Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008

Home

July 10, 20081 Volume 2\ No. 13 '. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court correctly dismissed the substantive due process claim, "but for the wrong reason. The court found the district court incorrectly treated NP's substantive due process claim as a takings Claim that required exhaustion of state court remedies. The court said that to maintain a substantive due process claim, NP had to. show that the city's delays in processing its permit application lacked a rational relationship to a government interest. The court concluded that NP failed to make this showing. Th,e court found that, contrary to NP's assertions, the city's delays in processing its application were not unreasonable. Rather, the court found the delays had a rational relationship to a government interest; each time the city requested more information it explained it was requesting information it did not have which was necessary for tho'rough review. Since the delays had a rational rela- tionship to a government interest, the delays did not violate substan- tive due process, the court concluded. The court also conclu.ded that Condition 13(b) did not violate NP's equal protection rights. In so concluding, the court noted that the equal protection claim was one based on unique treatment rather than classification. The court said that in order to claim a violation of equal protection based on unique treatment, NP had to establish,that the city intentionally, and without rational basis, treated NP differ- ently from others similarly situated. The court found that NP's equal protection claim failed because the city did not intentionally treat NP differently. The court found that when the city council approved NP's development permit, the council: (1) did not know that Con- dition 13(b) had never been imposed on another developmentproj- ect; (2) did not receive one of NP's letters objecting to the condition; and(3) did not receive the other of NP'sobjection letters in time for review before the hearing on the permit. The court also noted that NP did not orally complain about the condition at the hearing before the council. The court concluded that the district court erred when it granted judgment to NP on the equal protection claim and awarded it damages and attorneys' fees. ' The court further explained that, even if it were to agree that. NP should have prevailed on its equal protection claim, NP would have been entitled to only nominal damages', The court said that the mea- sure for damages for an equal protection claim alleging that a discrimi- natory zoning decision temporarily deprived the developer's land of its development potential was: reasonable interest on the reduction in val- ue to the project created by the zoning decision, but only for the period of time the condition actually delayed the development of the project. The court found that there was no reduction in value attributable to' @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 11 47