Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Housing for Tuesday, 04/07/2026. I'm Senator Jesse Arreguin, the Chair of the committee, joined by Vice Chair Senator Kelly Seyarto.

We have, first two bills on consent filed in two SB 1267 by Senator Allen, and file item four SB 1426, the committee omnibus bill. We do not yet have a quorum, so we'll operate as a subcommittee to enter a motion on those consent items at that time.

But let's begin with our first bill presentation by Senator Caballero on SB 1116. And, Senator, whenever you're ready to present, you may proceed.

Years ago, SB 8 ace SB 684, the starter home revitalization act, which created a streamlined ministerial pathway to build small scale housing up to 10 unit projects on the infill sites.

Since its enactment, we have seen strong interest, but also clear implementation challenges that are limiting its full potential. SB 1116 reflects two years of real world data and feedback from local governments, planners, builders and housing advocates.

California, as you know, continues to face a severe housing shortage, particularly for entry level homeownership opportunities. SB 664 created the framework and for the development of exactly these kind of units.

What SB 1116 does is one, clarifies development standards such as height, setback and density to prevent local rules from reducing allowable housing. It reinforces ministerial approval and clear timelines to provide certainty for applicants.

It strengthens state oversight and accountability for local compliance, updates subdivision standards to allow more flexibility for small lot development and addresses private restrictions, including HOA and deed provisions that can block housing.

Included, it improves a reporting to better track outcomes in production, so we know we know how it's being used. Taken together, these changes are designed to remove barriers, provide clarity, ensure the law produces the housing it is intended to deliver.

It ensures that the promise of SB 684 is fully realized. With me today to testify in support and help answer any question is Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research with California YIMBY, and Stephanie Yi, CEO and founder of AlphaX.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak today. My name is, Nolan Gray.

I'm an AICP planner and the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California YIMBY, an organization focused on making California an affordable place to live, work and raise a family.

I'm here today and speak in support of SB 1116, which we're proud to cosponsor alongside Opponent Housing LA and Unidos. The unfortunate truth is that California is failing to create the next generation of homeowners.

Our state has the second lowest homeownership rate in the country behind New York, and we're losing ground. Over the last twenty years, our homeownership rate has actually fallen.

Our persistent failure to turn the ship around on homeownership is the result of a persistent shortage of starter homes and the dramatic, run up in prices that this has caused.

The median home in California is now over nine times the median household income. This is the highest ratio, after Hawaii. Not exactly a good company on a housing affordability perspective. And economists generally view a healthy ratio as closer to five.

So I think we're all in agreement here that we have a crisis. This committee has done a lot of work on addressing this crisis. And I'm going to argue that the starter home revitalization act, SB 684 and 1123 have been one of the most important things that, this legislature has done,

in advancing this issue. It's leveled the playing field and streamlined the process for building townhouses and starter homes exactly the types of homes our state needs. So why are we back again?

Not just because we love working with Senator Caballero, but because there's been enormous interest in the bill since it took effect in 2024.

There's been a lot of excitement from developers, home builders, planners, but we've learned a lot. The amendments in SB 1116 reflect these lessons learned. I think they fall into three general categories.

First, they clarify vague language and provide consistent standards, which gives certainty to the local elected officials and planners tasked with implementing, the legislation. They provide additional flexibility to make sure that otherwise great projects aren't needlessly denied or scaled down.

And they provide greater oversight over implementation so we can track the progress of this bill and improve it in the future. We thank the committee consultants for their helpful feedback on these and we've, many of these, originate with people actually trying to use the law.

I am more than happy to go into detail on any individual amendments in here at the, at the request of the committee. And I thank you for your time today and respectfully request your support for SB 1116. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, good morning Chair and Members. Thank you for passing all these laws created as small builders or the pathways to build more housing. Actually, I'm Stephanie Yi, Founder and CEO from AlphaX, a woman led, woman founded company, and we are in strong support of SB 1116 today.

So AlphaX was the first one actually did the, starter homes reservation and made it possible for the SB 684 and SB 123.

And then through this key policies, we have more than 21 porches right now and creating 100 houses across California. We also represent SBA, a small community organization, represents more than 600 small homeowners, investors, general contractor, architects in the community.

So right now, we're we're working to solve the problems for the housing crisis from the ground up. So while we start home the organization act actually passed, so this actually great to pass away for us. We were excited. And so far, we do see the barriers to remain.

We want to speak for the real implementation experience. What do we have actually learned to this? Legislation actually passed. However, there are barriers.

The barriers in the field, there are too many homes can still be lost because local government because all the site restraints and also the outdated rules that cannot be reflected to reality in the infill developments.

So we would like to share an example. We have one Downtown San Jose project that could not that could possibly use SB 1123. However, we could not. It's actually sitting right of three blocks from the city hall.

It because urban use definition, even the role is clear urban error by still not fitting the rules. So also, the cities have been appliances, like, two and a half story limits, which actually very hard to design and which also should matter about heights is not about stories.

And then also for smaller builders, they're actually tackling issues. It's something we have to make a harder decision in the field because it's not it's the difference for us between moving forward, walking away, or losing money.

So for prospective homeowners, this live a choice between a family, actually have a chance to own a home in the future, and also it's something they don't have any spend, they can move out of state. This is why for SB eleven sixty matters.

It affects the rail problems that have been stopping by the law from working as intended. Actually, it's clarified that local standards cannot be physically pre preclude the number of homes the law allows. It makes clear that height means physical height is not number of floors.

Also, it limits it limits excessive front setbacks prohibits internal setbacks between your creation puzzles. All those issues, I think, need to be fixed. And, also, even unnecessary restriction means fewer homes, I think more restriction actually for your homes, fewer chances for homeownership,

and more purchase that never move forward. We need laws that work not only on paper, but actually in real life, in real cities. For real families, I think SB 1116 does not only change the purpose of the law, it helps fulfill you. I strongly support SB 1116 and I respect to ask you to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Without taking the words of public wishing express support for SB 1116. Please state your name organization position.

Thank you Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate California in enthusiastic support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Raymond Contradas with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, a proud co sponsor, SPUR, Fieldstead, Circulate Planning and Policy, and the 200 all in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the committee. Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of Unidos US, Power California Action, Visionary Home Builders, Montebello Housing Development Corporation, and Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1117, if there are any. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one come forward, we'll take me to testimony in opposition to SB 1117.

Oh, right. One one one six rather. Sorry.1117 is the next bill. What is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to SB 1116?

Seeing no one, and I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments on SB 1116 by Caballero. Senator Durazo.

I'm sorry about my stuff right in front of me, I ran just to be here. Just this is going to local gov Yes. Next, right? So I just wanna clarify that I'm moving. I'm voting today for but the new review In that committee. Issues Understood. In the local gov. So I just wanna make that clarification.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Members of the committee? Just wanna thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward, which builds on your prior bill to create the starter home revitalization act, so that we can actually see smaller town homes and more,

affordable infill housing built in neighborhoods throughout California to address the critical shortage that we have in our state. So thank you for your leadership Thank you. On this issue and bringing this bill forward, and I'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I wanna thank all of the, the advocates that have helped us to figure out what are the pieces that we need to to work on. Miss Yi is, as she said, is a developer, and she was able to build a 10 unit complex in Campbell,

which is a a community that is hard to build in and, where she's gonna be providing 10 starter homes for families that are affordable, to residents in that community.

And so if we can do more of this kind of work, we can make a tremendous difference in in homeownership, in California, and we need to do better. So I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator. We don't yet have a quorum yet. We need one more member. So I wanted to motion once we establish a quorum. And we are waiting on our last bill bill offer to present.

So we'll take a five minute recess. Thank you.

Okay. We're gonna reconvene the committee hearing. We do not yet have a quorum, but we'll proceed with our next bill presentation, filed in one SB 1117 by Senator Cervantes.

Good afternoon. And whenever you're ready, Senator, you may present.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and committee Members. Today, I'm here to present Senate Bill 1117, which will clarify and strengthen existing accessory dwelling units, ADU law.

As many of you know, existing law requires fees charged for the construction of ADUs to be determined in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

Local governments are also barred from imposing impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has interior livable space of 750 square feet 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 proportionally in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit on the property. California's housing crisis continues to limit homeownership opportunities and increases increasing housing cost.

Housing experts have estimated a shortage of between 840,000 to 3.5 million housing units. ADUs are a key component of our housing strategy because they expand housing supply while enabling homeowners to increase the capacity of their homes

and build home equity. For many first time and moderate income homeowners, the ability to construct an ADU can increase long term financial stability and provide intergenerational support.

According to a 2024 law review article by UC Davis law professor ADU reform law is one of the legislature's crowning achievements in California's housing policy. In 2023 alone, more than 28,000 ADUs permits were approved in California.

As mentioned, the legislature has taken numerous steps to reduce local barriers to ADU permitting, including limiting the imposition of impact fees and prohibiting impact fees on ADUs that are 750 square feet or smaller.

Today, we have this bill, eleven seventeen, that would help reduce impact fees for homeowners in California. It will clarify the existing ADU law by ensuring local governments assess impact fees only on the portion of an ADU exceeding 750 square feet of interior

livable space. This bill does not increase, reduce, or alter existing 750 square foot exemptions in existing law. By aligning these fee calculations with the intent of the legislature, the bill promotes consistent statewide implementation, reduces unnecessary cost

burdens on homeowners, and supports continued ADU permitting as a pathway to increasing sustainable homeownership throughout our state.

With me to testify in support is Ryan O'Neil, founder of HowToADU, and Andrew Lee, a member of the board of trustees at Jefferson Union High School District.

We also have Max Doubler with California YIMBY who's a sponsor of the bill who can answer any technical questions.

Thank you, Senator. Before we hear from our witnesses, we do have a quorum so that the committee assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you very much. I'd like to invite our witnesses. Please come forward. You have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Great.

Thank you very much. Hello, Mr. Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Andy Lee, and I am a proud resident of Pacifica and a member of the Board of Trustees for the Jefferson Union High School District.

And I'm here to speak in support of SB 1117. Nearly six years ago, my wife and I decided to build a small ADU in our backyard with the hope of creating a livable space for our children or renting it out.

However, after considering building a larger ADU that would have been used by one of our adult children, we realized that the cost would have been significantly higher because we would have been hit with substantial impact fees.

For example, if I'd wanted to build an 800 square foot ADU, which would have been large enough to include a washer, dryer, two bedrooms, impact fees alone would have accounted for significantly more than the total construction cost.

If I'd wanted to build an 800 square foot ADU instead of a fee exempt seven fifty square foot ADU, I would have been on the hook for over $22,000 in impact fees.

That's why I'm here to speak in support of SB 1117, which would ensure local impact fees are calculated fairly and proportionately, consistent with state housing policy and apply only to the portion of an ADU that exceeds seven fifty square feet of interior space.

Had SB 1117 been affected at the time, we would have gone ahead with the larger unit. If SB 1117 had been affected at that time, the impact fee for those additional 50 square feet would have been about $1,400 which we would have happily paid to move ahead with a larger unit.

Instead we built a much smaller fee exempt unit and didn't pay anything. For those reasons I respectfully request your support for SB 1117. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Hello, Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Ryan O'Connell, and I'm the founder of HowToADU, a community of over 250,000 California homeowners. I'll try and real hard to build accessory dwelling units.

I'm here to express strong support for SB 1117 because it'll just result in more bedrooms being built every year in this state. Thanks to the legislation's work so far, ADUs have been a big part of this solution,

over 1 in 5 new residential permits or accessory dwelling units, and that's great. These healthy homes are built in our existing communities, piggyback off of existing infrastructure.

But there is a cliff at 750 one square feet where our production numbers just aren't there, and it's obvious why. Right? There's a disincentive to do that extra square foot, and you just don't see as many units in that 750 to 1,000 square foot range.

I have met countless homeowners in the same position as mister Lee who realize that there's this penalty for building two or three bedrooms and going over that 750 square feet.

Housing is a statewide concern, and it's not fair that some communities are embracing the ADUs and waiving impact fees all the way up to the maximum size while their neighboring communities are instilling 5 figure fines for or sorry,

impact fees for ADUs over 750 square feet. SB 1117 will help more homeowners create safe futures for themselves, their family members, renters, and it'll allow homeowners to build more two and three bedroom homes more comfortably without triggering

disproportionate penalties. I respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any members of the public wishing to express support for SB 1117.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate California in support.

Thank you.

McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of Zillow in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Chair, Members of the committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of Unidos US, Power California Action, and Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1117.

Good afternoon, members. Jason Ryan, League of California Cities. We, unfortunately, are in opposition to this measure. I think it's important to to spend a little time understanding mitigation fee act fees, which is really what we're talking about here.

These fees are highly regulated in existing law now. They, you know, require nexus studies. We can only charge what is proportional to the impacts of that development on the community. It can be charged for nothing else.

This measure would extend that to include the the units between 750 and 1,200. It's really important to to note that these dollars don't go into the city's general fund.

They can only be spent on the improvements that are demanded by the community police, fire stations. We're talking streets, roads, lighting, sidewalks. These are all incredibly important, and that is why our city has charged these fees because we really

have no other way of funding them except for our general funds, which don't happen all that often since we're as tact as everybody else here in in the legislature as well.

I think it's also really important to note that the restrictions that we're talking about now on the 750 and under, they took effect in 2025. Last year, year was when it took effect.

We saw an explosion of ADUs created in our communities since 2017 with the Wachowski bill. Senator Wachowski is really the pioneer, of ADUs.

We've seen a 15,000% increase in ADU production even with the existing fee structure for those really important, services and facilities in our community. So for those reasons, we respectfully oppose this measure.

Thank you very much. We'll take an additional opposition witness. Okay. Invite any members of public wishing to express opposition to SB 1117 to please come forward.

Mark Newburger of the California State Association of Counties. We also have an opposed position on this bill. We'd like to outline our comments to those spread by Cal Cities, also registering opposition for the California Special Districts Association.

Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts align our comments with Cal Cities respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Julie Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the Fire Districts Association of California and the California Fire Chiefs Association, have an oppose unless amended position.

We're happy to continue working with the author to work out our issues, but at this time, we're still opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1117? K. Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the Dias for any questions or comments. Senator Padilla?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. I wanna thank the author for a thoughtful and discreet specific bill, that could have easily been an item that's overlooked.

And I think any and all tools that we can bring to bear to help provide some kind of a director and direct incentive for production of units is always important. I just wanna thank you for that.

I think also I just just to say for the record, I'm not sure that there's a nexus or proportionality issue here given that the frameworks that are already in statute I think upper limits are already established.

And you're talking about a differential here in terms of what's assessed in these units. So I don't see that as a legitimate issue to be frank. But I again, I just wanna congratulate you for bringing the bill. At the appropriate time, I'm happy to move the bill. Thanks, miss

Thank you very much. Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the author as well and for the bill and and also to the opposition's testimony. I think this committee uniquely is composed of a majority of former mayors who've dealt who had to grapple with us right and so we often the

impact fee conversation often gets cartoonish which is like the notion that there's you know 400 cities in the state that they're all you know they're laughing with Wile E. Coyote about how to raise these fees as much as possible to screw people over to make a bunch

of cash or whatever. But when you ask your parents like mom, dad where did impact keep fees come from, it's a much different story. Right. I mean for some of the fees where we are directly in the line.

So the Regional Water Quality Control Board says to your city, you have to upgrade your sewer plant town of 8,000 people, I guess what it's going to cost $28,000,000 to do. And then you're required to charge an impact fee for the new for the construction,

connections and everything else. You must you're legally required to do that by us and the Federal Government. That is absolutely essential. So then you we require that you adopt a sewer master plan.

That master plan then is the basis for the Nexus studies that were described in the opposition testimony and the fee must match exactly what the Nexus study says.

So there's not a lot of city councils in the world debating just hypothetically in the abstract should our sewer fee be $10,000 for a cook up or $11,000 It's all derivative of a set of requirements that state law imposes on local jurisdictions.

Then there's a set of fees, that are for things that aren't generally state mandated parks, roads, although we'd say on the traffic and transportation side, that's only partly true because the state says, you know, each road of this size will have a bike lane

and this one will have this and so the accretion of various statutory requirements does drive these fees to enormous heights.

But because no one is responsible for the overall thing, we end up with exactly the concern that we heard. Well, it's $22,000 in fees or for a new home, dollars 100,000 or more for the impact fees, but no one entity or person is responsible for that number.

It's all of these systems intersecting and then everyone says, well, let's just cap it or let's just waive it. But you can't because you still have to meet that statutory obligation to build that new sewer plant. So I'm warned the author in advance.

I give this basic speech all the time on these bills that just waive impact fees because I think we need to the legislature and the governor must tackle the more the actual problem is we don't have the financing for infrastructure.

And post Prop 13 we said we're not the states not a partner, local governments can no longer finance it. We have somebody has to pay for the right amount of infrastructure in communities and especially if we want local voters to say we want more housing

which we do that will only succeed if the appropriate infrastructure is getting built. That being said, this bill is extremely narrowly tailored around this kind of the marginally size larger ADU and so I don't think it implicates kind of at the scale of what the opposition was

describing. I'm not concerned or worried about it. I suspect they're here for the same reason I'm making these comments is just please let's not pass another 100 bills that are exemptions or waivers or deferrals for impact fees.

But in this particular case, the author has done an excellent job of being very tight in trying to deal with a very specific problem in ways that shouldn't stop you from building your sewer plant, but that appropriately induce the production of even more ADUs that we desperately need.

So I'm definitely going to support the bill, but just want to say to the universe, please let's not we cannot get out of the infrastructure gap in California by impact fee waivers alone.

Okay. Thank you very much. Senator Caballero and then Seyarto and Durazo, not sure about the whole day.

I'll make this brief then Mr. Chairman and I want to agree with everything that's been said. I'm not a real fan of waiving impact fees for local government at the legislature because I sat through more analyses, more impact studies,

more nexus studies than I care to mention. And so those nexus studies have to mean something, but I do think this is narrowly tailored. And back in the day, some time ago, during the Schwarzenegger administration,

the bonds were tied to the production of housing. So you got park bond money if you built housing. And then of course, the housing market collapsed and nobody was building any housing for a while. So they had to change that legislation.

But I really think we ought to be looking at ways that we can help cities that actually do produce the ADU units. I'd be really curious to see the numbers are just phenomenal.

The 29,000 units permits pull 26,000 that's incredible and that's a real testament to everybody that had the vision that ADUs were going to be able to build an important housing and in my district quite frankly what that means is that families could move out of a

one of the bedrooms in a house and move into the ADU as opposed to three families that live in some of the apartments or houses.

So we're not adding more people to the city. We're just creating space for people to be able to, live in in a way that, respects their, individuality and and the needs of the family. So, I'm gonna support your belt today.

I think it's it is narrowly tailored and thank you for bringing this forward. The more we can build I think the better off we're going to be. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you. So let me add to the chorus of, concerns about eliminating impact fees. And I was the only one who voted against it in the first place because when you add a dwelling and you add a family to a dwelling, which ADUs are supposed to be doing,

those kids go to school and there's an impact there. The people that live there have to go to work and they drive to work. And so there's an impact on roads.

So there are all these impacts, but the damage was done. It got passed. So they get this first 750 square feet for free. Beyond that, there there is they should be collecting something if somebody wants to build something bigger, and that's what this bill is doing. Correct?

Yes. It does not eliminate the fee.

Right. So if if they're building a 1,500 square foot ADU, basically another house on the lot, that means, they would be paying impact fees on 750 square foot of of house.

Correct. Everything that's above Right. That's right.

Right. Above that. So a proportionate amount. Correct. Okay.

So that's better than nothing, But it's still and I agree with my colleagues. If the state is going to keep doing this and take money away from I'm or or try to address the issue of high cost of housing and building on the backs of communities by

saying, hey, you know, you guys don't get to charge. It's like giving somebody else a discount on their dime, not yours. We need to we need to accept the responsibility for the additional infrastructure that we need.

The ADU situation in my city is different than perhaps yours, a little bit of overlap.

They are used for people to spread out a little bit in the family. They are used for vacation rentals. And very few are being rented out because nobody wants to have renters in their yard.

So, I don't know that it's having that type of an impact that people thought it would. I don't see the prices coming down on our apartments and and I don't see our apartments getting filled up.

So there's something wrong with our approach already. But I do agree that with your bill today that we need to charge after the 750 if they're gonna build something bigger that should have a commensurate charge to it.

So instead of somebody just building something right at 750 so they don't have to pay anything. So anyway, I will be supporting the bill today and and if there are any amendments along the way, we'll be taking a look at those carefully. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo.

Yes. I will be supporting to request to move it along to the next step which is a committee that I chair, local government. And we will be looking at all the concerns that have been raised by local government, local entities here to see, you know,

further the impact of this bill on them and on the the you know, to see if the impacts are so significant that we need to do something about it, whether it's in your bill or some other way.

So just with that understanding, supporting today, and we're gonna go further into it in local gov. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I recall when we're having conversations about the ADUs through our local Realtor board. We had a city manager come and speak to us that happened to be from my city and that we're talking about the impact of ADUs

and the folks who were living in there. But I think the concern there was more that people were coming in and using that as additional income for some folks, you're able to rent an ADU and build one out.

But the impact that it had on folks and I think I appreciate actually I wasn't even going to speak because I appreciated Senator Durazo's comments you know have we even looked to see the impact that ADUs currently have had on the expansion of cities of

people within those communities because as mentioned by our other colleague from Temecula is that you know these when you have a growth in a community, however that may be, it does have an impact on infrastructure, on police, on fire, on the school districts

and so forth. So I also believe that they need to be funded. And if they're not funded through, say, the the the the impact fix here, they're going to pass a a fee. Our city just passed a public safety fee to help fund our local police and our fire because

they don't have enough funding revenue sources within the city to be able to meet the needs of the locals. So one way or another, our our entities and our communities are going to be taxing community members in order to meet those those staffing needs.

I will be supporting the bill today, but I do wanna see, you know, I think maybe in the future in the legislature, what current ADUs have as far as population growth within those communities, the impact on local services and whether or not they're actually are

able to meet the financial needs of those particular entities. But I actually also appreciate the fact that this is very narrowed and seven fifty, how many people you do you normally house between seven fifty and twelve hundred feet in an ADU?

You know, how many of those permits for per per household are we adding to that community, to that school district, to that fire station, to that public safety agency in those areas.

So square footage does have an impact and I'm not sure, you know, I appreciate the comment, the insight of Senator from Merced. I appreciate her comments about, you know, family members are living two or three within one one household

moving out into the ADU and expanding that area. And it's interesting how different life experiences create that. Right? Because I'm thinking from a realtor perspective, they're adding someone who needs additional income.

So they're adding another unit there to lease it out to someone that they're not related to, but will add to their community. And she's referencing family members. I'm like, oh, yeah. I guess that could have been an an another option.

But regardless of where they're coming from, there's still an impact to the local entities.

So I think we do need to be realistic about the concerns of the opposition that we're adding people to the community, impacts are going to happen and we have to make sure that there is a revenue source for them as well.

But as far as housing goes, the mitigation fees are incredibly expensive in California to build. So I will be happy to support the bill today.

Okay. Thank you. I'll just briefly comment. I thank the author for bringing the bill forward and the current proportional fee calculation provide this is the greatest benefit to people that own the largest homes,

but does not provide a similar benefit to people that own smaller homes who want to build larger ADUs.

And so it's really about just having some greater degree of proportionality and and trying to incentivize this housing type which is as noted is probably been the one of the fastest growing housing types in California.

And we appreciate also the opposition expressing their comments today. And as a former mayor as well impact fees are really critical to fund fire services, housing, and other essential services. I know you come from a local government background too.

And so, you know, we just really wanna encourage you to work with the opposition when this moves to the next committee, and see, you know, if there's some way to address those concerns.

Maybe looking at, you know, focusing the bill on lots with existing structures rather than, you know, creating incentive for just building large ADUs on on vacant lots.

But I know that I have full confidence in your ability to to move to move this bill successfully. It's an incredibly important bill. I thank you for bringing it forward. I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I wanna thank each of you for providing comments on on this particular bill. And we really wanted to be intentional about how we narrowed it, how we approached our challenges to to building in our state and

being to be able to provide more opportunities for families. At the end of the day, I certainly, along with the sponsors, are hearing from the opposition. And, again, we will work with them along with others who wanna work together to solve for this.

You know, homeowners under this bill, homeowners would be able to have more flexibility to design and build ADUs that fit their needs without having sizable impact fees. We're not eliminating impact fees. We just want to make sure that they're sizable fees.

And, you know, absent any change, many homeowners will continue, as you heard, to build smaller ADUs, 750 square feet or below. And then the cities aren't getting those dollars coming in.

And so we're hoping that more folks will take this opportunity and build above that 750 square feet, and those cities will be able to get those dollars, and they'll be able to, you know, use those dollars accordingly.

And we will continue to be mindful about, the direction that we take, but I really appreciate the support, echo today. And, thank you, Mr. Chair, as well. I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much. I believe there's a motion by Senator Padilla. And the motion is, to pass to the Senate local government committee. If the committee assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much, Senator. So I want you to motion on the consent calendar which consists of filing into SB 1267 and filing for SB 1426. So moved. Moved by Vice Chair Seyarto.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call. Okay. And then I'd like to entertain a motion on SB 1116 by Senator Caballero. Moved by Senator Padilla. If we can please call the roll. The motion is due pass the Senate local government committee.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call as well. To my colleagues who have recorded their votes, thank you for being here today and for your service and participation. We will recess this committee because we have colleagues who are serving on the transportation committee, and then reconvene to close out the hearing. Thank you.

Okay. The Senate Senate Committee on Housing is back in session and we will start first with calling the roll on the consent calendar consists of item two SB 1267 by Senator Allen and filing for SB 1426 by the Committee on Housing. If the committee system please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. SB 1116 is out on a vote of eight to zero. And that completes our agenda for today's hearing. With that, the Senate standing committee on housing is now adjourned.