• Established in 1972 · CBPA has over four decades of service to the commercial industrial retail real estate industry
  • Archive for June 23rd, 2017

    Jun 23


    Posted by Crystal Whitfield | No Comments

    We support AB 943 (Santiago; D-Los Angeles) a bill that will increase the vote threshold for approval of local initiatives intended to curb, delay, or deter growth and development throughout California, which may exacerbate the state’s affordable housing crisis.

    AB 943 requires any ordinance proposed by the voters of a city, county, or city and county, submitted to the voters, that would reduce density or stop development or construction on any parcels located less than one mile from a major transit stop, only be enacted with 55% or more of the votes cast.

    By enacting this policy, AB 943 will ensure that special interest groups do not unfairly hinder the development of new housing projects, while appropriately balancing and respecting local preferences.  Bottom line is that AB 943 will reduce unnecessary barriers to creating transit-friendly new housing and help address the state’s affordable housing crisis.

    In order to address the housing crisis in California we must build more residences.  Collecting more tax money that just gets lost in the current thicket of anti-development policies is not a solution.  Helping projects overcome unnecessary burdens, like AB 943, will produce more – and less expensive – rooftops.  The bill is currently awaiting hearing in the Senate Governance and Finance committee.

    Jun 23


    Posted by Crystal Whitfield | No Comments

    And in a related measure, we oppose AB 890 (Medina; D-Riverside) a measure that would force local governments to hold costly special elections for all local land use-related initiatives and prohibit local elected officials from adopting planning, zoning and other land use or development

    proposals legislatively if they have qualified for the ballot. This prohibition will cost local governments millions of dollars.

    AB 890 ignores other important environmental requirements for projects. A housing or commercial development project, for example, passed by initiative, would still be required to undergo extensive environmental permitting and to comply with the full suite of local, state and federal environmental laws including the Clean Air Acts, the Clean Water Acts, the Endangered Species Acts, Hazardous Waste laws, etc.

    Government by initiative can be messy, and the system itself can always be improved. But AB 890 proposes a radical path: removing voters utterly from their historic role in proposing laws as a backstop to the local legislative process. Nothing could be further from California’s political culture.

    The bill has not yet been assigned to committee in the Senate, but we will keep you posted on its progress.

    Jun 23


    Posted by Crystal Whitfield | No Comments

    As part of a CalChamber led business coalition, our industry is strongly opposing a SB 772 (Leyva; D-Chino) a bill that could increase Cal/OSHA costs for employers.  The bill reduces transparency, removes accountability, and runs contrary to California’s commitment to good governance by exempting Cal/OSHA from a rulemaking process applied to major regulations impacting the economy by more than $50 million to make sure that state agencies consider the economic impact their proposals will have on employers. SB 617 was enacted in 2011 and was sponsored by CBPA.

    The standard rulemaking process requires conducting a Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) for the most significant regulations (those having an economic impact greater than $50 million).

    Because SB 772 allows Cal/OSHA to impose unnecessary burdens on California’s businesses, investors, and innovators without regard to the impact on the economy and without considering less costly alternatives, the CalChamber and a large coalition are opposing the legislation.

    All California’s agencies conduct important work that protects and provides for the public, and all are held accountable to the people by conducting the SRIA. Cal/OSHA’s process is not different and does not warrant a special exemption. SB 772 excuses Cal/OSHA from this important analysis, allowing regulations having a significant impact on the economy to avoid the close scrutiny that would reveal their true costs and any unintended consequences.

    The bill passed the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee yesterday on a party line 5-2 vote and next moves to the Assembly Appropriations committee, where we will continue to oppose the measure.

    Jun 23


    Posted by Crystal Whitfield | No Comments

    Our superstar government affairs duo at BOMA San Francisco, Ken Cleaveland and John Bozeman, penned an op/ed for the Bay City Beacon to counter the call for a split-roll tax on commercial properties.

    Many people wonder what they can do to help fight split roll.  This is a good example.  Take the information that we have provided and localize it and get a local paper and/or blog to run it.

    A big “thank you” on behalf of the industry to Ken and John for taking the initiative and getting this great article out into the public domain!

     “Those who live and work in our state support California values. It’s a fact – and especially true of those who own residential or commercial properties. Buying property in California means that you are investing in the future of the state’s residents and businesses within it. Like most investments, people want to ensure that their properties are taxed reasonably and responsibly and that local and state government entities are using those property taxes efficiently towards our shared values, e.g., education and local public services.”

    Click here to read the full op/ed.

    Jun 23


    Posted by Crystal Whitfield | No Comments

    Our industry has fought for many years to reform California’s ADA lawsuit abuse, and have made some very good changes to policy that both expands access to our guests and tenants while protecting property owners and businesses from frivolous lawsuits.  However, it appears that a new trend of Title III lawsuits may be heading our way.  The “Surf-by” lawsuit.  Where some enterprising lawyer logs onto your website and searches for accessibility violations and files suit if any our found.  Yes, this is, unfortunately, a real thing.

    From the lexology.com website: A federal court in Florida issued a potentially groundbreaking decision earlier this week that could open the floodgates when it comes to a new trend in litigation filed under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): the “surf-by” lawsuit. While businesses have been forced to deal with so-called drive-by lawsuits for some time now – those claims filed by plaintiffs who spot technical ADA violations such as inaccessible entrances by simply driving down the street – recent years have seen an explosion when it comes to the digital equivalent of such suits. Surf-by lawsuits, on the other hand, are initiated when someone simply logs onto your company’s website to search for possible accessibility violations, and if any are found, follows through by filing an ADA lawsuit against you, sometimes without prior warning.”

     Click here to read more about this issue and what you can do to protect yourself.