A group representing the residents in the project area sued under the federal Fair Housing Act and California FEHA, claiming that the City’s redevelopment plan for the area had a disparate impact on the mostly minority group residents because redevelopment would lead to gentrification, a rise in rents and the displacement of residents from the area. This decision holds that the complaint fails to state a viable claim because its gentrification theory violates three of the restrictions that Texas Dept. of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015) 135 S.Ct. 2507 found limited disparate impact claims under the FHA. First, the gentrification theory would require the City to explicitly take race into account in planning redevelopment, as displacement of white economically disadvantaged would run afoul of such a FHA gentrification claim, but displacement of Black or Latino poor would. Second, the claim would discourage or prevent renovation and renewal of minority-occupied housing, as those improvements would also likely lead to rent increases and displacement. Third, the claim would perpetuate racially segregated housing rather than lead to integrated housing in order to “preserve” predominantly minority areas. The decision holds that the FEHA incorporates the same implicit limitations on disparate impact claims as does the FHA.