23
Susana Barrios
From:Adam Wood <awood@biasc.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 11:19 AM
To:Public Comment; City Clerk
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] BIA/OC Comment Letter - Item 23
Attachments:BIAOC Comment Letter - Item 23.pdf
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
Please see the a?ached comment le?er regarding Item 23 on the 10/24 council agenda.
Thank you.
-Adam
Adam S. Wood
Senior Vice President
Orange County Chapter
Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc.
awood@biasc.org
ph: ( w: biasc.org
Mailing Address: 17192 Murphy Ave., #14445, Irvine, CA 92623
Los Angeles/Ventura • Orange County • San Bernardino County • Riverside
County
1
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PRESIDENT
BROOKE DOI
SHEA HOMES
1st VICE PRESIDENT
JAMES O’MALLEY
SHOPOFF REALTY INVESTMENTS
TREASURER
MEGAN ELTRINGHAM
THE NEW HOME COMPANY
SECRETARY
DAVE MELLO
LANDSEA HOMES
TRADE CONTRACTOR VP
ALAN BOUDREAU
BOUDREAU PIPELINE
ASSOCIATE MEMBER VP
MARK HIMMELSTEIN
NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP
MEMBER AT LARGE
PETER VANEK
INTREGAL COMMUNITIES
MEMBER AT LARGE
SEAN MATSLER
COX, CASTLE, & NICHOLSON LLP
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
ERIC NELSON
TRUMARK HOMES
SR. VICE PRESIDENT, OC CHAPTER
ADAM WOOD
BIAOC
BUILDING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER
17192 MURPHY AVE #14445, IRVINE, CA 92623
949-553-9500 I BIAOC.COM
October 24, 2023
Mayor Ashleigh Aitken
City of Anaheim
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Mayor and Council,
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California - Orange
County Chapter (BIA/OC), I write to request clarifications on Item 23, an Ordinance
“requiring subcontractors to disclose recent labor code violations when obtaining a
business license.”
We are concerned that the aforementioned proposal is in need of revision to protect
workers in Anaheim. BIA/OC understands why it is important to shed light on ‘bad
actors,’ but the language of the ordinance seems to inflict burdens and punishment in
the wrong place. At a minimum, clarity is needed on “pending violations” and a
cure opportunity needs to be offered before the city invokes an “unqualified
right” to “revoke building permits.”
The proposed Ordinance adds Section .090 placing the burden on a Permit Applicant
to “disclose any pending and/or final determinations pertaining to state or federal
labor code violations” of their subcontractors. Any given project could have dozens
of subcontractors associated therewith and this Ordinance could end a project for all
of them if just one ‘sub’ does not honestly disclose a “pending” action.
Specifically, Section .095 says the city “shall have the unqualified right to suspend or
revoke building permits” for failure to provide “correct, accurate and complete
information to the Building Official.” A technical error or one bad-actor
subcontractor could jeopardize a project for countless tradespeople if the letter of this
law is followed. Placing the burden on the Permit Applicant harms fellow
subcontractors and is not a sound policy for the City of Anaheim.
Instead, it would make considerably more sense to build upon the existing code
requirements that require all parties doing business in Anaheim to have a valid
Business License. To accomplish the disclosures sought by the proposed Ordinance,
the city could require disclosure of any labor violation as part of a Business License
Application process.
A Permit Applicant would then be responsible to hire subcontractors with a valid
business license and any bad actor lying about “pending or final” labor code violations
would have to answer to the city itself. This protects the other good-faith subcontractors and
Permit Applicants while still achieving the same outcome.
This seems like a win-win outcome for all involved as it gives the city increased discretion against
potential bad actors and those doing business in the city have a predictable means to hire without
risk of municipal retribution.
At a minimum, as mentioned above, the language of this Ordinance needs clarification on
“pending” violations. Such language runs the risk of creating a “guilty until proven innocent”
burden on individuals, curtailing their right to due process. Additionally, there must be an
opportunity to “cure” any technical or good-faith mistakes before a permit is suspended or
revoked. This represents an unduly harsh burden for a provision that, at best, is informational.
I appreciate your consideration and clarification regarding the points raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Adam Wood
Senior Vice President
Building Industry Association
of Southern California
Orange County Chapter