Transcript Highlights:

• The great wisdom of this bill is that it collectivizes that and then invests in the infrastructure in

Summary: The committee heard AB 736, the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which would place a $10 billion housing bond on the ballot to fund multifamily housing, supportive housing, homeownership, preservation of deed-restricted units, acquisition/rehabilitation of naturally affordable housing, farmworker housing, and tribal housing. The author and supporters said the bond is needed because existing housing bond funds are exhausted and California still faces a severe affordability and homelessness crisis. Support was broad, with many local governments, housing groups, labor, and business organizations testifying in favor; Habitat for Humanity opposed unless 10% of proceeds were reserved for CalHome. Committee members raised the CalHome issue and other priorities, but the bill passed on a do-pass motion to Senate Appropriations with a roll-call vote, with some members voting aye and the measure held on call for absent members. The committee then took up SB 1361, which would limit how SB 79 transit-oriented housing rules can be used to interfere with planned transit stops and routes. The author and supporters from L.A. Metro and the building trades argued the bill would prevent local governments from stalling transit projects out of concern that future density requirements could apply, while preserving existing housing standards. Several groups that had initially opposed or had concerns, including the League of California Cities, Streets for All, Greenbelt Alliance, California YIMBY, and Bay Area Council, withdrew opposition or moved to neutral after amendments. The bill was approved as amended to Senate Local Government and placed on call. Senator Grayson presented SB 1003, creating a pro-housing infrastructure financing program to help local governments and developers fund infrastructure needed for infill housing, and SB 1014, requiring local agencies to provide early good-faith estimates and itemized lists of on-site and off-site improvements so projects are not hit with late surprise costs. Both bills were supported by housing advocates, Habitat for Humanity, and other groups, with limited opposition or concerns from some cities about implementation details. Each measure received a do-pass-as-amended motion to Senate Appropriations and was held on call. The committee also heard SB 908 on window replacement streamlining, which would ease permitting for energy-efficient residential window replacements statewide and limit certain new-construction provisions to San Francisco; it passed as amended to Appropriations and was held on call. Later, Senator Allen presented SB 1092 and SB 1093 on mobile home park preservation and post-disaster protections. SB 1092 would require park owners who intend to sell to give residents or their representatives an opportunity to make a competitive bid to buy the park, with supporters citing wildfire losses and the need to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing; opponents argued it would devalue property and create litigation risk. SB 1093 would require clearer communication, access, and compensation protections for residents after disasters, and would require owners to consider rebuilding versus closure. Supporters emphasized the uncertainty faced by displaced residents in the Palisades and other fire areas, while opponents said the bill could impose onerous obligations, liability, and valuation requirements. Both bills were moved do pass as amended to Appropriations and held on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• The great wisdom of this bill is that it collectivizes that and then invests in the infrastructure in

Committee: Senate Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Managing health expenses through a joint labor management trust empowers participating employers to collectivize
• Through a joint labor management trust, participating employers can collectivize to establish self-funded

Summary: The Senate Committee on Health heard a series of bills focused on access to care, insurance coverage, and public health. AB 387 on youth sports AED access drew support from the author and safety advocates, but opposition from school, park, city, and county groups over liability, cost, and access concerns. The author said he would continue working on amendments to shift the bill toward requiring access to existing AEDs rather than mandating facility procurement. Committee members emphasized the life-saving purpose of the bill while also raising affordability and access concerns for youth sports programs. The committee also heard AB 1682, which would require health plans and insurers to cover FDA-cleared scalp cooling devices for chemotherapy patients. Supporters, including breast cancer survivors and health groups, described the emotional and quality-of-life benefits of preventing hair loss and said cost is the main barrier to access. There was no formal opposition, though one senator raised concerns about whether the mandate could exceed essential health benefits. The chair and members expressed support for the bill’s goals and said it would be taken up when quorum was established. AB 2093, a follow-up to the 988 crisis line law, sought to clarify statewide leadership, improve coordination among 988, 911, and mobile crisis teams, and create a more sustainable funding structure. Behavioral health organizations and crisis center representatives supported the bill, saying implementation challenges and demand growth require statutory fixes. Committee members generally supported the concept but noted the bill was a gut-and-amend and that additional work was needed with county and behavioral health stakeholders. The committee then heard AB 1843 on hepatitis C treatment, AB 1629 on dental assignment of benefits, AB 2540 on community college access to medication abortion services, and AB 1929 on disclosure of health plan investments. AB 1843 had broad support from medical and public health groups but opposition from health plans, which argued it conflicted with the prior-authorization framework in SB 306 and could raise drug costs. AB 1629 was supported by dental and patient advocates but opposed by dental plans and insurers over concerns about network participation and out-of-pocket costs. AB 2540 drew strong support from reproductive health advocates and student representatives, while community college health services and some others opposed or were neutral pending amendments; the author said the bill was about equity and accepted amendments to reduce burdens. AB 1929 was backed by labor and immigrant rights groups as a transparency measure, but opposed by health plans and insurers who said Covered California was not the right entity to administer the disclosures and that the information was already publicly available. Throughout the hearing, members repeatedly weighed public access and transparency against cost, administrative burden, and implementation concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• Managing health expenses through a joint labor-management trust empowers participating employers to collectivize
• Through a joint labor-management trust, employers can collectivize to establish self-funded programs

Committee: Senate Health

Transcript Highlights:

• South Asian communities, or other countries, where they have a much more fully formed sense of collectivism

Committee: House Legislative Health & Human Services Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• So the worker cooperative model would mean that farms that are collectivized and around the production
• So the worker cooperative model would mean that farms that are collectivized and around the production

Bills: HB20 , HB2612 , HB2404 , HB2459 , HB2194 , HB1880 , HB2284 , HB1969 , HB2458 , HB1546 , HB2161 , HB1721 , HB1641 , HB2137 , HB1782 , HB2360 , HB1965 , HB1897 , HB1513

Committee: House Consumer Protection & Commerce

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 20, which would create a lava zone insurance subsidy/fund. The Insurance Division opposed the bill, arguing that lava zones 1 and 2 are the highest-risk areas, that a subsidy would not reduce the underlying risk or loss costs, that it could invite similar subsidy requests for other hazards, and that the bill may conflict with HICV by diverting funds from the CRF. Members discussed the lack of authorized homeowners insurance in those lava zones, the role of HPIA and the surplus market, and the difference between the proposed lava-zone subsidy and the Hawaii Hurricane Relief Fund. The chair noted 37 submitted testimonies in support and one in opposition, and the committee then moved on without taking a vote on HB 20 in the portion provided. The committee then took up HB 2612, relating to mortgages, which would clarify that a mortgage does not exist independently of the debt it secures and is not independently enforceable from that debt. The Hawaii Credit Union League and Hawaii Financial Services Association opposed the bill, while several individuals testified in support, arguing it would restore Hawaii’s long-standing lien-state rule and prevent so-called “zombie mortgages” after the Hawaii Supreme Court’s White decision. Supporters said the bill would protect borrowers from delayed foreclosures and predatory lending practices, while opponents and the Insurance Division emphasized that foreclosure actions still require proof of standing and possession of the note, and that lenders generally pursue foreclosure without seeking deficiency judgments. Committee members questioned the Insurance Division about how the current market works, whether lenders could wait out the statute of limitations and then foreclose only on the mortgage, and whether equitable tolling or later defaults could allow refiling. The division said it is still trying to attract authorized insurers back into the lava-zone market, but has seen little progress. No vote or final action on HB 2612 was taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• 01:05:32.000><c> economic</c><01:05:32.599><c> value</c><01:05:33.119><c> of</c><01:05:33.279><c> collectiv
• </c> providing an economic value of collectiv providing an economic value of collectiv leave<01:05:34.000

Committee: House Election Law