HomeMy WebLinkAboutRon EricksonRon Eruckson
934 W. Lauridsen Blvd. #209, Port les, Washi 98363;one:60 452-9295
E IV
Lindsey Schromen-Wawrin,
lindsey@world.oberlin.edu
City of Port Angeles
321 East 5fi St.
Port Angeles, WA 98362
January 16,2018
I was awakened at 4:30 this morning with the impulse to not neglect writing you. It
appears from you legal background that you enjoy Constitutional issues, so:
unelected official. (This is similar to permitting financially trained insurance personnel to
dany a medical doctor's recommendations for necessary medical procedures.)
On Sept. 27,2002, The City of Port Angeles passed municipal code that modified the
acceptance procedure of short plas, PAMC 16.04.170 B ("lf the final short plat complies
with the requirernents of this chapter and the approv{ preliminary short pla! the
deparunent head shall signifu approval by signing on the face of the final short plat.");
and PAMC 16.04.190 ('$ithin ten days of the Community and Economic Development
Director's approval.). The City also at that time put in place a procedure if the final short
plat is not in compliance with specific conditions, PAMC 16.04.170 C ("ln the event the
final short plat fails to comply with specific standards or conditions of preliminary plat
approval, the departrnent shall so notiff the Comrnunity and Economic Development
Director in writing.'). Those "specific standards" are listed in PAMC 16.04.160 (i.e. "3 . .
. lot lines with accurate dimensions . . . I l. The legal descriptions ofthe proposed lots.").
This procedure creaies strict guidelines to show, or prove, arbitrariness when a non-
complying aspect of a final short plat is seemingly overlooked.
Assigrring final approval to an ernployee seems to put The City more at risk of
improprieties of potential due process violations than if the same action was committed
by the council or an elected official. Employees acting in their appointed capacity are
usually exernpt from liability unless arbitrariness can be shown. RoDinson v Seattle, ll9
Wn.2d 34, 58,830 P.2d 318 (1992) ["t17] A municipality may be subject to suit under
section 1983 of the Ii:deral civil rights statutes when that municipality acts through an
ordinance. NL Assocs., Inc. v. Seattle, 113 Wn.2d 402,780 P.2d 838 (1989). In addition,
D
C-ITY OF PORT ANGELE
CITY CLEBK
"Ifl I 7 2018
Dear Lindsey,
I
a municipality may be liable on a section 1983 civil rights claim when a city employee
violates i federally protected right while executing a policy or ordinance officially
adopted and implemented by city officials. Learned v. Bellevue,860 F.2d 928 (9th Cir.
1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. I 079 (1989)."1
A possible quick fix to reduce The City's liability is to designate one council mernber as
final approving officer of all short plat applications, as the issud was conformity with
approved preliminary plans, i.e. the council may not error but an ernployee may'
Such designated council mernber could also familiarize themselves with street vacations.
I must also point oirt that prior to 2012 The City's list of procedure guidelines for street
vacations did not lis! nor do some files contain, proof that a list of property o*'ners
affected by the street vacation was obtained from any Clallam County agency as required,
RCW 35.79.020 (..there shall be given by mail at least fifteen days before the date fixed
for the hearing, a similar notice to the owners oI reputed owners of all lots, tracts or
parcels of land or other property abutting upon any street or alley or any part thereof
sought to be vacated, as shown on the rolls of the county treasurer, directed to the address
thereon shown: . . ."); RCW 58.17.212 ('"Title to the vacated property shall vest with the
rightful owner as shown in the county records. . . ."); and RCW 58.17.090 ("Adjacent
landowners are the owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county
assessor. . . .").
This is a simple change in the municipal code to reduce The City's exposure to
improprieties and potential due process violations in the future.
Res llv,
Ron
P.S. I hope you can give this your attention. As you may know this is ONE of the issues
in my continuing litigation against The City of Port Angeles, Superior Court file #14 2
0040701. The City's Community and Emnomic Director neglected to n:otice that the
legal descriptions'of lots on a final 20M BISP map, SHP 03-01, did not describe each
lot's boundaries to conform to the approved preliminary map lot desigrrations, PAMC
16.04.160, that approvingly did not divide my small lot's legal dimensions' AF# 1997
1001505000. (Such seems also a violation of The City's boundary line adjustment
guidelines, PAMC 16.12.). The City, The Port and Nippon are presently doing, or have
completed, some survey work in regard to this problon, but still the PAMC rernains and
needs improvement.
2