- “San Francisco’s failure to meet Housing Element commitments will make it impossible for people to live here.” – Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law
- “San Francisco is one of the most economically dynamic and highest-opportunity cities in the world. 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.” – Nick Eckenwiler, staff attorney at the California Housing Defense Fund
SAN FRANCISCO — Three pro-housing organizations filed a lawsuit this week challenging San Francisco’s newly-adopted Family Zoning Plan, arguing the city’s rezoning effort violates state housing law and fails to meet commitments made in its certified Housing Element.
YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership announced the suit, contending the plan contradicts California’s Housing Element law and does not create the housing capacity the city promised when it secured state approval of its Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
In 2023, San Francisco adopted and received state certification for its Housing Element, committing to rezone sufficient land to enable more than 36,000 new homes by 2031 as part of its broader Regional Housing Needs Assessment obligation. According to the city’s Office of Economic Analysis, San Francisco must have realistic capacity for approximately 82,000 new housing units by 2031, with about 36,000 units requiring rezoning to meet that target .
But when the Board of Supervisors enacted the Family Zoning Plan in December 2025, the plaintiffs allege the city failed to implement a rezoning that would achieve those targets. Instead, they argue, the city adopted a framework that will yield far fewer homes while layering on additional constraints.
“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.”
San Francisco’s own City Economist, Ted Egan, released an economic impact report in October 2025 analyzing the rezoning proposals. That report estimated the proposed zoning changes could produce between 8,504 and 14,646 additional housing units over 20 years, depending on market conditions . Even under those projections, the figures fall short of the 36,000-unit rezoning target outlined in the Housing Element.
The San Francisco Standard reported, “The controversial plan to upzone wide swaths of San Francisco is projected to produce only half the amount of new housing in twice the time required by state authorities, according to a new analysis from the city’s chief economist.”
The lawsuit alleges the Family Zoning Plan violates state law in several ways. First, the groups argue it fails to deliver the housing capacity required by the certified Housing Element. They contend the city abandoned the analytical model it had committed to use when calculating rezoning capacity and instead relied on unsupported assumptions, resulting in zoning that does not realistically enable 36,000 new homes.
Second, the complaint asserts the plan creates new constraints on housing that state Housing Element law explicitly prohibits. The ordinance includes provisions limiting unit size, reducing allowable parking and restricting new curb cuts. According to the plaintiffs, such constraints could undermine development feasibility in direct conflict with state requirements.
Third, the lawsuit argues the city failed to properly rezone sites designated for lower-income housing. Under state law, such sites must meet minimum density standards and limit non-residential uses. The plaintiffs allege the Family Zoning Plan allows zoning that does not meet those thresholds.
The suit also challenges the city’s “Housing Choice – San Francisco” program, a local alternative to the State Density Bonus law. According to the city’s economic analysis, the local program offers developers an alternative to the state density bonus and relaxes certain density controls. The plaintiffs argue the program unlawfully attempts to bar projects from using state housing laws such as the State Density Bonus, SB 9 and AB 2011, asserting that local governments cannot opt out of state housing statutes.
The organizations are seeking 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 they say improperly attempt to override state law.
This marks the first time YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund and Californians for Homeownership have joined together in a single lawsuit, a move the groups say reflects both the importance of San Francisco’s Housing Element and their view that the city’s rezoning effort falls short.
“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 litigation against Los Angeles over what they describe as a similar reliance on a local density bonus program in lieu of broader 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.”
San Francisco remains one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. Whether the Family Zoning Plan complies with state mandates — and whether it will meaningfully expand supply — will now be decided in court.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
This type of action is exactly what’s needed to lay bare the folly of the state’s housing mandates. The YIMBYs are poking the tiger, and it’s ultimately not going to end well for them.
Self-interested groups are not going to be able to force their unrealistic, unwanted demands upon entire communities (who themselves are also politically powerful).
This is the type of action that is a portend to what is likely to happen in Davis at some point.
Davis is not the center of this war. But as the mandates increasingly prove themselves impossible to achieve in individual/major cities like San Francisco, it also means that they’re impossible in cities throughout the state (including Davis).
This will come to a head, but again – it’s not focused on Davis.
Point being that this type of action is actually good news, in regard to the failure of the state’s mandates.
The housing is not going to get built in San Francisco or anywhere else they’re trying to force it. There will be lawsuits, but it’s not going to lead to housing.
San Francisco is actually an exception, not the rule. Most cities that have had lawsuits filed are lower profile, eg. Huntington Beach, Elk Grove, La Cañada Flintridge, Norwalk, San Bernardino, Coronado, Fullerton, Malibu, La Habra Heights, Artesia.
Regardless of the outcome of individual lawsuits, the fact that you’ve listed quite a few cities (some of which are quite wealthy and politically-powerful) shows that there’s a significant groundswell of underlying resistance to the state’s mandates.
Can’t help but think of actual wars (e.g., Pearl Harbor, 9/11) where the less-powerful foe struck first, (but despite inflicting significant casualties), it ultimately did not end well for them.
If things keep going down this path, what we’ll see is a statewide proposition to change the state’s constitution in order to remove power from the state (like Proposition 13). There’s already been efforts underway to do exactly that, but it hasn’t reached a critical mass so far.
The other problem that the YIMBYs have is a lack of underlying demand (e.g., 1.6 kids nationwide). Makes it that much more difficult to justify/force growth.
There isn’t an underlying/organic demand. The demand itself has to be created in this case (e.g., by business interests such as the California Association of Realtors (one of the groups behind this), the technology industry, etc.
I was surprised there weren’t more.
I still say that cities should give California the middle finger like California gives the middle finger to the feds.
But a lot of cities understand that they need more housing because of affordability.
If “affordability” is continuously chased via market-rate housing, there won’t ever be an end to the destruction.
Just yesterday, you had an article noting that (of all places), housing prices are not “affordable” in Houston (or some place like that).
They’re all the same to me – Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta, much of Las Vegas, etc. (As far as the south goes – then we can move on to other areas).
Jobs (and resulting private investors/interests) are what creates demand for housing in a given locale. The nature of the industry itself (e.g., Silicon Valley, those who understand and can take advantage of artificial intelligence opportunities) will push out the “schmucks” (like me?) every time.
Truth be told, natural talent is something we’re born with. Had I, for example, been born with a different skill set, my life would be vastly different today. (So would yours, so would everyone reading this.)
Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, those two guys who founded Google – those are people who were born with an optimal skill set in this day and age. And they congregated in specific locales (e.g., the Bay Area, Seattle to some degree, etc.).
“Second, the complaint asserts the plan creates new constraints on housing that state Housing Element law explicitly prohibits. The ordinance includes provisions limiting unit size, reducing allowable parking and restricting new curb cuts. According to the plaintiffs, such constraints could undermine development feasibility in direct conflict with state requirements.”
I’m confused – the S.F. ordinance “reduces allowable parking and restricting new curb cuts”? And this supposedly conflicts with state requirements?
I understood that the goal of the state and the YIMBYs was to REDUCE cars/parking. This seems to state the opposite – and that the YIMBYs want to CREATE more parking.
Are their actual goals finally being laid-bare in this lawsuit? No more pretending that they’re concerned about affordability, greenhouse gasses, equity, etc.?