Assembly housing committee advances housing, camping, mobile-home and utility bills; bond measure proposed for 2026

The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee met in Room 4307 at the State Capitol for a multi‑hour hearing that covered a package of housing bills, a proposed statewide affordable housing bond and related measures. Committee members debated regulatory changes for low‑impact camping, expanded enforcement and referrals for mobile‑home law violations, safety requirements for mobile‑home parks, expanded pathways for housing near colleges, measures to speed utility reviews of post‑entitlement permits, and proposals to make it simpler for school districts to build staff housing.

Why it matters: Committee members said the bills are intended to address a statewide shortage of housing and to reduce regulatory barriers where local governments and state agencies can impede construction or safety enforcement. Several items carry budget or regulatory impacts for counties, utilities or state agencies, and the committee recorded a series of roll‑call votes that moved bills forward to later committees.

Major items and discussion

AB 518 (Low‑Impact Camping). Assemblymember Ward introduced the Low‑Impact Camping Areas Act, which would let counties opt in to a streamlined state framework for small, commercially offered low‑impact campsites (LICAs) on private rural parcels. Supporters — including Lexi Gerdolfo of the California Outdoor Recreation Partnership and a representative of Hipcamp — said the bill removes duplicative state development requirements that deter farmers and rural landowners from hosting a few tents or sites, while retaining health and safety standards and leaving land‑use decisions to counties. Gerdolfo said the outdoor recreation economy provides jobs and that “AB 518 cuts through red tape and returns land‑use decisions regarding small‑scale campground permitting to local governments who opt in.”

Opponents, including Diana Kelly of the California Outdoor Hospitality Association and speakers representing county boards of supervisors, said the bill could complicate enforcement and public‑safety oversight, particularly where campsites are marketed online and the physical address is not required in listings. Kelly said the industry does not see a statewide shortage of campsites and warned the bill could privilege 1 corporation and add administrative burdens to counties. Assemblymember Quirk‑Silva and others pressed the author on enforcement, sewage and fire‑safety concerns; Ward and sponsors said the opt‑in framework preserves local authority and that counties can require registration and local permitting under the proposal. The committee approved AB 518 as amended (motion passed; committee vote recorded 8–0 at the hearing).

AB 635 (Mobile‑home residency referrals to Attorney General). Assemblymember Arancz (sponsor) described AB 635 as a targeted change to the Mobile Home Residency Law Protection Program: it would require the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to refer up to 25 of the most severe alleged violations each year to the Attorney General for possible enforcement, and to make the Mobile Home Residency Dispute Resolution Fund available to support that work. Beverly Purcell and Bruce Stanton (Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League) told the committee that manufactured‑home residents are often seniors or low‑income and that stronger state enforcement is needed to address eviction threats and resale‑interference complaints. Opponents from the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association and the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance said the program has underperformed and raised concerns about continuing the mandatory fee that funds the program; they urged a pause or reevaluation. Committee members requested data tracking and noted a sunset amendment; the committee passed AB 635 to the next committee (motion passed; committee vote recorded 9–1 at the hearing).

AB 925 (Mobile‑Home Emergency Safety Act). Assemblymember Addis sponsored AB 925 to tighten emergency‑preparedness rules for mobile‑home parks: requiring park owners to ensure exits and entrances remain unlocked and unobstructed, that fire hydrant systems are operable and accessible, and that gas shutoff valves can be accessed by emergency responders. Supporters, including Kendall Jarvis of Legal Aid of Sonoma County and GSMOL, said incidents in past fires showed hydrants or park exits were unusable, placing residents at risk. Opponents from park owner groups argued the bill would add cost and duplicative paperwork and that HCD already enforces some safety standards; they also raised concerns about the proposed permit fee increase and the program’s existing fund balance. The committee discussed funding levels and enforcement mechanics; the item was placed on call during the hearing and not finally disposed at that moment (see Votes at a glance below for the committee action recorded during the hearing).

AB 893 (Housing near campus; mixed‑income residential expansions). Assemblymember Phong presented AB 893 to expand a state approval pathway for mixed‑income housing on commercially zoned parcels near public college and university campuses, allow eligibility for students/faculty/staff for some affordable units, and to narrow the bill (committee amendment) to a half‑mile radius and exclude private campuses. Student leaders and campus advocates testified that student homelessness and rent burden are significant problems; they urged the committee to vote yes. The League of California Cities registered respectful opposition unless amended, citing concerns about local housing elements and uniform height limits. The committee passed AB 893 as amended to the next committee (motion passed; committee vote recorded 10–0 at the hearing).

AB 712 (Enforcement and attorney’s‑fee remedies for housing laws). Assemblymember Wicks sponsored AB 712 to extend the enforcement tools now found in the Housing Accountability Act to other state housing reform statutes — authorizing attorney’s fees for prevailing applicants, imposing fines on agencies that repeatedly violate state housing law, and barring indemnity provisions that shift agency legal costs onto applicants. Supporters (California Building Industry Association and California Housing Defense Fund) argued the measures add needed “teeth” so developers and applicants can enforce statutory rights; a legal‑services witness described a case where indemnification risk defeated an affordable housing challenge. Special‑district groups asked for clarity because districts are not land‑use authorities in most cases. The committee approved AB 712 as amended and sent it to the Assembly Judiciary Committee (motion passed; committee vote recorded 9–0 at the hearing).

AB 736 (Affordable housing bond, 2026). Assemblymember Wicks offered AB 736, a proposed $10 billion general obligation bond…