LAFAYETTE, CA – The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) and Farella Braun + Martel LLP have filed a lawsuit against the City of Lafayette, alleging that its recently adopted Housing Element fails to comply with California state housing laws.
The suit accuses Lafayette of misrepresenting its housing capacity and using misleading site inventories to evade its legal obligation to provide realistic plans for new housing.
The legal challenge marks yet another battle in California’s broader housing crisis, where cities have long been accused of slow-walking or outright resisting state mandates to build more homes.
Under California law, every city must adopt a Housing Element—a state-mandated plan that ensures jurisdictions can meet their housing needs through 2031. These plans require cities to identify specific locations for new housing development, demonstrating that these sites are realistically available for construction.
However, according to HAC’s lawsuit, Lafayette’s plan fails this basic test of credibility. Instead of identifying genuinely available housing sites, the city has listed properties occupied by long-term businesses, leased commercial spaces, and religious institutions with no plans for redevelopment.
“We hoped that Lafayette would take its responsibility to plan for housing seriously, but instead, they passed a Housing Element that deliberately ignores the facts,” said Ali Sapirman, Advocacy & Policy Manager with HAC. “Lafayette is continuing a pattern of obstruction, using questionable calculations to block much-needed housing while pretending to comply with state law. The housing crisis is severe, and every city, including Lafayette, must do its fair share.”
The lawsuit underscores Lafayette’s reputation for obstructing new housing development, noting a history of delays, restrictive zoning policies, and resistance to state-mandated housing obligations.
One of the most notable examples is the Terraces of Lafayette, a proposed 315-unit development that faced years of legal battles and city-imposed roadblocks before finally securing approval. Despite the growing housing crisis, the city has continued to push back against state mandates.
This time, HAC argues, Lafayette is trying to “game the system” by inflating its housing numbers without making any real zoning changes.
“Cities cannot use wishful thinking to meet their housing obligations,” said Tom Mayhew, a partner at Farella Braun + Martel LLP and lead attorney for HAC. “State law requires substantial evidence that sites listed for housing development are actually available, and Lafayette has provided no such evidence. The City is using misleading tactics to avoid rezoning more land for housing, and that is illegal.”
The Housing Element submitted by Lafayette has drawn particular scrutiny for listing occupied commercial properties as potential housing sites—including a CVS in a busy shopping center, two veterinary clinics, a grocery store, and a city parking lot.
In addition, the suit accuses Lafayette as falsely designating non-vacant sites as “vacant” —an apparent attempt to circumvent state requirements that demand stronger evidence of redevelopment for occupied land and overstating housing capacity—using inflated density estimates that far exceed what has been historically built in Lafayette.
California law requires that when cities rely on non-vacant sites for more than 50% of their affordable housing needs, they must prove that those sites will become available within the planning period. Lafayette, however, appears to have ignored this requirement altogether, falsely claiming that existing businesses and institutions will somehow make way for housing development.
The lawsuit against Lafayette is part of a larger trend of legal action against cities that fail to comply with California’s housing mandates. HAC and Farella Braun + Martel LLP recently sued the City of San Mateo for similar violations, signaling a stronger push to hold cities accountable.
“Lafayette has a long history of blocking new housing, and this Housing Element is just the latest example,” added Sapirman. “Instead of doing the necessary work to ensure that real housing can be built, the City has chosen to pass a plan that will only delay progress and force more people into housing instability.”
This lawsuit is particularly significant because it challenges Lafayette’s avoidance of extensive rezonings, a violation of the state’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. State leaders have made it clear that cities cannot sidestep their responsibilities by inflating numbers while refusing to take concrete action.
If HAC’s lawsuit is successful, Lafayette could be forced to revise its Housing Element and identify additional housing sites for development. The case could also set a precedent for other cities attempting similar tactics to evade their housing obligations.
The legal team representing HAC includes litigation partner Tom Mayhew and associate Kyra Sikora from Farella Braun + Martel LLP.
As California’s housing crisis deepens, legal pressure on cities like Lafayette may be the only way to ensure that local governments comply with state laws rather than obstruct progress.
The pro-YIMBY Chronicle article (upon which this article is apparently based) implies that Lafayette’s housing element was approved by the state, as noted in the second paragraph below:
“Last year, housing advocates filed lawsuits against 12 cities for their housing plans, but those cities either had not submitted plans to the state or their plans did not yet have state approval.”
“Last year, the housing coalition sued the city of San Mateo for its housing plan, which also had been approved by the state. No decisions have come out of that lawsuit yet.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/east-bay-city-delaying-housing-lawsuit-20213353.php
But I have some related questions. Who (exactly) supports (financially) “The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) and Farella Braun + Martel LLP”? In other words, sources of funds, dollar amounts, etc.?
Also, I have previously found a source that implies that “unbuilt” sites (from prior housing elements) can be re-submitted for future housing elements. So how is it an advantage (from a city’s perspective) to ensure that such sites are developed, if they can be indefinitely “re-used”?
“ The pro-YIMBY Chronicle article (upon which this article is apparently based” – false
O.K., well I’ve listed it anyway. How about responding to the actual (more-important) questions I asked?
HAC is a non-profit – here’s their about page – https://housingactioncoalition.org/about
Non-profit has no meaning whatsoever, regarding the question. There is a YIMBY group (also a non-profit) that was created and supported by the California Association of Realtors, for example).
That link does not answer the question, as usual. How much are they receiving, and from whom?
I also had a question/comment regarding “re-using” of sites from prior housing elements, as well as a notation that Lafayette apparently already-has an approved housing element.
This is how our exchanges become lengthy – you don’t want to deal with questions that don’t fit your agenda.
Locate their 990 and they have to disclose their large donors.
Their tax information does not appear to be included on their website, which I found to be typical of these type of organizations.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/831881525
Thanks – I’ll keep that site in mind for future reference.
At first glance, I’m not actually seeing the contributors or amounts listed individually. Just “categories” of amounts. (But I don’t have time to analyze this further right now.)
But one thing I did notice is that they’re a 501(c)(3), which allows those making a contribution to receive a tax deduction. So the question that comes to mind is, how is it that such organizations (supported by business interests) are in the same category as a “charity”? Especially since their advocacy is directly related to those same business interests? Isn’t this essentially an end-run around tax laws for business interests?