Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 15 The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. NINTH CIRCUIT (WASHINGTON) (05/15/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city's moratorium on pier and dock construction violated waterfront -property owners' substantive and due process rights under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Background/Facts: In Washington, shoreline property is subject to a regulatory scheme that consists of three parts. One of those parts is "Shoreline Master Programs," which are comprehensive use plans adopted by local jurisdictions and approved by the Washington Department of Ecology. The City of Bainbridge Island (the "City") adopted a Shoreline Master Program in 1996. In 2000, the Washington Department of Ecology revised its statewide shoreline regulations. State law in effect at the time required the City to update its Shoreline Master Program to comply with the new regula- tions within two years of their passage. While undertaking a comprehensive review of its 1996 Shoreline Master Program, the City, through a series of ordinances, imposed a moratorium on applications for "new overwater structures (piers, docks and floats) and new shoreline armoring (bulkheads and revetments) where none ha[d] previously existed." In imposing that moratorium, along with several extensions initiated via ordinances, the City Council found, among other things that: "shoreline structures such as piers, docks, and bulkheads had the `potential to cause sig- nificant impact to critical shoreline habitat' and to adversely affect juvenile salmon populations." The City Council also found that with regulatory changes pending, it would receive an increased volume of applications from landowners seeking to be subject to the existing regime. Kelly and Sally Samson, along with other persons and corporate entities (totaling 18) (collectively, the "Samsons"), owned waterfront property in Blakely Harbor in the City. They wished to build a pier or a dock on their property during the time that the moratorium was imposed. The Samsons challenged the moratorium in state court. The state courts ultimately declared that the moratorium violated the state constitution. Shortly thereafter, the City amended.;the Shoreline Master Program to permanently ban new dock construction in Blakely Harbor. The state courts eventually upheld those per- manent changes. The Samsons then challenged the moratorium in federal court. They argued that the moratorium violated their substantive and procedural rights under the 14th Amendment, and sought damages against the city under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A government entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 if an "action that is alleged to be uncon- stitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers." Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. ©2012 Thomson Reuters 3