CA AB 2005
introducedHousing developments: urban lot split: owner-occupancy.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 2005 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 2005 has been introduced but has not advanced to a vote. Latest recorded action (2026-08-30): Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
What is CA AB 2005 about?
(1) Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the development or parcel meets specified requirements. Existing law requires the local agency to require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. Existing law authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions, as provided. This bill would instead require the local agency to require an applicant to select one of 2 sets of owner-occupancy requirements. The first option would be for the applicant to sign, under penalty of perjury, the above-described affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years. The 2nd option would be for the applicant to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating they intend to sell both parcels of an urban lot split after issuance of a certificate of occupancy and to require, as a condition of sale to a homebuyer, that one of the units on both parcels of an urban lot split remain owner occupied for 3 years, beginning on the date a parcel or unit is conveyed by the applicant to a homebuyer. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury and increasing the duties of local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would impose prescribed recording and notice requirements on this 2nd owner-occupancy requirement, as provided. The bill would provide that, for the purposes of either owner-occupancy requirement, an applicant may be the managing or authorized member, who is a natural person, of a limited liability company or the trustee of a living trust of a natural person, except that a managing or authorized member of a limited liability company shall not be an applicant if the parcel being subdivided is within the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades or Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. The bill would provide that an applicant for an urban lot split who is a managing or authorized member of a limited liability company who violates these provisions would be liable for civil penalties. This bill would additionally prohibit a local agency from adopting or imposing any requirement, process, practice, or procedure, or undertaking any course of conduct, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, restricting the eligibility of an applicant of an urban lot split. (2) Existing law requires that specified disclosures be made upon any transfer by sale, exchange, real property sales contract, lease with an option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, of any single-family residential property. This bill would require the seller of an urban lot split subject to the second owner-occupancy requirement described above to disclose, in writing, any owner-occupancy requirement for three years after the conveyance of an urban lot split unit. This bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2032. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
Who sponsors CA AB 2005?
Ahrens is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2005, joined by 3 cosponsors.
Description
(1) Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a city or county may adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the development or parcel meets specified requirements. Existing law requires the local agency to require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. Existing law authorizes a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement these provisions, as provided. This bill would instead require the local agency to require an applicant to select one of 2 sets of owner-occupancy requirements. The first option would be for the applicant to sign, under penalty of perjury, the above-described affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years. The 2nd option would be for the applicant to sign an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, stating they intend to sell both parcels of an urban lot split after issuance of a certificate of occupancy and to require, as a condition of sale to a homebuyer, that one of the units on both parcels of an urban lot split remain owner occupied for 3 years, beginning on the date a parcel or unit is conveyed by the applicant to a homebuyer. By expanding the scope of the crime of perjury and increasing the duties of local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would impose prescribed recording and notice requirements on this 2nd owner-occupancy requirement, as provided. The bill would provide that, for the purposes of either owner-occupancy requirement, an applicant may be the managing or authorized member, who is a natural person, of a limited liability company or the trustee of a living trust of a natural person, except that a managing or authorized member of a limited liability company shall not be an applicant if the parcel being subdivided is within the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades or Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. The bill would provide that an applicant for an urban lot split who is a managing or authorized member of a limited liability company who violates these provisions would be liable for civil penalties. This bill would additionally prohibit a local agency from adopting or imposing any requirement, process, practice, or procedure, or undertaking any course of conduct, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is an urban lot split, including, but not limited to, restricting the eligibility of an applicant of an urban lot split. (2) Existing law requires that specified disclosures be made upon any transfer by sale, exchange, real property sales contract, lease with an option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, of any single-family residential property. This bill would require the seller of an urban lot split subject to the second owner-occupancy requirement described above to disclose, in writing, any owner-occupancy requirement for three years after the conveyance of an urban lot split unit. This bill would repeal its provisions on January 1, 2032. (3) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires in the County of Los Angeles. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
- Introduced
- 2026-03-19
- Latest action
- 2026-08-30 — Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Ahrensauthor
- Cortesecoauthor
- Arreguíncoauthor
- Wienercoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-08-30
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
2026-08-28
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-26
Reconsideration granted. (Ayes 30. Noes 6.)
2026-08-25
Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 18. Noes 11.).
failure,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-20
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-19
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-12
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-11
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-11
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-10
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-07-29
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
2026-07-01
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-22
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-10
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (June 10). Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-03
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and HOUSING.
referral-committee
2026-05-14
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-14
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 66. Noes 1. Page 5047.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-07
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-07
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 4973.)
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-06
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 6).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-04-23
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-04-13
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
referral-committee
2026-04-09
Read second time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-04-08
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (April 8).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-03-23
Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
referral-committee
2026-03-19
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-03-19
Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV.
referral-committee
2026-02-18
From printer. May be heard in committee March 20.
2026-02-17
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
- 02/17/26 - Introduced — 2026-02-17Compare
- 03/19/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-03-19Compare
- 04/09/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-04-09Compare
- 05/07/26 - Amended Assembly — 2026-05-07Compare
- 06/22/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-06-22Compare
- 08/11/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-08-11Compare
- 08/19/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-08-19Compare
- 08/28/26 - Amended Senate — 2026-08-28Compare
- (document, no version)Compare
- AB2005Compare
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Local Government]
2026-04-08 · pass · 11-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Haney: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Ward: yes
- Lee: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Ta: other
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-04-22 · pass · 10-0
Member-level votes (10)
- Carrillo: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Ward: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Ta: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Johnson: yes
Do pass.
2026-05-06 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Solache: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Fong: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Ta: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Krell: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Arambula: other
AB 2005 Ahrens Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-14 · pass · 66-1
Member-level votes (80)
- Ward: yes
- Krell: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Chen: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Ta: yes
- Addis: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Berman: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Solache: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Hart: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Papan: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Davies: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Bains: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Hoover: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Haney: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Lee: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Soria: yes
- Bennett: yes
- DeMaio: no
- Schiavo: other
- Macedo: other
- Sanchez: other
- Patel: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
- Bauer-Kahan: other
- Flora: other
- Gallagher: other
- Castillo: other
- Arambula: other
- Johnson: other
- Muratsuchi: other
- Boerner: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Housing]
2026-06-10 · pass · 5-1
Member-level votes (7)
- Arreguín: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Laird: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Seyarto: no
- Choi: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-06-30 · pass · 6-2
Member-level votes (10)
- Padilla: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Seyarto: no
- Ochoa Bogh: no
- Grayson: other
- Gonzalez: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-08-30T23:49:16.416374Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 2005. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.