California’s 2025–2026 legislative session closed on August 31. Several housing measures tracked through the summer survived the final floor process and now await action by the Governor. For architects and developers, this is an important transition: the proposals are no longer moving targets inside the Legislature, but they are still not law.
The Governor’s deadline for bills passed before September 1 and in his possession on or after September 1 is September 30. Until each measure is signed—or allowed to become law without signature—the safest practice is to model the potential benefit, preserve the relevant site data, and avoid representing the proposal as an available entitlement.
The practical takeaway: the Legislature has finalized the language. The next useful checkpoint is September 30, followed by confirmation of each enacted bill’s effective date and any implementing guidance.
1. ADU Impact Fees Could Shrink
Passed — Not Yet LawSB 1117 passed both houses and was presented to the Governor on August 30. For up to two ADUs on a lot, an ADU larger than 750 square feet would be charged qualifying impact fees only on the area exceeding 750 square feet, rather than on its entire area.
A 1,000-square-foot ADU would therefore have 250 square feet of chargeable area under the proposed formula. The measure would not affect a 499-square-foot prototype already within the existing exemption, but it could materially improve the economics of larger family-sized ADUs.
What to preserve now: maintain a prospective fee-model field using max(ADU area − 750 sf, 0), but do not use it as the basis for a client fee commitment yet. Review the official SB 1117 record.
2. Two Detached ADUs May Become a Statewide Baseline
Passed — Not Yet LawAB 956 passed the Legislature and was presented to the Governor on September 4. It would require ministerial approval of two detached new-construction ADUs on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling. A local agency could limit each to 800 square feet and applicable statutory height limits; it would not also have to approve a JADU where two detached units have been constructed.
This could create a strong alternative to SB 9 for sites where the objective is three dwellings rather than separate ownership: an existing or proposed house plus two detached ADUs, without an urban lot split. Fire access, utilities, title restrictions, site coverage, and the owner’s disposition strategy would still be decisive.
What to preserve now: keep the “house + two detached 800-square-foot ADUs” scenario in feasibility studies as prospective, alongside SB 9 and conventional ADU/JADU options. Review the official AB 956 record.
3. Density Bonus Could Gain an FAR Path
Passed — Not Yet LawAB 2433 passed both houses and was enrolled September 3. An applicant providing a qualifying base-density study could elect to receive the density bonus as a percentage increase in maximum floor area ratio rather than relying solely on dwelling units per acre.
The enrolled measure would also require an eligibility determination when an application is deemed complete, expressly characterize density bonuses, incentives, concessions, and waivers as nondiscretionary, and state that granting them does not independently require CEQA review. That could be particularly important on Los Angeles-area sites where unit density and the permitted envelope produce very different yields.
What to preserve now: retain parallel yield studies using units-per-acre and FAR, together with the zoning and site evidence needed to support a future base-density study. Review the official AB 2433 record.
4. Taller Projects May Face a Labor-Standard Limit
Passed — Not Yet LawSB 1383 passed the Legislature and was enrolled September 2. For buildings over 85 feet, specified locally adopted labor standards would be excluded from the site-development, zoning, architectural-design, and other regulatory requirements that may be reduced through a density-bonus incentive or concession.
The measure would not remove the underlying density bonus. Its importance is financial: a taller project could retain density and dimensional benefits while losing a potential route for avoiding certain local labor-cost requirements.
What to preserve now: identify applicable labor standards before establishing the cost plan for projects approaching 85 feet. Review the official SB 1383 record.
5. Student Housing Receives a Separate Density-Bonus Track
Passed — Not Yet LawAB 2480 was presented to the Governor on August 31. It would revise the rent calculations for lower-income student units and create an additional density bonus for qualifying student-housing projects that provide at least 24 percent of total units to lower-income students and add moderate-income student units, subject to the bill’s detailed limits.
This is narrower than the other measures but potentially significant for infill near colleges and universities. The bill also contains coordination language with AB 2433 and SB 1383, making final chaptering order relevant if multiple measures become law.
What to preserve now: for student-housing opportunities, model the enrolled affordability mix and wait for chaptered text before finalizing a density-bonus calculation. Review the official AB 2480 record.
No Material Local Change This Week
No consequential new Los Angeles City or County housing-entitlement or municipal-fee change was identified during the review period. No new statewide SB 9 guidance, final AB 2011 implementation guidance, or material HCD enforcement action affecting the tracked Los Angeles-area workflows was identified either.
For current applications, continue using enacted law and the operative local process. The immediate work is to monitor gubernatorial action, then reconcile the final chaptered versions—particularly the overlapping amendments to Government Code Section 65915—before updating density-bonus tools or standard client guidance.
Project-specific review still matters. State housing laws interact with zoning, fire access, utilities, title conditions, environmental constraints, affordability requirements, and local procedures. This article provides general information, not legal advice or a determination of development rights.