American Tower Corporation v. City of San Diego
763 F.3d 1035
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- ATC owns Verus, Border, and Mission Valley towers in San Diego; CUPs were issued in 1995–1996 and expired, with ATC seeking new CUPs in 2005–2007.
- City exempted facilities from CEQA; PSA required City to act within 60 days of exemption determination, otherwise deemed approval, unless public notice occurred.
- City failed to act within PSA window; hearings conducted in 2007 nevertheless resulted in CUP denials for all three facilities.
- ATC challenged under PSA, TCA, California §1094.5, and Equal Protection; district court granted ATC PSA partial summary judgment and City others.
- Appellate court reversed as to PSA (no deemed approval) and affirmed other claims for City; no TCA violation, no equal protection violation, and no vested right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSA deemed approval if public notice occurred? | ATC: public notice not occurred, so no deemed approval. | City: public notice happened; may foreclose deemed approval. | PSA not triggered; deemed approval not shown. |
| Whether City's denial under TCA was supported by substantial evidence | ATC: City misapplied Major vs Minor design standards and denial lacked substantial evidence. | City: decision under Major Standard supported by substantial evidence. | City's denial supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether City’s denial constituted unreasonable discrimination among providers | ATC and City not similarly situated; discrimination alleged gratuitous. | City: providers are not similarly situated; denial reasonable. | No unreasonable discrimination. |
| Whether ATC had a fundamental vested right to continued use under Cal. Civ. Proc. §1094.5 | ATC: vested rights to operate persist; denial abuses rights. | City: no fundamental vested right; CUP terms require cessation if not renewed. | ATC lacks fundamental vested right; substantial evidence supports denial. |
| Equal Protection challenge under rational basis review | ATC: City treated ATC and City facilities similarly; rational basis questionable. | City: not similarly situated; legitimate aesthetic/municipal interests justify differential treatment. | Rational basis upheld; no Equal Protection violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horn v. County of Ventura, 596 P.2d 1134 (Cal. 1979) (due process requires meaningful predeprivation notice and hearing)
- Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising Corp. v. City of Santa Ana, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 664 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (vested rights and CUP terms; removal at expiration)
- Goat Hill Tavern v. City of Costa Mesa, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 385 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (governing law on vested rights and CUP expiration terms)
- Mahon v. County of San Mateo, 43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (public notice requirements under PSA interpretations)
- Riverwatch v. County of San Diego, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (statutory interpretation after Bickel; public notice context)
- Bickel v. City of Piedmont, 946 P.2d 427 (Cal. 1997) (waiver of deemed approval discussions prior to public notice)
- City of Anacortes v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2009) (TCA analysis: substantial gap and least intrusive means; discrimination context)
- MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & County of S.F., 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005) (substantial evidence standard under TCA; deferential review)