• 0
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Shopping Cart

GPAM
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Newsom signs warehouse bill, provoking industry response

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s commercial developers have drawn battle lines over a bill he signed to regulate construction of warehouses.

After the governor signed Assembly Bill 98, commercial real estate groups vowed to fight back with opposing legislation in Sacramento, Bisnow and the San Bernardino Sun reported.

AB 98 sets requirements for locations of new warehouses, including setbacks of 300 feet from homes and schools. In areas that aren’t zoned for industrial use or where the zoning had to be changed to accommodate the property, setbacks are extended to 500 feet.

The bill, co-sponsored by Assemblywoman Eloise Gómez Reyes, D-Colton, and Assemblyman Juan Carrillo, D-Palmdale, came in response to an Inland Empire warehouse boom of buildings of up to 1 million square feet, with trucks that bring pollution, traffic and noise to local neighborhoods.

“AB 98 represents an important step forward for communities impacted by the over proliferation of warehousing,” Reyes said in an emailed statement to Bisnow, adding it would help protect vulnerable communities.

Critics say cities and counties haven’t done enough to require new warehouses to be good neighbors. A coalition of advocacy groups last year called on Newsom to impose a moratorium on new Inland Empire warehouses, according to the Sun.

Instead of supporting AB 98, environmental justice groups opposed it, saying it didn’t go far enough to protect the public. 

At the same time, business groups cited the bill as a job killer, while a local government alliance argued it undermined local land-use planning. At the same time, commercial real estate groups say the bill didn’t receive enough input from the business and development community.

“AB 98 is a massive unfunded mandate that will harm our cities, stifle job growth and threaten the economic lifeblood of communities throughout California,” Daniel Parra, president of the League of California Cities, said in a statement. “We are committed to finding a fix to this harmful bill in next year’s legislative session.”

A chapter of the group once known as the National Association for Industrial and Office Parks had urged Newsom to veto the bill as costly, burdensome and not having addressed the concern of businesses.

“We are committed to strengthening the voice of commercial real estate in Southern California and Sacramento and will seek a fix to this harmful bill in next year’s legislative session,” NAIOP SoCal Board President Eric Paulsen said in a statement.

Paul Granillo, CEO of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, joined statewide business advocacy groups in calling for an immediate overhaul of AB 98 — especially with the prospect of more cargo going to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach amid a possible strike by East Coast longshoremen.

“We demand those that wrote and lobbied for AB 98’s passage knowing it was deeply flawed, affects existing warehouses, and is so broadly written it impacts manufacturing and agricultural facilities as well, fix these issues immediately through an open and transparent early action budget bill as soon as the new Legislature convenes,” read a statement issued by co-chairs of the Goods Movement Alliance.

The bill is a response to what many residents see as an overabundance of warehouse construction and associated truck traffic that has helped make the Inland Empire a warehouse mecca with some of the nation’s worst air quality, according to Bisnow.

AB 98 will impose landscaping and screening requirements, such as a wall or landscape berm, to shield warehouses from their neighbors, with landscaping buffers ranging from 50 to 100 feet, according to the Sun.

Depending on their size, new warehouses will have to use zero-emission technology, meet energy efficiency standards and ban trucks from idling their engines.

Warehouses also will have to be built on arterial roads, collector roads, major thoroughfares or local roads primarily used by commercial traffic. And if homes are demolished to make way for a warehouse, the law requires two replacement units of affordable housing for every razed home and money equal to 12 months’ rent paid to every displaced tenant.

But the bill could have unintended consequences that work at odds with its stated goals, according to Matthew Hargrove, CEO of the California Business Properties Association.

“Rather than offering practical solutions, AB 98 imposes statewide mandates that undermine local control, stifles economic growth, negatively impacts the supply chain, and will push more warehouses further away from ports and population centers, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and costs to consumers,” Hargrove said in a statement. 

— Dana Bartholomew

Read more

  • Bill to limit warehouse development draws industry response
  • Bill on buffer zones around Inland Empire warehouses goes to governor
  • Warehouse “buffer bill” advances

The post Newsom signs warehouse bill, provoking industry response appeared first on The Real Deal.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • 01 October 2024
  • The Real Deal
  • Uncategorized
  •  Like
LA’s top contractors find work in sleepy market →← Bel-Air home on Bentley Avenue leads LA luxury market’s $121M week
  • Recent Posts

    • Hoteliers sound the alarm on looming distress  May 24, 2025
    • Growth markets see retail boom even with tariff uncertainty May 24, 2025
    • Westchester resi project gets city OK after union drops objection May 23, 2025
    • WATCH: ‘Father of CMBS’ Ethan Penner to run for governor of California May 23, 2025
    • Fashion Island office fetches $756 psf May 23, 2025
  • Recent Comments

    • Archives

      • May 2025
      • April 2025
      • March 2025
      • February 2025
      • January 2025
      • December 2024
      • November 2024
      • October 2024
      • September 2024
      • August 2024
      • July 2024
      • June 2024
      • May 2024
      • April 2024
      • March 2024
      • February 2024
      • January 2024
      • December 2023
      • February 2023
      • January 2023
      • December 2022
      • November 2022
      • October 2022
      • September 2022
      • August 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
      • July 2021
      • June 2021
      • May 2021
      • April 2021
      • March 2021
      • February 2021
      • January 2021
      • December 2020
      • November 2020
      • October 2020
      • September 2020
      • August 2020
      • July 2020
      • June 2020
      • May 2020
      • April 2020
      • March 2020
      • February 2020
      • January 2020
      • December 2019
      • November 2019
      • October 2019
      • September 2019
      • August 2019
      • July 2019
      • June 2019
      • May 2019
      • April 2019
      • March 2019
      • February 2019
      • January 2019
      • December 2018
      • November 2018
      • October 2018
      • September 2018
      • August 2018
      • July 2018
      • June 2018
      • May 2018
      • April 2018
      • March 2018
      • February 2018
      • January 2018
      • December 2017
    • Global Property and Asset Mangement, Inc.
      137 North Larchmont
      Los Angeles, California 90010
      +1 213-427-1127

    © 2025 GPAM