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.

YIMBY Law Denounces CA Governor’s Attempts to Block Duplexes in Fire-Affected Areas, Considers Lawsuit

YIMBY Law condemns Governor Newsom’s executive action blocking duplexes and lot splits in LA’s rebuilding efforts after the Palisades fire. We are considering filing an emergency lawsuit to defend the law and allow more homes as a part of the rebuilding process. This is a crucial opportunity to rebuild these communities in a way that supports climate resilience and housing accessibility. Governor Newsom should be facilitating this process; instead, he is buckling to anti-housing interests that artificially restrict the number of homes in these neighborhoods.

“This order throws out any opportunities to increase climate and fire resiliency in these neighborhoods,” said Zachary Pitts, YIMBY Los Angeles’s Organizing Director. “The worst thing we can do is rebuild in the exact same way and face the exact same risk. Density reduces fire risk, suburbia increases it.”

The stated purpose of the Executive Order is to "afford local governments increased discretion to ensure that SB 9 development in the rebuilding areas appropriately accounts for fire safety concerns.” However, SB 9 already requires proposed development in high fire zones to meet updated ingress and egress standards. It also already allows local governments to deny a project that would have “a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated.”  

The California Emergency Services Act allows the Governor to suspend state laws if "strict compliance with any statute, order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the emergency." SB 9 in no way prevents mitigation of the fires’ effects. To the contrary, building new housing—which is what SB 9 facilitates—mitigates the effects of the fires. Suspending SB 9 and allowing LA to prevent higher-density, more fire-safe new housing in the Palisades is a cynical perversion of the purpose of emergency orders.

YIMBY Law is considering a lawsuit to challenge this executive order. Governments are permitted to take actions that mitigate the effects of an emergency. This executive action, however, does not mitigate the effects of the Palisades fire. Instead, it hinders the rebuilding process, makes LA more susceptible to future fires, and reduces the community’s ability to address the housing shortage. 

SB 9, the law Governor Newsom blocked with this executive order, was enacted as one of many necessary measures to address the emergency of the housing shortage. A severe lack of homes drives homelessness and housing insecurity, while driving tens of thousands of residents to leave California in an attempt to find more affordable housing. LA and its surrounding neighborhoods desperately need more homes to accommodate the needs of the people who live and work there. The future of the state’s climate resilience, economy, and resident safety depend on the implementation of SB 9 and similar laws that help address the housing shortage.

“This is an alarming abuse of state executive powers,” said Sonja Trauss, Executive Director at YIMBY Law. “The legislature passed SB 9 to increase the number of homes in existing neighborhoods. This is an opportunity for homeowners to choose to add more homes on their land as they make tough decisions about how to rebuild their lives after the Palisades fire. Legitimate concerns about evacuation routes should be addressed by creating more evacuation routes from the Palisades, not by preventing housing. Newsom’s executive order will create uncertainty in the rebuilding process and reduce the number of homes in LA.”

On July 30, Governor Newsom signed an executive order that will remain in effect as long as the state of emergency from the Palisades fire remains active. It allows local governments to curb the implementation of SB 9 (a law passed in 2021 that legalized duplexes and lot splits in most single-family-only neighborhoods) within the LA fire burn scars. The order affects the entire Palisades within the city of LA, the eastern foothills portions of Altadena, Sunset Mesa, and Malibu. It also includes a 7-day pause on SB 9 development in these neighborhoods to allow local governments to create their own standards. 

Immediately after SB 9 was passed, municipalities abused the emergency process to block its implementation, leading the CA Attorney General to issue guidance to cities, reminding them what is and isn’t a legal basis for an urgency ordinance. The Governor’s executive order is a continuation of these tactics, with an ongoing focus on exempting wealthy neighborhoods from building their fair share of housing to help end the housing shortage. If allowed to continue, this order has the potential to block all duplexes and lot splits in these neighborhoods, undermining the law as it was passed by the California legislature. The order is especially alarming given that this a crucial time in the rebuilding process, just six months after a devastating fire that razed over 5,400 homes.

SB 9 is an important avenue for homeowners to rebuild in a way that works for them. Adding more homes to a lot creates opportunities for more people to live in the neighborhood, increases options for multigenerational households, and provides new housing types at different price points to allow for more diverse, vibrant neighborhoods. Building a more dense neighborhood footprint is also an important part of reducing the risk of fires in the future by making these communities more climate resilient. Increased density encourages less car usage, reducing air pollution and supporting California’s climate goals.

“This overreach of executive powers sets a dangerous precedent for how the state and local municipalities will continue to block new homes if left unchecked,” said Jae Hendrix, Communications Director at YIMBY Law. “We urge Governor Newsom to follow the law and allow LA to create more fire-resistant communities as it rebuilds.”