A housing advocacy group’s lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles-area local governments seeks to overturn an executive order the lawsuit says has deprived fire victims of options that would allow them to rebuild their homes, but which state and local officials say would amount to activists using the fires to fundamentally transform the devastated communities against their wishes.
San Francisco-based YIMBY Law filed the lawsuit against Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other cities affected by the January wildfires on Dec. 10. YIMBY law, which bills itself as the legal arm of the state’s pro-housing movement, argues that an executive order signed by Newsom in July violates the California Emergency Services Act, the separation-of-powers doctrine outlined in the California Constitution and the specific law in question, Senate Bill 9, which was enacted in 2021.
Newsom’s order allows local government officials in the fire hazard zones to suspend provisions of SB 9, which would normally allow homeowners under certain conditions to split single-family lots and build up to two homes and two accessory dwelling units that could be rented out or used for intergenerational housing.
In the wake of the governor’s order, the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena and Malibu, as well as Los Angeles County, have moved to suspend SB 9 in the fire zones.
The reasoning behind the executive order is to ensure that population densities in the fire-hazard areas do not rise to the point that evacuation routes during a future fire become overwhelmed.
YIMBY Law, however, takes a different view, arguing in the Los Angeles County Superior Court filing that SB 9 rebuilding options would provide landowners affected by the Palisades and Eaton fires the financial options they need to rebuild and remain in their communities.
“Most homeowners were under-insured, and now rents are spiking, land values are falling and rebuilding costs are astronomical,” Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law, said in a prepared statement. “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.”
Newsom’s spokesperson, Tara Gallegos, stressed that the governor is committed to helping those displaced by the wildfires.
“We will not allow outside groups – even longstanding allies – to attack the Palisades, and communities in the highest fire risk areas throughout L.A. County, or undermine local flexibility to rebuild after the horror of these fires,” Gallegos said in a statement emailed to the Southern California Record. “Our obligation is to survivors, full stop. We will not negotiate that away. If defending them requires drawing firm lines, we will draw them.”
Newsom has issued multiple orders aimed at easing the state housing crisis. The lawsuit acknowledges that the governor has signed more than 20 such executive orders to boost the supply of new housing.
Others argue that SB 9’s provisions for lot splits were not meant to apply in situations such as the aftermath of major wildfires, where communities are often forced to rebuild from scratch.
The lawsuit, however, views the defendants’ statements about the effect of denser residential populations in areas such as Pacific Palisades, Pasadena or Malibu during future fires as speculative.
“This case demonstrates why the state of California faces a deepening housing crisis,” the complaint states. “While housing costs continue to rise to unprecedented levels, (the) respondents are blocking new housing where it is needed most.”
