Beverly Hills City Council
June 9, 2026

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Mandy Jiang, Senior Management Analyst
Magdalena Davis Jones, Community Outreach Manager
Subject: APPROVAL OF THE BEVERLY HILLS CITY COUNCIL

LEGISLATIVE/LOBBY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED POSITIONS

ON FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE BILLS
Attachments: 1. Lobbyist Bill Memos

RECOMMENDATION
The Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (Councilmembers Mirisch and Nazarian) recommends the City Council approve the positions taken on the bills below:

1. Support: S.3740 - Save the Kurds Act

2. Oppose: SB 1361 (Durazo) – Transit-oriented housing developments: local governments

3. Oppose: AB 2118 (Hoover) – Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: use by right: objective standards

4. Support: AB 2529 (Johnson) – Civil claims: public entities and employees:
declaration

5. Support: SB 1190 (Grove) – Safe Passage for Youth Act

6. Support: SB 1365 (Allen) – Unlawful business practices: price gouging

INTRODUCTION
This item seeks City Council approval of the Beverly Hills City Council Legislative/Lobby Committee (“Committee”) recommended positions on various federal and state legislative bills at their May 15, 2026 meeting. The Committee’s recommended positions were consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform.

DISCUSSION
The Committee met to discuss a variety of federal and state legislative bills. A summary of legislative bills reviewed by the Committee and their recommendations are provided below. The attachment to this report includes memos for each bill provided by the City’s Meeting Date: June 9, 2026

contract lobbyists detailing highlights of bill provisions, author’s intent, and those in support or opposition.

1. S.3740 - Save the Kurds Act.

Requested by a Liaison, this bipartisan federal bill proposes to impose sanctions on Syrian government officials and financial institutions, and foreign individuals who engage in any transaction, including military or financial support, with the Syrian government. The bill was introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, in response to the post-Assad government’s continued attack on the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The SDF-controlled western region of Syria has ISIS prisons guarded by the mainly Kurdish forces, and is home to approximately 1,000 U.S. troops. The Syrian government’s repeated attacks on the Kurds not only threaten the stability of the region, but also the safety of U.S. troops, and the U.S. relationship with the new Syrian government. It also risks the resurgence of the Islamic State. Senators Graham and Blumenthal argue it is crucial to U.S. national security that its allies and partners are protected when threatened, and that ISIS is not allowed to regenerate. This bill is pending before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

This bill involves a policy matter that is not specifically addressed within the Legislative Platform language but may share nexus with: “Support legislation which prioritizes fighting antisemitism, hate crimes and domestic terrorism”.

Recommendation: Support

2. SB 1361 (Durazo) – Transit-oriented housing developments: local governments:
transit agencies and projects.

This state bill was significantly amended from initially seeking to carve out Los Angeles County cities from the effects of SB 79, to now prohibiting a local government with an existing or planned transit-oriented development (TOD) from taking actions to interfere with a transit project’s approval—in an effort to avoid SB 79 upzoning requirements.

Prohibited local government actions include:
1) Requesting the transit agency to reduce service provided to the TOD stop, removing a TOD stop, or removing a dedicated transit lane so that SB 79 requirements do not apply;
2) Conditioning or withholding approval or review of a transit project that includes a TOD stop on the impacts of the additional height or density available to a TOD housing project required by SB 79;
3) Withholding or withdrawing support of an application for federal funding of a transit project that includes a TOD stop regarding additional height or density required by SB 79.

This bill involves a policy matter that may be addressed within the adopted Legislative Platform language: “Oppose preemption of the City of Beverly Hills’ local authority whether by state or federal legislation or ballot propositions”.

Recommendation: Oppose

3. AB 2118 (Hoover) – Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: use by right: objective standards.

This bill aims to expand the scope of AB 2011 (Wicks), passed in 2022 to allow ministerial, by-right approval of affordable and mixed-income housing on commercially-zoned lands, by expanding the scope of actions considered “use by right” and exempt from CEQA. The bill also prohibits AB 2011’s objective standards from being used to prohibit or otherwise limit mixed-use development in a housing development project. Specific development Meeting Date: June 9, 2026

project(s) in Beverly Hills were cited as examples to necessitate this bill by the bill author and Assembly Natural Resources Committee, detailed in the attached memo for AB 2118 (Hoover). The projects cited include the 9220 North Santa Monica Boulevard project.

This bill involves a policy matter that may be addressed within the adopted Legislative Platform language: “Oppose preemption of the City of Beverly Hills’ local authority whether by state or federal legislation or ballot propositions”.

Recommendation: Oppose

4. AB 2529 (Johnson) – Civil claims: public entities and employees: declaration.

AB 2529 requires that a claim presentation submitted under the Government Claims Act be signed by the claimant or by some person on the claimant's behalf declaring that upon information and belief, the contents of the claim are true and correct. According to the author and supporters, California cities are spending millions of taxpayers' and insurance pool dollars to litigate and settle employee-related claims, especially those alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. While the author and supporters concede that many such claims are valid and deserve a full and fair adjudication, others are filed to "generate settlement leverage, reputational pressure, or political attention before the facts are meaningfully tested.” This bill involves a policy matter that may be addressed within the adopted Legislative Platform language: “Support legislation around Tort Reform to protect cities from frivolous lawsuits in an effort to reduce litigation and limit damages that can be awarded”.

Recommendation: Support

5. SB 1190 (Grove) – Safe Passage for Youth Act.

Senator Grove’s office reached out seeking support on this bill. This bill seeks to license and regulate youth transportation companies operating in the state; require California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to establish application requirements and criteria for licensure as well as conduct criminal background checks of applicants, and certain other individuals, as specified; prohibit a youth transportation company from operating in the state without a license; and impose various requirements and restrictions on licensed youth transportation companies. According to the author, “SB 1190 addresses a gap in California law by establishing oversight for private companies that transport minors to residential treatment and behavioral programs. These companies often serve vulnerable youth but currently operate with little to no statewide regulation, leading to reports of traumatic and, in some cases, cruel practices during transport. This bill ensures that when a child is being transported to receive care, that process is safe, accountable, and not a source of further harm.”
This bill involves a policy matter that is not specifically addressed within the adopted Legislative Platform language; however, a nexus may be identified with the following Platform verbiage: “Promote legislation that provides for increased services to or funding for at-risk populations such as the elderly who require assistance, the homeless, the disabled and other challenged populations”.

Recommendation: Support

6. SB 1365 (Allen) - Unlawful business practices: price gouging.

In response to the 2025 Palisades fire, this bill seeks to add rental price gouging protections by making a number of changes to provisions of current law that establish protections for consumers seeking housing in a region where an emergency has been declared. Secondly, it expands Cartwright Act Provisions to authorize a city attorney of Meeting Date: June 9, 2026

any city with a population more than 750,000 to exercise all of the powers conferred on the Attorney General. In any investigation brought by a city attorney, if the Attorney General deems it necessary and in public interest, the Attorney General may take full charge of the investigation or prosecution. This bill applies existing rules to city attorneys that currently apply to district attorneys.

This bill involves a policy matter that is not specifically addressed within the adopted Legislative Platform language. A nexus is identified with the following Platform verbiage:

Support legislation which would allow City Attorneys to prosecute misdemeanor crimes.

Recommendation: Support

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of these bills is currently unknown.

Keith Sterling,
Deputy City Manager
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
TO: Mandy Jiang, Senior Management Analyst
City of Beverly Hills
FROM: Jamie Jones
[email protected]
202-543-3744
DATE: May 7, 2026
RE: Save the Kurds Act – S.3740
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced S.3740, Save the Kurds Act, on January 29, 2026. The legislation is in response to the post-Assad government’s continued attack on the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The bill proposes to impose sanctions on Syrian government officials and financial institutions, and foreign individuals who engage in any transaction, including military or financial support, with the Syrian government.

According to Graham and Blumenthal, after ousting the Assad government, the new Syrian President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has waged a military campaign against the Kurdish-led SDF under the guise of uniting the country after years of civil war. The SDF-controlled western region of Syria has ISIS prisons guarded by the mainly Kurdish forces and is home to some 1,000 U.S. troops. The Syrian government’s repeated attacks on the Kurds not only threatens the stability of the region, but also the safety of U.S. troops, and the U.S. relationship with the new Syrian government. It also risks the resurgence of the Islamic State. Graham and Blumenthal argue it is crucial to U.S. national security that its allies and partners are protected when threatened, and that ISIS is not allowed to regenerate.

The Save the Kurds Act:
 Imposes sanctions on Syrian government officials and financial institutions, and any foreign individual who engages in any transaction, including military or financial support, with the Syrian government.
 Recognizes the Kurdish-led SDF for their contributions in working with the U.S. to eliminate ISIS
 Redesignates Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)  Requires congressional review for the removal of Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism
 Gives the president the authority to suspend sanctions upon certifying to Congress that the Syrian government has ceased all attacks on the Kurdish-led SDF and their partners  Contains a snapback measure, requiring the president to immediately reimpose all sanctions if the Syrian government restarts all attacks on the Kurdish-led SDF or their partners
 Bill is pending before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee May 5, 2026
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 1361 (Durazo) Transit-oriented housing developments: local governments: transit agencies and projects.

Version
Amended April 30, 2026.

Summary
SB 1361 prohibits a local government with an existing or planned transit oriented development stop from taking actions to interfere with a transit project’s approval to avoid recent housing upzoning laws.

Existing Law
Pursuant to SB 79 (Wiener, Chapter 512, Statutes of 2025):

Terms and Definitions
1) Establishes the following definitions:

a) “Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a transit oriented development (TOD) stop. A parcel that meets any of the eligibility criteria under this bill and is adjacent to a Tier 1 TOD Stop or Tier 2 TOD Stop, as defined below, shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the floor area ratio (FAR) by 1 prior to the application of density bonus law.

b) “Residential FAR” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot. A local government may not impose any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude the residential FAR established.

c) “Tier 1 TOD stop” means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county, served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail.

d) “Tier 2 TOD stop” excludes a Tier 1 TOD stop, and means a transit-oriented development stop with an urban transit county served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter 2 rail, or by bus service, as specified. “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.

e) “TOD stop” means a major transit stop or a stop on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional transportation improvement program, served by heavy rail transit, very high frequency commuter rail, high frequency commuter rail, light rail transit, or specified bus service within an urban county. When a new transit route is planned that was not identified in the applicable regional transportation plan on or before January 1, 2026, these stops shall not be eligible as a TOD stop unless they would be eligible as Tier 1 TOD stops. If a county becomes an urban transit county subsequent to July 1, 2026, then bus service in that county shall remain ineligible for designation of a transit-oriented development stop.

f) “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations.

SB 79 Development Standards

2) Provides that a housing development within a specified distance of a transit stop in a residential, mixed-use, or commercial zone shall be entitled to specified development standards pursuant to the table below. TOD housing development projects shall also meet the following requirements:
a) The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet, and b) The housing development project shall include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the following:
i. A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre; or ii. The minimum density required under the local zoning, if applicable.

TOD Stop Type Dist. from
Stop (TOD
Zone)
Development Standards for Project
Tier 1: Major
transit stop,
heavy rail
transit, or very
high frequency
commuter
rail in urban
transit county
¼ mile from
stop

 Max Height: 75 ft or 95 ft if adjacent to stop
 Max Density: 30 - 120 units per acre (u/a) plus any density bonus or 160 u/a if adjacent to stop
 FAR: 3.5 or 4.5 if adjacent to stop
 Specified Concessions
¼ - ½ mile
from stop in
city with
population at
least 35,000
 Max Height: 65 ft
 Max Density: 30 - 100 u/a plus any density bonus
 FAR: 3
 Specified Concessions
Tier 2: Not Tier
1 major transit
stops served by
¼ mile from
stop
 Max Height: 65 ft or 85 ft if adjacent to stop
 Ma Density: 30 - 100 u/a plus any density bonus or 140 u/a if adjacent to stop
3 light rail transit,
high-frequency
commuter rail,
or bus rapid
transit in an
urban transit
county
 FAR: 3 or 4 if adjacent to stop
¼ - ½ mile
from stop in a
city with a
population at
least 35,000
 Max Height: 55 ft
 Max Density: 30 - 80 u/a plus any density bonus
 FAR: 2.5
 Specified Concessions

3) Provides that for projects with more than 10 units, the project shall include specified amounts of affordable housing units.

TOD Development Ordinances

4) Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to oversee compliance with SB 79 development standards. Requires HCD to promulgate standards for how to account for capacity in a city or county’s land suitable for development identified in its housing element by July 1, 2026.

5) Authorizes a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning consistent with the provisions of this chapter, subject to review by HCD, as specified. The adoption of the ordinance shall not be subject to CEQA. Provides that the ordinance may include objective standards, conditions, and policies, applying to TOD housing developments, that are demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence to not physically preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable SB 79 development standards provided for in (2) above.

6) Requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to create a map of TOD stops and zones established by SB 79.

Local TOD Alternative Plans

7) Provides that a local “TOD alternative plan,” defined as an amendment to the housing element or a program to implement the housing element—such as the adoption of a specific plan, adoption of a zoning overlay, or enactment of an ordinance; that brings the local agency into compliance with this bill —may be adopted provided it meets specified requirements, including but not limited to, providing at least the same total zoned capacity in terms of both units and FAR.

8) Exempts, prior to one year following the adoption of the 7th housing element, the specified sites from SB 79 if the local government has adopted an SB 79 ordinance, as specified.

9) Authorizes, for the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan, as specified, in future housing element cycles.

10) Delays implementation of SB 79 development standards until July 1, 2026, unless a local government adopts an ordinance or local TOD alternative plan deemed complaint by HCD 4 before July 1, 2026. Delays implementation to unincorporated areas of a county until the 7 th regional housing needs allocation cycle.

This Bill:
1) Prohibits a local government with an existing or planned TOD stop from doing any of the following with respect to SB 79:
a) Requesting the transit agency to reduce service provided to the TOD stop, removing a TOD stop, or removing a dedicated transit lane so that SB 79 requirements do not apply; b) Conditioning or withholding approval or review of a transit project that includes a TOD stop on the impacts of the additional height or density available to a TOD housing project required by SB 79; or
c) Withholding or withdrawing support of an application for federal funding of a transit project that includes a TOD stop on the basis of the additional height or density required by SB 79.

Background
SB 79 Development Standards. Beginning July 1, 2026, SB 79 makes housing an allowable use on sites zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial within one-half mile of an existing or currently proposed qualifying TOD stop in an “urban transit county” for jurisdictions with a population of at least 35,000 residents, and within one-quarter mile of the qualifying TOD stop for jurisdictions with a population of less than 35,000. For unincorporated areas of a county, implementation is delayed until the 7th housing element cycle begins. SB 79 projects must include at least five units, achieve the greater of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) or meet the local minimum density requirements, and maintain an average unit size not exceeding 1,750 square feet. SB 79 projects over 10 units must include specified levels of affordable housing, comply with anti-displacement provisions of the Housing Crisis Act, and comply with specified labor standards.

SB 79 limits the standards local governments can impose on SB 79 projects depending on the distance from specified transit stops and population of the jurisdiction (see chart under existing law #2). SB 79 projects that meet certain density thresholds are also eligible for additional concessions and incentives under density bonus law. SB 79 projects are not eligible on the following sites: (1) a site in which the development would require the demolition of more than two units that is subject to any form of rent or price control that was occupied by tenants within the last seven years, and (2) a site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that was demolished within the last seven years and those units were subject to price or rent control.

HCD’s SB 79 Advisory. Due to requests from several MPOs about the need for greater clarity about the implementation of SB 79, on March 20, 2026, HCD issued an SB 79 Advisory[1]. Among other things, the advisory clarified several SB 79 definitions and specified that SB 79 applies to the following counties as of the publication of the advisory: Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Diego. According to the advisory, HCD will review all SB 79 Ordinances and TOD Alternative Plans and determine their compliance with state law. The advisory also provides that SB 79 development standards apply to the following types of transit:

5 HCD’s advisory notes that SB 79 contemplates application to future planned TOD stops that meet specified requirements. As such, the chart above does not reflect rail typologies for all rail services that have yet to be constructed or enter into operation.

Author's Statement: “California is facing a severe housing affordability crisis, particularly in Los Angeles County, where nearly one in two households is cost-burdened and essential workers are increasingly priced out of their communities. At the same time, the state is making major investments in transit expansion to advance our climate, mobility, and economic goals. LA Metro manages the most ambitious transportation infrastructure program in the nation and is actively leveraging public land for housing at dozens of sites, with thousands of units in planning, negotiation, or construction. Metro has already delivered approximately 2,300 housing units and is working toward a commitment of 10,000 units by 2032, at least half of which will be incomerestricted and affordable. However, current law is creating unintended consequences. By applying transit-oriented housing requirements to planned transit stops, communities are increasingly opposing new transit projects due to concerns about automatic zoning changes tied to future stations. This resistance threatens transit expansion, reduces long-term housing opportunities, and undermines the state’s investments. SB 1361 addresses this issue by preserving housing requirements around existing transit, creating a workable framework for planned transit, and ensuring California can continue delivering affordable housing and transit together.” Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support [Based on text dated 4/29/26]
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (source) City of Artesia
City of Glendale
City of Monterey Park
6 City of Paramount
City of Pasadena
Fastlinkdtla
Los Angeles / Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council Oppose [Based on text dated 4/29/26]
None Received
May 5, 2026
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 2118 (Hoover) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022: use by right:
objective standards.

Version
Amended April 27, 2026.

Summary
AB 2118 expands the scope of actions covered by the ministerial approval process for affordable housing projects in commercial zones established by AB 2011 (Wicks), Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022, to explicitly include a “state permit or approval.” Existing Law
1) CEQA requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report (EIR) for this action, unless the project is exempt from CEQA.

CEQA statute and guidelines provide multiple exemptions for residential projects. (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.)

2) AB 2011 establishes a ministerial approval process (i.e., not subject to CEQA or other discretionary review by the relevant city or county) for affordable housing projects in commercial zones. AB 2011:

a) Requires 28-100% of project units to be affordable, depending on project type.

b) Requires projects to be multi-family housing of at least five units.

c) Requires projects to be equal to or greater than the “Mullin” densities.

d) Permits residential projects in areas zoned for office, retail, or parking.

e) Requires projects to be adjacent to existing commercial corridors.

f) Prohibits projects on or adjacent to industrial uses.

g) Requires hazardous substances to be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2 h) Prohibits projects that would demolish registered historic structures, as well as affordable, rent-controlled, or other existing rental housing.

i) Excludes vacant sites within very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZs).

j) For projects within 500 feet of a freeway, imposes conditions to limit residents’ exposure to air pollution.

k) Prohibits projects within 3,200 feet of oil or natural gas extraction or refining.

l) Requires developers to pay prevailing wages to construction workers, and for projects with 50 or more units, requires apprenticeship programs and healthcare contributions.

m) Sunsets January 1, 2033.

(Government Code (GC) 65912.100 et seq.)

3) SB 423 (Wiener), Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023, requires ministerial approval of both affordable and market-rate multifamily housing projects until 2036, provided specified construction labor requirements are met, while excluding the following 11 categories of environmentally sensitive sites, which are incorporated into AB 2011 with some additional exceptions:

a) Coastal zone, with specified exceptions.

b) Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance.

c) Wetlands.

d) Very high fire hazard severity zones, with specified exceptions.

e) Hazardous waste site.

f) Delineated earthquake fault zone.

g) Special flood hazard area.

h) Regulatory flood way.

i) Lands identified for conservation.

j) Habitat for protected species.

k) Lands under conservation easement.
(GC 65913.4)
This Bill:
3 1) Expands the scope of actions considered “use by right” and exempt from CEQA to include a “state permit or approval.”
2) Prohibits AB 2011’s objective standards from prohibiting or otherwise limiting mixed-use development in a housing development project.

Background
CEQA includes various statutory exemptions, as well as categorical exemptions in the CEQA Guidelines, for a wide range of residential projects. Since 1978, CEQA has included statutory exemptions for housing. There are now more than 15 distinct CEQA exemptions for housing projects. The majority of residential projects are approved via exemption or negative declaration under CEQA, or through ministerial permits where CEQA does not apply.

A few existing CEQA exemptions are specific to projects with an affordable housing fraction, the rest are available to affordable and market-rate projects alike. Each exemption includes a range of conditions, including requirements for prior planning-level review, as well as limitations on the location and characteristics of the site. These conditions are intended to guard against the approval of projects with significant environmental impacts that go undisclosed and unmitigated – endangering workers, residents and the greater environment.

More recently, bills such as SB 423 and AB 2011 have required ministerial approval for multifamily housing projects, where local discretionary review, including CEQA, is replaced with construction labor requirements, exclusion of specified sensitive sites, and a checklist of “objective standards.” Author's Statement: California continues to face a severe housing crisis with soaring home prices and rents making it increasingly difficult for residents to find affordable and safe housing. Despite ongoing efforts to develop affordable and mixed-income housing, developers still face regulatory hurdles that slow the construction of new units. Building on the pathway created by AB 2011, AB 2118 clarifies existing statute to allow for mixed-use projects and ensure both local and state permits are subject to streamlined approval. With added clarity we promote the development of new units and provide more opportunities for affordable housing.

The author and Assembly Natural Resources Committee cite a project in Beverly Hills as an example to demonstrate the need for this bill: “To demonstrate the need for this bill, the author’s office offered one project example – in Beverly Hills.

“The City of Beverly Hills is currently processing two AB 2011 projects. The project referenced by the author’s office is a mixed-income housing development located on a former railroad right-ofway at 9220 North Santa Monica Boulevard. The other project is a 34-story high-rise replacing a one-story shopping center at 8300 Wilshire Boulevard. The Wilshire project would include 179 forsale condominiums and 32 deed-restricted affordable rental units. “According to the City’s project description, the 9220 North Santa Monica Boulevard project consists of four residential buildings arranged in a linear configuration across the site. Collectively, the project would provide a total of 217 dwelling units, consisting of 191 for-sale condominiums and 26 deed-restricted affordable rental units. Building 2 would also include approximately 2,585 4 square feet of ground-floor restaurant space. The proposed buildings range in height from 112 to 191 feet. The project includes two levels of subterranean parking extending beneath all four buildings, providing up to 378 parking spaces.
“According to Maher Commercial Realty:

“The site at 9220 Santa Monica Boulevard, controlled by BH Gateway, LLC, had previously been envisioned for office development. That plan has now given way to a residential proposal leveraging AB 2011…This is not incremental density. It is skyline-altering scale in a city historically defined by strict height controls and a guarded approach to vertical growth. AB 2011 changes the risk calculus…In a market such as Beverly Hills, where political friction has traditionally constrained supply, that certainty carries material value…For capital, the signal is clear. When state law supersedes local hesitation, underutilized commercial land along primary corridors becomes a residential land bank…The project’s scale also reflects confidence in top-of-market renter demand. Plans call for more than 370 parking spaces, multiple courtyards, an indoor pool, fitness facilities, and spa amenities. This is positioned as a resort-caliber rental environment rather than workforce housing in a traditional sense. Even with an affordability component, the economic engine of the project will be luxury and upper-tier market-rate units. “According to the project developer’s attorney:
“Our client’s site has areas of arsenic impacted soils from prior railroad operations that will be removed as part of the excavation of the subterranean garage. This will require approval from DTSC to confirm that the site is safe for residential use. Our client originally proposed a commercial project for the site. DTSC adopted a short mitigated negative declaration (MND) and approved a remedial action workplan (RAW) for commercial use. The City opposed DTSC’s approval of the RAW, but did not file a CEQA lawsuit. We believe that the City will once again oppose DTSC’s approval of the clean up plan for the residential project, but will file a CEQA lawsuit with the intent of derailing the project. This could tie up the AB 2011 project for years. As written, AB 2118 will prevent the City from misusing CEQA to stop the project, without constraining DTSC’s discretion over the residential cleanup plan.” Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Assembly.

Support [Based on text dated 2/18/26]
Abundant Housing LA
California YIMBY
Circulate Planning & Policy
Housing Action Coalition
Inner City Law Center
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
San Diego Housing Federation
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association
Student Homes Coalition
The Two Hundred For Home Ownership
5 Oppose [Based on text dated 2/18/26]
Equitable Land Use Alliance (ELUA)
Families and Homes San Jose
May 5, 2026
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: AB 2529 (Johnson) Civil claims: public entities and employees: declaration.

Version
Amended April 9, 2026.

Summary
AB 2529 requires that a claim presentation submitted under the Government Claims Act be signed by the claimant or by some person on the claimant's behalf declaring that upon information and belief, the contents of the claim are true and correct.

Existing Law
1) Provides, as a general rule, that a public entity is not liable for any injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or public employee or any other person, except as liability is otherwise provided by statute. (Government Code Section 815 et seq.)
2) Establishes a standardized procedure by which claims for money damages against a public entity shall be presented and requires the public entity to grant or deny the claim within 45 days of presentation, unless the period is extended by mutual agreement.

Provides, subject to certain exceptions, that no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity if the person bringing the suit did not first meet the claim presentation requirement. (Government Code Sections 810 et seq., 910 et. seq, and 945.4.)
3) Requires a claim presented under the Government Claims Act by a claimant or by a person acting on the claimant’s behalf to show all of the following:
a) The name and post office address of the claimant.
b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claims desires notices to be sent.
c) The date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction that gave rise to the claim asserted.
2 d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage, or loss incurred so far as they may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim. e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.
f) The amount claimed if it totals less than $10,000, as specified. If the amount claimed exceeds $10,000 no dollar amount shall be included; however, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case. (Government Code Section 910.)
4) Requires the claim, as described above, to be signed by the claimant or by some person on his behalf. Specifies that claims against local public entities for supplies, materials, equipment, or services need not be signed by the claimant or on his behalf if present on a billhead or invoice regularly used in the conduct of the business of the claimant. (Government Code Section 910.2.) 5) Requires the public agency board, as defined, to provide forms specifying the information to be contained in claims against the state or a judicial branch entity.

Requires the person presenting a claim to use the form in order that his or her claim is deemed in conformity with 3) and 4) above. (Government Code Section 910.4.) 6) Requires every pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or similar paper to be signed by at least one attorney of record or by the party if not represented. Specifies that by presenting writings to the court the attorney or unpresented party is certifying that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that all of the following conditions are met:
a) It is not presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase litigation costs. b) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
c) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support, as specified.
d) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence, as specified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7.)
Background
Author's Statement: According to the author and supporters, California cities are spending millions of taxpayers' and insurance pool dollars to litigate and settle employee-related claims, especially those alleging discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful 3 termination. While the author and supporters concede that many such claims are valid and deserve a full and fair adjudication, others are filed to "generate settlement leverage, reputational pressure, or political attention before the facts are meaningfully tested.

Because defending these claims is costly, agencies often settle early regardless of merit.

The result is a growing financial burden that diverts limited public resources away from essential services." The author and supporters believe that AB 2529 offers a "narrow, commonsense reform" that would require any person seeking monetary damages from public entities to attest to the truth of their claims.

The Government Claims Act: The "claim presentation requirement" (Government Code Section 945.4; all further references are to this code) is one way that the Government Claims Act attempts to balance the need to hold public entities accountable against the equally important need of protecting public funds. Subject to certain exceptions, a person cannot bring a civil lawsuit for damages against a public entity unless the person has first attempted to seek redress by presenting a claim to the public entity that allegedly caused the harm. The claim presentation is intended to offer a simple description of the incident that gave rise to the injury, the losses suffered, and the damages sought. Once the claim has been presented, the public entity has 45 days to either grant or deny the person's claim, unless the claimant and the public entity mutually agree to an extended period.

Only after this period has passed and the public entity has denied the claim is the person injured permitted to file a lawsuit in court seeking damages. Failure to meet the claim presentation requirement, barring exceptional circumstances, results in dismissal of the lawsuit. In short, the claim presentation is not a legal action per se; rather, it gives the public entity notice and an opportunity to cure before a lawsuit if filed.

AB 2529 addresses how the initial claim presentation should be signed. Government Code Section 910 sets forth a list of elements that must be in the claim, including basic contact information, a description of the incident that caused the harm, the extent of the harm, and the damages sought (though it does not require a specific dollar amount at the claim presentation stage, unless the amount is for less than $10,000). Section 910.2 requires that the claim "be signed" by the claimant or by some other person on the claimant's behalf. Section 910.4 requires a public agency to provide a "form" specifying the information that must be included in the claim, and it requires the claimant to use the form provided "in order that his or her claim is deemed in conformity with Sections 910 and 910.2."
Pursuant to Section 910.4, agencies have created forms for persons to use when presenting a claim. For example, the Department of General Services has created a standard "Government Claim" form for the State of California (DGS ORIM 006, revised 9/2025). This form requires the claimant to sign "under penalty of perjury," and other agencies, including California State University and the Public Employment Retirement System, provide forms that require signing under penalty of perjury or simply require a declaration attesting to the truth of the contents of the claim. It is unclear how many local public agencies provide claim forms for purposes of the claim presentation, but there is 4 nothing that would stop them from developing forms that, like the state forms, have a signature box that includes a statement that the claimant is signing under penalty of perjury or otherwise declaring the contents are true to the best of their understanding.

However, according to the author and supporters of this bill, the problem is that even though the statute says that the claimant "shall" use the form, the courts have held that a claimant is not required to use the form. A claimant could simply write out the claim without using the form, so long as the written claim includes the required elements in Section 910 and 910.2. The California Law Revision Commission, which helped draft the present statutory scheme in 1963, has long interpreted this provision in a similar way. (See 4 Cal. L. Rev. Comm. 1001 (1963) noting that "a claimant is not required to use the form provided by the public entity; he may submit his claim in compliance with new Sections 910 and 910.2.") Therefore, a person who does not use a form only needs to conform to the requirements in Sections 910 and 910.2, and under existing law that means they only need to sign the claim; they do not need to sign it under penalty of perjury or make any declaration as to the truth of what is asserted in the claim.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Assembly.

Support [Based on text dated 2/20/26]
City of Cerritos
City of Glendora
City of Hidden Hills
City of Port Hueneme
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management (PRISM) Oppose [Based on text dated 2/20/26]
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union California Conference of Machinists
California Teamsters
May 11, 2026
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 1190 (Grove) Safe Passage for Youth Act
Version
Amended April 13, 2026.

Summary: Requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to license and regulate youth transportation companies, as defined. Specifically, this bill:

1. Define “youth transportation company” to mean a business entity that transports a minor to a residential treatment program, therapeutic boarding school, wilderness program, behavioral modification program, or other residential youth placement.

2. Require CDSS to license and regulate youth transportation companies operating in California and permit specified entities to be exempt from licensure.

3. Allow CDSS to review, suspend, or revoke a license under specified circumstances.

4. Impose requirements and limitations on youth transportation companies, as specified.

5. Provide that the Attorney General may bring an action in superior court if a youth transportation company fails to obtain licensure or engages in repeated or egregious violations; provide that the Attorney General may seek the recovery of civil penalties, and be entitled to specific performance, injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies a court deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, an order prohibiting the company from operating within the state; and provide that the Attorney General is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in remedying each violation.

Existing Law

1. Establishes the “California Community Care Facilities Act” (CCFA) and requires CDSS to administer and license community care facilities providing nonmedical services, including adult residential facilities and short term residential therapeutic programs (STRTPs), among others.

2. Provides that it is the policy of the state to facilitate the proper placement of every child in residential care facilities where the placement is in the best interests of the child. A county may require placement or licensing agencies, or both placement and licensing agencies, to actively seek out-of-home care facilities capable of meeting the varied needs of the child. Provides 2 that in placing children in out-of-home care, particular attention should be given to the individual child’s needs, the ability of the facility to meet those needs, the needs of other children in the facility, the licensing requirements of the facility as determined by the licensing agency, and the impact of the placement on the family reunification plan.

3. Defines “community care facility” as any facility, place, or building that is maintained and operated to provide nonmedical residential care, day treatment, adult daycare, or foster family agency services for children, adults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically handicapped, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children.

4. Defines “residential facility” as any family home, group care facility, or similar facility determined by the department, for 24-hour nonmedical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual.

5. Defines “community treatment facility” as any residential facility that provides mental health treatment services to children in a group setting and that has the capacity to provide secure containment.

6. Defines a STRTP as a residential facility operated by a public agency or private organization and licensed by CDSS that provides an integrated program of specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and supports, treatment, and short-term, 24-hour care and supervision to children. Further, it requires that the care and supervision provided by a STRTP be nonmedical, except as otherwise permitted, as specified.

7. Defines “private alternative boarding school” as a group home licensed by CDSS to operate a program to provide youth with 24-hour residential care and supervision, that, in addition to providing educational services to youth, provides, or holds itself out as providing, behavioralbased services to youth with social, emotional, or behavioral issues. The care and supervision provided by a private alternative boarding school shall be nonmedical, except as otherwise permitted by law.

8. Defines “private alternative outdoor program” as a group home licensed by CDSS to operate a program to provide youth with 24-hour residential care and supervision, that provides, or holds itself out as providing, behavioral-based services in an outdoor living setting to youth with social, emotional, or behavioral issues. The care and supervision provided by a private alternative outdoor program shall be nonmedical, except as otherwise permitted by law.

9. Defines “children’s crisis residential program” as a facility licensed by the department as a short-term residential therapeutic program and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services, or a county mental health plan to which the State Department of Health Care Services has delegated approval authority, to operate a children’s crisis residential mental health program to serve children experiencing mental health crises as an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization.
3 10. Defines “behavioral restraint” to mean a “mechanical restraint” or “physical restraint” used as an intervention when a person presents an immediate danger to self or to others. It does not include restraints used for medical purposes.

11. Defines “mechanical restraint” as the use of a mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the person’s body that he or she cannot easily remove and that restricts the freedom of movement of all or part of a person’s body or restricts normal access to the person’s body, and that is used as a behavioral restraint.

12. Defines “physical restraint” as the use of a manual hold to restrict freedom of movement of all or part of a person’s body, or to restrict normal access to the person’s body, and that is used as a behavioral restraint. “Physical restraint” is staff-to-person physical contact in which the person unwillingly participates. “Physical restraint” does not include briefly holding a person without undue force in order to calm or comfort, or physical contact intended to gently assist a person in performing tasks or to guide or assist a person from one area to another.

13. Requires the development of technical assistance and training programs for specified health facilities to reduce or eliminate the use of seclusion and behavioral restraints in those facilities that utilize them.

14. Provides that the Secretary of California Health and Human Services (Secretary) or their designee shall take steps to establish a system of mandatory, consistent, timely, and publicly accessible data collection regarding the use of seclusion and behavioral restraints in all specified facilities that utilize seclusion and behavioral restraints. The Secretary shall develop a mechanism for making this information, as it becomes available, publicly available on the internet. For data currently being collected, implementation shall be done as soon as it reasonably can be achieved within existing resources. As new reporting requirements are developed and result in additional data becoming available, this additional data shall be included in the data publicly available on the internet.

Background
According to the author, “SB 1190 addresses a gap in California law by establishing oversight for private companies that transport minors to residential treatment and behavioral programs. These companies often serve vulnerable youth but currently operate with little to no statewide regulation, leading to reports of traumatic and, in some cases, cruel practices during transport. The author argues that SB 1190 creates a commonsense framework requiring licensing, background checks, training, and clear safety standards. This bill ensures that when a child is being transported to receive care, that process is safe, accountable, and not a source of further harm.”

The Troubled Teen Industry
The so-called “troubled teen industry” includes a range of youth residential programs designed to address emotional, behavioral, or substance abuse issues. These programs include such things as boot camps, secured group homes, therapeutic boarding schools, conversion therapy, and wilderness therapy. These programs are estimated to have between 120,00–200,00 youth residing in them and many are located in Utah. In 2021, California prohibited sending youth, including foster children, to out-of-state for-profit treatment centers after reports of rampant abuse. However, families who pay privately are still able to send their children to these out-of-state facilities, which are a billion-dollar industry.
4 This bill focuses on how youth are transported to these facilities, which often uses the tactic of “gooning” where men show up under cover of darkness, forcing youth into a vehicle, and taking them to facilities against their will.[3] Parents often hire transport services to stage kidnappings of their children, violently extracting them from their homes, often in the middle of the night, to take them to facilities. Two states have passed laws regulating this practice.

In California, the State Department of Social Services (CDSS) is responsible for licensing various facilities that serve as residential programs for children. These facilities include, but are not limited to:

Community Treatment Facility (CTF): A CTF provides mental health treatment services to children in a group setting and has the capacity to provide secure containment.

Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Program (STRTP): An STRTP is a residential facility that provides an integrated program of specialized and intensive care and supervision, services and support, treatment, and short-term, 24-hour care and supervision to children that are trauma-informed.

Children’s Crisis Residential Program: These programs are licensed as a STRTP and approved by the Department of Health Care Services, or a county mental health plan to which the State Department of Health Care Services has delegated approval authority, to operate a children’s crisis residential mental health program to serve children experiencing mental health crises as an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization.

Private Alternative Boarding School: These programs provide youth with 24-hour residential care and supervision, that, in addition to providing educational services to youth, provides or holds itself out as providing behavioral-based services to youth with social, emotional, or behavioral issues.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
California Public Defenders Association
Courage California
Educate. Advocate
LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Lives in the Balance
Orange County United Way
Unsilenced; (if amended)
Disability Rights California
Youth Law Center
7 individuals
Oppose
None known
May 10, 2026
To: Mandy Jiang, City of Beverly Hills
From: Andrew K. Antwih, Partner, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Dylan Hoffman, Legislative Advocate, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange Re: SB 1365 (Allen) Unfair Business Practices; Rental Price Gouging During Declared Emergency
Version
Amended March 26, 2026.

Summary

1. Rental Price Gouging Protections: Makes a number of changes to provisions of current law that establish protections for consumers seeking housing in a region where an emergency has been declared.

2. Cartwright Act Provisions: Authorize a city attorney of any city with a population more than 750,000 to exercise all of the powers conferred on the Attorney General. In any investigation brought by a city attorney, if the Attorney General deems it necessary and in the public interest, the Attorney General may take full charge of the investigation or prosecution. This bill applies existing rules to city attorneys that currently apply to district attorneys.

Rental Price Gouging Provisions
 Strikes the provision of existing law providing that a rental price increase over 10% in the 30 days following an emergency declaration is not unlawful if that person can prove that the increase is directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance that were amortized over the rental term that caused the rent to be increased greater than 10 percent.
 Exempts from the 10% cap on rental price increases for 30 days after a declared state of emergency a rental price increase that is greater than 10% if the person can prove that the increase was directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance incurred within the year prior to the emergency declaration, and either of the following conditions is met:
o The housing was rented, advertised for rent, or offered for rent at the time the costs were incurred.
o That person can prove that within a year before the proclamation or declaration, the intent to offer the housing for rent within six months of the repair or addition already existed.
2  Expands the definition of “housing” to include any rental housing without regard to the length of the initial lease term.
 Provides that the rental price of housing advertised, offered, or charged at a daily rate following a declaration or proclamation of emergency, but that was not advertised, offered, or charged at a daily rate in the year prior to the declaration or proclamation of emergency is capped at one-thirtieth of 160% of the fair market rent established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, but may be increased by 5% if the housing is offered for rent fully furnished.

Cartwright Act Provisions
 Authorizes a city attorney of any city with a population of more than 750,000 to prosecute an action for a violation of the Cartwright Act on behalf of the city or a public agency or political subdivision located wholly within the city, whenever it appears that the activities giving rise to the prosecution or the effects of the activities occur primarily within the city, and provides that, in any such action, the city attorney may exercise the power conferred to the Attorney General to enter into contracts relating to investigation or prosecution of the case, as provided.
 Establishes various proceed retention requirements for city attorneys that prosecute Cartwright Act actions under the bill, and specifies that in any such action, 100 percent of all moneys received by any court in payment of any related fine or civil penalty must be deposited as soon as is practicable with the treasurer of the city in which the action was prosecuted.

Existing Law
Related to the Cartwright Act
 Federal law (Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890) prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that restrain trade, and bans monopolization or attempted monopolization.  California’s Cartwright Act is the state’s antitrust law; unlawful trusts are void and unenforceable, and the Act defines “trust” to include combinations of capital, skill, or acts by two or more persons for specified anticompetitive purposes.  Enforcement and remedies: individuals may sue for damages; the Attorney General may sue on behalf of the state and its subdivisions; and county district attorneys may prosecute when the conduct or its effects occur primarily in the county.  Additional authority and penalties: the Attorney General or a district attorney may seek forfeiture/dissolution remedies for corporate violations, and participation in a Cartwright Act conspiracy is a crime (penalties as provided).
 Investigations and civil actions: district attorneys have Attorney General powers to investigate/prosecute suspected Cartwright Act violations (as specified), and the Attorney General may bring a civil action in the name of the People on behalf of California residents (as specified).

Related to Rental Price Gouging Protections During Declared Emergencies  Emergency declarations: the Governor may declare a state of emergency, and local governments may declare a local emergency (Gov. Code, § 8625 et seq.). 3  General price gouging rule: based on legislative findings, for 30 days after an emergency proclamation/declaration, covered goods and services (including housing, transportation, freight, storage, gasoline, building materials, emergency supplies, and related items) generally may not be sold/offered for more than 10% above the pre-emergency price.  Contractor services: for 180 days after an emergency proclamation/declaration, contractors generally may not charge more than 10% above the pre-emergency price for repair/reconstruction and emergency cleanup services.
 Hotels/motels: for 30 days after an emergency proclamation/declaration, hotel and motel operators generally may not raise regular rates by more than 10% above the pre-emergency price.
 Penalty: a violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail, a fine up to $10,000, or both.
 Rental housing: upon a state/local emergency proclamation, and for 30 days (or any extension period), it is unlawful to increase advertised/offered/charged rent for housing to an existing or prospective tenant by more than 10%, subject to specified exceptions/conditions.
 Other limits: a landlord may not charge more than allowed by a local rent control ordinance; and certain factors are not a defense to prosecution (e.g., rental term length, inclusion of additional goods/services—except as specified for furniture—or thirdparty/insurance payment), as specified.  Definition: for purposes of the price gouging statute, “housing” is rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year, including spaces in mobile home parks or campgrounds.

Background
According to the author:

In January of 2025, Pacific Palisades and Altadena experienced fires that killed 31 people and destroyed thousands of homes. Tens of thousands of people became displaced and had to quickly locate temporary housing. To this day, many are still living in temporary housing as they navigate the re-build process. Existing California law provides people who are aEected by a state of emergency protections against price gouging. Rental housing prices are not permitted to increase more than 10 percent above the prices charged immediately prior to the emergency. However, some have attempted to circumvent these protections through longer lease lengths, rents charged at daily rates, and starting major retrofits post disaster to hike rents.

Additionally, the fires have highlighted a lack of robust enforcement of existing protections against anti-competitive business practices under the Cartwright Act. There is already evidence of these practices impacting fire survivors in the Los Angeles region. Approximately 40% of fire impacted lots and about two out of every five lots that sell in the Pacific Palisades, Altadena, and Malibu areas have been purchased by real estate developers. Homeowners have reported that investors are making low-ball oEers that some desperate victims feel forced to accept. SB 1365 improves enforcement of anti-competitive business practice restrictions to protect vulnerable disaster victims. This bill enhances existing rent gouging protections by closing lease length, day rate, and retrofitting loopholes and provides authority to City Attorneys of large cities to enforce the Cartwright Act to protect consumers and prohibit anti-competitive business practices.

The Cartwright Act prohibits anti-competitive conduct (e.g., restraint of trade and price fixing).

Current law authorizes the AG and district attorneys to prosecute Cartwright Act violations, subject 4 to notice/coordination requirements and the AG’s power to assume control of matters initiated by a district attorney.

Separately, California’s price gouging law generally limits post-emergency price increases for covered goods and housing to 10% for 30 days after an emergency declaration (with specified exceptions/conditions). The author cites post-fire rental market conditions in early 2025 and alleged enforcement gaps as motivation for strengthening tools and enforcement options.

Cities with populations in excess of 750,000 include Los Angeles (3,857,263), San Diego (1,389,526), San Jose (990,138) and San Francisco (830,235). The next largest city is Fresno (545,970).

Argument in Support
According to the California Federation of Labor Unions:

As highlighted by the devastating 2025 Los Angeles fires, existing price gouging protections have proven insuEicient to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of vulnerable renters. Tens of thousands of displaced residents were forced into an already strained housing market, only to encounter exploitative rent increases. SB 1365 closes three critical loopholes that have weakened enforcement of existing price gouging laws by ensuring protections apply to all rental agreements regardless of length, adding daily rates to long-term rental price protections, and expanding enforcement authority under the Cartwright Act to city attorneys in large jurisdictions.

These reforms are both practical and necessary. In times of crisis, displaced families should not be forced to compete in a predatory marketplace where legal protections are easily circumvented.

Housing is a necessity for working families. SB 1365 will help restore fairness to the rental market, deter unlawful profiteering, and provide local oEicials with the tools needed to enforce the law eEectively to ensure working families are able to maintain a roof over their heads at a fair price.

Argument in Opposition
According to the California Apartment Association:

While we support strong enforcement against bad actors who engage in price gouging during declared emergencies, SB 1365 goes far beyond that purpose. The bill expands Penal Code Section 396 in a manner that creates significant legal uncertainty, undermines existing contractual agreements, and risks reducing the availability of housing when it is needed most.

SB 1365 expands beyond the intent of existing law - Penal Code Section 396 was designed to prevent sudden and opportunistic rent increases based on prices immediately following an emergency. SB 1365 instead applies these restrictions to all rental housing, including long-term leases that were negotiated well in advance of any emergency. This represents a fundamental shift from targeting bad actors to broadly regulating lawful pricing decisions.

SB 1365 interferes with freely negotiated contracts - Longer-term leases often reflect carefully negotiated terms, including agreed-upon rent schedules and risk allocation over time. By applying emergency price caps without regard to lease duration, SB 1365 eEectively rewrites these agreements after the fact.

5 This undermines contractual certainty and raises serious concerns about fairness and predictability in California’s housing market.

SB 1365 creates unnecessary overlap with existing laws - California already has extensive renter protections, including statewide rent caps under AB 1482, local rent control ordinances, and existing emergency price gouging restrictions. Expanding Penal Code Section 396 adds another layer of regulation without addressing a clearly defined gap, increasing compliance complexity and the risk of inadvertent violations under a criminal statute.

Status of Legislation
This bill is in the Senate.

Support
Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto (sponsor) California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO
Consumer Watchdog
Oppose
California Apartment Association
California Association of Realtors
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber Commerce
Western Manufactured Housing Communities