Legislative Updates as of February 14, 2020
As the 2020 election season is now in full swing, it is imperative that our industry is up to speed on the proposed “Split Roll Tax”, and the disastrous affect it will have on our businesses, and the state as a whole, if it passes in the November 2020 General Election.
Please take some time to educate yourself and others on the “Split Roll Tax”. The proponents neglect to mention the negative fallout of increased property taxes on commercial properties which are significant. This will overly burden small businesses and ultimately result in higher prices paid by all consumers.
In addition, everyone in our industry should be voting NO on the new Proposition 13 on the upcoming March 3rd ballot. In a potentially deliberate ploy to confuse voters, this proposition number is being reused to create a new taxation unconnected to the original Proposition 13. Please plan on educating others to vote “NO” on Proposition 13 on BOTH the March 3rd AND November 3rd ballot.
The following websites offer specific information that can also be shared with others:
Legislative Updates as of January 23, 2020
“The legislative session for 2019 has come to a close and there are many new laws that will significantly impact California landlords, including AB 1482, California’s statewide rent caps and just cause eviction law.” Read more by following the link below.
Additional updates are available for review and can be found by visiting the following sites.
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
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.
ON THE SENATE FLOOR
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
Position: SUPPORT IF AMENDED
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ON ASSEMBLY FLOOR
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DEAD BILLS/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 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 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
Legislative Updates as of August 27, 2019
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
Legislative Updates as of August 22, 2019
New Proposition 65 Requirements for California Residential Landlords
By: Keith 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
- 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 email@example.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!
- Summary from Rex about our plan of action
- Split Roll Proponent’s press release announcing have decided to rewrite and refile their Split Roll Initiative
- Politico Story (below)
- OUR RESPONSE: SPLIT ROLL OPPONENTS DEMAND FLAWED MEASURE BE PULLED FROM BALLOT
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.
- READ MORE
- Related Services: Real Estate, Real 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:
- Bring all commercial properties to a new assessed 2020 value that becomes the new base year for taxation.
- Require that all commercial property be reassessed every three years thereafter.
- 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
- The measure removes all the tax protections provided by Proposition 13.
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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/
- Commercial Real Estate Leaders:The deadline for placing something on the Nov. 2018 ballot through the normal process is passed and proposition numbers have been assigned. At this point the only way to add something to the ballot is a bill going through the Legislature/Governor.So, with that being said, below for your convenience is a quick reference chart with the proposition numbers and the most basic title of what it is about (not official – just my quick Plain English references).The three measures CBPA took a position on in June are highlighted.As more information becomes available on the Secretary of State’s website we will add links to this. In the meantime, if you want more detail about any of these proposals, you can go point your browser here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures/
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
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
- President Trump Backs Online Sales Tax: What It Means For You
Commercial – Online Sales Tax
- Woman with Emotional Support Peacock Tries to Board United Flight *Video
Residential – Emotional Support Animals
- Medical Marijuana Bill Passes Virginia Senate 40-0
Commercial – Medicinal Marijuana
- Flood Insurance Reform: New Jersey Shore to Pay More in the Future
Commercial & Residential – National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
- Indiana Town’s Zoning Board Eyes Short-term Rentals and Signs
Commercial & Residential –Short-term rentals
- Could, and Should, Illinois Embrace Rent Control?
Residential –Rent Control
Legislative Updates as of January 10, 2018