This!!! Exactly this! I can think of half a dozen loopholes. You cant pay me enough in cakes or marmalade to go down this rabbit hole, but due to my sins from another lifetime..my first thought was Trust owned properties! finally i gave in and did a search and this came up. (and actually even more.). This is going to down a predictable path and end result is going to be an even more unaffordable california.

San Jose:

https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-lawmakers-implement-co...

[...]Councilmember Pam Foley grilled city staff on details for how SB 9 will be enforced, such as making sure corporations or family trusts don’t violate the law by purchasing adjoining lots for development.

“How are you going to follow up on the trust to know there isn’t a violation occurring?” Foley asked.

Staff explained the city will at minimum develop a tracking program to monitor purchasers. But staff made it clear some provisions of SB 9 are murky, such as the requirement for developers to attest they intend to live in a property for at least three years. City officials said they hope for clarification on several issues from the state early next year.[...]

more...expect more can of worms following this..one more party making money will be attorneys because there are going to be a lot of law suits. : https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/12/22/cupertino-sb-9-ordina...

[..]The council opted to restrict new homes built under SB 9 to be no larger than 2,000 square feet.

“I don’t want people to abuse this process to build a mansion,” Vice Mayor Liang Chao said.[...]

[..]“The misunderstanding on the 2,000 square foot limit is particularly unfortunate given the work Cupertino has done to implement SB 9 to accommodate the additional density that the statute allows in a manner that has a high degree of community support,” Jensen added.

Aside from size limitations, Cupertino will ban accessory dwelling units on subdivided lots, second-story balconies and basements.

The city is requiring that the shadow from new homes not cover more than 10 percent of an existing solar panel on an adjoining property — a regulation that’s not in place for the construction of new single-family homes. Property owners will have to hire a licensed engineer to conduct a shadow study.

Cupertino will also prohibit condominium conversions so that individual units in duplexes cannot be sold.[..]

[..]“If we don’t have any type of limit, then essentially all 20,000 homeowners in Cupertino could immediately send their lot split request into the city with no intent of splitting it as long as they’re living in the structure,” Willey said. “But they’re going to sell the property at some point with this advantage for higher prices, further elevating the value of the homes in Cupertino.”[..]

Los Altos Hills: https://norcalapa.org/2021/12/los-altos-hills-passes-urgency... [..]“Mayor Kavita Tankha defended the rules as accommodating residents’ desires to maintain their privacy, preserve open space, and reduce fire risk.

“[YIMBY Law] Executive Director Sonja Trauss … said a lawsuit could pertain to the emergency rule-making, which requires an imminent threat to public health and safety, as well as a belief that the restrictions illegally reduce the amount of new housing that can be built, in violation of another state law.

“Representatives for the California Department of Housing and Community Development … and Attorney General Rob Bonta … said they are monitoring the situation.”[...]

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-citi...

[...]“We’re seeing once again an example where many local governments seem more interested in using their local control to exclude people,” said Aaron Eckhouse, regional policy manager for California YIMBY, a group that lobbies for policies to build more housing. “The Legislature did leave cities discretion under SB9 and they’re abusing it.”[...]

its funny how YIMBYs(Yes In My BackYard) are always looking into someone else's backyard and want them to open it up for them.

[...]At least 150 cities formally opposed the bill as it moved through the legislative process.

Under the law, they will have to approve applications for lot splits and at least two units on each property if the projects meet size requirements and local design standards, fall outside historic and environmentally sensitive districts, and do not require the demolition of housing that is rent-restricted or has been occupied by tenants in the past three years.

Those design standards, which are up to cities, and other exceptions within the law have provided a last stand for local officials to push back on SB9 in the final weeks before it takes effect. A growing number are scheduled to vote on emergency ordinances at upcoming council meetings, temporary rules that would nevertheless be in place by Jan. 1 and give them more time to adopt permanent regulations next year.[..]

This whole game is just an excuse for the State of California to escape scrutiny and accountablity for their mistakes..which is NOT setting up systems and infrastructure in place even with all the high taxes they collected. This is abuse and gaslighting every tax payer in california.