Transcript Highlights:

• An affordable housing development in San Antonio was derailed by it.
• And in College Station, there are plenty of condominium housing developments that fall into that bucket
• for future development and housing growth.
• House Bill 14 did have two components to it, both development and the building side.
• And so is that like a housing development? It could be a multifamily development.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Summary: The committee met to monitor implementation of several housing-related bills from the 89th session, with the chair emphasizing Texas’s housing shortage and the need to review land-use laws. For House Bill 24, witnesses from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Reason Foundation, a church-affordable housing project, Habitat for Humanity, developers, and housing advocates said the bill’s higher protest threshold and simpler council override had reduced procedural barriers to rezoning, helped projects move forward, and supported lower rents and more multifamily development. Public testimony largely praised HB 24 as working as intended, and the chair noted it had passed the committee 6-1, the House 83-56, and the Senate unanimously. The committee then heard testimony on Senate Bill 1567, which preempted certain municipal occupancy limits based on unrelated-adult restrictions. Supporters, including Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Realtors, Texans for Housing, and Texas A&M student leaders, said the law improved clarity, reduced arbitrary local limits, and helped students and property owners use existing housing more efficiently. Opponents from College Station and Bryan-College Station neighborhood groups argued the law has encouraged investor purchases, tear-downs, and “stealth dorms,” displaced working-class residents, and harmed family homeownership. The chair noted SB 1567 had passed the committee 5-1, the House 101-19, and the Senate 30-1. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 15, which reduced minimum lot sizes in covered jurisdictions. Ed Pinto of AEI said the law had already led to thousands of new small lots and lower-cost starter homes, while recommending expansion to more counties and broader application to attached housing. Other witnesses from builders, Pew, and housing advocates said smaller lots can increase affordability, but some cities, such as College Station and Grand Prairie, were adding local standards that could blunt the bill’s effect. City representatives from El Paso described how they implemented the law by reducing lot sizes and widths, while urging broader applicability to more of the city. The chair said SB 15 had passed the committee 7-0, the House 86-43, and the Senate 24-7. Finally, the committee began hearing testimony on Senate Bill 840, a by-right multifamily redevelopment measure. City officials from Garland and Plano described how they had updated local standards to comply while preserving design and setback rules, and said the bill could help redevelop built-out commercial corridors and add housing without expanding city footprints. The transcript ended as the committee continued taking testimony on SB 840.

Transcript Highlights:

• Large developments won't get built in these places, but missing middle housing can if the rules allow
• deliver missing mental housing we must also align state subsidy programs with these smaller developments
• and eliminated planning board approval for developers who build 100 percent subsidized housing.
• We have to take steps to spur housing development if we are truly serious about addressing our housing
• So the idea is to have a diverse opportunity for people to develop housing for everybody, correct?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hybrid hearing on zoning, Chapter 40B, and related housing bills. Much of the testimony focused on the “Yes in My Backyard” bill (H. 1572/S. 962), which would expand by-right development of missing middle housing, reduce barriers such as minimum lot sizes and parking mandates, and support duplexes, triplexes, and other small-scale housing. Supporters included housing advocates, developers, local officials, and municipal leaders from places like Cambridge, Salem, and Braintree, who argued that state action is needed because local zoning often blocks needed housing and that the bill would help create more affordable, neighborhood-compatible homes. Several witnesses also backed a companion “Yes in God’s Backyard” bill (H. 2347), which would allow faith-based institutions to build housing on their property by right, with testimony emphasizing the potential for new units, added municipal tax revenue, and partnerships between religious organizations and housing developers. The committee also heard testimony on Senate Bill 1021 to modernize Chapter 40R incentives. Senator Pavel Payano and others said the program’s payments have not kept pace with inflation since 2004 and should be increased to better encourage smart-growth zoning near transit and town centers. Another major topic was H. 2298 on site plan review, which would codify and standardize the process in state law. Rep. Kristin Kassner and witnesses from MAPC and NAIOP said current site plan review practices vary widely across the state, creating confusion, delays, and litigation, while a uniform framework would give municipalities clearer tools to review by-right projects without undermining local oversight. The hearing also included testimony on Chapter 40B reform, including S. 1005 and H. 1537. One witness supported further review of 40B and stronger regional planning, while another backed a proposal to allow certain pre-2010 40B condominium owners to sell at market value under a framework that would recapture some of the subsidy benefits. Committee members asked several questions about local zoning changes, housing goals by county, and how the proposed bills would affect communities. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chairs indicated that written testimony would be welcomed for technical details and additional comments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Board, and One Roof Housing in Duluth to develop two former school sites into single-family housing.
• Board, and One Roof Housing in Duluth to develop two former school sites into single-family housing.
• One Roof Housing in Duluth to develop two former school sites into single-family housing.
• developers to construct this housing. developers to construct this housing.
• <00:37:26.359> unit housing developments to a planned unit housing developments to a planned

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• You can't make affordable housing if you've got large lot development.
• , you are creating an obstacle that may make that development less viable and makes housing less affordable
• I'll just say that from our conversations with housing developers and folks, it's clear to me that PUDs
• Could you provide some information about how often, when housing developments happen, they use their
• The city of Nebraska: 97% of their housing developments in the 2010s were planned developments.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have the new California Housing and Homelessness Agency and the Housing Development and Finance Committee
• It's not off the backs of the developers. They just build the housing.
• So looking at the current structure of our housing finance system, when an affordable housing developer
• We're a nonprofit affordable housing developer based here in Sacramento.
• We're a non-profit affordable housing developer based here in Sacramento.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• geographic equity and state-funded housing development.
• We took one of the, I'll say, worst housing development projects in the city of Lowell, and by virtue
• to develop more housing, more dense housing, because a lot of them would love to do it, but there's
• My wife and I are small developers of unsubsidized housing in our neighborhood.
• I'm the CEO of NeighborWorks Housing Solutions, an affordable housing developer that provides housing

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• opportunities, from mixed... ...housing opportunities, from mixed housing developments to first-time
• governments to increase development capacity via the regional housing need allocation process and housing
• fund affordable housing developments.
• to fund affordable housing developments.
• We are a market-rate housing developer.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• development, as utilities must adhere to restrictive time frames. for future housing development, as
• and facilitate housing development.
• , with the exception of housing and community development.
• , with the exception of housing and community development.
• The guidance we put out in our housing policy development division isn't exactly regulating housing,

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The organization can also contract for development of those properties for affordable housing.
• developers rather than at the highest profit... ...affordable housing developers rather than at the
• I lead cooperative housing development... My name is Victoria Bian.
• I lead cooperative housing development for the Northwest Cooperative Development Center.
• AARP is bringing some of the best and brightest minds in land development, housing development, and land

Summary: The committee met for work sessions on land banking/shared homeownership and on maximizing existing housing stock. Members first heard an overview from Commerce on alternative homeownership models, including community land trusts, limited equity cooperatives, condominiums, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, church land for housing, and public land transfers. The discussion focused on how these models can help households build equity while keeping housing permanently affordable. Committee members asked about statewide counts of co-ops and land trusts, and Commerce said it does not track all of those entities directly. Pierce County staff then described the Pierce County Community Development Corporation’s rapid acquisition fund and its role in acquiring, holding, and transferring public land for affordable housing. They said the county used general fund and affordable housing sales tax dollars to buy properties, preserve a manufactured home park through resident ownership, and create a pipeline of sites for future development. Members asked about the advantages of a public development authority, funding sources, the use of surplus and underutilized public property, and how the model works with housing authorities. Spokane land bank staff followed with testimony that land banks can reduce blight, preserve affordability, and help nonprofits acquire land quickly, but that holding costs and taxes can make the work harder without state support. They also described brownfield assessments, donated properties, and work on Black homeownership and public surplus properties. The committee then heard from the Northwest Cooperative Development Center on limited equity cooperatives, especially in manufactured housing communities. The witness said Washington now has about 43 limited equity co-ops and that recent subsidy funding and legislation have accelerated resident purchases of manufactured home communities. Members asked how residents benefit from capped equity, how values are affected, and whether the model improves access to lending; the witness said the model stabilizes costs, allows modest equity gains, and that a recent law allowing manufactured homes in co-ops to be titled as real property should improve access to traditional financing. The committee also discussed House Bill 1974 from the prior session and possible updates to land banking legislation. In the second work session on maximizing existing housing stock, Commerce reviewed recent housing laws and implementation timelines, including ADUs, middle housing, condo liability reform, SEPA changes, tiny homes, and co-living. Members raised concerns about the long implementation horizon, vacancy data, corporate ownership of homes, and the need for better support for small landlords and first-time ADU owners. Sightline then testified on mobile dwelling units, arguing that RVs, tiny houses on wheels, and similar units are a low-cost, quick-to-install housing option that is often blocked by zoning; the witness said many Washington residents already live in these units, often informally. Finally, AARP discussed housing options for older adults, including ADUs, missing middle, manufactured home communities, co-living, universal design, and village-style support models, emphasizing aging in place and the need for more accessible, affordable housing choices.

Transcript Highlights:

• housing developers to meet additional housing developers to meet additional expectations<01:10:54.000
• <01:12:49.800> Development risky aspects of Housing Development risky aspects of Housing Development
• > which Housing Development grant program which Housing Development grant program which we<01:
• > that<01:31:33.600> we Housing Development are problems that we Housing Development are
• > a Housing Development projects where a Housing Development projects where a zoning<01:43:31.560

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And to rental housing development and preservation, explain the difference from development.
• Rental and single-family housing development.
• housing development and preservation.
• To advance housing development, one solution is subsidy, right?
• for new housing development.

Transcript Highlights:

• THOSE ARE SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF RENTAL HOUSING.
• WHICH IS AS OF MONTHS AGO THE 115 MILLION FOR RENTAL HOUSING HAS BEEN FULLY COMMITTED TO DEVELOPMENTS
• DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY SUPPORTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT THEY ARE NOT IN THE BEST
• THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS THE MOST COMMON ISSUE ACROSS THOSE FIVE YEARS.
• AND DEVELOPING PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOCUSED ON HOUSING PRODUCTION.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have the new California Housing and Homelessness Agency and the Housing Development and Finance Committee
• It's not off the backs of the developers. They just build the housing.
• So looking at the current structure of our housing finance system, when an affordable housing developer
• So looking at the current structure of our housing finance system, when an affordable housing developer
• We're a nonprofit affordable housing developer based here in Sacramento.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-finance and permitting reforms aimed at making affordable and middle-income housing projects “pencil.” The first panel focused on the welfare property tax exemption, with witnesses arguing that annual recertifications are outdated, burdensome, and costly for both residents and operators. They urged streamlining by aligning eligibility rules with TCAC or HCD monitoring, allowing one-time qualification at occupancy, and preserving exemptions for projects that remain in compliance, especially as insurance costs and operating deficits are rising sharply. A major portion of the meeting centered on social housing and community land trusts under SB 555. HCD described the state’s ongoing study, due by December 31, 2026 and to be included in the 2027 annual report, and outlined public engagement already completed with residents and practitioners. Community land trust and policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action beyond the study, including expanded tax abatements, public land use, soft loans, and simpler capital stacks. They emphasized that the model should include mixed-income and “missing middle” households, and several members discussed the stigma around the term “social housing,” suggesting a rebrand toward generational or multi-generational housing to broaden public support. The committee also discussed a proposed certified professional program modeled on Vancouver, Canada, to speed plan checks and inspections by allowing state-certified private professionals to perform certain code-compliance functions under local oversight. The witness said this would reduce delays, repeated reviews, and cost overruns while preserving local authority over zoning and enforcement. Members raised concerns about local control, infrastructure costs, and political resistance, but expressed interest in exploring a pilot and further recommendations. In the final panel, housing advocates supported allowing HCD loan funds to be disbursed during construction rather than only after completion. They said this would reduce interest costs, improve project feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes without new appropriations. Members agreed the current system is fragmented and outdated, and several speakers and legislators repeatedly called for streamlined, more flexible financing and permitting tools to support housing production.

Transcript Highlights:

• HHFDC's focus is providing affordable housing for residents by working with developers to develop projects
• <00:30:34.480> developers<00:30:35.080> that's affordable housing developers that's
• One of the biggest issues with developing housing, especially high-density housing, is the amenities.
• actively pursuing potential housing actively pursuing potential housing development<02:17:39.200
• development will not affordable housing development will not Germain<02:36:42.800> will<02:36

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the Water and Land, Hawaiian Affairs, and Housing committees on January 29, 2025 focused on SB 534, with the chairs outlining hearing procedures, public testimony limits, and plans to allow extended presentations from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the Hawaii Community Development Authority (HCDA) before moving to other testifiers. The hearing was presented as a public, transparent discussion of OHA’s plans for Kakaʻako Makai, with committee members noting that decision-making would follow if time permitted. OHA testified in strong support of SB 534. The chair of OHA’s Board of Trustees said the bill was a novel proposal for the legislature and emphasized that OHA was bringing together a broad coalition of partners and stakeholders, including representatives from construction, hospitality, education, law enforcement, civil service, and schools, as well as longtime community advocates who have opposed development in Kakaʻako Makai. OHA’s presentation reviewed the history of the area, the creation and role of HCDA, prior master plans, the 2012 land conveyance to OHA, and the argument that OHA has not been able to realize the full economic value of the lands because desired entitlements were not secured. OHA linked the bill to its constitutional mission to improve conditions for Native Hawaiians and argued that the state’s housing crisis makes additional development, including residential use, especially important. A major theme of the testimony was housing. OHA argued that Hawaiʻi faces severe affordability pressures, out-migration, and workforce shortages, and said that residential development in Kakaʻako Makai would help address those needs while also supporting the value of the trust lands. The presentation described HCDA’s authority over zoning and development in Kakaʻako, the existing reserved housing requirements, and the need for a master plan that could move forward if SB 534 becomes law. No votes or final committee action were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the discussion remained in the presentation and testimony phase.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Nevada Supportive Housing Framework redesignates the Nevada Supportive Housing Development Fund as
• The Nevada Supportive Housing Framework, it redesignates the Nevada Supportive Housing Development Fund
• to facilitate the development of attainable housing by increasing the supply of housing in the state
• to facilitate the development of attainable housing by increasing the supply of housing in the state
• Housing counseling agency in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development?

Keywords: 909, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We engaged with a series of developers who are involved in major multifamily housing development in Washington
• And indeed, they have done a good job in concentrating new housing development.
• But essentially, we think that the state should be tracking issues related to housing development, housing
• Actually afford the market-rate housing development. So that's a separate issue. Okay.
• And it's not just housing development. It's all sorts of construction costs.

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard a series of work-session presentations focused on transit-oriented development, commercial-to-residential redevelopment, building code implementation, housing market trends, and the Covenant Homeownership Program. The first presentation, from the Urban Institute, reviewed research on HB 1491 and TOD feasibility, arguing that Washington has made major progress but faces diverging conditions across transit areas. The presenter said rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and lower rents in some markets have made many projects less feasible, and recommended targeted infrastructure funding for lower-market communities, adjustments to MFTE and affordability requirements by local market conditions, more support for very low-income housing in high-market transit areas, minimum density standards near stations, expanded public land/joint development tools, and better tracking of TOD outcomes over time. Committee members asked about AMI calculations, immigration’s effect on construction labor, developer input, and whether a tracking mechanism had been removed from the bill. The Department of Commerce then outlined implementation of HB 1491 and demonstrated the new Washington Zoning Atlas, which is live and intended to help visualize zoning, overlays, and station-area conditions. Commerce said local governments will designate station areas, update zoning and MFTE policies, and handle anti-displacement measures, with Vancouver and Spokane first to implement and Puget Sound following later. Staff described a timeline for updated MFTE guidance, station-area implementation guidance, a TOD model ordinance, and later rulemaking on variances. The committee also heard from the Lieutenant Governor’s office on a report about converting commercial properties to housing, which found substantial potential for redevelopment on vacant or underused commercial land, especially near transit, but noted barriers such as ground-floor retail mandates, affordability requirements, infrastructure costs, private covenants, and slow implementation. The office urged by-right residential use on commercial land and faster rollout of new housing laws. The State Building Code Council updated the committee on its three-year code cycle and several legislatively directed actions, including minimum dwelling size, emergency shelters, and especially single-exit stairs and multiplex housing. Council staff said those code changes are nearing completion and will provide prescriptive solutions, while noting that elevator size and requirements were not changed and would require separate legislative direction if the committee wanted to revisit them. Members discussed the cost impacts of building and energy codes and the council said it is required to consider economic impacts and is increasingly looking at performance-based approaches. Later, the Washington Center for Real Estate Research presented its annual housing report, showing that higher mortgage rates have sharply reduced affordability, flattened house prices in many cities, and slowed single-family permitting and completions, while multifamily construction has recently cooled after a prior surge. Finally, the Washington State Housing Finance Commission reported strong first-year results for the Covenant Homeownership Program, which provides zero-interest down payment assistance to eligible first-time buyers with family ties to Washington before 1968; the program assisted 547 homebuyers in its first fiscal year, with more than $60 million loaned, and the agency said participation has continued to grow after income-limit changes enacted in 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• , it takes so much time, and time in housing development is money.
• We've invited two housing developers with experience in applying for state housing programs to offer
• For much of my affordable housing career of 30 years, I was an affordable housing developer at Mercy
• Hi, Norcoaster with EAH Housing. We are a nonprofit affordable housing developer across two states.
• The Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California represents nonprofit affordable housing developers

Summary: The joint hearing focused on the Governor’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Administration officials said the change would give each side more focused leadership, improve consumer protection and regulatory oversight, and better align housing and homelessness policy with the state’s broader housing goals. Leaders from the Department of Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, Alcoholic Beverage Control, and Financial Protection and Innovation all voiced support for the business-side reorganization, while housing officials emphasized that the new housing agency would help streamline funding, compliance, and coordination across programs. Members raised concerns about timing, budget impacts, office space, and whether the split would actually reduce bureaucracy. The administration said the plan would be included in the May Revision, was intended to be cost-neutral, and would not require fee increases for licensees or additional office space. On the housing side, officials said the new Housing Development and Finance Committee would work toward a single application and more coordinated award process for affordable housing funding, while preserving CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence. They also said the reorganization would improve compliance monitoring, data collection, and coordination with local governments, including Los Angeles homelessness programs. Public testimony was largely supportive. Industry groups representing beverage distributors, craft brewers, wine, mortgage lenders, and housing organizations backed the business-side split, and housing advocates such as Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the housing agency concept and the proposed one-stop-shop approach. Several witnesses urged that tax credits, bonds, and other funding sources be better coordinated, and some said the plan should be paired with additional state investment and implementation resources. No formal vote was taken; the hearing was informational.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the developer has to make one house.
• the other development is uh town houses. the other development is uh town houses. um<00:44:25.760
• Minimum lot sizes reduce housing development, reduce housing redevelopment, and increase housing costs
• developers will honor commitment to developing affordable housing.
• afford developing affordable housing. afford developing affordable housing.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• types of housing in areas where they could otherwise be developed.
• Chairman Gates: House Bill 3919 seeks to alleviate these problems by allowing builders and developers
• Wes Benedict: House Bill 3919 will fix this problem by allowing developers to build homes on smaller
• I've never heard Representative Davis: somebody develop by being told you can't build a small house.
• house,' there's another developer who's going to pay a little bit more than that developer.

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill 27 relates to housing and exempts state-financed housing developments from the requirement
• <00:05:04.240> Development modifications to Housing Development modifications to Housing Development
• > the<00:10:15.680> state develop additional housing in the state develop additional housing
• HHFDC with comments. development of affordable housing in a development of affordable housing in a special
• to<00:33:45.000> build Housing Development is recycled to build Housing Development is

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of housing measures focused on streamlining approvals, reshaping financing programs, and expanding affordability requirements. SB 27 would exempt state-financed housing developments from County Council approval; SB 38 would bar county legislative bodies from changing housing proposals in ways that increase project costs; SB 25 would let counties reduce housing capacity in one area only if they offset it elsewhere with no net loss; and SB 379 would require perpetual affordability covenants for HHFDC projects and prohibit affordable housing in special flood hazard areas. SB 378 would create an HHFDC working group to identify mixed-use Maui properties for possible acquisition, SB 414 would authorize condemnation proceedings for a new Lānaʻi access road tied to disaster recovery, and SB 13 would eliminate the state income tax mortgage interest deduction for second homes. Testimony was mixed across the bills, with state agencies and housing advocates generally supporting faster permitting and more production, while county planners, NAIOP, Catholic Charities, and others raised concerns about local control, marketability, financing feasibility, and long-term affordability enforcement. A major portion of the hearing centered on the rental housing revolving fund. SB 70 would limit eligible applicants to government agencies or organizations that reinvest all surplus into additional housing; HHFDC said most developers would not object in principle but questioned how the surplus requirement would be enforced, while NAIOP and Catholic Charities opposed it as too restrictive and difficult to monitor. SB 71 would amend the fund’s preference criteria and eligibility rules, and SB 163 would require HHFDC to prioritize projects with the shortest repayment terms and highest unit production per dollar per year. HHFDC and some advocates supported the goal of faster recycling of funds, but NAIOP and Catholic Charities warned that shorter loan terms and narrowed preferences could burden developers and disincentivize projects, especially for lower-income tenants. The chair indicated SB 163 would be deferred and its concerns folded into amendments to SB 71. In decision-making, the committee voted to pass SB 27, SB 38, SB 70, and SB 71 with amendments, and SB 25 unamended. The chair said SB 27 would be amended to include projects with a state financing commitment and a report note that such projects still undergo 21-38 review; SB 38 would receive technical changes and language preventing county bodies from imposing cost-increasing conditions; SB 70 would add language addressing enforcement of the surplus requirement and a preamble citing the need to recycle taxpayer-financed housing value; and SB 71 would be amended to incorporate concerns raised in SB 163, including a broader preamble and revised priority criteria. SB 163 was deferred, while the other measures on the agenda were heard but no final action was described in the transcript excerpt.