Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright, we are going to convene the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee meeting. We have eight agenda items today. Three, actually, we have seven agenda items or maybe eight. One- One is being pulled off consent which may be presented today. The three that are definitely on consent are HR 44 Ward, SB 233 Sayarto, and SB 410 Grayson.

To facilitate the goals of the hearing, within the time we have each bill, we'll have two main witnesses in support and in opposition, and each will get two minutes. Feel free to submit written testimony through the position portal of the committee's website, which will become an official record of the bill.

And we will not permit any conduct that disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. We are in room 437 at the Capitol and this hearing room is open for in person attendance and all are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the assembly's website.

I do not believe we have a quorum. We do not yet. So we'll begin as a Subcommitee. Oh, we do? Okay. Alright, let's- let's take the role.

[roll call]

Alright, we have a quorum and then one further announcement, which is that SB 340 Laird will be moved to the July 2nd meeting. Uh, and, uh, it was previously on consent. With that, I'm going to turn it over to my vice chair who's going to call the first item and I will return shortly.

Alright, well, thank you. The consent calendar is out and we're going to keep the roll open for that for later. And we're moving in file order. File item number two, SB 9. Thank you, Senator.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SB 9, which will state that the failure of a local agency to submit any accessory dwelling unit ordinance to state HCD within 60 days of adoption or respond to the department's findings within 30 days.

Senator, whenever you're ready.

And I want to clarify, respond does not mean to have to make the conforming amendments, but simply just to respond to State HCD say that they've acknowledged that they've received their comments and are going to work to take appropriate action to respond to their comments.

This bill, SB 9, would make that ordinance null and void and would revert to the standards in state law if the agency does not comply within that timeframe and the agency can obviously amend the ordinance to conform to state law or amend the ordinance to respond to HCD's findings.

I want to state very clearly that I am accepting the committee amendments, which move the language to a more appropriate code section within the ADU statute. The legislature has made numerous findings to ADU law in recent years which have led to a tremendous uptick in this type of development.

ADUs now make up one in five new housing units constructed in the state providing critical affordable housing stock in our communities.

And the legislature was clear when they required ministerial approval of AD development and disallowed local governments from adding owners requirements for development that they intended to streamline the process to help get this kind of housing built much more quickly in local communities. Despite this, some local governments have enacted ordinances that run counter to state law.

When HCD provides guidance around enacted ordinances, some local governments have not been responsive or to their guidance. SB 9 would remedy the situation by adding enforcement power to existing law. Local governments are already required to submit any ADU ordinance to State HCD within 60 days after adoption and to respond to HCD guidance within 30 days.

And just to provide an example of this, I served as mayor of Berkeley for eight years and we had to make updates to our AD ordinance to respond to recent changes in state law. There was a situation where we adopted certain ADU regulations that restricted ADU development in fire severity zones. The state said we couldn't do that.

And so we had to go back and respond to the state by saying we are going to make conforming amendments. And we had to make those conforming amendments this bill.

What this would do is that if you do not respond and you do not amend the law to conform to state law, then that local ordinance would be null and void and the state provisions would take effect.

SB 9 would add that requirement by stating that the failure to notify respond to HCD will result in the ordinance becoming null and void and revert to the standards under state law until the agency adopts a compliant ordinance and follows the submittal requirements laid out in statute.

This will ensure that state AD law is implemented fairly and consistently across the state to honor the will of the legislature. With me to testify in support of the bill is Max Dubler with California YIMBY and Jonathan Pacheco Bell with the Casita Coalition.

Great. Thank you so much. You were mayor of Berkeley? I made a lot of bad decisions there. All right, great. We will move to the witnesses. Two minutes each, please. So, sir.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for having me. My name is Max Dubler. I'm a policy manager at California YIMBY. California's nation leading eighty year old farms have helped homeowners build tens of thousands of homes, with ADUs growing from less than 1% of new housing in 2016 to fully 1/5 of new homes today.

These units blend into existing neighborhoods, adding housing without disrupting their look and feel. UC Berkeley research shows us that ADUs are being built in almost every neighborhood in the state and that the overwhelming majority of them are being used as long term housing for tenants, family members, or friends.

Our statewide ADU reforms have succeeded in getting homes built in large part because they are statewide. They replace a patchwork of local zoning codes with a consistent set of relatively simple rules for what homeowners can build, and they apply them in every jurisdiction. These consistent zoning standards are paired with fast, consistent, reliable permitting procedures.

This standardization allows ADU builders to work across multiple jurisdictions and encourages investment by giving homeowners confidence that they will actually be able to secure permits. However, local ADU ordinances and permitting processes are not always consistent with those state standards.

In these cases, HCD steps in and works with local governments providing technical assistance to help them adopt policies that are in line with the rules. SB 9 strengthens enforcement by establishing a clear, straightforward accountability mechanism.

If a local agency fails to submit its ADU ordinance within 60 days of adoption or fails to respond to HCD's findings of non compliance within 30 days, that ordinance becomes null and void. The city or county must then apply default state standards until a compliant ordinance is adopted.

This change reinforces existing state law, ensures timely implementation, and protects homeowners from local barriers to building ADUs. We respectfully ask for your I vote.

Great. Thank you. Next please.

Good morning, Chair and Assembly Members. My name is Jonathan Pacheco Bell, VP of Policy and Programs at Casita Coalition. We're a statewide nonprofit that removes barriers to building smaller, more affordable homes.

With a background as a municipal planner and zoning code enforcement officer in Los Angeles County, I have seen how the intent of state housing law doesn't always translate locally. SB 9 will ensure that local laws regarding permitting and construction of accessory dwelling units are fully consistent with state law.

SB 9 requires a municipality to submit an ADU ordinance to HCD for review within 60 days of adoption, and if HCD finds non compliance, the municipality must respond to those findings within 30 days. Otherwise, that ADU ordinance is no and state ADU standards apply locally until local compliance is achieved.

SB 9 is needed because some local ordinances and practices are inconsistent with state ADU law, resulting in barriers that delay or block production of ADUs, a widely popular and more affordable home type that helps all kinds of families meet housing needs.

SB 9 creates a reasonable accountability mechanism to ensure local laws comply with with the language and intent of state ADU law. Casita Coalition supports SB 9 to ensure consistency between local and state ADU law to help community members, small builders and local planning staff implement state law as intended.

For these reasons, Casita Coalition urges you to vote yes on SB 9. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Great. Okay. We will bring it back to the committee. Anybody? What was that? Oh, yes. Are there other witnesses, secondary witnesses in support? There. I wasn't forgetting about you. Just was so compelled on the primary witnesses.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committe. Sosan Madanat at W Strategies here on behalf of Unidos US in strong support.

Good morning. Brandon Knapp representing Housing Action Coalition in support.

Good morning. Ruth Sosa, policy strategist at Power California in support.

Great, thank you. All right, now we will bring it back up here. Assembly Member.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Senator, for presenting this bill. Just want to thank you on your leadership in affordable housing and in particular this bill. Really was looking forward to, to seeing it come before us and appreciate your thoughtful thinking and leaning into the space not only for California, but for the Bay Area.

So contrary to our friend over there, you've done some really great policy in our community in the Bay Area around housing. And I know he was just joking, but I just wanted to elevate that. You've been a really strong leader in the Bay Area around housing advocacy. So thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. I just want to be clear, he's made good decisions. Maybe in Berkeley, I haven't. But. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva.

Thank you. I was going to ask the author, did you request SB 9 as your. Any of us who've been around knows?

I did not request it. I crossed this bill on the first day and it's just happenstance. Yeah. This is not the SB 9 that we all know of.

Well, that's why this will fly through. But I do want to comment on it. The consisting zoning across the state is.

It seems like a small thing, but it's a major thing because, as we know, the one glimmer in housing that I think anybody who has sat on this committee for a good amount of time, we can at least cheer that we have many, many ADUs being built.

Not as many as some think, I mean, depending on who you talk to, but they're certainly getting built and we want to make sure that the consistent zoning is in fact there because sadly we know that there are people ready to move on building and the time it takes from moving forward within the city can be quite long.

And so this puts a time on it and I appreciate that and I move the bill. Thank you.

Respectfully ask for your I vote.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other comments up here? All right. Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Perfect. Well, appreciate you bringing this bill and I think it's a modest, very modest change and but necessary unfortunately. But with that we can take the roll.

Motion to pass as amended to the Assembly Committee and local government.

[roll call]

All right, it's. The vote is 7-0, two abstentions. The the bill is out and we'll keep the roll open. Thank you very much.

Okay, we will move to Item 6, SB 486.

All right, Mr.—Mr. Chair—Members of the Committee, thanks for, thanks for the opportunity to present SB 486.

This Bill's intended to resolve a couple of issues simultaneously by finding a crosswalk between how we've been grappling with regional solutions to climate and to transportation and land use, but also our commitment as a state to assure that every single Californian is guaranteed the opportunity to attend the University of California if they are in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class and the top one-third of the high school graduating class is guaranteed admission to the California State University.

This is a long-standing policy of California and that it is set at the state level by in-state law by the regents and the trustees and annually in the Legislature's adoption of the Budget Act, which includes an enrollment forecast. That said, many of the CEQA litigation issues at the local level have said, well, the enrollment at Berkeley or at Davis or at San Diego is purely a local issue.

UC San Diego decides how many students it should have and so it should analyze what if it didn't have any new students at all? What if we had a no project alternative? But that's not how higher education in California works. Higher education is a state concern.

And so, this Bill says that you do not have to do a no project alternative, that the state's commitment to enrollment at UC and CSU is sacrosanct and it is not subject to the decisions of the Santa Cruz City Council or the Berkeley City Council.

In exchange, the Bill says that the universities must fully participate in the Regional Sustainable Communities Plans, which are also the foundation for RHNA, and that they must share their full enrollment forecasting data with the regional agencies, the COGs and the NPOs, in order to plan the appropriate level of housing in the region to serve those institutions.

Today, what typically will happen—I represent UC Davis, for example—UC Davis will tell the regional agency we expect to serve an extra 500 students over the next three years.

There's no actual enrollment forecast information underneath that for them to be able to assess—for the regional agency to assess—in the context of their regional land use and climate sustainability plan and their RHNA allocations, how to accomplish that in the best means possible, especially in the context of SAC State and all the other institutions in the region.

So, the Bill simply does two things. It avoids the requirement for a no project alternative. It's not a CEQA exemption. Simply says that campuses do not have to analyze no project as one of the alternatives. And then, secondly, that the universities must fully participate with all the local governments in the Regional Sustainable Communities Plan.

That is the foundation for RHNA. Assemblymember Wicks has already tackled the housing part of this issue much more directly, but this Bill deals with all the rest of the components.

The, the, the ball field, the academic building, the student services building, the libraries, and other components that are necessary in order to make the state's promise under the Master Plan for Higher Education a reality for all students. So, with that, I would respectfully request an "Aye" vote.

Great. Thank you. Assume no primary witnesses in support of this measure. Are there other witnesses in support?

Brandon Knapp, representing Chamber of Progress, in strong support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Is there anyone in opposition? All right, seeing none. We'll bring it back up here. Any comments? We got a motion and a second. Assemblymember.

I just want to say I was disappointed yesterday when you wore a tie, and I'm glad that you brought the wooden bow tie back. And I just want to say thank you for bringing this Bill and look forward to supporting it. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. You have his vote. So, solid Bill. Any other comments? All right. Seeing none. I think we'll take the roll. All right. Perfect.

[Roll Call]

That's nine to zero. The Bill's out and we'll keep it open.

Great. Thank you very much.

Good luck.

We have a- I don't think it is SB 543. I don't see a Senator. Okay, so we will move to SB 748.

Well, good morning. You should note that I have a slight bow tie. Any. Any extra credit points I can get, I greatly appreciate. Good morning all of you. It's a pleasure to come here before the Assembly.

I served here very briefly for about six months before my mentor and predecessor passed and went on to other things, but it's a pleasure to be here on this side and working with all of you.

First, I want to start off by thanking the chair and the Committee staff for working with me and my office on this very important measure, SB 748.

Second, I'd like to accept the Committee's amendments, which will further provide clarity regarding the scope of this Bill by giving local jurisdictions additional resources to assist them in providing temporary shelter and areas of safety to our unhoused constituents while simultaneously clearing recreational vehicle encampments. Based on the aforementioned, I'd like to present SB 748 as proposed to be amended.

Members In January of 2024, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reported 187,084 people were experiencing homelessness and that significant portion of these individuals are living in RVs. Roughly 25% of those experiencing homelessness are unhoused here in California.

In a recent Supreme Court ruling, City of Grants passed versus Johnson, the Justices ruled that cities had the legal authority to more easily clear or ban homeless encampments.

In California though, however, RVs are intended for temporary recreational or emergency occupancy, not for long term or habitation or private on private property outside of designated areas like RV Parks, campgrounds, or mobile home parks.

SB 748, as proposed to be amended, assists local jurisdictions with operating safe parking sites while locating interim or permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness living in vehicles or recreational vehicles.

This includes the acquisition of sites for safe parking, operation of the site, services to the safe parking site such as showers and so on, and increasing safe parking site hours.

Keeping this Bill in line with the Governor's request for accountability SB 748 requires the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to submit a report on the distribution of funds for the purpose of encampment resolution funding. Yes.

To the chairs of the Subcommitee on the Senate Committee of Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, the Senate Committee on Housing, and the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. And finally, the Senate and Assembly Committee on human services starting April 1, 2026 and sunsets on April 1, 2023.

Before I turn to the great witnesses who been along with me on this incredible journey, I just wanted to show you a picture. Just a microcosm in my district, this is a street where the RVs go more than six blocks straight. Just RVs on top of RVs, on top of RVs.

People come out in the morning, they're changing their clothes, they're attempting to take a shower with, you know, a small bucket of water, wild dogs, kids can't walk to school, parents. You know, if you're trying to sell your property, imagine having someone come down this street and think that you're going to get a fair price.

It's not humane for people who are living here to live without adequate electricity, water, sewer, many of the services. And it's also not fair to the residents as well. The safe parking sites.

There are several located in the State of California, and the intent is to give the exact same services that individuals who may be on street encampments to receive those in the safe parking sites. And with that, I'll turn to my two witnesses, Mr. Christopher Wysocki. He's with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association.

And then there'll be Carly Shelby with the City of Compton.

Great. Thank you. Two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. Carly here on behalf of the City of Compton, to express our strong support for Senate Bill 748 by Senator Richardson. In recent years, Compton, like many urban communities across California, has seen a growing number of individuals and families seeking shelter and recreational vehicles parked throughout our neighborhoods.

This is not a result of choice, but of economic necessity, a reflection of the severe affordable housing shortage affecting working people, seniors, and families. These individuals often have no other safe, stable options available. At the same time, the increasing concentration of RVs in certain areas has created serious challenges for the broader community.

Public health concerns, environmental sanitation issues, safety hazards, and impacts on neighborhood access and livability have become more common. These are not easy problems to solve, and they cannot be solved through enforcement or displacement alone. Senate Bill 748 offers a humane, workable solution by expanding the Encampment Resolution or ERF program.

This Bill would allow cities to create and expand safe parking sites, extend their hours and acquire new properties, all with the goal of providing stability and connecting individuals to long term housing, not just displacing them. For local governments SB 748 delivers critical benefits. It gives cities practical, service oriented tool to address RV encampments.

It reduces reliance on costly reactive enforcement. It helps deescalate tensions in neighborhoods by offering designated managed spaces. And it ensures that public resources are spent on helping people transition off the street, not simply moving the problem elsewhere.

This Bill recognizes that homelessness requires real housing solutions and provides local governments the flexibility and support to act compassionately and effectively. On behalf of the city, we are in strong support and we urge your aye vote on 748. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair, Members. Chris Wysocki with WMA. I want to thank the Senator for introducing this Bill. When we first found out about the bill's introduction, we took a serious look at some of our members, especially in some of the urban areas in the state.

And what we found was that many of our mobile home parks are in areas where these RV encampments were located just outside the gate.

The problem with that is from a housing perspective in the mobile home parks, it presents a very dangerous situation because we've got families living in these parks that have to go to and from school, they have to go to and from work, and they're driving by these areas that are often the source of illicit activity.

There's often drug use, prostitution, and just deplorable conditions outside. The second reason that we support it is purely humanitarian. The fact that these people that live in these encampments have no other place to go is a tragedy. And I don't think it should be the public policy of the State of California to allow it.

They really need wraparound services in a safe, reliable community environment. And that's what these safe parking sites across the state are able to provide.

So from a housing standpoint, we think it benefits not only the people that live in the communities that are experiencing these RV encampments outside of their homes, but it also helps the actual people that are trapped socioeconomically in these RVs as living conditions and gives them the services that they need.

And for those reasons, we want to thank the Senator and urge an aye vote on SB 748.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. Caroline Grinder, on behalf of the League of California Cities, we really appreciated working with the author and are now in support in light of the Committee amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses, primary witnesses in opposition? Any other opposition or any opposition? All right. Seeing none. Did you mention you were accepting the Committee amendments?

Yes, sir.

All right, great.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Yeah. I just want to thank the author not only for the bow tie, but also for sharing this image as well. There's a road less than five miles away from here called Roseville Road, right behind Haggin Oaks that I know a lot of people go and golf at. And it's that image right there.

And there's a lot of people that I knew. And there's a portion of Roseville Road that was actually cleaned up not too long ago. And the only reason why it was cleaned up because somebody was murdered there.

And if you drive under the overpass as well, you'll see the black soot from a lot of the RVs that have caught on fire from individuals that have targeted other individuals, from vandalism. That I think that this is a necessary first step to helping clean up.

Because if it's within five miles of the Capitol here, we should look at all areas in the State of California to make sure. So if you're looking for any support from the other side of the aisle, more than happy. And would love to be a co author on this as well if you're looking for it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Assemblymember.

Thank you for bringing this forward. I am going to support it. It is a little bit tricky when you talk about the encampment funds, because that is where this would be funded.

And the encampment funds in the California State budget have been a topic of conversation many times because there has been a question of what are these funds actually being used for, and are they being used for purpose that we feel is really making a difference.

Meaning that if you go in and you clean up an encampment, then what happens is the people are there, are moved. A lot of times they move not very far from where they're at, and then another encampment is formed. So just the encampment informant at a base, I think in this current budget is about $100 million.

And we've been quite critical of it for the reasons I just stated. But I do appreciate this Bill giving the locals the allowance to actually create safe parking. I know that for many local jurisdictions, some will never use these funds. And so it may mean, you know, jurisdictions that are really interested.

It like Compton, who is here, may end up having a lot of access in that Sense and in my opinion that's good because right now what the funds are used for, which I don't think is the best use, which is just clearing encampment and then there form somewhere else and we don't have any data.

We have asked HCD pointedly many times. What is the data? Are you moving these people? Are they getting housed or is they just getting pushed off?

So this, this is a good step and I really do hope that local jurisdictions, if this passes and the Governor signs it, will take it upon themselves to, to see that they can do more.

And even though there is a lot of criticism on homelessness and housing in the state, until we can build these permanent supportive housing units, there is nowhere to go. So even though there's more enforcement by local jurisdictions, because they now can, where are they going? Right, so this is a temporary.

And even though RVs and we've had, I live in Fullerton, we've had, you know, the three blocks of them as well. The truth is for, for some they're actually going to work because they can live there. For others there's, we kind of put it at a third.

There's some that are really a problem, as you said, there's activities that cause a lot of problem. Then you have a middle like this that they're just hanging on. And then you have others like this is their home and they're going to be able to get move on once they can save money and so forth.

But without facilities, lighting, safety precautions, they can turn into a really bad scenario. So I, I appreciate this and I'd be moving the Bill.

Thank you.

Great. We have a motion. Did I hear Assembly Member? Okay, great. And a second. And any other comments?

Permission to respond through the chair,

of course.

Yes, sir. So to the gentleman who spoke first, I was really proud and thankful that actually we had bipartisan support in the Senate and I continue to look for that and welcome that not only on this Bill, but all Bills that I work on.

So thank you and I welcome your support. To the gentlelady of your comments and I might speak a little different. I was in Congress for a little while, so we called you gentlemen and gentleladies over there. But to the gentlelady, I appreciate your comments. And this Bill actually went through a lot of work in the Senate.

The reason why we established safe parking sites was so that for the people who are using the vehicles, it's not like suddenly their vehicle, you know, has gone in a trash dump or something like that, that their belongings are still secure and that they have an opportunity to make that transition within a reasonable period of time and to take advantage of those services without negatively impacting the overall community.

So we will. I appreciate your motion, and I also will look forward to working with you to make sure that the reporting requirements in the Bill are adhered to. Thank you.

All right. I guess I walked right into the close, Senator. Great. Well, thank you so much for your work with the Committee on this Bill. And you and I had the opportunity to talk about it directly. I think this is hugely important.

It's something that I know that we're seeing more and more across the state and in San Francisco, we've had more of a growth in folks who are living in their vehicles and who are homeless, especially in RVs, and being able to support them, get them services, make sure that we support the community and the processes, is hugely critical and would love to be added as a co author as well.

And I think we. The motion is do pass as amended. We had a motion, correct. Due pass is amended to the Assembly Committee on Human Services. Roll call, please.

Haney? Haney, aye. Patterson? Patterson, aye. Avila Farias?Avila Farias, aye. Caloza? Caloza, aye. Garcia? Garcia, aye. Lee? Lee, aye. Quirk-Silva? Quirk-Silva, aye. Ta? Ta, aye. Tangipa? Tangipa, aye. Wicks? Wicks, aye. Wilson? Wilson, aye.

11-0. Thank you.

Have a wonderful hump day.

You, too. Thank you. And we have—all right, Item Number 7, SB 543, McNerney. Senator, welcome.

Thank you.

Proceed?

Yes, sir.

Well, good morning, Chairman Haney and Vice Chairman Patterson and Members of the Committee. I'm here this morning to present SB 543, which is a, basically a cleanup Bill, that will clarify existing laws on Accessory Dwelling Units, ADUs, and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, which I refer to as Junior ADUs.

Let me start by saying that I will accept, or I am accepting, all the Committee's amendments, which are listed on Page 4 and 5 of the Analysis. The amendments just add a clarity to the California ADU and Junior ADU laws to ensure conformance with SB 9, which Senator Arreguin just presented and was passed by this Committee.

ADUs are now the fastest growing sector of California's housing market. One in four of every new units now is an ADU. However, some ADU and Junior ADU laws contain confusing provisions. The Department of Housing and Community Development has circulated official guidance to help ensure that the statutes are applied consistently across different jurisdictions.

But in some, local agencies have rejected the ADU guidance in favor of their own, resulting in conflicts over permitting timelines and other aspects of the homeless—home building process. So, according to HCD, over 50 local governments have incorrectly applied these laws to ADUs and Junior ADUs.

SB 543 clarifies that local governments have 15 business days to conduct an initial review of the ADU and Junior ADU application and get back to the home builder, so they have time to correct any problems in their applications. It also clarifies standard size standards for ADUs and Junior ADUs. SB 543 received unanimous support in the Senate.

Today, I have witness Jonathan Pacheco Bell, Vice President of Policy and Programs at the Casita Coalition. Jonathan.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Chair Haney and Assembly Members. My name is Jonathan Pacheco Bell, VP of Policy and Programs at Casita Coalition, a statewide nonprofit that removes barriers to building smaller, more affordable homes. My background is in local government as a Municipal Planner and Zoning Code Enforcement Officer in Los Angeles County.

From more than a decade of inspection experience, I know the challenges of navigating code compliance on the ground. I've seen both homeowners and municipal planners struggle to interpret complex codes that lack clear intent. Casita Coalition is sponsoring SB 543 to add clarity and consistency in the law.

Statewide, many local agencies are encouraging more ADUs and JADUs to meet urgent housing needs.

But we know California is a big state and some jurisdictions don't have up-to-date ADU laws or inconsistently interpret ADU and JADU permitting requirements, resulting in uneven approvals and confusion that falls hardest on small builders, homeowners of modest means, and tenants in need of affordable housing.

SB 543 will clean up state law provisions so that JADUs have the same rules and protections as ADUs. It will clarify frequently confused points, so the intent of state law is clear.

Specifically, SB 543 will make application, review, and appeal timelines, application completeness standards, and size and safety standards for ADUs and JADUs easier for every jurisdiction to understand and to implement on the local level.

This is a cleanup Bill that provides clarity and consistency in the home permitting process to help municipal staff, community members, and small builders use state laws as intended. For these reasons, Casita Coalition urges you to vote "Yes" on SB 543. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of the Bill?

Chair and Members, Sosan Madanat, here on behalf of Unidos, in support. Thank you, Chair.

Chair, Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal, on behalf of California YIMBY, in support. Thank you so much.

Great. Not seeing anyone else. Is there any opposition witnesses? Not seeing anyone. Is there anyone who is here in opposition in any way? Not seeing anyone. We can bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Motions?

Move the Bill.

Moved by Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva. Seconded by Assemblymember Wilson. And seeing no other questions, you can close, Senator.

Well, again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present this. It's common sense and I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you and thank you for your leadership on this. And I know that sometimes these changes can feel like cleanup or technical, but they're very important to actually fulfilling the intention of the law and ensuring that it actually works and is interpreted appropriately and effectively. So, I appreciate your work and leadership on it.

And the motion is do pass as amended to the Assembly Committee on Local Government and we can take a roll call vote.

[Roll Call]

Great. 11-0.

Great. 11, 0. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Senator. Alright, we have a few to go back through to- to vote you that I missed. Gonna run back through the roll.

Can we do the consent first?

We'll do the consent first. And so folks know that SB 340 Laird was pulled and will be heard at our next hearing.

Consent calendar. Item one, HR 44. Item three, SB 233. Item five, SB 410. [roll call]. Consent calendar is out on 11 to 0.

Alright, 11, 0.

Item number two, SB 9. [roll call]. That is nine to zero with two members not voting. And I believe. Oh. Item number six. Item number six, SB 486. [roll call]. The bill is out 11 to 0. And I believe that concludes correct because 7 and 8.

Everyone else. Alright, meetings adjourned. Well done. Sorry.