top of page

2026 C.A.R. Red Alerts – Year-to-Date Summary

5 hours ago
2 min read

For your reference, below is a summary of the four C.A.R. Red Alerts issued in 2026, including the dates and key details about each bill.


1. AB 1157 (Kalra) | OPPOSE

January 9, 2026


  • Would have made California’s statewide rent-control law permanent by eliminating its 2030 sunset date.

  • Would have lowered the annual rent-increase cap to 2% plus CPI or 5%, whichever is lower.

  • Would have removed existing exemptions for certain single-family homes, condominiums and ADUs.

  • C.A.R. opposed the bill because of concerns that it would discourage housing investment, reduce rental-housing supply and harm small property owners.


2. AB 1406 (Ward) | OPPOSE

January 21, 2026


  • Applied to purchases of newly constructed, owner-occupied condominiums from developers.

  • Would have doubled the statutory liquidated-damages cap from 3% to 6% of the purchase price.

  • Could have placed a substantially larger portion of a buyer’s deposit and savings at risk if a transaction did not close.

  • C.A.R. opposed the bill because it would weaken longstanding consumer protections for California homebuyers.


3. AB 736 (Gonzalez) | OPPOSE

June 24, 2026


  • Would have allowed real estate transfer taxes of up to 3% of a property’s sale price.

  • By comparison, the existing transfer-tax limit cited for general-law cities was 0.11%.

  • C.A.R. opposed the bill because it could lead to substantially higher transfer taxes, increasing the cost of buying and selling real estate.

  • Certain high-value single-family homes would not have received the same cap protections provided to multifamily and commercial properties.


4. AB 2005 (Ahrens) | OPPOSE

August 31, 2026


  • Would have significantly expanded the SB 9 urban lot-split process beyond its original homeowner-focused purpose.

  • Would have allowed investors and developers to use the streamlined lot-split process without personally occupying one of the resulting homes.

  • Could have allowed one single-family parcel to be divided into as many as four separately saleable homes.

  • C.A.R. opposed the bill because its owner-occupancy protections were not meaningfully enforceable and it could facilitate investor-driven development with reduced local review.

 
 
bottom of page