I believe the post entitled, "Unintended consequences of SB 9 - RHNA quotas fulfilled without local rezoning?" incorrectly states that SB9 has a three year owner-occupancy requirement. What it actually has is a requirement of an affidavit of intent to occupy for three years – a much weaker limitation. This weaker limitation is only enforceable by perjury, which is notoriously difficult to prove, especially as to a matter of intent.
As stated in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest:
“The bill would require an applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend 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, unless the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as specified. The bill would prohibit a local agency from imposing any additional owner occupancy standards on applicants. By requiring applicants to sign affidavits, thereby expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”
Section 2 of SB9, the lot split provision, provides “(g) (1) A local agency shall 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 three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.”
Unlike an actual owner-occupancy requirement, it is not clear that this is a restriction that can be recorded and enforced.