YIMBY Law to Appeal Sausalito Housing Element Decision

SAUSALITO, CA – YIMBY Law today announced it will appeal a Marin County Superior Court decision upholding the City of Sausalito’s Housing Element, warning that the ruling leaves a critical question in California law unresolved and could have major ripple effects for housing development statewide.

In its February 5, 2026 order, the court denied YIMBY Law’s challenge after finding the case moot, declining to decide whether Housing Elements must undergo environmental review under state law.

YIMBY Law filed its lawsuit in part because Sausalito adopted its Housing Element without preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In response to the litigation, Sausalito moved forward with completing an EIR while the case was pending. By the time of the hearing, Sausalito argued that its later actions made the case moot – an argument that the court accepted.

As a result, while Sausalito ultimately completed the environmental review, the court did not resolve whether state law requires Housing Elements to undergo that analysis in the first place. YIMBY Law argues that this lack of clarity is already creating inconsistent practices statewide, with some jurisdictions preparing EIRs and others not. This leaves cities and home builders without clear rules to follow. Moreover, when cities fail to complete an EIR for their Housing Elements, individual projects must complete their own EIRs – dramatically increasing the projects’ cost, risk, and time required to obtain entitlements.

“Housing Elements are comprehensive blueprints for growth, and the law should be clear about whether they require environmental review,” said Sonja Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY Law. “Right now, cities are taking different approaches, and that uncertainty makes planning worse. Our lawsuit pushed Sausalito to complete its environmental review, but we’re appealing because this question affects every city in California and needs a definitive answer.”

Housing Elements guide decades of development decisions. Without clear legal standards and thorough upfront analysis, cities risk adopting plans that are legally vulnerable or internally inconsistent. This creates fertile ground for future litigation, which leads to project delays and higher costs that ultimately make it harder to build housing.

The ruling also underscores the potential for triggering the “builder’s remedy” under state housing law, which limits local control when jurisdictions fall out of compliance with Housing Element requirements. The court acknowledged that applications submitted during periods of noncompliance may be subject to the builder’s remedy. In this case, Sausalito started to prepare an EIR for its Housing Element update, but it ran out of time to complete it and abandoned the effort, adopting the Housing Element shortly before the statutory deadline in order to avoid the builder’s remedy. After YIMBY Law filed its lawsuit, Sausalito reversed course again – completing an EIR and adopting a Housing Element update in order to moot the lawsuit.

YIMBY Law warned that ambiguity around legal requirements increases the likelihood of such outcomes, raising the stakes for getting the law right.

YIMBY Law’s appeal seeks a clear ruling on whether state law requires environmental review for Housing Elements. This guidance that would have statewide implications for how cities plan for growth.

YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund, and Californians for Homeownership Sue San Francisco for Violating State Housing Law with Family Zoning Plan

SAN FRANCISCO – YIMBY Law, California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) and Californians for Homeownership today announced they are filing a lawsuit over San Francisco’s recently adopted Family Zoning Plan, arguing that the plan violates California housing law, contradicts San Francisco’s own adopted Housing Element, and fails to deliver the housing capacity the city promised to allow.

“The Family Zoning Plan is, unfortunately, not a real upzoning, it’s merely a new local density bonus,” said Sonja Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY Law. “It doesn't meet the requirements of the Housing Element law, and it won’t sufficiently address San Francisco’s persistent housing shortage. This lawsuit is about ensuring San Francisco actually zones for the housing it so badly needs. State housing law is not optional, and San Francisco’s failure to meet Housing Element commitments will make it impossible for people to live here.”

In 2023, San Francisco adopted and received state certification for its Sixth Cycle Housing Element, committing the city to rezone sufficient land to enable more than 36,000 new homes by 2031. That commitment was a core condition of the state’s approval of the Housing Element. But when the city enacted its rezoning––called the Family Zoning Plan––in December 2025, it failed to meet those requirements and instead adopted a framework that produces far fewer homes and adds new constraints on housing construction.

San Francisco’s own City Economist, Ted Egan, released a report finding that the Family Zoning Plan would not produce enough housing to meet state mandates. 

San Francisco is among the most expensive places to live anywhere in the country. The Family Zoning plan, as written and passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, will not do enough to make it easier to build housing and bring down housing costs. 

The Family Zoning Plan violates state law in several key ways:

1. It fails to deliver required housing capacity: San Francisco’s Housing Element required the city to base rezoning on an analytical model that accounts for whether sites are likely to actually be developed. The city instead used a model that abandoned that approach and relied on unsupported assumptions, resulting in zoning that falls far short of the required 36,000 new homes.

2. It creates new, illegal constraints on housing: State Housing Element law explicitly prohibits adding new governmental constraints that would reduce housing feasibility. The Family Zoning Plan introduces new restrictions—including limits on unit size, parking, and curb cuts—that could directly undermine housing production.

3. It fails to properly rezone for lower-income housing: State law requires sites designated for lower-income housing to meet minimum density standards and limit non-residential uses. The Family Zoning Plan allows zoning that does not meet those requirements, violating both state law and the city’s own commitments.

4. It attempts to override state housing laws: The city’s “Housing Choice – San Francisco” program will bar projects from using state housing laws such as the State Density Bonus, SB 9, and AB 2011. Local governments cannot opt out of state housing law, and the lawsuit seeks to invalidate those provisions of the “Housing Choice – San Francisco” program.

The lawsuit seeks court orders requiring San Francisco to bring its zoning code into compliance with state housing law and its adopted Housing Element, and to invalidate provisions that illegally attempt to preempt state housing statutes.

This lawsuit represents the first time all three of California’s pro-housing non-profit housing law enforcers have worked on a lawsuit together, underscoring both the importance of San Francisco’s Housing Element to the economic and social wellbeing of the state, and also the inadequacy of San Francisco’s plan. 

"San Francisco is one of the most economically dynamic and highest-opportunity cities in the world," said Nick Eckenwiler, Staff Attorney at the California Housing Defense Fund.  "Unfortunately, city government continues to pursue restrictive zoning policies that raise housing costs to untenable levels, limiting who can live there and causing displacement and rising rents all over the Bay. San Francisco's housing shortage doesn't just make life harder and more expensive for San Franciscans––it affects all of us."

YIMBY Law and Californians for Homeownership are also pursuing a lawsuit against Los Angeles as that city similarly passed a local density bonus program in lieu of a real upzoning. 

“Housing Element law requires cities to show they have local zoning in place to meet their regional housing needs, and that cannot be done through a local bonus program,” said Matt Gelfand, Supervising Counsel at Californians for Homeownership. “Our cases against Los Angeles and San Francisco both seek the adoption of local policies that genuinely increase housing production, measured against the baseline of existing state density bonus law. Under state law, each city bears the burden of proving in court that their rezoning programs will produce the needed housing.”

YIMBY Law Files Lawsuit Against Governor Newsom’s Executive Order Suspending SB 9 in Los Angeles Burn Areas

LOS ANGELES – Nearly one year after catastrophic wildfires devastated communities in Los Angeles County, YIMBY Law has filed a lawsuit challenging an Executive Order from Governor Gavin Newsom giving local governments discretion to limit or suspend SB 9 development in certain high fire hazard severity zones within the Los Angeles burn areas. This Executive Order is, ironically, hampering recovery and harming the very communities it purports to support. Protecting SB 9 is essential to rebuilding these areas equitably, safely and sustainably so that future generations can afford to live there.

SB 9, passed by the California Legislature and signed into law in 2021, allows property owners in qualifying single-family neighborhoods to split lots and build up to two homes and two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on what was previously a single parcel. The law was designed to reduce regulatory barriers, add urgently needed housing, and create more equitable opportunities for families to build generational stability in high-cost communities. 

Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order was issued in July 2025. Giving local jurisdictions this type of ability was an unprecedented move, making it harder and more expensive to rebuild. 

SB 9 is and remains a critical tool for rebuilding equitably and sustainably in communities like the Pacific Palisades and Malibu. California’s local and state leaders have made the decision to allow residents to rebuild in these and other fire-prone areas, which will require safer construction and fire-proofing. SB 9 allows homeowners, many of whom were underinsured and have only the value of their land to put toward rebuilding, to split their lots and sell unused land, or build ADUs and duplexes that generate rental income or support intergenerational living. Without these options, it will be nearly impossible for low-income and working class people to return to and live in these communities. 

“My parents survived the Eaton Fire, but our home didn’t,” said Andrew Post, whose family home burned down in 2024. “Now, as we want to rebuild and come back to the community we love, we’re staring down costs we can’t meet. SB 9 isn’t a danger, it’s a lifeline. It gives people like us a real chance to rebuild by creating rental income or making space for multiple generations and families to live on the same land. Taking that option away means pushing out the very people who are trying hardest to come back.”

“The scale of loss was all-encompassing, and we need to make it easier and more equitable to rebuild,” said Sonja Trauss, the Executive Director of YIMBY Law. “Families of all types are struggling to return to their communities. Most homeowners were under-insured, and now rents are spiking, land values are falling, and rebuilding costs are astronomical. Making it harder for families to use the single most impactful tool they have left––their land––doesn’t make recovery safer. It raises the barrier of who gets to come back at all.”

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order to suspend SB 9 came after a pressure campaign from influencers like former reality TV star and TikToker Spencer Pratt, whose home in the Palisades burned down in the fire. While these influencers claimed that splitting lots, as SB 9 allows, would endanger people’s ability to leave the Palisades if there were to be another fire, the reality is that there are many strategies available to communities to reduce fire risk and support orderly evacuation. Where there are no other mitigation options, state law already allows cities to prohibit new housing.

The Los Angeles wildfires destroyed more than buildings, they uprooted whole communities. SB 9 helps residents rebuild. We must defend the state laws that create rebuilding opportunities for working families so everyone can move back––not only the wealthiest homeowners whose insurance or personal savings can cover the construction of a single family home on a large lot. 

YIMBY Law’s suit asserts these claims about Newsom’s Executive Order:

1. It violates the California Emergency Services Act - Emergency powers may be used only to mitigate ongoing disasters, not to suspend laws preemptively for speculative future crises, and cannot be delegated carte blanche to localities.

2. It is constitutional overreach and violates the separation of powers - The Legislature already weighed evacuation risk, fire safety constraints, and relief from local discretionary review when passing SB 9, including explicit carve-outs for high fire-severity zones.

3. It violates SB 9’s statutory guardrails - The Governor lacks authority to selectively suspend one ministerial housing law under the guise of emergency mitigation where objective fire-safety exclusions already apply.