Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

August 10, 2012 I Volume 6 f Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin The Samsons appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, held that the City ordi- nances establishing and extending the moratorium did not violate the Samsons' substantive or procedural rights under the l4th Amendment. The court explained that for the Samsons to succeed on their claim under § 1983 for an unconstitutional deprivation of property, they had to show: (1) a deprivation; (2) of property; (3) under color of state law. The parties disputed whether the Samsons had a property interest sufficient to support their § 1983 claims. The City argued that the property right the Samsons asserted was merely the "abstract need or desire to construct private, single -use docks on Blakely Harbor." The Samsons insisted that their property interest was grounded firmly in Washington's "vested rights doctrine" (an "unusual legal nzle that gives Washington residents who apply for building permits a vested right to have their application processed according to the zon- ing and building ordinances prevailing at the time of the application"). The court, however, decided it need not determine whether the Samsons had a cognizable property interest. This was because the court found that, even assuming that the Samsons did have such a property interest, the City did not violate the Samsons' substantive due process rights. To establish a substan- tive due process violation, the Samsons had to show that the City's ordinances establishing and extending the moratorium were "clearly arbitrary and unrea- sonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare." The court found that the Samsons could not make that showing. The court found that none of the City's conduct "was arbitrary in the constitutional sense." Rather, the court found that, "[a]t a minimum, it [was] 'at least fairly debatable' that [the City] furthered its legitimate interest in orderly, environmentally protective shoreline development by instating a moratorium on new over -water projects." The court also rejected the Samsons' procedural due process claim. The court said the due process is satisfied when the legislative body performs its responsibilities in the normal manner prescribed by law. Here, the court found that the City Council had used validly enacted ordinances to impose and extend the moratorium, and the ordinances applied generally to all owners of shoreline property in Blakely Harbor. See also: Kawaoka v. City ofArroyo Grande, 17 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1994). See also: Tahoe -Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Plan- ning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 152 L. Ed. 2d 517, 54 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1129, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20627, 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 681 (2002). Case Note: The Samsons had argued that the state supreme court's judgment that the moratorium violated the state constitution sufficed to establish that the City was liable under ,¢ 1983. The federal appeals court disagreed, noting that "not every violation of state law amounts to an infringement of constitutional rights." "Unless there is a breach of 4 © 2012 Thomson Reuters