898 F.2d 112
KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, aka Kacor Development Company, aCalifornia corporation;  Kaiser Hawaii KaiDevelopment Co., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiffs,andRichard Lyman, Jr.;  Matsuo Takabuki;  Myron B. Thompson;William S. Richardson;  Henry H. Peters, Jr.,Plaintiffs/Intervenors-Appellants,v.CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal corporation,Defendant-Appellee.KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY aka Kacor Development Company, aCalifornia corporation;  Kaiser Hawaii KaiDevelopment Co., a Nevada corporation,Plaintiffs-Appellants,andRichard Lyman, Jr.;  Matsuo Takabuki;  Myron B. Thompson;William S. Richardson;  Henry H. Peters, Jr.,Plaintiffs/Intervenors,v.CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal corporation,Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 87-2689, 87-2690.
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 16, 1988.Decided March 21, 1990.

Barbara R. Banke and Jess S. Jackson, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gideon Kanner, Burbank, Cal., for plaintiffs-intervenors.
H. Bissell Carey, III and Steven L. Richards, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, Conn., for defendant-appellee.
Mary Gray Holt, Gail Ruderman Feuer, Deputy Attys.  Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for amici curiae;  John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen. for the State of Cal.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii;  Samuel P. King, District Judge, Presiding.
Before CHAMBERS, O'SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges.


1
The decision of the district court is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge King in Kaiser Development Co. v. Honolulu, 649 F.Supp. 926 (D.Haw.1986).  We conclude that no other cases decided since the date of that decision change the validity of Judge King's reasoning or the result in this appeal.  Among the cases we have considered are Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987);  Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987);  Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City of Simi Valley, 882 F.2d 1398 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1317, 108 L.Ed.2d 493 (1990);  Hoehne v. County of San Benito, 870 F.2d 529, 533 (9th Cir.1989);  Lai v. City and County of Honolulu, 841 F.2d 301 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 560, 102 L.Ed.2d 586 (1989);  Shelter Creek Dev.  Corp. v. City of Oxnard, 838 F.2d 375 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 134, 102 L.Ed.2d 106 (1989);  Herrington v. Sonoma County, 834 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir.1987), modified, 857 F.2d 567, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1557, 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989);  Lake Nacimiento Ranch v. San Luis Obispo County, 830 F.2d 977 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 79, 102 L.Ed.2d 55 (1989);  Kinzli v. City of Santa Cruz, 818 F.2d 1449 (9th Cir.1987), modified, 830 F.2d 968, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043, 108 S.Ct. 775, 98 L.Ed.2d 861 (1988);  Uffman v. Housing Finance and Development Corp., 760 P.2d 1115 (Hawaii 1988).


2
Our decision in the appeal from the directed verdict will be filed separately in an unpublished memorandum.


3
AFFIRMED.

