SB 1117 Still Unsigned This Morning: Keep Encino ADUs at 750 sf Until the 66311.5 Fee Cliff Actually Moves

Quick answer: Do not wait for a fee cliff that has not moved. As of Thursday morning, August 27, 2026, California Legislative Information still lists SB 1117 as an Active Bill — Passed. Last history action, 08/25/26: “Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.” It is not recorded as enrolled and presented to the Governor. It is not on the Governor’s August 24 signing list. August 25 and 26 on gov.ca.gov are appointments and a Farmworker Day proclamation, not an SB 1117 signature. Current Government Code Section 66311.5 still exempts an ADU of 750 square feet of interior livable space or less from local impact fees, and still charges an oversize unit proportionately against the primary dwelling — not only the excess. File a ≤750 square-foot livable ministerial ADU under today’s cliff. Sketch a larger family unit only as a later revision after a chaptered statute exists. Split architect-now, contractor-later is how a 900-square-foot set gets drawn before anyone prices the impact-fee line.

An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an attached or detached dwelling that provides complete independent living facilities — living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation — on the same lot as a proposed or existing primary residence (Government Code Section 66313(a)). Livable space, for this chapter, is space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation (Section 66313(e)). A junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) is a unit of no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space contained entirely within a single-family residence (Section 66313(d)). Impact fee in Section 66311.5 has the same meaning as “fee” in Government Code Section 66000(b), plus Quimby Act fees in Section 66477, and it does not include connection fees or capacity charges. SB 1117 is Senator Sabrina Cervantes’s 2025–26 bill that would, if it became law, amend 66311.5 so that impact fees on certain oversize ADUs would be charged only on the area in excess of 750 square feet. It is not law as of this writing. This article is not our GPMS 10% Planning-surcharge post, not our AHLF / LAMC 19.18 post, and not the AB 956 two-cottage file.

Key Takeaways

• Live bill status, fetched Thursday morning, August 27, 2026: Legislative Information, Type of Measure, Active Bill — Passed; House Location, Senate; last amended 07/08/26; last history action 08/25/26, “Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.” Status also marks it Majority Vote Required and Non-Urgency. There is no later history line this morning. Ordered to enrollment is not enrolled. Enrollment is not a Governor’s signature. A signature is not a chaptered statute on the LADBS counter.
• Governor’s public lists this week do not include SB 1117. The August 24, 2026 signing release names AB 1778, AB 2056, AB 2134, AB 2692, SB 557, SB 897, and SB 927. August 25 is appointments. August 26 is a Farmworker Day proclamation. We did not retrieve an August 27 signing page that names this bill. Do not hire as if it were signed overnight.
• Current Section 66311.5(c)(1), the code book this week, is two sentences: “A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less or a junior accessory dwelling unit that has 500 square feet of interior livable space or less. Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” Crossing 750 does not bill only the extra foot. It bills the oversize unit as a share of the house.
• What SB 1117 would change, quoted from the July 8, 2026 Assembly-amended text (Date Published 07/08/2026 09:00 PM) — the last published version, because there is no enrolled text yet. New (c)(1)(B): “For up to two accessory dwelling units on a lot, any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit, and only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable space.” New (c)(1)(C) keeps today’s whole-unit proportionate charge for properties with more than two ADUs. That “only on the excess” line is the bill. It is not current 66311.5.
• Even a later signature would still leave a Non-Urgency bill. California Constitution Article IV, Section 8(c)(1): a regular-session statute “shall go into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment of the statute,” unless an exception applies. SB 1117 is not an urgency statute on LegInfo. Do not treat a future effective date as this week’s permit rule, and do not invent one before there is an enactment date.
• The hire this morning is a ≤750 square-foot interior-livable ministerial ADU you can file under the cliff that is actually in the code. Hold a larger family envelope on the site plan if you want the option later. Do not pay for a 900- or 1,200-square-foot construction set as if LADBS already applies a new cliff. The City of Los Angeles YOU-ADU standard plan is still listed Approved, 455 square feet, expiration NA — one city option that sits under 750. Confirm overlays on ZIMAS. Encino is LADBS, not County Building and Safety.
• This is not the 10% City Planning GPMS surcharge and not the Affordable Housing Linkage Fee. Those are already 121 posts. One statute, one cliff, one hire: size the unit to 66311.5 as it reads today.

What is the live status of SB 1117 this morning?

It has cleared both houses. It has not been presented to the Governor. It has not been signed.

Quote the history, not a press release. Legislative Information’s last action, dated 08/25/26: “Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.” The status page this morning still says Active Bill — Passed, House Location Senate, last amended July 8, 2026. Type of Measure includes Non-Urgency. The published bill text is still the Assembly-amended version, Date Published 07/08/2026 09:00 PM. There is no “Enrolled and presented to the Governor” line, no chapter number, and no “approved by the Governor” line.

Ordered to engrossing and enrolling means the houses have agreed on the text and the clerks are supposed to prepare the enrollment copy. It is a legislative step. It is not law. A press release can say the bill now heads to the Governor’s desk. LegInfo, this morning, does not yet record that presentation. We follow LegInfo.

The Governor’s August 24 signing list does not include SB 1117. We did not retrieve an August 25 or August 26 signing list that names it either. Until Legislative Information shows presentation and a signature — or a veto — Encino owners should treat 66311.5 as it is printed in the Government Code, not as it would read in a bill that is still in the enrollment queue.

What does current Government Code 66311.5 actually say about the 750-square-foot cliff?

It draws a hard line at 750 square feet of interior livable space, then it bills the oversize ADU against the primary house.

Section 66311.5 was added by renumbering former Section 66324 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 520, SB 543), effective January 1, 2026. Subdivision (c)(1) is the cliff. Full current sentence: “A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less or a junior accessory dwelling unit that has 500 square feet of interior livable space or less.” Next sentence, still current law: “Any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.”

Read the proportion. If the ADU is 900 square feet of interior livable space and the primary dwelling is 1,800, current 66311.5 says the charge is 900 in relation to 1,800 — the oversize unit as a share of the house — not 150 in relation to 1,800. That is why people call it a cliff. One extra livable foot does not add one extra foot of fee. It can put the whole ADU onto a proportionate invoice. We are not publishing a dollar total for LAUSD, park, or sewer charges. Those amounts were not retrieved from official fee schedules for this article, and they vary by agency and address. The statute is the sizing rule. The invoice is a later, address-specific line.

Two more current rules, so nobody mixes cliffs. Subdivision (c)(2) defines “impact fee” as Section 66000(b)’s “fee,” plus Section 66477 (Quimby) fees, and it says impact fee “does not include any connection fee or capacity charge.” Staying under 750 does not, by itself, turn off water or sewer connection charges; those have their own paragraphs in (b), (d), and (e). Subdivision (c)(3) is a different number: an ADU or JADU under 500 square feet of interior livable space is treated, for Education Code Section 17620(a)(1)(C), as other residential construction that does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet. That is a school-fee threshold, not the 750 impact-fee line. Do not size a 740-square-foot ADU and assume every fee on the stack went to zero.

A JADU at or under 500 square feet of interior livable space is on the exemption sentence today. A detached or attached ADU at or under 750 is on that same sentence. Over 750, current law is proportionate to the primary. That is the code book on an Encino lot this morning.

What would SB 1117 change if it became law?

It would keep the 750-square-foot exemption, and it would change how the oversize unit is billed — for the first two ADUs on a lot.

The Legislative Counsel’s Digest on the July 8, 2026 text: existing law “prohibits a local agency, special district, or water corporation from imposing any impact fee upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less, and requires any impact fees charged for an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space to be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” Then: “This bill would additionally require the charge for certain accessory dwelling units to be based only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable space.” That is the official summary of the change. We are not inventing a third cliff.

Quote the operative amendment. Proposed Section 66311.5(c)(1) would split into (A), (B), and (C). (A) restates today’s exemption for an ADU of 750 square feet of interior livable space or less and a JADU of 500 or less. (B): “For up to two accessory dwelling units on a lot, any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit, and only on the area in excess of 750 square feet of interior livable space.” (C): “For properties with more than two accessory dwelling units on a lot, any impact fees charged for an accessory dwelling unit that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” No “only on the excess” language in (C). A third oversize ADU would still face today’s whole-unit proportionate rule under this text.

What the July 8 text still does not do, even if it later became law: it does not make LADBS apply a new cliff this morning, it does not erase connection or capacity charges, it does not move the 500-square-foot school-fee sentence, and it does not put a chaptered statute on the counter. The published version is still “Amended in Assembly July 08, 2026.” Until there is an enrolled, chaptered text, that is the bill you can quote — and it is still a bill.

Should you file a 900-square-foot Encino ADU this week as if the cliff already moved?

No. File a ≤750 square-foot interior-livable ministerial ADU under today’s 66311.5. Hold a larger family unit as a dashed revision for after — and only after — a chaptered statute exists and an effective date is real.

A 900-square-foot set sold as “SB 1117 will only charge the extra 150 feet” is a drawing of a bill. The Senate concurrence on August 25 does not change the Government Code. Enrollment does not change it. A future Governor’s signature, if it happens, still leaves a Non-Urgency statute that Article IV, Section 8(c)(1) would put on a January 1 after a 90-day period from enactment — not on this week’s ePlanLA intake. LADBS and City Planning would still have to implement whatever chaptered text actually exists. We are not guessing that implementation date. We are saying do not size the first submittal to a cliff that has not moved.

The ministerial path is already there. State ADU law still requires a local agency to ministerially approve a building-permit application that meets objective standards, without a discretionary hearing. Encino is City of Los Angeles. The file is LADBS. ZA Memorandum No. 143 (December 30, 2024) is the City’s implementation memo for that ministerial ADU / JADU stack — one State new-construction detached ADU per single-family lot, combinable with an attached unit and a JADU. This post is not a reprint of that memo’s linkage-fee paragraph. The AHLF story is already published. The point here is narrower: you can file a complete, ≤750 square-foot livable ADU under rules the city already accepts.

A useful hold is cheap: one site plan, today’s compact unit at or under 750 square feet of interior livable space, a dashed larger envelope if the family program might grow later. The City’s YOU-ADU standard plan is still Approved as of this morning — plan number YOU-ADU, 1-story, 1-bedroom with options, 455 square feet, expiration NA. That 455 sits under 750. It is one city option, not the whole article, and it still needs site-specific zoning and foundation review. A wasted set is full architectural, structural, and Title 24 sheets for a 900-square-foot cottage whose impact-fee line was priced as if (c)(1)(B) were already in the code.

If SB 1117 dies, you still have a legal compact ADU. If it is later signed in this form and later takes effect, you can talk about a revision then — with the chaptered text in hand, not with a YIMBY headline. Do not freeze the legal unit waiting for enrollment. The 15-business-day completeness clock and the 60-day ADU decision clock help only when the first submittal is complete. Those clocks are in our 2026 law-changes post. They do not run on a 900-square-foot fee story that is not yet law.

Design-build vs architect plus a later contractor when the unit is sized to a bill

Hire the team that will size and fee-model a ≤750 square-foot livable ministerial ADU you can file this week, and that will refuse a retainer for a 900-square-foot family cottage sold as if SB 1117 had already moved the cliff. Split design and construction is how the oversize unit gets drawn first: the architect designs to the bedroom count, nobody runs 66311.5 against interior livable square footage, and the contractor who bids later treats the impact-fee invoice as a change order.

An owner can read the July 8 text. An owner cannot, from a mood board, tell whether the program is a 740-square-foot exemption, a 900-square-foot proportionate share of the primary, a JADU under 500, a city 455-square-foot standard plan, or a future (c)(1)(B) excess-only charge that is not in the code yet. That classification is the job. A California-licensed architect stamps architecture. The person who will pull the permit has to decide, in writing, interior livable square footage this week.

Architect-only plus a later bidder is the expensive version of “we will deal with impact fees after the Governor signs.” The Governor has not signed. The code still bills the whole oversize unit against the house. Encino design-build is the other version: one site plan, one livable-area number, one permit strategy under today’s 66311.5, and a construction number that does not pretend the cliff already moved.

If you already have an architect you trust, keep them — and put the size decision on paper before schematic hardens: file ≤750 now, larger unit held as a revision, SB 1117 off the fee model until there is a chaptered statute. If that memo does not exist, you do not have a fee-cliff team. You have a 900-square-foot rendering.

How can 121 Design Build help Encino owners stay on today’s 750-square-foot side?

121 Design Build is an Encino design-build firm. We will not take a retainer to pretend SB 1117 is current LADBS law, and we will not freeze a ready ≤750 square-foot ADU because a bill is sitting in the enrollment queue. For a homeowner sizing extra doors on a Ventura Boulevard–corridor, south-of-the-Boulevard, or Valley lot, our ADU & JADU service starts with the cliff that is actually in Section 66311.5: interior livable square footage, ministerial path, and a site plan that reserves a larger envelope only as a hold.

We have not published an Encino impact-fee invoice as a case study, and we are not going to invent one. What we will do is measure livable area the way the statute measures it, tell you whether the program is a 750-or-under exemption, a current oversize proportionate charge, a JADU under 500, or a city 455-square-foot YOU-ADU option, and refuse to price a 900-square-foot set as if (c)(1)(B) had already been chaptered. GPMS and AHLF are other posts. They are not this line.

121 Design Build is at 17801 Ventura Blvd, 2nd floor, Encino, CA 91316. Call (424) 600-1100 or (424) 600-2100, email info@121designbuild.com, or visit https://www.121designbuild.com/. To review an Encino or Los Angeles ADU sized to today’s 750-square-foot impact-fee cliff — including whether a larger family unit is a hold or a fantasy — contact 121 Design Build or call (424) 600-2100. Bring the address, a target interior livable size, and any “the Governor is about to sign” pitch you were given. We will read it against live LegInfo and current 66311.5, not against a headline.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the Governor signed SB 1117 this morning?

Not according to Legislative Information. Last history action remains 08/25/26: Senate concurred in Assembly amendments (Ayes 38, Noes 0) and ordered the bill to engrossing and enrolling. It is not recorded as presented to the Governor. It is not on the August 24 signing list, and August 25–26 Governor news we retrieved is not a signing of this bill.

Is “ordered to engrossing and enrolling” the same as law?

No. It means both houses have agreed on the same text and the bill is in the clerical queue to be enrolled. Until it is enrolled, presented, and either signed or otherwise enacted, Government Code Section 66311.5 still reads as current law. Do not treat enrollment as a chaptered statute.

If I permit 751 square feet of interior livable space today, do I only pay impact fees on the extra 1 square foot?

No. Current 66311.5(c)(1) says impact fees on an ADU of more than 750 square feet of interior livable space “shall be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit.” The “only on the area in excess of 750” language is in SB 1117’s proposed (c)(1)(B), not in today’s code. Crossing 750 can put the whole oversize unit onto that proportionate share.

Does staying under 750 square feet avoid every city fee?

No. The 750-square-foot line is an impact-fee exemption in 66311.5(c). Impact fee in that section does not include connection fees or capacity charges. The 500-square-foot school-fee sentence in (c)(3) is a different threshold. City Planning’s 10% General Plan Maintenance Surcharge is a different fee; see our GPMS post. The Affordable Housing Linkage Fee is a different ordinance; ADUs are a named exemption there, and that story is the August 29 AHLF article. Confirm the stack on the address with LADBS.

Is the City YOU-ADU plan still a way to sit under 750?

As of this morning, yes as a size: LADBS lists YOU-ADU as Approved, 1-story, 1-bedroom with options, 455 square feet, expiration NA. That livable area is under 750. It is a pre-approved standard plan, not a fee holiday by itself, and it still needs site-specific zoning and foundation review. It is one option under the cliff, not this article’s whole product.

If SB 1117 is later signed, does the new cliff apply the same week?

Not as a Non-Urgency bill. LegInfo marks SB 1117 Non-Urgency. Article IV, Section 8(c)(1) of the California Constitution puts a regular-session statute into effect on January 1 next following a 90-day period from the date of enactment, unless an exception applies. There is no enactment date yet. Confirm the chaptered text and the effective date before anyone redraws a 900-square-foot set as the first filing.

Is Encino under Los Angeles County for this fee rule?

No. Encino is in the City of Los Angeles. File with LADBS. County Building and Safety and EPIC-LA are the wrong window. State 66311.5 still applies; the counter is City of Los Angeles.

Is this legal advice?

No. This article is general information from a design-build and permitting perspective. Confirm live bill status on California Legislative Information, and confirm interior livable square footage, overlays, and the actual fee stack on your specific address with LADBS, City Planning, and, if needed, your own attorney.

Sources

• California Legislative Information: SB 1117 bill status
• California Legislative Information: SB 1117 bill text (Date Published 07/08/2026 09:00 PM)
• California Legislative Information: SB 1117 bill history
• California Government Code Section 66311.5 (current law)
• California Government Code Section 66000 (definition of “fee”)
• California Government Code Section 66313 (ADU / livable space definitions)
• California Constitution Article IV, Section 8 (effective date of statutes)
• Governor of California: signs legislation 8.24.2026
• Governor of California: appointments 8.25.2026
• Los Angeles City Planning / LADBS: ZA Memorandum No. 143 (December 30, 2024)
• LADBS: YOU-ADU approved standard plan (455 sf, Status: Approved)
• City of Los Angeles: ZIMAS
• 121 Design Build: ADU Permit Cost in Los Angeles 2026 (GPMS, not 66311.5)
• 121 Design Build: LADBS Linkage Fee August 29, ADU vs Addition
• 121 Design Build: AB 956 JADU-first fine print
• 121 Design Build: Los Angeles ADU Law Changes 2026

This article is general information from a design-build and permitting perspective and is not legal advice. Confirm live bill status on California Legislative Information and confirm interior livable square footage, overlays, and fees on your specific address with LADBS and City Planning. SB 1117 is described here as a pending bill, not as current law.

#SB1117 #ADUFees #GovCode66311 #LosAngelesADU #Encino #LADBS #ADUPermits #DesignBuild #SanFernandoValley #LAHomeowners #Cervantes #ADU2026 #ImpactFees