The Brief

Renting in California is not cheap. The average rent for a one-bedroom in the Golden State — $2,100 — is 40% higher than the national average. But renters will soon be getting a little more for their money: a working refrigerator and stove.

On Jan. 1, California will begin requiring landlords to provide their tenants with a fridge and stove — and repair or replace them if they stop working.

While this new law may surprise some tenants who have always lived in apartments that already came with these appliances, it’s more common in Southern California cities for landlords to rent out homes with no stove or refrigerator, placing this responsibility on the tenant.

AB 628 — authored by state Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, D-Inglewood — adds these appliances to the state’s definition of a livable home, helping secure access to these appliances for the state’s millions of tenants.

“Having a working, safe fridge and stove will be a minimum requirement for keeping the unit in a habitable state,” said Ethan Silverstein, staff attorney for the housing rights nonprofit, The California Center for Movement Legal Services.

Whether you are a renter or landlord, keep reading to learn how AB 628 applies in different situations and what legal experts recommend to make sure your home is up-to-date with the state’s habitability standards.

What does the law actually say?

All new leases signed on or after Jan. 1 will need to include a working fridge and stove.

When an existing lease is renewed or extended at any moment starting on Jan. 1, those homes will also need to have these appliances.

“The way this law is written, it will eventually apply to all new and current renters in California,” Silverstein said.

This law also applies to homes where tenants are renting without a formal written agreement (e.g., renting “informally” with a month-to-month lease).

What tenants should know

If you’re thinking about moving and hoping to land a new spot sometime in 2026, any potential landlord must be ready to provide a stove and refrigerator, along with any maintenance these devices need in the future — at no cost to you. And if you plan to stay in your current rental home, this law will impact you, depending on who provided the appliances.

If you bought your own refrigerator when you moved in, you can talk with your landlord before it’s time to renew your lease and decide together if it makes more sense to keep it or replace it with one provided by your landlord.

“The parties can agree for the tenant to bring their own refrigerator,” said Whitney Prout, executive vice president of legal affairs for the California Apartment Association, which advises landlords and developers. “But you can’t require the tenant to bring their own refrigerator. … It has to be the tenant’s voluntary choice and the landlord has to agree.”

If both you and your landlord decide to keep the fridge you provided, the law requires that the lease acknowledge this arrangement by adding the following disclosure:

“Under state law, the landlord is required to provide a refrigerator in good working order in your unit. By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have asked to bring your own refrigerator and that you are responsible for keeping that refrigerator in working order.”

But under no circumstances can the landlord ask a tenant to buy their home’s stove. “The landlord needs to provide the stove,” Prout said. “You can’t have an agreement for the tenant to provide their own stove.”

What landlords need to know

Landlords should start preparing now to comply with AB 628, Prout said. “Look at when your lease renewals are coming up, because that does give you some flexibility in terms of phasing in compliance with this law — especially if you have a lot of appliances you need to acquire,” she said.

What kind of stove or fridge are landlords required to provide? The actual text of the law is pretty broad and only specifies that these appliances need to be in “good working order.” A stove must be “capable of safely generating heat for cooking purposes,” while a refrigerator should be “capable of safely storing food.” According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a refrigerator that can keep temperatures at 40°F or below can protect most food products.

On Jan. 1, California will begin requiring landlords to provide their tenants with a fridge and stove — and repair or replace them if they stop working. (Alicia Windzio/Picture Alliance via Getty Images)As for what appliance brand or model, that’s the landlord’s decision. But Prout added that it could be a good idea to share with tenants some information on the appliances you’ll provide them with, especially if you’re planning to replace what’s in their home.

“The tenant may have feelings about aesthetics,” she said. “They may have invested in a stainless steel refrigerator that they’re really happy with, that has certain functionalities.”

And if you will replace existing appliances, make a plan to safely remove them. “Communicate with residents what the appropriate processes are for removal and disposal of tenant-provided appliances,” Prout said, adding that “Illegal dumping is a huge problem around rental property.”

What if these appliances break down?

If the tenant provided the fridge— and both the tenant and landlord agreed to this arrangement — then it’s actually the tenant’s responsibility to make repairs.

But if the landlord provided both the refrigerator and stove, then it’s up to the landlord to make sure they keep functioning. “You provide the appliances; if they break down, you fix them or replace them — as long as you’re doing that, you’re in compliance with the law,” Prout said.

The law explicitly states that property owners have 30 days to either replace or repair these appliances if there is a recall from the manufacturer.

Landlords: Keep in mind that while it’s legal to provide your tenants with second-hand appliances, it may be more difficult to keep up with recall announcements, as the manufacturer may not have a record that you bought their product.

But if these devices simply break down with time or use, “It’s like any other repair issue where the landlord needs to act in a reasonable amount of time to get it replaced,” Silverstein said.

Silverstein recommends that tenants notify their landlords about any repair needs through written communication, like a text message or email.

“The worst thing you can do is make the request verbally through the phone,” he said, adding that keeping this “paper” trail could be helpful if your landlord fails to make necessary repairs. You can also ask your landlord for a clear date for when repairs will be made and what you can do in the interim to safely store or cook your food.

If a landlord is not complying with AB 628, tenants can contact their city’s rent board or building code enforcement agency. After a tenant files a complaint, code enforcement staff will contact the landlord to enforce the state’s habitability standards.

Below is the contact information for the code enforcement departments of several California cities. You can also quickly look up the contact information for your city’s agency with an online search.

• Los Angeles: If you live in a property that only contains one house, you can call (888) 524-2845 or file a complaint online. If you live in a property that contains multiple homes — like a duplex or an apartment complex — you can call (866) 557-7368 or file a complaint online. And if you live in unincorporated Los Angeles County, you can call 211 or file a complaint online.
• San Diego: If you live in the city of San Diego, call (619) 236-5500 or file a complaint online. And if you live in unincorporated San Diego County, you can call (858) 694-2705.
• Long Beach: Call (562) 570-2633 or file a complaint about a Long Beach rental online.
• San Francisco: Call 311 or file a complaint about a San Francisco rental online.
• Oakland: Call (510) 238-3444 or file a complaint about an Oakland rental online.
• San José: Call (408) 535-7770 or file a complaint about a San José rental online.
• Santa Ana: Call (714) 667- 2780 or file a complaint about a Santa Ana rental online.

The Los Angeles Unified School District is preparing for possible “Super El Niño” storms that could damage schools and lead to closures, the district announced in a media release Tuesday.

District staff are clearing drains, trimming trees and checking roofs, windows and doors. LAUSD is also testing emergency equipment, including pumps and emergency lighting systems, and stocking supplies such as flashlights and drinking water.

“Preparing for severe weather starts well before the first raindrop,” Superintendent Andrés Chait said in a statement. “We can’t control the weather, but we can take steps now to protect our students and employees and help our schools stay ready.”

The district will monitor weather patterns using information from the National Weather Service and local emergency officials, it said.

LAUSD encouraged families to update their contact information to ensure they receive district calls, texts and emails. Families should also monitor weather alerts, follow emergency officials’ instructions, avoid flooded roads and review safe routes to and from school, according to the release.

“Preparing for a storm is a shared effort — from the crews maintaining school buildings to the principals reviewing emergency plans and the families making sure they can receive critical updates,” LAUSD said in the release. “By taking these steps before the rain begins, Los Angeles Unified is working to help students and employees stay safe and keep school communities as prepared as possible for the winter ahead.”

Southern California is likely in for a solid dose of rain this week, just days after heat and Santa Ana winds helped fuel several wildfires across the region.

Forecasters expect the bulk of the rain to roll into the Los Angeles basin Wednesday night and continue into Thursday morning, with a small chance of thunderstorms and hail.

The San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley and coastal areas across L.A. and Orange counties could get around an inch over the next few days. Hills and mountains could get up to 3 inches.

“We could see some pretty high rain rates,” said National Weather Service meteorologist Mike Wofford. “It's a good storm for this time of year — it's a little stronger than what we would see normally.”

The possibility of significant rain in the mountains raises concerns about flooding in areas recently burned in wildfires, particularly around the Bryson Fire burn scar near Malibu, which is only a few days old. Burn scars can’t absorb heavy rainfall and are susceptible to landslides.

The National Weather Service has issued a flood watch for the Santa Monica Mountains and surrounding communities from Wednesday afternoon through Thursday. That means heavy rain there could flood streets, creeks and rivers. The flood watch area includes both the Bryson Fire and Palisades Fire burn scars.

This will also be the first nontropical storm of the season, meaning it’s moving into the region from the north. Most storms that hit Southern California follow a similar path, especially during the winter, unlike the tropical storms that formed off the coast of Mexico and brought muggy weather to the region this summer.

Nontropical storms also bring cold air to the region. On Wednesday and Thursday, forecasters expect highs in the 60s and 70s. High elevations will be even cooler.

The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers it planned to have hired by last year.

Public statements and public records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.

Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria. Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.

Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its political campaign.

Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to cut existing and future federal science grants.

The measure’s critics say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and hospital research labs in California. They also say California should not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support research more broadly.

CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing 235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.

Far fewer employees than plan called for

Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring “approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five “world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders, according to the agreement.

But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they're well into the search” for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting.

The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship of public funds.”

At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38 spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the immunology institute.

According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25 million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However, Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of $20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.

The Yes on 38 campaign refused CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn't answer CalMatters' questions about employing far fewer people than the five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental review of its forthcoming research facility.

The institute won’t get state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the California Department of Public Health.

Institute facility will be built by 2028

The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major retrofitting.

But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA health research space on another campus property on an interim basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.

Mazziotta also told the regents the institute's construction costs are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million to the institute.

If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments based on how often the institute requests new money that senior state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years.

Institute would be exempt from public records act

CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which prohibits financial self-dealing.

Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other disclosures written into the ballot measure.

Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop. 38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.

Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.