Transcript Highlights:

• Addressing a moratorium on the adoption of new state and local building standards affecting residential
• CEQA is not the reason for the delays in development, and building codes are not the reason for rising
• Set the standard for the workers that build this great state and where our people will live.
• We stand with the California State Building Trades Council. and we are in strong opposition to this.
• Standards Code and really tailoring the application of the moratorium to new residential development

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Colleagues, I'm here to present Senate Bill 677 to help California continue to efficiently build more
• Colleagues, I'm here to present Senate Bill 677 to help California continue to efficiently build more
• California peace officers must be trained in California law and POST standards, including a long list
• Faith Borgis, on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, respectfully opposes
• and people in California.

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, for nearly 20 years here in California, we have championed a building code standard that ensures
• the building code, we really use standards to assess... ...to note that throughout the building code,
• we really use standards to assist us, but our code is the minimum for the state.
• we take standards and we make sure they meet the needs of California.
• But that's where I just separate a standard from the code.

Transcript Highlights:

• Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association here in opposition as well, looking
• The Building Standards Commission may then adopt, approve, codify, and publish mandatory building energy
• standards for new construction, building electrical circuit features to enable a qualified...
• These new standards could go into effect beginning with the first triennial edition of the building code
• as the National Electrical Code or the California Electrical Code here in California; and finally, inspection

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Transcript Highlights:

• It ensures that certified interior designers understand California codes, and it allows us to contribute
• The only California examination that's comprehensive, California-specific, and tests not only on building
• codes and regulations, but design standards, professional practice, business practices, ethics, accessibility
• the building officials.
• I began practicing here in California and Southern California 13 years ago.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not in the best interest of the child if they deviate from that standard.
• We’re standardizing all the training in collaboration with POST.
• a general Code of Civil Procedure article on venue.
• The Code of Civil Procedure article applies as a general proposition.
• a general Code of Civil Procedure article on venue.

Bills: HB27 , HB71 , HB214 , HB225 , HB244 , HB306 , HB366 , HB446 , HB473 , HB514 , HB1043 , HB1082 , SB127

Committee: House Civil Law and Procedure

Keywords: armed security, liability, concealed carry, self-defense, security officers, property tax, blighted properties, urban rehabilitation, tax exemption, local government, financial incentives, term limits, governor, Louisiana constitution, elections, gubernatorial, constitutional convention, delegates, state election, ratification

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Gertie's assembled stakeholders in this very building to meet.
• Yet decision makers currently lack access to Build time data, predictive modeling, and transparent tools
• Their concern are people that build these large lakes and ponds.
• Clearly if you're on a ranch and you're building a pond and you... want to use that water source, you
• This ensures we are consistent with current standards for public transparency.

Bills: HB1523 , HB2109 , HB2694 , HB3525 , HB3898 , HB4646 , HB5188 , HB5219 , HB5320 , HB5651 , HB5655 , HB5659 , HB5662 , HB5672

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not where I'm going to build my home place.
• And we have a model on such as this, and these frightening models are in California.
• But we've seen, with that last devastating California fire, it wiped out Los Angeles.
• How is the DFW region doing in terms of building reuse into their systems?
• I think I just want to make the point that I don't want to build new reservoirs.

Bills: HB1523 , HB2109 , HB2694 , HB3525 , HB3898 , HB4646 , HB5188 , HB5219 , HB5320 , HB5651 , HB5655 , HB5659 , HB5662 , HB5672

Committee: House Natural Resources

Keywords: aquifer conservation, Class V injection well, environmental regulation, groundwater protection, municipal water supply, temporary prohibition, water management, reservoir construction, state water plan, Texas Water Code, environmental impact, Brazoria Drainage District, commissioners, elections, vacancies, resignation, HB 3525, North Texas Groundwater Conservation District, groundwater permit, permit amendment

Summary: The Committee on Natural Resources heard House Bill 2109, which would remove certain long-proposed reservoir projects from the state water plan after 50 years without progress. Chairman Van Deaver and many landowners, local officials, timber interests, and conservation advocates testified in support, arguing that the Marvin Nichols Reservoir has burdened Northeast Texas landowners for decades with the threat of eminent domain, depressed property values, and uncertainty over homes, farms, ranches, schools, churches, and cemeteries. Supporters also said the project would flood tens of thousands of acres, require extensive mitigation, harm timber and agriculture, and that Texas now has better alternatives such as conservation, reuse, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalination. Several members expressed sympathy for the affected families and questioned whether a project could remain in the plan indefinitely without progress. Opposition came from North Texas water interests, including the North Texas Commission, Tarrant Regional Water District, and the Texas Water Association, who argued that the bill would interfere with the state’s long-term water planning process and remove needed future supply options for a fast-growing region. They said Region C faces major projected shortages by 2070, that conservation and reuse have already delayed the need for new supplies, and that reservoirs remain one tool in the state’s water-planning toolbox. TWDB staff explained the existing inter-regional conflict process and noted that the substitute would affect several unique reservoir sites, not just Marvin Nichols. After testimony, Chairman Van Deaver closed by urging passage of the bill, but the committee withdrew the substitute and left HB 2109 pending. The committee then took up House Bill 5188, a brackish groundwater bill. The author said the bill would reduce permitting burdens for wells in designated brackish groundwater production zones, and the committee substitute added requirements on monitoring, groundwater-rights ownership, and allocation of pumpage limits while removing some exclusions and export-fee provisions. Texas Wildlife Association testified against the bill, warning that the exemptions could weaken groundwater conservation districts’ ability to protect freshwater resources and surface-owner rights. San Antonio Water System testified in favor, saying brackish groundwater is a key future supply and that the substitute would help speed development of desalination and brackish projects. The Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts testified neutrally but raised concerns about reduced district oversight, especially around injection-well exclusions and the loss of export fees, and said discussions on the bill were ongoing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We regulate money services businesses under Chapter 152 of the Texas Finance Code.
• Just really quickly in terms of, in Texas Finance Code, the definition of a digital asset provider is
• HB 4238 builds Molly Voyles: upon this legislature's previous work.
• That's not actually accurate under the family code.
• However, Chapter 154 of the Finance Code, which states that the Department of Banking shall regulate

Bills: HB3803 , HB3804 , HB3805 , HB3806 , HB3833 , HB4134 , HB4233 , HB4238 , HB4243

Committee: House Pensions, Investments & Financial Services

Keywords: HB 3803, Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 712, perpetual care cemetery, perpetual care trust fund, cemetery regulation, financial confidentiality, confidential records, regulatory examination, Texas Department of Banking, commissioner disclosure, interagency information sharing, state agency enforcement, federal agency disclosure, trust fund oversight, burial services, cemetery trust, consumer protection, state banks, Texas Finance Code

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's, uh, local government code.
• To standardize the code, bless you, to standardize the code and hopefully spread their risk, bless you
• Yes sir, it would standardize the code and it would be up to individual operators to determine the economics
• Meeting the standard we would like to see, um, so I may visit with you a little bit about that.
• The fees, court fees under 133 of the criminal code pay for the salary, so it's not.

Bills: HB1845 , HB2192 , HB2438 , HB2529 , HB2607 , HB2658 , HB3348 , HB3505 , HB3305

Committee: House S/C on County & Regional Government

Keywords: rural prosecution, salary assistance, staffing grant, legal support, criminal justice, fireworks, permit requirements, sale, county regulations, public safety, hospital district, administration, elections, director qualifications, public contracts, salary supplement, county judges, judicial functions, state law, government compensation

Transcript Highlights:

• REMOVING OUR NAVAJO CODE TALK YOURS WHO HELPED US DEFEAT JAPAN.
• in the tax code and ensure disaster victims are able to receive more timely relief.
• IN THE TAX CODE AND ENSURE DISASTER VICTIMS ARE ABLE TO RECEIVE MORE TIMELY RELIEF.
• The gentlelady from California is recognized. Ms.
• That is the legacy we honor and one future we are building together.

Bills: HR997 , HR517 , HR1152 , HB1491 , HR1155 , HR998 , HR1234

Keywords: House of Representatives, code of conduct, suspension of rules, time zone clocks, rules reform, legislative efficiency, hospital, healthcare, anniversary, Sisters of Mercy, community outreach, American cowboy, cattle trails, historical recognition, 250th anniversary, cultural heritage, economic impact, tourism, agriculture, disaster relief

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, it is and the standards so if you're applying for provisional license the standards we tighten those
• because their record-keeping etc might not be our standards.
• And the standards, of course, the TMA is setting the standards, the Texas Medical Board. they have very
• well-established standards.
• One way to make them walk out the building, or one way to encourage them to come in the building.

Bills: HB713 , HB827 , HB932 , HB499 , HB510 , HB163 , HB296 , HB879 , HB913 , HB163 , HB296

Committee: House Public Health

Keywords: healthcare, maternal health, reporting requirements, Texas Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee, health provider immunity, workplace violence, nurses, grant program, healthcare facilities, safety measures, safety, nursing, grants, healthcare safety, verbal abuse, physical abuse, nurse empowerment, occupational therapy, licensure, interstate practice

Transcript Highlights:

• Through innovative programs and nation-leading appliance and building standards, California has seen
• Currently, we heard about codes and standards, and the programs are limited by what is above the Title
• 24 codes and standards.
• I'll just say that on the LED example specifically, you know, because the codes and standards changes
• And I'll just comment... ...on the fact that codes and standards are fantastic.

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• Through innovative programs and nation-leading appliance and building standards, California has seen
• 24 codes and standards.
• I'll just say that on the LED example specifically, because the codes and standards changes occurred.
• And I think our codes and standards programs that are currently funded by PPP programs do support all
• And I'll just comment... ...on the fact that codes and standards are fantastic.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on how California Public Utilities Commission energy efficiency programs are budgeted, evaluated, and measured for cost-effectiveness. The chair framed the issue as not whether energy efficiency works, but how to ensure ratepayer-funded programs continue to deliver value as the portfolio has shifted from simple measures like lighting to more complex retrofits, electrification, workforce, and equity programs. CPUC staff outlined the statutory framework, the four-year budget cycle, recent spending of about $795 million in 2025, and the use of total system benefit (TSB) and the total resource cost (TRC) test, noting that some programs are exempt from cost-effectiveness requirements at the individual program level but not at the resource acquisition portfolio level. Utility, regional network, implementer, and advocacy witnesses offered differing views on the current metrics. PG&E described its portfolio as cost-effective overall and argued that cost-effectiveness should remain at the portfolio level to allow innovation and multi-year program flexibility. SoCalREN and the Energy Coalition emphasized the value of local government delivery, equity-focused programs, and the need to credit programs for broader benefits such as workforce development, market transformation, and electrification. The Public Advocates Office argued that ratepayer-funded programs should produce benefits greater than costs and raised concerns about the growing share of budgets going to programs that have not met cost-effectiveness thresholds. Several witnesses said the current math is too complicated and that different program types may need different metrics. Committee members repeatedly pressed witnesses on the complexity of the TRC and TSB calculations, the treatment of participant costs, and whether the state should use a simpler or more transparent framework. CPUC staff said the relevant issues are already being addressed in two open proceedings, with one budget application proceeding expected to conclude in roughly the second or third quarter of next year and a broader policy rulemaking ongoing. No votes were taken and no formal action was reported; the hearing functioned as an informational discussion and policy review.

Transcript Highlights:

• A local jurisdiction, just like the building code... ...resistance zone sets a minimum standard.
• Now, for nearly 20 years here in California, we have championed a building code standard that ensures
• the building code, we really use standards to assist us, but our code is the minimum for the state.
• standards and make sure they meet the needs of California.
• But that's where I just separate a standard from the code.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• When the legislature passed AB 988 in 2022, California made a commitment to build a comprehensive behavioral
• This is exactly what we hoped would happen when California invested in building this system.
• This is exactly what we hoped would happen when California invested in building this system.
• building a 98-7. ...new collaboration, transparency, and planning as California moves from building
• So it's worth noting that the California standards are actually more protective than the EU levels for

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:

• , as opposed to the current commercial code building.
• with the type of housing we're building than doing apartments using the California Building Code.
• Residential Code, or CRC, rather than the more onerous California Building Code.
• Standards Commission to be able to update its code.
• Some of our members do build in other states, and California takes the longest.

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills, beginning with AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group to study whether small multifamily “missing middle” projects of three to ten units could be built under the residential code instead of the commercial code. The author and supporters argued this could reduce construction costs and help produce more affordable infill housing; there was no opposition testimony. The bill later passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. Members then heard AB 48, a higher education facilities bond proposal that would fund safety upgrades, deferred maintenance, modernization, disaster recovery, and student and employee housing at UC, CSU, and community colleges. UC, CSU, and several public commenters supported the measure, while members raised concerns about affordability, prioritization, and the scope of the bond; the author said amendments would remove a proposed property tax burden increase. AB 48 passed 9-0 to Appropriations. AB 76, which makes technical changes to Chula Vista’s University Innovation District and clarifies how student and employee housing counts toward affordable housing requirements, also drew support and no opposition, and passed 10-0. The committee also approved AB 595, which creates a state homeownership tax credit pilot program to help finance affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters said it would address California’s low homeownership rates and racial homeownership gaps without reducing rental housing funding. After quorum was established, the bill passed 11-0 to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing and human services bills, was approved 8-0. Finally, the committee took up AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act, which would require ongoing annual state investments and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author, a UCSF homelessness researcher, and a person with lived experience testified in support, emphasizing that one-time funding is insufficient and that sustained investment is needed. The bill passed 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee also heard AB 609, a CEQA infill housing exemption bill that would streamline approvals for qualifying housing near existing development; supporters framed it as a targeted reform to reduce delays, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups raised concerns about loss of public participation, affordability, displacement, and consultation protections. The author said he would continue working with opponents on amendments, and the bill was still under discussion at the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• By way of background, AB 306 would require the California Building Standards Commission to hear and decide
• appeals regarding a local agency's implementation of the state building code and issue code interpretation
• A local agency's implementation of the state building code and issue code interpretations.
• to request a determination from the California Building Standards Commission, the state body that adopts
• and publishes California's building standards code.

Summary: The committee heard several housing, local government, coastal, and infrastructure bills. AB 306 would create a statewide appeal and code-interpretation process for building code issues at the California Building Standards Commission; supporters said it would reduce inconsistent local interpretations and speed housing delivery, while no opposition testified, and it was moved on a do-pass-as-amended vote to Appropriations. AB 956 would clarify ADU law to allow up to two detached ADUs on a property and address ADUs in HOAs/common interest developments; supporters framed it as a flexibility and housing-supply measure, while local government and county groups raised concerns about ministerial approval, parking, density, and impacts on neighborhood character. After committee questions, the bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote, with the bill remaining on call. Members also considered AB 1751, which would create a ministerial approval path for qualifying townhome projects and allow local inclusionary ordinances for larger projects. Supporters said it would expand attainable homeownership and help produce missing-middle housing, while cities and counties objected to reduced density, by-right approval, and potential housing-element net-loss issues. The bill was moved do pass as amended to Appropriations on a 2-0 vote and remained on call. AB 912, which would revise the governance structure of the Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District board, drew unanimous support from the district, city, and county; it passed 3-0 to Appropriations and remained on call. AB 1710, aimed at preserving housing project entitlements from later regulatory changes, also advanced on a 4-0 do-pass-as-amended vote after opponents said they were awaiting the committee amendments. The committee also heard AB 2080, which would make county treasurer investment authority delegations ongoing until revoked rather than requiring annual renewal; supporters said it would reduce technical noncompliance and administrative burden without reducing oversight, and it was moved to the Senate Floor. AB 1740, a coastal bill for Santa Monica, would set timelines and reporting for a local coastal program and create an expedited Coastal Commission process for bike, transit, and pedestrian projects; supporters said it reflected a negotiated path forward with the city and commission, and it passed 3-0 to Appropriations. AB 2181, backed by Unite Here, would limit use of hypothetical density bonus value in hotel and motel appraisals; supporters said it would protect hospitality jobs from speculative lease-rent increases, and it was moved to the Senate Floor on a 4-0 vote. Finally, AB 2469 on data centers and water use drew the most extended debate. The bill would require water supply and water use assessments before approval, and shift infrastructure costs to project proponents; supporters said it would improve transparency, protect ratepayers, and ensure local governments have information before approving water-intensive facilities. Opponents, including business, city, county, and tech groups, argued existing law already covers water assessments and fees, warned the bill could create a separate permitting regime, and raised concerns about privacy, security, and investment impacts. The committee had not yet taken final action on AB 2469 when the transcript ended, and members were still asking technical questions about data center cooling and water reuse.

Transcript Highlights:

• Building Industry Association and Deborah Carlton on behalf of the California Apartment Association.
• codes, such as air quality regulations that interact with building codes, as well as solar energy requirements
• codes, such as air quality regulations that interact with building codes, as well as solar energy requirements
• the standards given the safety and risk issues that are addressed in current building codes that trained
• , and building inspectors that work in the building code area and don't just entrust their critical work

Summary: The Local Government Committee met on March 25, 2026, hearing eight bills, with several measures focused on housing, water, and local government administration. AB 1621 by Assemblymember Wilson sought to speed post-entitlement housing permits by setting clearer timelines, limiting repeated plan checks, and restricting field changes that conflict with approved plans. Supporters from the building, apartment, business, and housing sectors said the bill would reduce delays and costs, while county and city representatives opposed it unless amended, warning it could limit local enforcement of building and environmental codes and create problems for incomplete applications. The bill passed after a roll call vote, with the committee noting it would continue working with local government groups on amendments. The committee also heard AB 1712, which would help Santa Fe Springs sell its small, financially strained water system to a larger regulated provider without requiring a municipal election, using a protest process instead. The author and city officials said the system faces contamination, major deferred maintenance, and rate increases that could otherwise triple; water industry representatives supported the bill and no opposition was heard. AB 2080, sponsored by county treasurers, would make county delegations of investment authority to treasurers ongoing until revoked rather than requiring annual renewal, with supporters saying it would reduce administrative burden and avoid technical lapses. AB 2640 would allow local governments to offset reductions in reimbursement for disallowed state mandate claims against other unpaid mandate reimbursements; Shasta County testified in support, describing a large audit disallowance and long-delayed state payments. Both bills passed. The committee also approved consent items AB 1622 and AB 1834. AB 2180, which would codify a framework for proportional water rates under Proposition 218 based on the Dreher decision, drew broad support from water agencies and local government groups, but opposition from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Association of Realtors, who argued the bill was premature while the Supreme Court reviews related case law. Despite that opposition, the bill passed on a 6-2 vote, and the remaining bills were advanced with roll calls left open for additional votes before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• , as opposed to the current commercial code building.
• with the type of housing we're building than doing apartments using the expense of the California Building
• Residential Code, or CRC, rather than the more onerous California Building Code.
• codes and, in future cycles, to reduce new cost pressures from current building codes and, in future
• Standards Commission to be able to update its code.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development heard a long agenda focused mainly on housing production, higher education facilities, homelessness, and permitting reform. Early items included AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group on allowing three- to ten-unit “missing middle” housing to be built under the Residential Code rather than the Building Code; AB 48, a higher education bond proposal that would fund campus repairs, modernization, disaster recovery, and student/employee housing; and AB 76, which would clarify a Chula Vista university innovation district exemption so the project can include academic buildings and housing without conflicting with surplus land rules. Supporters emphasized affordability, cost savings, student housing needs, and access to education, while members raised questions about implementation, affordability requirements, and project scope. The committee later took votes on these items, with AB 6, AB 48, and AB 76 all moving forward on unanimous or near-unanimous votes to Appropriations. Members also heard AB 595, which would create a state homeownership tax credit pilot to support affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters argued that California’s homeownership rate is at historic lows and that the bill would help close racial wealth gaps by financing homes working families can buy. The committee approved AB 595 and sent it to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing-related bills, was also approved unanimously. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act of 2025, which would require ongoing state investment and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author and witnesses described the scale of homelessness, the limits of one-time funding, and the need for sustained, accountable funding streams. After testimony from housing advocates and people with lived experience, the committee passed AB 1165 on a 10-0 vote to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard AB 609, a CEQA reform bill that would create a simplified exemption for qualifying infill housing projects in already developed areas. Supporters framed it as a targeted way to reduce delays and costs for housing near jobs and transit, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups warned it could reduce public participation, weaken protections for disadvantaged communities, and create consultation concerns for tribal cultural resources. The author said the bill would not change zoning or affordability tools and would continue to work with opponents on amendments. The bill was moved forward after extensive discussion, with members noting ongoing negotiations on tribal consultation and labor concerns.