Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2017

Home

June 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin Moreover, the court found that the Developers' expert analysis con- stituted a necessary "sufficient statistical demonstration." The court found that the analysis showed that the City Council's decision to deny the Developers' rezoning request would "increase the cost of housing by a certain amount" and then showed that the "increase disparately impacts the ability of members of the protected group to buy a dwell- ing" on the Property. In other words, the analysis showed that "to the extent that the higher price reduces the size of the purchaser market for the dwelling, the reduction is disproportionately high for the protected group." Further, the court here found evidence of discriminatory intent that bolstered the Developers' disparate impact case. In its order remanding the case back to this court, the Ninth Circuit had concluded the language alleged to have been used by the neighbors opposing the Developers' rezoning request was "sufficiently racially charged to raise the infer- ence of racial animus and to put the decision -making body on notice." The Developers also put forth evidence to support its allegations that such comments were in fact made in letters and during council meetings. Therefore, the court here concluded that there was "evidence that the - neighbors opposing the rezoning request did so because of discrimina- tory animus against Hispanics and that they communicated such animus to the City Council." Evidence also showed that the City Council, at least in part, based its denial on the opposing neighbors' concerns. Such evidence, concluded the court, "bolsters [the Developers'] disparate impact claim." Finally, the court emphasized that a showing of disparate impact here was not the end of the court's analysis. "[A] developer's ability to show disparate impact does not impose a duty on a municipality to approve all zoning applications in a particular price range," said the court. Rather, with such a showing, the burden then shifts back to the City to "demonstrate that the action that creates an adverse effect on minorities is supported by adequate justification." Here, the City had asserted two "legally sufficient reasons" for deny- ing the rezoning: First, the City contended that neighbors relied on the Property's preexisting zoning and plat and that its denial was out of concern for property values. Second, the City contended that its denial was based on the Developers' failure to accept the City's proposed com- promise of a buffer of 8,000 square foot lots along two of the Property's borders. The court found that the record did not support the City's arguments. Rather, the court found that that the Developers' rezoning request was "consistent with and conformed to the City's General Plan," and that buffer issue was not a legitimate basis for denying the rezoning request but rather created an issue of fact regarding whether there was an alternative to the City's outright denial of the rezoning request that would have had a less discriminatory effect. Thus, the court concluded 6 © 2017 Thomson Reuters