We Sued Lafayette Over Its Flawed Housing Element
In March, we – in partnership with Tom Mayhew of powerhouse law firm Farella Braun + Martel LLP – filed a lawsuit against the City of Lafayette, challenging its recently adopted Housing Element for failing to comply with state housing laws.
Under California law, every city must develop a Housing Element (this is a detailed plan that shows how it will accommodate housing needs through 2031). These plans must be based on real-world data, include realistic development opportunities, and demonstrate a commitment to equity through fair housing policies. Lafayette’s plan falls far short of these requirements.
Here’s why:
Lafayette’s Housing Element relies on an unrealistic and misleading inventory of housing sites, in clear violation of state law. Among the most concerning issues:
Unavailable sites listed as developable: The Housing Element includes sites that are currently occupied by long-term businesses, such as a CVS store in a busy shopping center, veterinary clinics, a city employee parking lot, and a grocery store. These properties are not realistically available for redevelopment within the planning period, and the city has provided no evidence that these uses will be discontinued.
Misclassification of sites: Lafayette attempted to misclassify non-vacant sites as vacant, a tactic that allows it to bypass additional scrutiny under state law. When a city relies heavily on non-vacant sites for its affordable housing plan, it is required to provide substantial evidence that those sites will become available. Lafayette improperly designated several active commercial properties, parking lots, and even residential parcels as vacant to evade this requirement.
Inflated housing capacity assumptions: Lafayette’s Housing Element includes projections of future development density that are inconsistent with its historical development trends. State law requires cities to use actual development patterns to inform these estimates. Lafayette’s projections are not grounded in evidence and substantially overstate what can realistically be built.
Failure to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: Lafayette’s refusal to rezone additional land for housing – particularly in high-resource areas – violates the state mandate to Affirmitatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).
This lawsuit is not occurring in a vacuum. Lafayette has a long history of obstructing housing production. From delaying the Terraces of Lafayette project to taking two extra years to adopt its Housing Element, the city has consistently used delay tactics and restrictive policies to avoid building new homes. This pattern of resistance contributes directly to the region’s housing shortage and rising costs.
California law is clear: cities must show that sites listed for future housing are realistically available for development. When a city relies on sites with existing uses, it must provide substantial evidence that those uses will be discontinued during the planning period. Lafayette has failed to do so.
This case builds on a growing legal strategy to enforce state housing laws. HAC and Farella Braun + Martel previously filed a similar lawsuit against the City of San Mateo. These legal efforts are part of a broader push to hold cities accountable when they fail to meet their housing obligations.
This lawsuit is an important step toward ensuring that every city, including Lafayette, meets its legal obligation to plan for housing in a meaningful way. Legal enforcement is one of the most powerful tools we have to compel cities to comply with the law and to prevent them from continuing business as usual while the housing crisis worsens.
HAC’s message to cities is and always will be clear: follow the law.
