Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sb9 Lot Splits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

AB 2005 would let trustee owners and certain LLCs use SB 9 lot‑split pathway; committee advances amid opposition

California State Senate Committee on Local Government · June 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

AB 2005 would allow trustee owner‑occupants and some LLCs to apply for urban lot splits under SB 9, creating a new pathway proponents say will expand owner‑occupied units. Opponents contend the bill weakens SB 9’s owner‑occupancy safeguard and lacks enforcement. The committee advanced the measure to the housing committee.

Assemblymember Aarons described AB 2005 as a fix to allow more homeowners — including those holding property in living trusts or some LLCs — to access the SB 9 urban lot‑split process. "This bill does not increase the number of units that can be constructed on an SB 9 lot split or reduce the number of owner‑occupied units," the author said, adding her intent to consider a five‑year sunset and refine definitions.

Supporters including California YIMBY and small infill builders said the existing process is too complicated for many homeowners and that AB 2005 would create practical pathways to partner with small builders to produce owner‑occupied units. Stephanie Yi, a Bay Area small‑builder, said homeowners "come to us because the process is just too complicated, too expensive, and too risky for themselves to handle alone."

The California Association of Realtors and other opponents said AB 2005 removes critical guardrails. A Realtor representative said the bill "removes that safeguard" of owner‑occupancy and opens the process to large LLCs and investment entities; she added the affidavit mechanism in the bill does not guarantee owner‑occupancy and enforcement provisions were unclear.

Committee members raised questions about neighborhood impacts, water and utility capacity, and whether a statewide expansion is prudent given the relatively recent implementation of SB 9. With a motion in place, the committee voted to pass AB 2005 to the housing committee for further work.