1PM – though please check the Planning Commission’s agenda the Monday before the hearing to get a sense of where this item is in the calendar. If Initiation occurs on March 1st then they would return to the Planning Commission no sooner than March 22nd to start having hearings about Plan adoption. As a reminder, this Plan will then require approval by the Board of Supervisors.

Thursday, February 8, 2018

IMPORTANT - San Francisco's Accessible Business Entrance Program - BOMA MEMBER COMPLIANCE REQUIRED

UPDATE - February 8, 2018

The Accessible Business Entrance program helps property owners comply with state and federal accessibility laws and helps people with disabilities gain greater access to goods and services offered by businesses in San Francisco. Passed by the Board of Supervisors in 2016 (Ordinance No. 51-16), the ordinance requires that existing buildings with a place of public accommodation have all primary entrances accessible for people with disabilities. 

Under state and federal law, a place of public accommodation is generally a business where the public will enter a building to obtain goods and services, such as banks, day care centers, hotels, offices, restaurants, retail stores, et cetera. 

Click here to review the details and compliance deadlines.

BOMA San Francisco's Codes and Regulations Committee will be holding a meeting with San Francisco Department of Building Inspection staff on February 28th at 12 Noon to discuss the requirements. Please email John Bozeman, BOMA San Francisco's Director of Government and Industry Affairs if you'd like to attend at


Compliance with this ordinance is ultimately the responsibility of the property owner. The ordinance is an addition to the San Francisco Building Code and the code only recognizes the owner of the structure. The ordinance, however, does state that it is not intended to interfere with any existing lease agreements between tenant and owner. If the owner has an existing agreement that the tenant shall pay for any accessible upgrades required, the ordinance does not nullify such agreements. It should be clarified, however, that the Department ultimately holds the property owner responsible for compliance.

If the tenant is determined to be responsible, the Department will ask the owner to consider that it may be to his or her advantage to assist in the cost of any remedial work because this ordinance may not have been foreseen by the tenant or owner when the lease agreement was signed.

NOTE: If the owner or tenant claimed and received an Unreasonable Hardship due to excessive cost, the determination of the Access Appeals Commission may include restrictions on the property that may affect what type of businesses are allowed to lease this property in the future without repairing the barriers to access.


UPDATE - September 29, 2017

Here are two important items to review regarding this ordinance that BOMA San Francisco members worked on with Supervisor Katy Tang in 2015 and 2016.
  • San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (SFDBI) is the agency responsible for writing the guidelines regarding implementing this ordinance. The measure is detailed below or you can review the law by clicking hereAccording to SFDBI staff, draft guidelines are still in development. We'll alert you when that document is available. 
  • Supervisor Tang has introduced a companion measure that would extend the compliance time frame for existing buildings owners.
    • The time within which the owner of an existing building with a place of public accommodation has to comply with the mandatory disability access requirements as prescribed in the original ordinance for the primary entrance and path of travel into the building will be extended by one year. Also extended by one year is the time for the Department of Building Inspection to submit a written report to the Board and the six-year limitation on granting extensions of time to comply.
    • Please click here to review the ordinance and email BOMA San Francisco's Director of Government and Industry Affairs, John Bozeman at if you have any questions. 


Original Post - October 2, 2015

BOMA members have been monitoring legislation introduced by Supervisor Katy TangMandatory Disability Access Improvements.

This ordinance, if passed, would relieve tenants of any responsibility for accessibility improvements or documentation establishing a technically infeasible situation or unreasonable hardship and place it squarely on the building owners.

Additionally, this legislation would establish a Disability Access Compliance Unit within the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (SFDBI) to monitor this program, set fees to administer it, provide guidance and advice on specific situations, as well as issue determinations of technical infeasibility or unreasonable hardship.

Click here for the legislative digest.

Our Government Affairs Policy Analysis Committee (GAPAC) recently met with Supervisor Tang and here are the concerns our members have regarding the measure, as proposed:
  • San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (SFDBI) Staffing
    • Ordinance compliance by SFDBI might be an issue due to workflow demand increase if this measure were to pass.
      • How can building owners be assured that the turnaround time will be a fast one?
  • Lease Negotiation
    • Our members are concerned that allowing SFDBI to be the arbiter of ADA issues in private buildings will impede the lease negotiation process. 
    • This was also an issue in 2013 when we worked with then Supervisor David Chiu on his ADA legislation:
      • Note that the same suggestions our members had in 2013, below, apply to this proposal:
        • Education 
          • Commercial property owners provide an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disclosure to tenants/potential tenants to help educate them on the requirements of the ADA implications of non-compliance.
        • Compliance 
          • Allow a commercial property owner/tenant MORE time to correct primary entries/path of travel to ADA specific requirements in a tenant space. That is, set a due date for absolute compliance sometime farther into the future (e.g., 5-10 years) with a requirement to update primary entries/path of travel before the due date if new tenant occupies the space. 
            • This suggestion was based on the San Francisco High Rise Sprinkler Ordinance passed in 1993 that had similar requirements for compliance with regard to sprinklers in high-rise buildings. 
        • Lease Negotiation Process 
          • Commercial property owners need to have the ability to negotiate the costs associated with any tenant improvement with the tenant. This includes any costs associated with ADA compliance. 
  • Building Owner is Fully Responsible for ADA Repairs 
    • From our GAPAC meeting, it’s clear this is a major source of contention with our small building owners. 
    • As mentioned above, our members need to have the leeway to negotiate who pays for the tenant improvement. 
    • Perhaps any mention of the owner paying for upgrades can be amended to include owner and/or lessee. 
  • Technical Infeasibility 
    • Readily achievable should be the term used - in other words, easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense for the tenant/owner. 
  • Post 2002 Building Exemption(Pg. 6; lines 11-15 – Chapter 11D; Sec. 1101D) 
    • Building owner/owners authorized agent must provide a written notice of exemption that provides a construction permit application dates on or after January 1, 2002. 
    • SFDBI should already have this information on file. 
As always, our members are appreciative of Supervisor Tang's early outreach to BOMA regarding this ordinance, and look forward to the continued discussion.

If you have concerns about this measure please email John M. Bozeman, BOMA San Francisco's Director of Government and Industry Affairs, at

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

San Francisco Planning Department Launches Public Survey for the Civic Center Public Realm Plan - March 11, 2018 Deadline

The San Francisco Planning Department has launched a citywide survey seeking community feedback on potential design improvements to the Civic Center area. The survey is a component of the Civic Center Public Realm Plan, a citywide effort to develop a comprehensive, long-term vision for improvements to Civic Center’s plazas, streets, and other public spaces.

If you are a BOMA San Francisco member in or around the Civic Center area - Civic Center Plaza, United Nations Plaza and Fulton Street between Larkin and Hyde -  please take a moment to review the information below.

The primary goal of the Plan is to develop design and activation strategies that will help make Civic Center a more welcoming and inclusive public space for all San Franciscans. It will develop conceptual designs for Civic Center’s key public spaces – Civic Center Plaza, United Nations Plaza, and Fulton Street between Larkin and Hyde, and envision improvements to surrounding streets through improved pedestrian, transit, and bicycle facilities and streetscape amenities such as trees, paving and lighting. The project is an interagency effort managed by the San Francisco Planning Department, in partnership with San Francisco Public Works, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco Recreation & Parks, San Francisco Real Estate Division, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco Arts Commission, and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

The citywide survey is a digital adaptation of content and questions originally shared at the project’s first community workshop held in November 2017, and serves as a first step in the public realm plan design process in seeking community feedback on potential design improvements to the Civic Center area. Open to anyone with an interest in the future of the Civic Center’s public spaces and streets, responses from the survey will be used to help develop design alternatives for many Civic Center streets and public spaces. In spring of 2018, the City will host a second community workshop to share and get feedback on design alternatives.

The Civic Center Public Realm Plan Community Survey, available at, will be open through March 11, 2018. Paper versions and translated surveys are available upon request.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District - Charge! Grant Program Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

The Air District is pleased to announce the Charge! Program, an incentive program that offers grant funding to help offset a portion of the cost of purchasing and installing new publicly available electric vehicle, or EV, charging stations. An initial allocation of $5 million is available, and funding will be awarded to qualifying projects on a first-come, first-served basis. Applicants must be a business or organization, funded chargers must be publicly accessible (exemptions are available), and applicants must attend a pre-application workshop.

The deadline to apply is March 9, 2018. Application, registration for pre-application and details can be found on the Program website:

Monday, February 5, 2018

FEEDBACK REQUESTED: San Francisco's Transportation Sustainability Fee Increase for Commercial Projects Above 99,999 Gross Square Feet

UPDATE - February 5, 2017

District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin has introduced and ordinance that would amend the Planning Code to increase the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF) by $5 - from $19.04 to $24.04 for all non-residential commercial projects, except hospitals and health services, above 99,999 gross square feet. 

Click here to review the ordinance. Please email John M. Bozeman, BOMA San Francisco's Director of Government and Industry Affairs at with your feedback. 


UPDATE - March 31, 2016

Recently, Mayor Ed Lee vetoed the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF) increase that passed the Board of Supervisors in February. Click here to read an article in the San Francisco Examiner that provides more details.


UPDATE - February 29, 2016

BOMA San Francisco's Advocacy Team and members, along with the greater business community, continue to advocate for the commercial real estate industry's interest regarding the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF) increase.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors have approved an amendment to the TSF, originally passed in December 2015. The amendment increases the TSF $2 to $21.04 per square foot for non-residential construction over 100,000 square feet, citywide.

The proposal requires one more vote by the Board and then it is sent to the Mayor for his consideration.


UPDATE - December 16, 2015

At their December 8, 2015 meeting, a majority of San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to amend the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF) and increase the number to $21.04 per square foot for non-residential square footage over 99,999. It would also require non-residential projects that submitted an application before July 21, 2015, but have not received final approval, to pay 50% of the difference between the TSF and the Transportation Impact Development Fee.

The legislation has been referred back to Land Use and Transportation Committee and your BOMA Advocacy team will continue to monitor the measure's progress.

Please email and with your questions or concerns.


UPDATE - October 30, 2015

BOMA San Francisco members and staff continue to monitor this legislation.

A recent San Francisco Examiner article sums up the most recent discussion, earlier this month. At this point, it appears that commercial office developers with projects in excess of 100,000 square feet will see an increase of the fee from $18.04 to $19.04 per square foot.

Note that BOMA San Francisco's Government Affairs Committee members will meet with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) staff in charge of implementing this fee and program, as well as SFMTA Director, Ed Reiskin. The meeting will take place on November 4th, at 12 noon.

Please email if you are interested in attending this important gathering.


UPDATE - September 30, 2015

At a recent meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee, there was a debate regarding the proposal to change the current Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) into a Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF) and to apply it to all new developments except affordable housing projects.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) proposal would increase fees for a majority of new developments - including commercial projects where the fee would increase from $12.06 per square foot to $18.04 per square foot. Activists feel that this fee should be higher and the proposal incorporate other changes. 

The suggested amendments include reducing the discount for projects already underway and not allowing the SFMTA to specify that 60% of the proceeds from the new TSF go to maintenance of San Francisco's transit system. The SFMTA is concerned that raising these fees higher than proposed, both for commercial, residential, and other projects could stymie the growth in San Francisco.

If you have any questions or concerns, please email and BOMA developer members have been asked to provide their thoughts and we would appreciate your feedback if you feel that any increase in the TSF than what is proposed by the SFMTA, below, would affect your project - or future projects - adversely.

The SFMTA proposal will be heard again at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ Land Use and Transportation Committee on October 5th.

Original Post - September 24, 2015

BOMA staff met recently with representatives from the City and County of San Francisco regarding the upcoming Transportation Sustainability Program (TSP) and Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF). 

The Transportation Sustainability Program is about keeping people moving as the City grows. Smart planning and investment will help ensure that San Franciscans are able to arrive safer and more comfortably at their destinations now and in the future.  

The proposed Transportation Sustainability Fee will help fund upcoming transportation changes (see below) by:
  • Creating a citywide transportation fee on new development;
  • Update to existing Transportation Impact Development Fee (TIDF) – expands applicability to include market-rate residential development and certain large institutions.
What Will the TSP Do?

The Transportation Sustainability Program is made up of three components:
  • Enhance Transportation to Support Growth
    • Fund citywide transportation improvements, like more Muni buses and trains, to help accommodate new residents and jobs. Find out more.
  • Modernize Environmental Review
    • Make the review process align with the City’s longstanding environmental policies by changing how we analyze the impacts of new development on the transportation system under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The new practices will be more reliable and emphasize travel options that create less traffic. Find out more.
  • Encourage Sustainable Travel
    • Make it easier for new residents, visitors and workers to get around through methods other than driving alone by integrating environmentally friendly travel into new developments. New practices will provide on-site amenities so people have better options than driving their car by themselves, such as car sharing and shuttle services. Find out more.
Representatives from the City and County of San Francisco will be presenting this information to BOMA San Francisco's Government Affairs Committee on November 4th. If you are interested in attending, please email for the meeting details.

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

San Francisco County Transportation Authority Update - Transportation Task Force 2045 Revenue Options & 2018 Board Elections

Transportation Task Force 2045 Proposes Transportation Revenue Options in New Report

In 2017, Transportation Authority Chair Aaron Peskin collaborated with former Mayor Edwin M. Lee to convene the 60-person Transportation Task Force 2045, comprised of neighborhood and civic groups, labor, business - including BOMA San Francisco - and advocacy organizations, as well as local and regional transportation agencies.

Meeting over the course of seven months, the task force examined revenue and expenditure options for a potential local transportation revenue measure in 2018. Topics covered included an assessment of transportation needs, consideration of operating and capital priorities for the expenditure plan, and identification of a menu of possible sources to fund these. The final report documents the task force’s recommendations for voter or legislative consideration.

2018 Board Elections and 2017 Annual Report

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA or Transportation Authority) Board held elections in January and re-affirmed the agency’s leadership with Commissioner Aaron Peskin re-elected as chair and Commissioner Katy Tang re-elected as vice chair. Commissioners Jane Kim and Norman Yee were also re-elected as chair and vice chair of the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency, a role the Transportation Authority plays to implement transportation improvements on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island.

In thanking his colleagues and looking ahead, Chair Peskin said, “We had a productive last year and I look forward to continuing to advance our priorities in 2018. In particular, we must continue our focus on creating local funding sources to pay for critical transit and roadway improvements, building on the work of the Transportation 2045 Task Force, and press ahead toward Vision Zero, our goal to end traffic fatalities by 2024. Whether it's neighborhood-level pedestrian safety improvements or building out our downtown core to accommodate booming job growth, smart investments in infrastructure and operations will curb congestion and keep San Francisco moving. I am committed to tackling it all, and look forward to working with colleagues and the public in the coming year.”

The agency’s annual report, which summarizes our planning, funding, project delivery, and oversight activities in 2017 is available for download here.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Central SoMa Hearing at the Planning Commission - February 1st

The next hearing at the Planning Commission regarding the Central SoMa Plan will be on February 1st. This will be an informational hearing to continue the discussions of the Draft Plan. It will focus on presenting to the Planning Commission the information we received since the last hearing on August 2017, including comments received at the two informational hearings regarding Central SoMa at the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use & Transportation Committee.

March 1st is the target for Plan initiation at the Planning Commission, which begins the formal process of adopting the Plan. Two weeks before that hearing, they will release the legislative package, including the amendments to the General Plan, Planning Code, and Zoning Map, as well as documents intended to guide the implementation of the Plan.

Please note that Planning Commission hearings begin at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall Room 400. Please check the Planning Commission agenda page on Monday, January 29th to see where the Central SoMa item is on the agenda.

Monday, January 22, 2018

Transbay Joint Powers Authority Citizens Advisory Committee Applications Now Available - Deadline is February 20, 2018

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) is soliciting applications from BOMA members and Bay Area residents interested in serving on the TJPA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The TJPA seeks to appoint Committee members that represent the diversity of the Bay Area. 

This is a unique opportunity for BOMA members to get involved and to provide industry input regarding this project. Many of the newest member buildings are now - or will soon be - adjacent to the transit hub mega-structure, so please consider applying.
CAC terms are for a period of two years and each member is eligible to serve a maximum of three consecutive terms. The TJPA CAC meets on the second Tuesday of the month at 5:30 pm in the TJPA office at 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA. Meetings are from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. Consistent attendance is required.
If you are interested in being considered, please review this announcement and submit an application to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority via e-mail or by mail 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Friday, January 19, 2018

San Francisco 2017 Gross Receipts Tax and Payroll Expense Tax Filing Deadline - February 28th

The San Francisco Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector has announced the 2017 Gross Receipts Tax and Payroll Expense Tax Annual Online Filing is available. The filing deadline is February 28th, 2018. The Treasurer's office will mail out the filing notice that includes a Business Account Number and Online PIN.

To enter the Online Return, you will need:

1. Seven-digit Business Account Number
2. Last four digits of your business tax identification number (Federal EIN or SSN)
3. Eight-digit alphanumeric Online PIN (same as prior years)

This year’s filing, instructions and resources are accessible at:

Below are additional news and updates to assist you with the filing:
  • For 2017, the Gross Receipts Tax adjustments factor is 75% and the Payroll Expense Tax rate is .0711% (.00711).
  • Small Business Enterprise Thresholds increase: The Treasurer's office has increased the small business enterprise thresholds for Gross Receipts Tax and Payroll Expense Tax. The small business enterprise exemption thresholds for the Gross Receipts Tax is $1,090,000 in San Francisco Gross Receipts for all businesses except lessors of residential real estate. The small business exemption thresholds for the Payroll Expense Tax is $300,000. 
  • Quarterly Payments Displayed: This year, the online return will display all estimated tax payments we have received up through November 30th, 2017 on the “Quarterly Payments” page. This information is also summarized and displayed on the Obligation Summary page towards the end of the filing. 
  • Estimated Quarterly Payment Penalties: Late or underpaid 2017 Gross Receipts and Payroll Expense estimated quarterly payments will now be assessed a 5% penalty. 
  • Protesting the Quarterly Payments/Penalties Displayed: During the filing, if you have made a payment on or after December 1st, 2017 or you believe the payment information is wrong, you may file under protest by checking the “I disagree…” box and enter the payment information from your records. NOTE: Taking this action will trigger a review of your account by Treasurer staff. Taking this action will NOT automatically affect any estimated tax payment penalties or the amount due in the filing or Payment Portal. If you do not wish to pay the amount due, you may edit the amount to an amount less than the amount due in the Payment Portal. Penalties and interest will accrue on unpaid amounts remaining after the deadline.
For any additional questions or assistance, please contact our customer service department by submitting your questions online:

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

BOMA California Advocacy Update: Proposition 13 Weathers Attacks & 2017 Legislative Results

All BOMAs in California are part of BOMA California based in Sacramento. The focus of BOMA California is strictly advocacy and - thanks to the involvement of BOMA members - they are really good at protecting the industry's interests.

It has been a VERY busy time in Sacramento as the legislative session has come to close. Please take a moment to review the information below from our California advocate, Matthew Hargrove, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs for BOMA California.

Proposition 13 Weathers Attacks By Two Gubernatorial Candidates 

Next year you will help choose the next Governor of the State of California. Although the election is more than a year away, four Democrats are already vying for the position.

The candidates include current Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and current State Treasurer John Chiang, as well as former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, and former Speaker of the Assembly and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

In their first “debate” in a question regarding taxes, two of the candidate – Villaraigosa and Eastin - went out of their way to criticize Proposition 13, the law that keeps your property taxes from seeing gigantic spikes each year.

Villaraigosa and Eastin said reforms are needed in the 1978 measure that capped property-tax increases for homes and businesses. Villaraigosa said the law was “broken” and protections for both residential and commercial needed to be revisited.

Eastin claimed that “Disneyland is paying what they paid in 1975,” which is a false talking point used by political groups seeking to implement a split roll property tax.

Click here to read a story about the debate.

It's a Wrap: Legislative Session is Over For The Year

Sunday was the final night for the Governor to sign or veto bills on his desk. In 2017 the Legislature sent 977 bills to his desk. He signed 88% of the bills (859) and vetoed 12% (118).

Last year, Governor Brown vetoed 159 out of 1059 bills, for a 15% veto rate. To put this year’s actions in context (lowest year to highest year of vetoes):

Between 2011 and 2016, Governor Brown vetoed between 10.7% and 15% of the bills

Between 2004 and 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed between 22.3% and 35% of the bills

Between 1999 and 2003, Governor Davis vetoed between 6% and 25% of the bills

Between 1991 and 1998, Governor Wilson vetoed between 8.6% and 24.5% of the bills

Now, here are some of the bills we followed closely. 

Bills Signed By the Governor We Opposed

This is the most important category of bills to look at. Our industry opposed these measures, yet they were signed into law. These are the bills that are most likely to have a negative impact on your operations:

AB 168 (Eggman D) Employers: salary information. (OPPOSE)

AB 1180 (Holden D) Los Angeles County Flood Control District: taxes. (OPPOSE)

AB 1701 (Thurmond D) Labor-related wage liabilities. (OPPOSE)

SB 2 (Atkins D) Building Homes and Jobs Act. (OPPOSE)

SB 63 (Jackson D) Unlawful employment practice: parental leave. (OPPOSE)

Bills Signed By The Governor We Supported  

Here are some bills signed by the Governor. Our industry was in support of all these measures:

AB 72 (Santiago D) Housing. (SUPPORT)

AB 73 (Chiu D) Planning and zoning: housing sustainability districts. (SUPPORT)

AB 246 (Santiago D) Environmental quality: Jobs and Economic Improvement ACT (SUPPORT)

AB 879 (Grayson D) Planning and zoning: housing element. (SUPPORT)

AB 1223 (Caballero D) Construction contract payments: Internet Web site posting. (SUPPORT)

AB 1284 (Dababneh D) California Financing Law: Property Assessed Clean Energy program (SUPPORT)

AB 1515 (Daly D) Planning and zoning: housing. (SUPPORT)

AB 1553 (Cervantes D) Economic development: Capital Access Loan Program. (SUPPORT)

AB 1583 (Chau D) Proposition 65: enforcement: certificate of merit: factual basis. (SUPPORT)

AB 1598 (Mullin D) Affordable housing authorities. (SUPPORT)

SB 145 (Hill D) Autonomous vehicles: testing on public roads. (SUPPORT)

SB 167 (Skinner D) Housing Accountability Act. (SUPPORT)

SB 205 ((G&F) Local Government Omnibus Act of 2017. (SUPPORT)

SB 229 (Wieckowski D) Accessory dwelling units. (SUPPORT)

SB 242 (Skinner D) Property Assessed Clean Energy program (SUPPORT)

SB 329 (Leyva D) Manufactured homes: financial assistance programs. (SUPPORT)

SB 540 (Roth D) Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone. (SUPPORT)

SB 564 (McGuire D) Joint powers authorities: Water Bill Savings Act. (SUPPORT)

SB 653 (Moorlach R (County tax collectors: notices: publication. (SUPPORT)

SB 711 (Hill D) Electrical corporations and gas corporations: rates and charges. (SUPPORT)
Bills Vetoed By The Governor

Finally, here are some bills vetoed by the Governor that we were happy he did not sign into law, as we opposed most of them:

AB 248 (Reyes D) Hazardous waste: facilities: permits. (OPPOSE)

AB 890 (Medina D) Land use: planning and zoning: initiatives. (OPPOSE)

AB 978 (Limón D) Employment safety: injury and illness prevention program. (OPPOSE)

AB 1179 (Kalra D) Hazardous waste facilities: inspections. (OPPOSE)

AB 1239 (Holden D) Building standards: electric vehicle charging infrastructure. (NEUTRAL)

SB 42 (Hill D) Public lands: Martins Beach: property acquisition. (OPPOSE)