Whether the government may avoid the nexus and proportionality standards by asserting that an exaction resulted from a legislative procedure that involved consideration of science

QUESTIONS PRESENTED To allocate the burden of mitigating regional development impacts, a City of Bainbridge Island ordinance requires shoreline property owners to dedicate large portions of their residentially zoned property as a condition on any new development, use, or activity. Although the City considered scientific studies during the legislative process, it chose to adopt a standardized schedule of buffer widths—unrelated to proposed uses or impact—based on its policy preference to gain as much waterfront property as feasible from new permit applicants to make up for lost opportunities to exact land from earlier-issued permits. Landowners challenged the City’s exaction as violating the nexus and proportionality standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), on its face. The court below held that the government automatically satisfies Nollan and Dolan if it considers scientific studies as part of a legislative process, even when it does not rely on scientific data when demanding a dedication of property through legislation. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the government may avoid the nexus and proportionality standards by asserting that an exaction resulted from a legislative procedure that involved consideration of science. 2. Whether legislative permit conditions are exempt from the heightened scrutiny nexus and rough proportionality tests (a question currently on review in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22-1047 (cert. granted Sept. 29, 2023)).