Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2016 Volume 10 I Issue 12 tional discrimination, finding fault with each of them. However, the court found that, in reaching its decision, the City Council never even discussed the criteria for proper consideration of a PDD, and gave no reason for voting against SBS's PDD application. The court found that "[t]he sequence of events, strong community opposition partially based upon improper generalizations concerning SBS's mentally ill clients, and the City's failure to articulate any rationale for its denial sufficiently demonstrate[d] that improper animus against the disabled individuals was a significant factor in the decision to deny [SBS]'s application." Finding that the City "failed to offer any legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its denial of SBS's application," the court concluded that "discriminatory animus must have been a significant factor behind such denial." As a result, the court concluded that SBS had established a prima facie (i.e., on its face) case of intentional discrimination, and had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits with re- spect to their discriminatory intent claim (which was a necessary factor in obtaining a preliminary injunction, which SBS was seeking). With regard to SBS's disparate impact claim, the court rejected it. The court found that SBS had failed to "make the necessary quantita- tive or qualitative comparison to support its disparate impact claim and simply relie[d] on the argument that if [SBS could not] utilize the Site for supportive housing, there must be a disparate impact." The court concluded that SBS had failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its disparate impact claim. With regard to injury, the court found that "the discrimination against SBS yielded two separate and cognizable injuries": (1) the monetary loss concerning operational expenses, which was only suffered by SBS itself, and dictated a remedy of monetary damages; and (2) the discrimination against SBS's mentally ill clients who were unable to obtain supportive housing and services from the unopened facility, which were "suffered in part by SBS's clients, and in part by SBS itself," and "dictate[d] an equitable remedy." The court found that "[t]he City's actions [had] deprived SBS of its ability to pursue its mis- sion and to provide housing and services to its mentally ill clients and this denial constitutes irreparable harm." Having concluded that SBS met the requirements for a preliminary injunction, the court noted that courts "may affirmatively require a municipality to approve a plaintiff's zoning request when the require- ments for a preliminary injunction have been presented." The court acknowledged that the City had "an interest in maintaining the integ- rity of its City Code and zoning regulations," but found that the City could not "assert an equitable interest in perpetuating discriminatory actions in the administration and enforcement of either the City Code or those regulations," and that the City would not suffer any damage in the entry of a preliminary injunction approving SBS's PDD application. ©2016 Thomson Reuters 11