January 9, 2018



Legislative Updates as of September 5, 2019


To all IREM-OC Members and Industry Partners

As you may already be aware, the California Legislature is moving closer to enacting statewide rent caps and burdensome “just cause” eviction standards. If enacted, AB 1482 will cap rent increases at 5% plus inflation, with a maximum total of 10% and it will apply to rental properties more than 15 years old.

As IREM is opposed to all forms of rent control, we strongly oppose this bill. Rent control has been shown time and time again to have many detrimental consequences. According to a survey held by the American Economic Association, 93% of economists agreed that rent control has a negative effect on development. In addition, the “just cause” eviction standards will add to the problem rather than relieve it.

We are asking you as IREM Members to contact your state legislators as soon as possible and urge them to vote “no” on this harmful legislation known as AB 1482. Since this bill would affect everyone, you may want to forward this call to action to any California residents.



How you can help – use these links:

Thank you for your support.


John Thomas Koss, CPM, CCIM

VP of Legislative Affairs



Legislative Updates as of September 5, 2019

Below is a summary of bills that we are focused on that impact
the commercial, industrial, and retail real estate sectors, during the final two weeks of the
2019 Session.

At the end you will find the list of bills we have worked on that are dead for the year but may
come back in 2020.


AB 5 (Gonzalez D) Worker status: employees and independent contractors.
Summary: Addresses the Dynamex Court case on independent contractors.
Amendments exempting commercial real estate brokers and brokerage firms are in the bill.
Negotiating final amendments regarding business-to-business transactions and other technical

AB 51 (Gonzalez D) Employment discrimination: enforcement.
Summary: Prohibits arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 170 (Gonzalez D) Employment: harassment: liability.
Summary: Increases the amount of time employers can be sued and sets new standards for liability of
sexual harassment in the workplace. Will increase litigation.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 485 (Medina D) Local government: economic development subsidies.
Summary: Requires local governments to receive comprehensive information about
warehouse projects prior to releasing economic development incentives.
Position: Mon/OPP. Negotiated AMENDMENTS to lessen burden of information.

AB 520 (Kalra D) Public works: public subsidy.
Summary: Defines “public works” to include a project that receives a de minimis public subsidy less
than $500,000 and 2% of the total project cost.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 547 (Gonzalez D) Janitorial workers: sexual violence and harassment prevention training.
Summary: Requires Janitorial Companies to provide specified training on sexual
violence and harassment prevention.                                                                                                                                                                      Position: NEUTRAL. Negotiated AMENDEMENTS.

AB 684 (Levine D) Building standards: electric vehicle charging infrastructure.                                                                                        Summary: requires the state to propose building standards for the installation of electric vehicle
(EV) charging infrastructure for parking spaces for existing multifamily and non-residential
Position: NEUTRAL. Assured bill doesn’t create a mandate or put building code in statute.

AB 729 (Chu D) Carpet recycling: carpet stewardship.
Summary: Triples the carpet recycling fee.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 857 (Chiu D) Public banks.
Summary: Allows local governments to get into lending which would destabilize banking through
introducing non-fiscal requirements for loans.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 1066 (Gonzalez D) Unemployment insurance: trade disputes: eligibility for benefits.
Summary: Would allow striking workers to receive unemployment checks.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 1080 (Gonzalez D) California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act.
Summary: Would enact the California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution
Reduction Act, increasing fees and responsibilities of property owners to recycle and compost.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 1100 (Kamlager-Dove D) Electric vehicles: parking requirements.
Summary: Allows EV parking space to be counted as at least one standard automobile
parking space for the purpose of complying with any local minimum parking requirements.
Position: SUPPORT

AB 1188 (Gabriel D) Dwelling units: persons at risk of homelessness.
Summary: Puts requirements on residential landlords to allow tenant to allow people not
on the lease to stay in dwelling.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 1281 (Chau D) Privacy: facial recognition technology: disclosure.
Summary: Requires a business in California that uses facial recognition technology to disclose that
usage in a physical sign that is clear and conspicuous at the entrance of every location.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 1478 (Carrillo D) Employment discrimination.
Summary: Creates a private cause of action against an employer for disputes regarding the right
under the law to time off or reasonable accommodations to deal with issues such as jury service or
related to being a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.
Position: OPPOSE

AB 1482 (Chiu D) Tenancy: rent caps.                                                                                                                                                            Summary: Imposes a 5% plus inflation residential rent cap and codifies “just cause”
eviction requirements.
Position: OPPOSE

ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry D) Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure:
voter approval.
Summary: Lowers the vote threshold for raising local taxes to 55%.
Position: OPPOSE


SB 1  (Atkins D) California Environmental, Public Health, and Workers Defense Act of 2019.
Summary: Require agencies to take prescribed actions regarding certain federal requirements and
standards pertaining to air, water, and protected species.                                                                                                                            Position: OPPOSE.

SB 5 (Beall D) Affordable Housing and Community Development Investment Program.
Summary: Makes changes to the Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District (EIFD) law
and Redevelopment 2.0. Makes it easier for local district to set up Tax Increment
Financing for infrastructure.
Position: NEUTRAL. Working on language to protect against unnecessary tax increases.

SB 44 (Skinner D) Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles: comprehensive strategy.
Summary: Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to update its 2016 mobile source
strategy to include a comprehensive strategy for the deployment of medium- and heavy- duty vehicles
in the state.
Position: SUPPORT

SB 54 (Allen D) California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act.
Summary: Enacts the law to achieve a 75% reduction in single-use packaging and
priority single-use plastic products by 2030. Puts onerous requirements on property owners and
Position: OPPOSE

SB 127 (Wiener D) Transportation funding: active transportation: complete streets.
Summary: Requires CalTrans to design bicycle and pedestrian facilities on all projects the state
undertakes. Estimated cost is in the billions to the state.
Position: OPPOSE

SB 142 (Wiener D) Employees: lactation accommodation.
Summary: Expands current lactation accommodation mandates for employers and
requires the Building Standards Commission to design a guidance document. We negotiated
significant amendments to this bill, including removing the mandatory building code provisions,
however the employer requirements are onerous and expensive and increases potential for lawsuits.
Position: OPPOSE

SB 190 (Dodd D) Fire safety: building standards: defensible space program.
Summary: Requires the Office of the State Fire Marshal to develop, in consultation with
our industry, a model defensible space program to reduce threat of wildfire.
Position: SUPPORT

SB 451 (Atkins D) Rehabilitation of certified historic structures.
Summary: Creates a tax credit for the rehabilitation of certain certified historic
Position: SUPPORT

SB 531 (Glazer D) Local agencies: retailers.
Summary: Prohibits local agencies from entering into certain economic development agreements with
companies for locating in the local jurisdiction.
Position: OPPOSE

SB 638 (Allen D) Leases: electric vehicle charging stations: insurance coverage.
Summary: Enables installation of EV chargers by removing the requirement to obtain a
general liability insurance policy and instead require personal liability coverage
Position: NEUTRAL. Assured bill stayed focused on past agreements.

SB 749 (Durazo D) California Public Records Act: trade secrets.
Summary: Requires trade secrets be released under certain Public Records Requests.
Position: OPPOSE

SCA 5 (Hill D) Taxation: school districts: parcel tax.
Summary: Lowers voter threshold to 55% on certain local taxes.
Position: OPPOSE


AB 36 (Bloom D) Residential tenancies: rent control.
Summary: One of the original rent control bills. Folded into AB 1482
Position: OPPOSE. Failed First House.

AB 40 (Ting D) Zero-emission vehicles: comprehensive strategy.
Summary: Puts state on the path to ban gasoline vehicles.
Position: OPPOSE. Held on Suspense.

AB 161 (Ting D) Solid waste: paper waste: proofs of purchase.
Summary: Prohibits paper receipts.
Position: OPPOSE. Held on Suspense.

AB 349 (Choi R) Building standards: garages. Summary: Would mandate additional egress from garages. Puts building code in statute
and unnecessarily increases construction costs. Negotiated amendments to lessen these impacts.
Position: NEUTRAL after NEGOTIATED AMENDMENTS. Held on Suspense

AB 393 (Nazarian D) Building codes: earthquake safety: functional recovery standard.
Summary: Would require the state to adopt stringent building codes above and beyond
the current Earthquake standards requiring. Increases costs and codifies building standards that
have not gone through the stakeholder process.
Position: NEUTRAL after NEGOTIATED AMENDMENTS. Held on Suspense

AB 516 (Chiu D) Authority to remove vehicles.
Summary: Removes the ability of local governments to enforce parking laws in
residential and commercial areas, limits the ability to tow vehicles, and bans the use of
immobility devices for parking violations.
Position: OPPOSE. Held on Suspense.

AB 519 (Voepel R) Mobilehome parks: sale.
Summary: Limits the ability of mobilehome park owners to sell properties.
Position: OPPOSE. Held in Committee.

AB 628 (Bonta D) Employment: victims of sexual harassment: protections.
Summary: Puts onerous requirements on employers if they have an employee who is a
victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking
Position: OPPOSE. Failed First House.

AB 724 (Wicks D) Rental property data registry.
Summary: Requires the state to create a rental registry online, which would be designed to receive
specified information from landlords regarding their residential tenancies and to disseminate this
information to the general public.
Position: OPPOSE. Failed First House.

AB 725 (Wicks D) General plans: housing elements.
Summary: Prohibits more than 20% of a suburban or metropolitan jurisdiction’s share of the regional
housing need for above moderate-income housing from being allocated to sites with zoning restricted
to single-family development.
Position: OPPOSE. Failed in Committee.

AB 1046 (Ting D) Air Quality Improvement Program: Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.
Summary: Would increase fees by requiring the State Air Resources Board to develop a plan to
provide for the continuous funding of the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.
Position: MON/OPP. Held on Suspense.

AB 1270 (Stone, Mark D) False Claims Act.
Summary: Enables private attorneys to initiate “false claim” tax actions against
Position: OPPOSE. Held on Suspense.

AB 1481 (Grayson D) Tenancy termination: just cause.
Summary: Would, with certain exceptions, prohibit a lessor of residential property from
terminating the lease without just cause, as defined, stated in the written notice to
Position: OPPOSE. Failed first house. Provisions now in AB 1482.

SB 135 (Jackson D) Paid family leave.
Summary: Expand the scope of current Paid Family Leave provisions for an employer with 5 or more
employees to refuse to grant an employee a request to take up to 12 weeks                                                                                          Position: OPPOSE

SB 171 (Jackson D) Employers: annual report: pay data.
Summary: Required employers to release significant private information.
Position: OPPOSE. Held on Suspense.

SB 248 (Glazer D) Taxation: renters’ credit.
Summary: Increase the credit amount for a qualified renter to $220 and $434 from the
existing amounts of $120 and $60
Position: SUPPORT. Held on Suspense.

SB 320 (Jackson D) Gender: discrimination: pricing.
Summary: Created onerous gender pricing rules and increased threats of penalties and lawsuits.
Position: OPPOSE. Failed First House.

SB 732 (Allen D) Transactions and use tax: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Summary: Gave South Coast Air Quality Management District taxation authority.
Position: OPPOSE


Legislative Updates as of August 27, 2019

California Legislators Set to Make Key Decision This Week on Rent Control Bill

California lawmakers are set to make a decision this week about a statewide rent control and “just cause” eviction bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee will hear Assembly Bill 1482 on August 30, and decide whether or not to move the bill out of suspense file status for the rest of 2019.

Last week, the committee voted to place the bill on suspense. That means a bill is set aside to order to consider its financial impact on the state.

AB 1482, authored by Assemblyman David Chiu, would cap annual rent increases at 7% plus the consumer price index, and would apply nearly all of California’s rental units, including apartments and some single-family homes. Additionally, the bill would apply in jurisdictions where voters and local elected leaders have rejected rent control policies, though would not supersede locally-passed rent control laws.

Besides capping rents, AB 1482 would apply “just cause” eviction policies statewide.

Lawmakers must make a decision by September 12 whether to send the bill to the governor this year. If AB 1482 isn’t moved off suspense August 30, it would die for the year and become a two-year bill.

The California Apartment Association is lobbying for bill amendments including:

  • A requirement that a tenant occupy the property for 24 months before the “just cause” and relocation provisions apply, rather than the current 12 months
  • Housing that has been issues a certificate of occupancy within the previous 20 years is exempt from the provisions of the bill, rather than the currently-proposed rent cap of 10 years after construction.
  • The provisions within the bill will remain in effect until January 1, 2027, rather than presently proposed to sunset after three years.
  • Clarify provisions within the bill to ensure local governments cannot impose stricter regulations on housing affected by AB 1482
  • Clarify the vacancy decontrol provisions, and provide clarifying language relating to “just cause”, rent and lease provisions

Connect With CAA

For comments, questions or concerns, please contact Dennis Kaiser

Legislative Updates as of August 22, 2019

New Proposition 65 Requirements for California Residential Landlords 

By: Keith Walker

Photo of Keith B. Walker

Pursuant to Proposition 65, notice must be provided prior to exposing anyone to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm.  Recent changes to the requirements imposed by Proposition 65’s safe harbor warning guidelines affect the compliance approach for residential landlords in California.

Specifically, California Health and Safety Code sections 25607.34 and 25607.35, which became effective July 1, 2019, require that warnings be provided to new tenants and other adult occupants in specific formats, at lease inception and again each year during the tenancy.

Pursuant to new requirements issued by the State of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the warnings need to be conveyed annually (i) in a letter delivered to the rental property and addressed to all known adult tenants; (ii) in an email sent to all of the email addresses that the landlord uses to communicate with tenants; or (iii) in the lease agreement.

With respect to the content of the required warnings, they must include the following information:

  • the symbol symbol
  • the word “WARNING” in all capital letters and bold print
  • the following text:
    • [Name of one or more exposure sources(s)] on this property can expose you to [name of one or more chemicals] which is [are] known to the State of California to cause [“cancer,” “birth defects or other reproductive harm,” or “cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm”]. Talk to your landlord or the building owner about how and when you could be exposed to this chemical in your building. For additional information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/apartments.

OEHHA is also the agency charged with maintaining and updating the list of chemicals that gives rise to the notification requirements discussed above.  In a residential context, OEHHA has provided the following examples of potential “exposure source(s)” for residential rental properties:

  • fireplaces or unvented gas space heaters;
  • paint chips and dust from lead-containing paint;
  • use of lead-containing plumbing materials;
  • imported vinyl miniblinds manufactured prior to 1997;
  • building materials containing urea-formaldehyde resins; and
  • asbestos-containing materials, including some ceiling coatings on the property, if such materials are disturbed.

Other Proposition 65-listed chemicals that are often found in apartments and other residential rental properties include asbestos, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, and lead.

For questions regarding compliance with Proposition 65 and designing an effective strategy for completing the required notifications, whether for a single property or a portfolio made up or dozens or hundreds of residential assets, please contact Keith Walker at (310) 284 – 2230 or kwalker@coxcastle.com.

Legislative Updates as of August 14, 2019

Commercial, Industrial, Retail Real Estate Leaders!

Lots has happened to day with Split Roll.  See below for more information on all the back and forth!

  1. Summary from Rex about our plan of action
  2. Split Roll Proponent’s  press release announcing have decided to rewrite and refile their Split Roll Initiative
  3. Politico Story (below)

More refined talking points will follow, but this basic response is that this is not a surprise because the initiative is flawed as its based on a faulty premise.  The proponents themselves have acknowledged that and they should pull this measure from the ballot immediately.

Legislative Updates as of July 26, 2019

Legislative Updates as of March 25, 2019

Legislative Updates as of March 20, 2019

Legislative Updates as of November 7, 2018

  • Action Required: California Expands the Use of Defibrillators in Buildings
  • Effective January 1, 2020, California Senate Bill 1397will require certain buildings constructed prior to January 1, 2017, must have a defibrillator under certain circumstances.
  • California building owners and operators should take note of the new requirements affecting office, industrial, and retail buildings, as well as certain residential buildings such as hotels and motels. Apartment buildings and condominiums, however, are excluded from these requirements.
  • Landlords should carefully review their leases to determine how the responsibility for compliance with new laws is allocated in connection with any improvements to the property. Depending on the provisions in the tenant’s lease, the tenant may be responsible for any costs associated with the defibrillator requirement.
  • Related Services: Real EstateReal Estate Disputes


Legislative Updates as of January 3rd, 2019

Legislative Updates as of October 16th, 2018

  • On behalf of Rex Hime and the CBPA Board this is to let you know that yesterday Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that the initiative to dismantle Proposition 13 by creating a split roll is qualified and eligible for the November 2020 ballot.Under the proposal, all business properties will be reassessed to 2020 values and will be reassessed every three years thereafter.  Commercial property will lose any certainty and one can only imagine the impact and cost to long time property owners.The proponents of this effort believe it’s a $12 billion tax grab from your properties.The Legislative Analyst’s office has warned that the switch would introduce far more volatility into the state’s funding stream.We will continue to work closely with allied business and taxpayer groups on the statewide strategy to defeat this measure.  Our industry has been preparing for this moment for some time.


Legislative Updates as of September 19th, 2018

  • Earlier this week a group of labor unions, progressive activists, and community action groups that have been advocating for gutting Proposition 13 and creating a split-roll property tax by ending the protections and certainty for commercial property, submitted signatures to place the initiative before voters on the November 2020 ballot.Every commercial real estate organization has at some point over the last 30 years taken a position in opposition to Split Roll Taxation – nothing in this measure changes that stance.The measure itself is very clear in its actions:
    1. Bring all commercial properties to a new assessed 2020 value that becomes the new    base year for taxation.
    2. Require that all commercial property be reassessed every three years thereafter.
    3. Establishes an exemption for properties valued at less than $1million – however this is a specious exemption because as the property is reassessed every three years eventually it will lose that exemption
    4. The measure removes all the tax protections provided by Proposition 13.
    5. Ends the treating of all property the same for taxation purposes for the first time in California’s history.

    Some media members and others in the community or business associates may be reaching out to you as local commercial real estate leaders for comments and thoughts on the proposal. CBPA would like to offer a few recommendations for stances and opinions.

    First and foremost, know that you are not required to talk to the media. If you do want to talk to them, you can direct inquiries to me at CBPA – 916-443-4676 or rexhime@cbpa.com

    If you chose to speak with the press it is important to stay on message and not get involved in a debate with the press.

    *Simply say we are taking a strong opposed position against any proposed split roll tax initiative. The proponents have said it will create $10 Billion dollars in new taxes.

    *Studies have shown it will have a negative impact on values, put many small businesses and tenants out of business. It will cost jobs and impact negatively the overall economy of California.

    Feel free to visit our current campaign website for information: http://www.stophigherpropertytaxes.org/


Legislative Updates as of June 11, 2018

Legislative Updates as of April 6, 2018

The proponents of the split roll campaign have reduced the money they are paying for signatures and have announced that they plan to put the measure on the November 2020 ballot instead of the November 2018! While this is good news it means that the threat is indeed real and the 2020 ballot is not necessarily a good one for us – as you recall Hillary Clinton carried California by a 4 million vote margin. We will be updating you with more information but wanted to give you this heads up immediately.

Legislative Updates as of March 23, 2018

Legislative Updates as of March 13, 2018

The IREM In-district Meeting period is right around the corner! From March 26 – April 6, your U.S. Senators and Representative will be back in their home districts to meet with constituents, so now is the time to schedule your meetings.

If you have already scheduled a meeting, please remember to submit your meeting details as soon as possible.

How to Get Started

  • Know Your Federal Legislators. Not sure who to contact? Click here to find your Federal Elected Officials and their contact information.


  • Request a Meeting. Call your legislator’s district office to request a meeting and ask for the scheduler’s email. Feel free to use this template letter when submitting a written request.


  • Tell Us About It. As you make your appointments, submit your meeting details to us! Don’t worry if the meeting isn’t finalized, you can resubmit information at a later date.


  • Be Prepared. Make sure your meeting is a success. Prepare yourself by reading the IREM Issue brief. Also, you can help the legislators and their staff prepare by sending the IREM Fact Sheets in advance.

Legislative Updates as of February 12,2018

Legislative Updates as of February 9, 2018

  • Update: Rent Controll Bills in Washington State
    Residential – IREM, Rent Control 

WA House Bill 2583 (HB 2583) and WA Senate Bill 6400 (SB 6400), concerning local authority to address affordable housing needs through regulation of rent and associated charges, were introduced early in the 2018 session. These bills would permit local cities and counties to allow rent control on rented/leased residential properties as they see fit and would repeal the 1981 state preemption against rent control.

Hearings on both bills were conducted in their respective Committees and there was an abundant amount of testimony supporting and opposing the legislation. Proponents of the bill argued that it would give more affordable housing to low income tenants especially those living in the Seattle area. Supporters also spoke of the need to keep affordable housing in Seattle and rent control was one of the tools in the “tool box” to allow low income tenants to live, work and retire in Seattle.

However, Christy Mays, Legislative Chair for Western Washington and other IREM members testified against the legislation. IREM members from Oregon even attended the hearings in opposition to the rent control bills.

Neither of these bills were voted out of committee therefore, they are dead for the 2018 session unless they are amended onto another bill or placed into the budget, which is highly unlikely.

However, there is talk of reintroducing the legislation in 2019, when there may be greater support in the state legislature.

IREM will continue to work with the Washington chapter and Public Affairs







Legislative Updates as of January 10, 2018