Council members, Kevin Kamenetz, himself became actively involved in the opposition to the Clinic. Councilman Kamenetz not only met with community groups, he also contacted state officials to enlist their support in this effort. Clearly, Councilman Kamenetz was well aware of the community’s views. Finally, it is undisputed that the County held an open work session on the Bill shortly after its introduction. There, the entire County Council heard several members of the community voice strong opposition to the Clinic and strong support for the new legislation, after which the Council voted to adopt the new legislation. Under our precedent, this fact alone would be enough to find that the Council enacted the Bill in response to community opposition. See Marks, 883 F.2d at 309-11, 313 (<HOLDING>). Given these undisputed facts, we agree with
holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure holding that it would be inequitable to allow a town to deny a permit based on a new ordinance after the property owner was denied a permit three times and brought suit to determine the validity of the prior ordinance holding a city councils refusal wjithout further discussion to grant permit after hearing community opposition to its grant provided sufficient evidence that council denied permit based on those same impermissible  considerations recognizing that federal district courts have the authority to grant a remedy if the refusal to file a substantial assistance motion was based on an unconstitutional motive