Patel

MEMORANDUM **

The Patels appeal the district court’s decision that the City of Anaheim’s denial of two applications for conditional use permits (“CUPs”) to operate a motel did not violate federal or state law. We affirm.

I

The Patels first appeal the district court’s summary judgment that their Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe for adjudication. We review both summary judgment and ripeness decisions de novo. See Kern v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062 , 1069-70 (9th Cir.2002).

Generally, Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 , 105 S.Ct. 3108 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), requires plaintiffs to seek compensation through state procedures before bringing federal takings claims. See id. at 194-95 . However, plaintiffs need not avail themselves of state procedures if they either (1) show that a regulation, on its face, does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, see Hotel & Motel Assoc. of Oakland v. City of Oakland, 344 F.3d 959, 965-66 (9th Cir.2003); or (2) show that a regulation effects a taking for a private rather than a public use, see Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311 , 1321 n. 5 (9th Cir.1996).

Summary…