Transcript Highlights:

• I know that there's some HUD funding in there too, but I don't see how that would impact it at all. look
• ><00:25:36.720><c> that</c><00:25:36.840><c> there's</c><00:25:37.080><c> some</c><00:25:37.279><c> HUD
• </c> number I know that there's some HUD number I know that there's some HUD funding<00:25:37.880><c>

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on House Bill 71, which would bar public elementary and secondary schools and higher education facilities from being used as shelters for certain non-citizens, with a stated exception for short-term emergency sheltering of up to 72 hours and for community-wide emergency use. Prime sponsor Rep. Juliet Harvey-Bolia said the bill was modeled on federal and out-of-state proposals and was prompted by examples in New York and Massachusetts where schools or other facilities were used as shelters, causing disruption. She argued the bill does not truly “ban” anything, but instead places a condition on receipt of state funds, and said the fiscal note’s projected loss of federal funding was unsupported and should have been described as undeterminable. Committee members questioned the bill’s scope and practical effects, including whether it would apply to vacant school-owned buildings, schools used during summer, charter schools, and situations where other states send people without advance notice. Harvey-Bolia said vacant buildings not functioning as schools would not be covered, and that the bill would still allow short-term emergency sheltering and community-wide use during weather events. She also said the bill would not prevent remote learning, and that its purpose was to avoid displacing students. Several members pressed her on the fiscal note and whether any federal or state program would actually be at risk; she said she found no evidence that funding would be lost and that DHHS had not identified a real threat. A witness from the New Hampshire Association of School Administrators, Jerry FW, raised practical concerns about who would determine eligibility at a shelter site, how the 72-hour limit would be enforced, and whether the bill would apply to charter schools. He also noted that remote learning is no longer an option in New Hampshire, making one of the bill’s stated concerns less relevant. The discussion also included clarification of the terms “refugee” and “asylum seeker,” with members and the sponsor debating the distinction and whether refugees are vetted. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Bills: SB37 , SJR84 , SJR87 , SJR27 , SB8 , SB10 , SB227 , SB261 , SB15 , SB12 , SB25 , SB57 , SB127 , SB293 , SB441 , SB3059 , SB512 , SB241 , SB1718 , SB140 , SB2055 , SB2075 , SB2018 , SB1534 , SB1567 , SB785 , SB1233 , SB1580 , SB1663 , SB413 , SB447 , SB519 , SB467 , SB1579 , SB1191 , SB1021 , SB1838 , SB2807 , SB2835 , SB546 , SB2121 , SB2167 , SB2035 , SB2024 , SB1032 , SB1049 , SB1266 , SB1400 , SB1302 , SB401 , SB1596 , SB1281 , SB1242 , SB1343 , SB310 , SB1346 , SB2753 , SB2703 , SB2221 , SB1719 , SB2177 , SB800 , SB790 , SB748 , SB571 , SB1957 , SB1923 , SB1896 , SB1760 , SB1335 , SB2368 , SB2477 , SB2587 , SB2972 , SB2986 , SB2965 , SB1563 , SB1467 , SB1164 , SB1137 , SB614 , SB705 , SB961 , SB918 , SB955 , SB869 , SB850 , SB863 , SB1610 , SB1055 , SB2206 , SB457 , SB2337 , SB1362 , SCR9 , SB2405 , SB2406 , SB2407 , SB2166 , SB2148 , SB535 , SB777 , SB827 , SB1141 , SB1330 , SB1352 , SB1664 , SB1862 , SB1936 , SB1453 , SB1448 , SB1398 , SB2137 , SB2111 , SB53 , SB226 , SB1677 , SB1723 , SB1839 , SB36 , SB38 , SB815 , SB1856 , SB552 , SB646 , SB37 , SJR84 , SJR87 , SJR27 , SB8 , SB10 , SB227 , SB261 , SB15 , SB12 , SB25 , SB57 , SB127 , SB293 , SB441 , SB3059 , SB512 , SB241 , SB1718 , SB140 , SB2055 , SB2075 , SB2018 , SB1534 , SB1567 , SB785 , SB1233 , SB1580 , SB1663 , SB413 , SB447 , SB519 , SB467 , SB1579 , SB1191 , SB1021 , SB1838 , SB2807 , SB2835 , SB546 , SB2121 , SB2167 , SB2035 , SB2024 , SB1032 , SB1049 , SB1266 , SB1400 , SB1302 , SB401 , SB1596 , SB1281 , SB1242 , SB1343 , SB310 , SB1346 , SB2753 , SB2703 , SB2221 , SB1719 , SB2177 , SB800 , SB790 , SB748 , SB571 , SB1957 , SB1923 , SB1896 , SB1760 , SB1335 , SB2368 , SB2477 , SB2587 , SB2972 , SB2986 , SB2965 , SB1563 , SB1467 , SB1164 , SB1137 , SB614 , SB705 , SB961 , SB918 , SB955 , SB869 , SB850 , SB863 , SB1610 , SB1055 , SB2206 , SB457 , SB2337 , SB1362 , SCR9 , HB5560 , HB762 , HB 107 , HB 114 , HB300 , HB138 , HB4386 , HB2495 , HB581 , HB3348 , HB5323

Keywords: higher education, curriculum review, governing board, faculty council, ombudsman, tax exemption, property tax, homestead, fire damage, constitutional amendment, bail reform, criminal justice, felony offenses, public safety, judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, immigration enforcement, ICE agreements

Summary: The House convened, established a quorum, heard an invocation and pledges, and approved several routine motions, including excuses for absent members, permission for committees to meet while the House was in session, and postponements of some bills. The chamber also received a Senate message listing measures passed by the Senate and adopted a memorial resolution honoring the 21 victims of the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, with remarks entered into the House Journal after a moment of silence. The House then took up a long third-reading calendar and passed a series of Senate bills on topics including criminal justice and corrections sunset provisions (SB 2405, 2406, 2407), election equipment testing (SB 2166), electric grid reliability and attack-preparedness exercises (SB 2148), firefighter collective bargaining (SB 777), DFPS and foster care procedures (SB 1141 and SB 1398), Medicare durable medical equipment billing (SB 1330), property tax administration (SB 1453), probate cleanup and record transfers (SB 1448 and SB 1839), mental health filing procedures (SB 53), school residency for children in safety placements (SB 226), diabetes-related amputation study (SB 1677), rapid DNA analysis (SB 1723), utility rate transparency and capacity cost recovery (SB 1664 and SB 1856), community supervision eligibility (SB 552 postponed), and other measures. Several bills passed with broad support, while others drew notable opposition and narrower margins, including SB 777, SB 2137, SB 2111, SB 1677, SB 1936, SB 1453, and SB 38. Two bills drew especially extensive debate. SB 2148, dealing with electricity supply chain reliability and tabletop exercises for critical facilities, was discussed as a grid-security measure aimed at coordinating utilities, law enforcement, ERCOT, and the PUC in the event of physical attacks; it passed unanimously. SB 1936, changing how LSD is measured for criminal prosecution from dosage-based to weight-based calculations, prompted extended discussion about lab consistency, carrier mediums, and fairness in charging, with supporters saying it would help crime labs and law enforcement and opponents warning it could distort penalties depending on the medium used; it passed 108-26. The House also passed SB 36, creating a Homeland Security Division within DPS, after questions about overlap with TDEM and the cost of adding personnel. Late in the day, the House debated SB 38 on eviction procedures, with supporters saying it targeted squatters and streamlined removal of unauthorized occupants, and opponents arguing it would make evictions too easy and worsen homelessness; it passed 85-44. The chamber also began debate on SB 37, a major higher-education governance bill that would expand governing-board oversight of curriculum, hiring, and faculty senates; members raised concerns about academic freedom, faculty governance, and the impact on humanities programs, and debate was still underway at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• She muted my arguments for the mandatory federal HUD rules.
• 00:54:32.319><c> mandatory</c><00:54:33.599><c> uh</c><00:54:33.760><c> federal</c><00:54:34.240><c> HUD

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard Governor’s Message 790, the nomination of Karen T. Nakasone to serve as chief judge of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals for a 10-year term. The chair announced that no vote would be taken that day and that the committee would vote on Thursday. Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, with the chair reading that there were 103 supporters, zero opposed, and one comment. Supporters included current and retired judges, public defenders, bar association representatives, former elected officials, and community members. They described Nakasone as intelligent, fair, hardworking, well respected, and a strong leader with deep legal experience. Several speakers emphasized her judicial temperament, her work as an advocate and judge, and her community involvement, including leadership in civic and civil rights organizations. One pro se litigant also testified that she had been treated kindly and respectfully by Nakasone in prior interactions. The Hawaii State Bar Association reported that it had conducted an interview and review process and found her qualified for the position. In her own remarks, Nakasone introduced family and colleagues, described her 30-year legal career, and said her first job after law school was as an ICA law clerk. She highlighted the court’s backlog reduction efforts under Acting Chief Judge Katherine Leonard, saying the number of older pending appeals had dropped significantly through team-based reforms, and stated that she would continue that work if confirmed. The hearing ended without questions from the committee and with the nomination held for a later vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, unfortunately, we're not part of the city of Duluth, where they have a HUD entitlement, where
• 23:10.040><c> a</c> You know, unfortunately, we're not part of the city of Duluth, where they have a HUD

Committee: House Public Safety Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• c><01:48:27.520><c> any</c><01:48:27.760><c> metrics</c><01:48:28.320><c> from</c><01:48:28.639><c> HUD
• </c><01:48:29.199><c> loans,</c> top four in any metrics from HUD loans, top four in any metrics from
• HUD loans, household<01:48:30.320><c> income,</c><01:48:30.800><c> excuse</c><01:48:31.040><c> me.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration

Transcript Highlights:

• They're a proven and practical solution endorsed by HUD, the National Fire Protection Association, and

Summary: The committee began without a quorum and first heard AB 748, which would create pre-approved housing plans for single-family homes and small multifamily projects under 10 units, with delayed implementation for smaller cities and counties. The author said the bill is modeled on the state’s ADU preapproval process and is intended to make housing approvals ministerial and faster. Support came from housing and business groups, while several cities opposed it. Senators raised concerns about local control and whether small or rural jurisdictions have the staff and infrastructure to implement the program, but the author emphasized that local agencies would still control the plans and land-use decisions. No vote was taken because there was no quorum. The committee then heard AB 1621, which would tighten timelines and accountability for post-entitlement permits, limit plan-check resubmittals, and restrict field changes unless needed for health and safety. The California Building Industry Association and many housing groups supported the bill, arguing that permitting delays raise costs and slow housing production. The League of California Cities, counties, and several local governments opposed it, saying the two-plan-check limit is too rigid and that the bill could create litigation risk and reduce local flexibility to ensure code compliance. Members debated the proper standard for additional review and whether the bill should allow exceptions for state mandates; the author said the bill was meant to stop endless back-and-forth while preserving health-and-safety exceptions. The bill was recommended for a due-pass motion to Appropriations when quorum is reached. AB 2748 was next, proposing a three-year delay in the new electric-vehicle readiness requirements for 100% affordable housing projects, keeping the older 40% standard during that period. The author and affordable housing advocates said the change would reduce costs and help scarce housing dollars go further, while opponents from environmental, transportation, and clean-energy groups argued the current code is already cost-effective and that the bill would create a double standard and reduce EV access for low-income residents. Senators discussed whether the bill should require additional EV-capable infrastructure if projects use the older standard, and several members said they supported the bill but urged continued work on amendments. The committee also heard AB 1732, which would expand CEQA streamlining to student housing projects at public universities and community colleges with long-range plans. The author and student housing advocates said campus housing shortages are driving student homelessness and that the bill would help projects move faster; some senators supported the concept but questioned the bill’s geographic limits and whether labor standards or rural-campus criteria might be too restrictive. The meeting also included AB 1738, which would require jurisdictions to offer virtual inspections for certain simple home inspections. Supporters said remote inspections save time and money and have been used safely in California, while one senator said she could not support virtual inspections for more complex items like roofs and solar work. No final votes were taken during the transcript, and several bills were held pending quorum or further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Federal funding from the HUD Continuum of Care Program is the foundation for many permanent supportive

Summary: The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard an overview from OFM Director Katie Chapman See on Governor Ferguson’s 2026 supplemental budget proposal. She said the budget was built in response to higher caseloads and inflation, a roughly $390 million revenue forecast drop, new federal costs tied to H.R. 1, and a relatively small ending fund balance. The proposal would increase near general fund spending by about $1.1 billion and solve an estimated $2.3 billion two-year gap through about $800 million in reductions, revenue shifts and tax preference changes, use of other funds, and about $1 billion from the budget stabilization account. She also noted the budget is balanced over two years but not fully over four years under the state’s outlook rules. Chapman See highlighted reductions in Working Connections Child Care, including a soft cap on enrollment and holding subsidy rates at the 75th percentile, delays to long-term care and developmental disability-related changes, and across-the-board reductions to higher education and administrative spending. She also described investments in wildfire suppression and preparedness, affordability programs like utility rebates and home energy assistance, housing-related planning and permitting support, One Washington IT replacement, behavioral health workforce programs, and continued support for some K-12 initiatives such as ninth grade success and homeless student stability. In response to questions, she said some proposed cuts were based on the governor’s subjective judgment about what was critically necessary, that current child care enrollees would not be cut off immediately, and that the budget would maintain services for about 500 highest-acuity Medicaid clients who lost eligibility under federal changes. Public testimony was largely critical of the proposed cuts in K-12, early learning, and higher education. School officials, educators, nurses, and advocacy groups opposed reductions to Transition to Kindergarten, Local Effort Assistance, Running Start, MSOC, school leadership and support grants, and higher education funding, arguing the cuts would worsen existing funding gaps and harm student outcomes. Several witnesses supported restoring or maintaining funding for ninth grade success, Treehouse’s foster youth graduation program, homeless student stability, and Science on Wheels. In early learning, child care providers and advocates opposed the Working Connections cap and subsidy-rate reduction, warning it would reduce access and destabilize providers. In higher education, campus leaders and labor representatives opposed across-the-board cuts and fund shifts, while some institutions and advocates supported targeted investments such as behavioral health workforce programs and DigiPen aid restoration. In human services, Planned Parenthood advocates praised restored abortion access funding and Medicaid reimbursements. The committee took no votes or final action in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• CalHFA additionally, through the NMS National Mortgage Settlement Fund, does fund HUD-certified housing

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:

• CalHFA additionally, through the NMS National Mortgage Settlement Fund, does fund HUD-certified housing

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine how California finances affordable housing and homeownership. Co-chairs opened by describing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for the committee to identify practical recommendations. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Treasurer’s housing finance committees, CalHFA, and Related discussed the layered financing structure used for affordable housing, including federal low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental assistance. Witnesses emphasized that affordable housing projects typically require multiple funding sources and that the system is often slowed by complex applications, overlapping rules, and too many layers of financing. Several speakers noted recent federal changes that expanded the 9% and 4% tax credit programs, including a lower bond-financing threshold for 4% credits, which should allow more projects to move forward. State officials also highlighted ongoing efforts to streamline the system, including the SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency, which is intended to align housing, homelessness, and civil rights functions. CalHFA described its homeownership and multifamily programs, including My Home, Dream For All, Cal Assist Mortgage Fund, and the Mixed Income Program, and said its financing tools help first-time buyers and developers. Related and other housing providers said the state has made real progress through land-use reform, accountability enforcement, and faster tax credit allocation, but argued that funding remains far below need. They called for more state and permanent funding sources, more efficient administration, more support for ADU and modular financing, and better attention to deeper affordability, the “missing middle,” and equity impacts on renters, women, and communities of color. The hearing was informational only; no votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• last dollar to address their community needs and basic in order to leverage federal dollars through HUD

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to assist in the identification of veterans who are not eligible for federal HUD-VASH programs

Committee: Senate Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, and Rural Development - Subcommittee on Veterans

Transcript Highlights:

• These housing counselors are certified by HUD, and they're employed by an approved housing counseling
• > These housing counselors are certified These housing counselors are certified by<00:09:52.880><c> HUD
• 53.840><c> they're</c><00:09:53.960><c> employed</c><00:09:54.440><c> by</c><00:09:54.640><c> an</c> by HUD
• , and they're employed by an by HUD, and they're employed by an approved<00:09:55.360><c> housing</c>

Transcript Highlights:

• deadlines, it was supposed to be for the household size, for the income for the household size according to HUD
• income for the household size according income for the household size according to<02:01:50.800><c> HUD
• </c> to HUD is the qualifier. to HUD is the qualifier.

Committee: House Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• HUD announced plans to gut fair housing rules meant to fight discrimination.
• HUD<07:50:29.680><c> announced</c><07:50:30.080><c> plans</c><07:50:30.398><c> to</c><07:50:30.558><c
• > gut</c><07:50:30.878><c> fair</c><07:50:31.200><c> housing</c> HUD announced plans to gut fair housing
• HUD announced plans to gut fair housing rules<07:50:32.080><c> meant</c><07:50:32.398><c> to</c><07:

Bills: HR36 , HR530 , HB1800 , HB2416 , HR1316 , HB1724 , HB1540 , HB1486 , HB1512 , HB1503 , HB1912

Keywords: federal programs, government efficiency, budget cuts, committee, oversight, rules resolution, House Rules Committee, procedural rule, floor procedure, appropriations, military construction, Veterans Affairs, VA funding, fiscal year 2026, immigration enforcement, special interest aliens, DHS reporting, monthly report, inadmissible, deportable

Transcript Highlights:

• And basically, in order to leverage federal dollars through HUD, there's a path that will allow these
• dollars</c> order to leverage federal dollars order to leverage federal dollars through<04:10:19.040><c> HUD
• 20.000><c> a</c><04:10:20.160><c> path</c><04:10:20.319><c> that</c><04:10:20.560><c> will</c> through HUD
• , there's a path that will through HUD, there's a path that will allow<04:10:20.960><c> these</c><04:

Transcript Highlights:

• Today is the national HUD point-in-time homeless persons count.
• /c><03:02:32.640><c> is</c><03:02:32.800><c> the</c><03:02:32.960><c> national</c><03:02:33.359><c> HUD
• </c> um and uh today is the national HUD um and uh today is the national HUD point<03:02:33.880><c> in

Committee: House Municipal and County Government

Transcript Highlights:

• have included some of the grant programs and the, uh, price program, the community enhancement for HUD

Bills: HR915 , HB7401 , HB2478 , HR1381

Keywords: Holodomor, Ukraine famine, 1932-1933 famine, genocide recognition, Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin, collectivization, grain confiscation, human rights, Ukraine, Ukrainian people, Russian aggression, Vladimir Putin, foreign affairs, sense of the House, commemorative resolution, historical remembrance, Soviet repression, Kremlin denial, Ukraine sovereignty

Transcript Highlights:

• They had used them before on other projects, so It is HUD housing and unqualified, so That the houses

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• According to data from HUD, it costs an average of over $16,000 a year to share an off-campus apartment

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of housing, water, and local finance bills, with the chair repeatedly reminding attendees about hearing rules and noting that several measures were being heard without a quorum at first. Early items included AB 407, which would broaden eligibility for state-run loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades, and AB 93, which would require data centers to estimate and report water use and follow state best practices. AB 93 drew support from water advocates and local government groups, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it, arguing the bill could be overly restrictive, difficult to retrofit, and raise trade secret or security concerns. The committee also heard AB 650 on housing element review, AB 1044 on creating a new Tulare County groundwater sustainability agency, and AB 523 on allowing proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board; all drew broad support from local agencies and related stakeholders and no recorded opposition in the room. Several housing bills were presented as part of a broader fast-track housing package. AB 507 would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns with high vacancy; supporters said it would revive urban cores and help meet housing and climate goals, while the League of California Cities and a few cities opposed it unless amended, citing concerns about one-size-fits-all by-right approval and fee limitations. AB 1294 would create a universal housing application and limit early application requirements; it drew strong support from housing and business groups, with the American Planning Association and League of California Cities seeking more flexibility and input. AB 610 would require local governments to disclose housing constraints in their housing elements and limit new constraints after certification for three years unless disclosed; supporters said it would improve transparency and certainty, while opponents warned it could chill legitimate local policy choices and inclusionary housing requirements. Both AB 610 and AB 698, which would require analysis of the housing and property tax impacts of proposed transfer taxes, were moved out of committee on 7-0 votes after discussion and amendments. The committee also heard AB 1112, which would repeal an outdated Riverside County property tax provision affecting Rancho Mirage; the city argued it was the only qualifying no-low property tax city not receiving the standard minimum and sought equal treatment. After quorum was established, the bill was passed 6-0 with amendments and sent to Appropriations. AB 1021, heard later, would make it easier for school districts and other local education agencies to build employee housing, with the author citing teacher recruitment and retention problems and support from education stakeholders. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized the need to balance housing production, local fiscal tools, and infrastructure needs, and several authors accepted committee amendments and committed to continued negotiations with opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• According to data from HUD, it costs an average of over $16,000 a year to share an off-campus apartment

Committee: House Local Government

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long slate of bills, with the chair opening by outlining hearing rules, noting in-person testimony only, and identifying several bills for the consent calendar. The committee repeatedly operated without a quorum for much of the hearing, so several authors closed with requests for aye votes before formal action could be taken. AB 407 (Jackson) was heard first and would broaden eligibility in state loan and financing programs to help small businesses fund environmental, seismic, and ADA upgrades; it drew support from the Treasurer’s office and no opposition. AB 93 (Papan) would require state and local agencies to develop best practices and reporting around data center water use; supporters emphasized water scarcity and transparency, while the Data Center Coalition opposed it as overly restrictive and potentially burdensome. The League of California Cities and water agencies were generally supportive or neutral with amendments. The committee also heard several housing-related bills. AB 650 (Papan) would give cities earlier RHNA information and require HCD to provide clearer, more actionable housing element feedback; it received broad support from cities, planning groups, and housing advocates, with no opposition. AB 507 (Haney) would streamline adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing, especially in downtowns, and AB 1294 (Haney) would create a more standardized housing application process; both drew strong support from housing and business groups, while local government groups raised concerns about one-size-fits-all mandates and local discretion. AB 610 (Alvarez) would strengthen housing element transparency and limit new local housing constraints and fees after certification; supporters said it would improve certainty, while legal aid and city groups opposed it as too rigid and potentially harmful to inclusionary housing and local fee authority. AB 610 ultimately received a 7-0 do-pass recommendation to Appropriations. Other measures included AB 1044 (Macedo), which would create a new groundwater sustainability agency structure for Tulare County to help the region comply with SGMA; it was backed by county and agricultural water representatives and had no opposition. AB 523 (Irwin) would allow proxy voting for single-representative member agencies on the Metropolitan Water District board, with support from several water districts and no opposition. AB 1112 (Wallace) would repeal an outdated property tax carve-out affecting Rancho Mirage; the city supported it as restoring equity, and the committee called the roll after reaching quorum, then moved the bill do pass as amended to Appropriations by a 6-0 vote with the roll left open. Finally, AB 698 (Wicks) would require analysis of the housing, market-rate, and property tax impacts before a local transfer tax is adopted; supporters said it would inform local decision-making, while opponents, including a coalition tied to Los Angeles’ Measure ULA, argued it could undermine local revenue tools and housing funding. The committee discussed that the bill was forward-looking and not retroactive, and then moved it forward as amended.