RegComm Recap — Our Lafayette Lawsuit
On Wednesday, 4/23, HAC’s Regulatory Committee hosted Tom Mayhew, partner at Farella Braun + Martel LLP and HAC’s lead attorney, for an in-depth look at our lawsuit against the City of Lafayette over its non-compliant Housing Element, and what’s at stake for housing accountability statewide.
Tom began by walking us through his broader journey into housing law enforcement, highlighting the disturbing trend he’s seen across cities: Housing Elements filled with lofty goals but empty promises. In reviewing plans from cities across the state, he found a common thread: local governments repeatedly failing to show real evidence that their zoning plans would translate into actual housing. That pattern is what brought him into this work. He’s been directly involved in legal actions against cities like San Mateo and has closely tracked the case of Pleasanton, underscoring how widespread and systematic the issue has become.
Tom then walked us through how the City of Lafayette has failed to meet its obligations under state housing law, particularly the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process. Despite being required to plan for 2,114 new homes, including 943 affordable units, Lafayette submitted a Housing Element with unrealistic and misleading claims about land availability.
Key issues in Lafayette’s Housing Element:
Mislabeling non-vacant sites as “vacant”: Lafayette counted parcels with active commercial operations (including a CVS, a city office parking lot, and a construction office) as “vacant,” skirting requirements for stronger evidence of redevelopment potential.
Overpromising development on religious and long-standing commercial properties: The city included plans to build affordable housing on land owned by churches and synagogues, and even a family-run supply business that has operated in Lafayette for over 85 years – none of which had redevelopment plans.
Avoidance of transparency requirements: By improperly categorizing these sites, the City sidestepped the requirement to provide “substantial evidence” that existing uses would be discontinued, a necessary step under California Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2).
What does this mean?
Tom emphasized that Housing Elements are not just paperwork. They’re a legal commitment to meeting regional housing needs. When cities fudge the numbers or ignore basic feasibility, they make it effectively illegal to build the housing our communities need.
He closed with a broader call to action: vigilance and accountability are essential. While HCD plays a major oversight role, watchdogging by local advocates remains critical. Exposing bad actors like Lafayette helps build momentum for cities that do want to play by the rules, and pushes the state closer to meaningful housing progress.
We look forward to continuing our work with Tom and holding jurisdictions accountable to ensure housing laws have teeth and California’s housing future is built on real foundations.
