The most recent “not in my yard” tactic in California’s native zoning disputes and state housing legislation battles?
Submitting a grievance with the state bar affiliation.
A living proof: An legal professional who failed in an effort to derail a Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., upzoning lodged a grievance with the California State Bar a few March 2025 letter YIMBY Regulation addressed to town council, which recommended town wanted to comply with state housing mandates.
The state bar, in flip, launched an investigation into the pro-housing group YIMBY Regulation for unauthorized follow of legislation. Legal professionals with the Institute for Justice, representing YIMBY Regulation, argue that the investigation violates the First Modification.
The dispute might turn out to be a litmus take a look at for the lengths opponents of upzoning will go to push again in opposition to state housing enforcement. Tensions have intensified between Sacramento housing regulators and opponents immune to state density growth mandates handed on the urging of “sure in my yard” supporters.
These tensions echo battles in different cities the place NIMBY-minded residents have turned to courts {and professional} regulators to sluggish or punish efforts so as to add density of any degree in single-family neighborhoods.
In Charlottesville, Va., for instance, owners sued over a 2023 zoning overhaul that opened single-family areas to “lacking center” housing, alleging procedural missteps. The town settled moderately than go to trial after a choose briefly voided its zoning code. It agreed to offer new visitors and infrastructure research whereas preserving the added density.
The grievance in opposition to YIMBY Regulation is an uncommon scenario as a result of Sonja Trauss, its govt director, isn’t a educated lawyer. The group advocates for altering legal guidelines to construct extra housing.
YIMBY Regulation routinely writes letters to native businesses to encourage adherence to statewide housing legal guidelines such because the Housing Accountability Act.
“You shouldn’t must be a lawyer to inform the federal government what you suppose,” Trauss stated. “This goes past having a disagreement in coverage — that is attempting to finish dialogue solely.”
Problem over 16 properties
Final yr Rancho Palos Verdes, an prosperous metropolis in Los Angeles County, thought of eradicating three websites from its “Housing Components Plan” that had been up to date in 2024.
Developer Ali Vahdani had an software on a website that was upzoned from 4 properties per acre to 22 items per acre in 2024. Vahdani had purchased the parcel from Thomas and Shannon Hartman, who nonetheless dwell within the neighborhood. He needs to construct 14 townhomes and two accent dwelling items.
Vahdani’s plans drew opposition from neighbors, together with the Hartmans. The neighbors argued that the density would hurt the single-family neighborhood and pose a danger to a close-by 250,00-year-old landslide.
As town ready to resolve, Vahdani, a civil engineer and founding father of Optimum Seismic, told The Actual Deal he felt devastated. This venture could be his first ground-up improvement.
“I noticed it as completely unfair, completely loopy,” he stated. “I couldn’t imagine they have been going to downzone it months later.”
His lawyer stepped up the battle. Trauss adopted with an in depth letter to town council that stated eradicating the websites would violate state legislation and Vahdani’s vested rights.
The modification to town’s housing component plan had already been despatched to the California Coastal Fee, marking the ultimate approval within the course of.
Reopening the method might “topic town to quite a few alternatives for litigation and scrutiny,” Trauss wrote in her letter.
In 2019, the state handed the Housing Disaster Act that restricted downzoning and procedural limitations to guard and broaden California’s housing capability statewide. The state tightened the foundations on cities extra in 2021. The town council opted to not make the modifications. That wasn’t the top of the battle.
Neighbors take zoning dispute to the Coastal Fee
After the council saved the websites within the housing plan, opponents took their combat to the state. Newport Seashore legal professional Kendra Carney Mehr represented the Hartmans for the fee’s August listening to. Mehr despatched an opposition e mail that joined with others, highlighting environmental and geological considerations with the positioning.
She argued that town’s housing component modification “created spot zoning and inconsistent improvement. Mehr cited the native coast plan, which coastal cities will need to have by legislation, that states: “All new improvement might be residential single-family dwellings. Subdivisions of enormous parcels must be designed in a fashion that can mix with the prevailing neighborhood sample.”
The fee accepted town’s modification regardless of the opposition. After the fee backed town, Mehr took the combat a step additional. She filed the grievance in opposition to YIMBY Regulation. Meher hasn’t responded to questions on motivation.
Institute for Justice attorneys have been stunned the bar affiliation didn’t dismiss the grievance because it does with many. It’s unclear what the penalty could be as a result of Trauss isn’t a member of the bar. The Institute stated it will sue if the bar affiliation proceeds with disciplinary motion.
“There may be nothing extra American than the precise to inform authorities officers you suppose they’re breaking the legislation,” senior legal professional Sam Gedge, stated in an announcement. “The one factor it’s best to want earlier than writing to authorities officers is an opinion—not a license from the state.”
