Appropriations Committee adopts rules, advances wildfire relief, housing and insurance bills to suspense or due-pass

The California State Assembly Appropriations Committee on March 19, 2025, adopted its committee rules and advanced multiple bills addressing wildfire recovery, housing development timelines and insurance-market stability, placing several measures on the committee’s suspense file and moving others out on a roll call for further consideration.

The committee approved its rules by an 11-0 roll call. Later in the hearing the panel put multiple fiscal or contested measures on the suspense file and recorded “due pass” or “out on a roll call” dispositions for several bills, which the committee said it would post on the committee website following the hearing.

Why it matters: The bills the committee considered would affect mortgage relief after wildfires, the pace and cost of residential construction statewide, and financing options for the California Fair Plan — the state’s insurer of last resort. Committee action on the suspense file advances these measures toward full Assembly floor consideration while deferring final fiscal decisions.

Mortgage forbearance for wildfire survivors (AB 238) Assemblymember Herbedian, the bill’s author, said AB 238 “provides [a] crucial safety net for LA County wildfire survivors,” allowing borrowers to request an initial mortgage forbearance of up to 180 days with “the option to extend for additional relief if needed for up to 1 year maximum.” The Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) fiscal analysis cited implementation costs, including a “one-time expenditure exceeding $150,000” for an examiner and IT updates. The Consumer Federation of California’s Robert Harrell testified in support.

Industry witnesses raised implementation and investor-market concerns. Vanessa Lugo of the California Bankers Association told the committee the industry has “significant concerns with the current version of the measure” and asked for changes to align the bill with existing federal loss-assistance programs from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, VA and USDA. Representatives of the mortgage servicing industry likewise urged amendments to avoid conflicts with investor and federal servicer guidelines. The author agreed to continue working with stakeholders. The committee placed AB 238 on the suspense file for further action.

Insurance and post-loss payments (AB 493 and AB 597) Assemblymember presentation for AB 493 said the bill would require interest on certain post-loss insurance payouts to homeowners; the Assemblymember noted the cost to DFPI to ensure compliance would be “minor.” The California Mortgage Bankers Association said it had technical concerns but was engaging with the author. AB 597, described by its author as enhancing consumer protections after disasters (including protections against price gouging and unfair practices by public adjusters), was sponsored by the Department of Insurance; Joseph Inquero, deputy commissioner and legislative director at the Department of Insurance, asked for an “I” vote and said the department supports the measure to protect consumers. Both measures were reported out on roll calls (listed on the committee website as out on an “a” roll call).

Six-year moratorium on residential building-code changes (AB 306) Assemblymember Schultz told the committee AB 306 would impose “a 6 year moratorium on new updates [to] the state building code that would affect residential construction,” allowing only emergency changes for health and safety. Supporters, including Marina Espinosa of the California Housing Consortium and Silvio Ferrari of the California Building Industry Association, argued a pause would stabilize project financing and reduce upward pressure on construction costs; supporters told the committee stakeholders estimate recent code changes have added roughly “$50,000 to $100,000 per single family unit” in upfront costs over the last 15 years.

Opponents included Ed Manning representing the International Code Council and environmental groups (Earthjustice, NRDC Action Fund). Manning testified the measure was “a bit of a chainsaw approach to the codes,” arguing that many code updates yield net benefits (safety, insurance savings, technology adoption) and that a total six-year freeze requires more targeted analysis. Assemblymember Dixon said she would not support the bill as drafted, citing concerns about loss of local flexibility. The committee moved AB 306 to the suspense file.

Third-party plan checks to speed permits (AB 253) Assemblymember Ward presented AB 253, which would permit homeowners and developers to hire licensed third-party professionals to perform building plan checks if a local jurisdiction would take 30 days or more for the same review. Supporters, including California YIMBY’s Jordan Karbajal, said the bill preserves city oversight for inspections and final approvals while creating an alternate path to get “shovels in the ground” faster. Assemblymember Ward said the bill leaves final inspections and critical safety checks to local governments. The bill was reported out on an “a” roll call, with Members Hart and Dixon recorded as not voting on the roll call reported in the transcript.

FAIR Plan liquidity and bond authority (AB 226) Assemblymember Alvarez presented AB 226 to expand the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank’s authority to accept bond proceeds and to streamline FAIR Plan access to liquidity without annual legislative action. Department of Insurance deputy Andrew Deller, speaking for Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, said the measure would provide the FAIR Plan “another financial tool” to ensure it can pay claims after wildfire events and avoid market instability. Supporters emphasized that issuance costs would be borne by bond proceeds and FAIR Plan policyholders rather than general taxpayers. The committee moved AB 226 out on an “a” roll call/due pass at the suspense hearing.

Permitting timelines for state agencies (AB 301) and ADU coastal permit exemption (AB 462) AB 301, presented by Assemblymember Schiavo, would impose timelines on state agencies’ reviews that are analogous to existing “shot clock” rules for local jurisdictions. Ally Zaperman of Housing Action Coalition described examples where state agency delays (for example, a year-long review by the Department of Toxic Substances Control cited by members) had forced project changes and driven up costs. AB 462, presented by Assemblymember Lowenthal, would exempt accessory dwelling units in Los Angeles County (and in future disaster-affected coastal communities) from coastal development permit requirements to allow ADUs to use a streamlined 60-day approval process. Both bills were reported out on roll calls and listed for suspense/due-pass consideration.

Votes at a glance - Committee rules: adopted, roll call 11-0. - AB 238 (Herbedian) — mortgage forbearance for LA County wildfire survivors: placed on suspense file (committee to revisit fiscal issues and stakeholder amendments). - AB 306 (Schultz) — six-year residential building-code moratorium: placed on suspense file. - AB 253 (Ward) — third-party plan checks: out on an a roll call (reported with two members not voting). - AB 226 (Alvarez) — FAIR Plan liquidity/I-Bank authority: due pass on suspense (out on an a roll call at the suspense hearing). - AB 301 (Schiavo) — state agency permit timeframes: due pass on suspense (out on an a roll call at the suspense hearing). - AB 493 and AB 597 — insurance/post-loss protections and post-disaster consumer protections: reported out on a roll call; technical concerns were raised by industry witnesses and committee members. - AB 462 (Lowenthal) — ADU coastal permit exemption for Los Angeles County: out on an a roll call.

What’s next: The committee said it will post the suspense-file results and roll-call details on the Appropriations Committee website following the hearing. Several authors and stakeholders told members they will continue negotiations on technical amendments before floor consideration.

Ending: Committee minutes and the official roll-call records will be posted on the committee website; authors repeatedly asked members for “I” votes and said they will continue stakeholder outreach to address concerns raised during testimony.