Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 4 Dori L. Yob, Bar No. 227364 dyob@hopkinscarley.com Jeffrey E. Essner, Bar No. 121438 jessner@hopkinscarley.com HOPKINS & CARLEY A Law Corporation 70 S FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CA 95113-2406 5 6 7 8 mailing address: P.O. Box 1469 San Jose, CA 95109-1469 Telephone: (408) 286-9800 Facsimile: (408) 998-4790 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 Martins Beach 1, LLC and Martins Beach 2, LLC, Plaintiffs, 14 15 v. 16 Effie Turnbull-Sanders, Dayna Bochco, Mary Luevano, Wendy Mitchell, Mary K. Shallenberger, Mark Vargas, Martha McClure, Steve Kinsey, Carole Groom, Erik Howell, Roberto Uranga, Gregory Cox, John Laird, Janelle Beland, Thomas Gibson, Betty T. Yee, Anne Baker, Cindy Aronberg, Brian P. Kelly, Bruce April, Belinda Faustinos, Trent Orr, Steve Kram, Randy Pestor, Nidia Garcia-Erceg, Sarah Glade Gurney, Maricela Morales, Olga Diaz, each individually and in their official capacity as the California Coastal Commission; Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Betty T. Yee, Michael Cohen, each individually and in their official capacities as the State Lands Commission; Steve Monowitz, individually and in his official capacity as Director of the San Mateo County Planning and Building Department, County of San Mateo, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. 16-5590 COMPLAINT OF MARTINS BEACH 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC JURY DEMANDED Defendants. 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 27 1 Plaintiffs Martins Beach 1, LLC and Martins Beach 2, LLC hereby allege as follows: 2 INTRODUCTION 3 This case involves a concerted effort by state and local officials to single out, coerce, and 4 harass one coastal property and its owner for refusing to cede its private property rights. For 5 decades, Martins Beach was privately owned by a family that routinely chose whether, when, and 6 how to allow the public to access its private property. And for decades, neither San Mateo 7 County nor the California Coastal Commission (CCC) interfered in any way with the choices that 8 the former owners of the property made on that score. That all changed, however, when the 9 property changed hands in 2008. Almost immediately after Plaintiffs purchased the property, the 10 County and the CCC made it their mission to try force the new owners to allow the public to 11 access its private property—and on terms of the County’s and the CCC’s choosing. Since then, 12 the County and the CCC have engaged in a persistent practice of singling out Plaintiffs alone for 13 uniquely disfavored treatment, whether it be by demanding permits for actions that have never 14 before required them, by refusing to grant permits for actions necessary to preserve the coastal 15 property in question, by refusing to enforce trespass laws on the property, or by using the threat of 16 condemnation to try to coerce the owners into surrendering their fundamental right to exclude the 17 public from their private property. The campaign to strong-arm Plaintiffs only intensified with 18 the adoption of SB 968, which targeted Plaintiffs for even greater disfavored treatment by 19 granting the CCC an absolute power to impose a public right of way over Plaintiffs’ property. 20 And no other similarly situated property owner has been subjected to anything close to the same 21 treatment. This irrational treatment of Plaintiffs as a uniquely disfavored “class of one” cannot be 22 reconciled with the Equal Protection Clause or the basic requirements of due process. Simply 23 put, the Constitution does not allow the government to use its regulatory power to force one 24 property owner alone to forfeit property rights that the Constitution guarantees. 25 THE PARTIES 26 1. 27 “Plaintiffs”) are the fee simple owners of real property located at 22325 Cabrillo Highway, more Plaintiffs Martins Beach 1, LLC and Martins Beach 2, LLC (hereinafter collectively 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 -2COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 27 1 particularly described as APN 066-330-230 and 066-330-240 and commonly known as “Martins 2 Beach” (“Martins Beach” or the “Property”). 3 2. 4 Commission (the “CCC”) is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency established by voter 5 initiative in 1972 (Proposition 20) and made permanent by the Legislature through the adoption 6 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon 7 allege, that the Commission, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates 8 the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based 9 thereon allege, that the implementation of the Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily 10 through the preparation of local coastal programs (LCPs) that are required to be completed by 11 each of the cities and counties that are located in the coastal zone. 12 3. 13 Effie Turnbull-Sanders, Dayna Bochco, Mary Luevano, Wendy Mitchell, Mary K. Shallenberger, 14 Mark Vargas, Martha McClure, Steve Kinsey, Carole Groom, Erik Howell, Roberto Uranga, 15 Gregory Cox, John Laird, Janelle Beland, Thomas Gibson, Betty T. Yee, Anne Baker, Cindy 16 Aronberg, Brian P. Kelly, Bruce April, Belinda Faustinos, Trent Orr, Steve Kram, Randy Pestor, 17 Nidia Garcia-Erceg, Sarah Glade Gurney, Maricela Morales, Olga Diaz, sued herein individually 18 and in their official capacities, are Commissioners of the CCC (Defendant CCC Commissioners 19 are collectively referred to herein as “CCC Defendants”). The CCC Defendants have the primary 20 responsibility for administering and implementing the provisions of the Coastal Act, and more 21 particularly, those matters within the CCC’s jurisdiction, including permit action, federal 22 consistency review, appeal, local coastal program, port master plan, public works plan, long range 23 development plan, categorical or other exclusions from coastal development permit requirements, 24 or any other quasi-judicial matter requiring CCC action, for which an application has been 25 submitted. 26 4. 27 Lands Commission (the “SLC”) is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency established under 28 the State Resources Agency. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the California Coastal Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the California State 748\1268067.8 -3COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 27 1 the SLC regulates, oversees and administers the State of California’s tidelands and submerged 2 lands held subject to the public trust and has the power to review and/or comment on any 3 proposed local coastal programs affecting state lands. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and 4 based thereon allege, that through the enactment of Cal. Public Resources Code § 6213.5, the 5 SLC is taking the actions set forth herein to acquire a right-of-way or easement for a public access 6 route across Plaintiffs’ property. 7 5. 8 Gavin Newsom, Betty T. Yee and Michael Cohen, sued herein individually and in their official 9 capacities, are Commissioners of the SLC (Defendants Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Betty T. Yee, 10 and Michael Cohen are collectively referred to herein as “SLC Defendants”). The SLC 11 Defendants have primary responsibility of administering the regulations and legislation effecting 12 the tidelands and submerged lands held subject to the public trust, including protection of these 13 lands through determination and issuance of leases for use or development, resolution of 14 boundaries between public and private lands and promotion of public access to waterways and the 15 coastline. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the SLC Defendants 16 have primary responsibility for administering and carrying out the authority granted to the SLC 17 through the enactment of Cal. Public Resources Code § 6213.5 to acquire a right-of-way or 18 easement for a public access route across Plaintiff’s property. 19 6. 20 San Mateo (the “County”) is, and at all relevant times was, a political subdivision of the State of 21 California duly organized and existing under the California Constitution and all applicable State 22 laws. Defendant County is, and at all relevant times, was, responsible for complying with all 23 applicable federal and state laws, as well as its own laws. 24 7. 25 Monowitz is the Director of the San Mateo County Planning and Building Department. Plaintiffs 26 are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that San Mateo County Planning and 27 Building Department is an agency of the Defendant County, responsible for the performance of 28 services related to the physical environment for the unincorporated areas of the County as well as H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendants Lt. Gov. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant County of Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that Defendant Steve 748\1268067.8 -4COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 27 1 specific Cities within the County through Joint Powers Agreements or by contract, including 2 responsibility for, among other things: (1) the administration of the County subdivision and 3 zoning regulations, including the evaluation and approval of the design of new development and 4 enforcement of such codes and regulations; and (2) the preparation and updating of development 5 regulations such as zoning and subdivision ordinances and the County General Plan, including the 6 LCP. (Defendants Steve Monowitz and the County are referred to herein as “San Mateo County 7 Defendants”). 8 8. 9 collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”. The CCC Defendants, SLC Defendants, and San Mateo County Defendants are 10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 9. 12 Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “its jurisdictional counterpart,” 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 28 13 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. This is an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to redress 14 the past deprivation and prevent the further deprivation by the Defendants, and all of them, acting 15 under color of state law and ordinance of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, 16 namely, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 17 10. 18 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims raised in this lawsuit occurred in this 19 judicial district and because the property that is subject of this action is situated in this district. 20 11. 21 3-2(c)-(d) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims raised in 22 this action occurred in San Mateo County. Jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claims exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, under the Civil Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial Assignment to the San Francisco Division of this District is proper pursuant to Local Rule 23 24 12. 26 were recorded on July 22, 2008. Martins Beach is private property that borders the Pacific 27 Ocean. At the time of Plaintiff’s purchase of the Property, there were approximately forty-eight 28 (48) homes situated on the Property and accessed via a private road on the Property that leads ATTO RNEY S AT LAW PALO AL TO BURBA NK The History and Historic Operation of the Property 25 H OPKINS & C ARLEY SAN JO SE FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs obtained fee simple title to the Property by two separate Grant Deeds which 748\1268067.8 -5COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 6 of 27 1 from the entrance on Highway 1 to the beach (hereinafter “Martins Beach Road”). 2 13. 3 Property beginning in the early 1900s. The Deeneys used the Property for agricultural purposes. 4 The Deeneys also constructed a parking lot on the Property, opened a convenience store on the 5 beach, and operated a business of inviting members of the public to use and access the Property in 6 exchange for payment of a fee, which ranged and increased over the years from $0.25 to $10.00. 7 The Deeneys did not allow individuals to walk onto the Property, but rather only allowed 8 customers to drive down Martins Beach Road and park their vehicle in the designated parking 9 area upon payment of the fee. The invited public who chose to pay the fee were allowed to use 10 the parking area and the dry sand beach for recreational use and fishing. 11 14. 12 enactment of the Coastal Act. Accordingly, the Deeney family did not apply for a Coastal 13 Development Permit to open their business. Further, the Deeney family did not apply for a 14 permit when they periodically increased the fee charged to the public to use and access the 15 property when the business was open, and were never told by Defendants, or any public official, 16 that a permit was required for such acts. 17 15. 18 Property a locked gate, a fence, and “no trespassing” signs. They Deeney family did not apply 19 for a permit to maintain and operate the gate on their property, did not apply for a permit to 20 maintain “no trespassing” signs on their property, and were never told by Defendants, or any 21 public official that a permit was required for such acts. 22 16. 23 like it, but it was routinely closed for private events, in the winter, and whenever an attendant was 24 unavailable to collect the fee. The Deeney family did not apply for a permit each time it closed 25 the road leading to the beach, and were never compelled by Defendants, or any public official, to 26 obtain a Coastal Development Permit to operate their business as they deemed fit. 27 17. 28 Deeney family patrolled the property, maintained a camera by the gate and two additional H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Plaintiff’s direct predecessors-in-interest, the Deeney family (the “Deeneys”), owned the The Deeney family first opened their business sometime in the 1920s, before the Beginning in or about the 1940s or 1950s, the Deeneys constructed and maintained on the The Deeneys locked the gate and closed the road leading to the beach any time they felt To enforce their right to close their business and exclude visitors when they pleased, the 748\1268067.8 -6COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 7 of 27 1 cameras by the parking area, all of which were monitored from the store on the property. If 2 someone came down Martins Beach Road without paying, or without permission of the owner or 3 manager, the individual(s) would be confronted and told if they want to come in, they must go get 4 their car and pay the daily fee. If a patron refused to leave, the Deeney family would call the 5 Sheriff who would respond to the property and remove the trespassers. Plaintiffs are informed and 6 believe that in the time the Deeney family owned the Property, the Sheriff never refused to 7 remove an unwanted trespasser from the Property. 8 18. 9 tides, making it unusable and unsafe and necessitating closing the Property to the invited public. During the winter, the beach would routinely erode 10 to 15 feet from storms and rising 10 The Deeneys used heavy farming equipment to move approximately 1,000 yards of dirt each 11 winter in order to reconstruct the parking area. The Deeney family did not apply for a permit 12 each winter when it reconstructed the parking area, and were never told by Defendants, or any 13 public official that a permit was required. On information and belief, the Deeney family also 14 constructed a rock seawall without a Coastal Development Permit or objection from the CCC or 15 County. 16 19. 17 state of disrepair and put the Property on the market. 18 20. 19 considered purchasing the Property when it was on the market but ultimately chose not to 20 purchase the Property. 21 Plaintiffs Purchase the Property and the County and Coastal Commission Suddenly Target Plaintiffs And Demand Public Access on Arbitrary Terms 22 21. By 2008, the Deeneys determined that the beach was not profitable and was in a serious Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis allege, that the State of California After Plaintiffs purchased the property, the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC 23 Defendants began engaging in an intentional course of conduct to harass, coerce, and single out 24 Plaintiffs and frustrate their legitimate private property rights for purely personal and political 25 reasons. Such conduct is completely contrary to any laws and/or regulations, including the 26 California and United States Constitution, and well exceeds any legitimate police powers. 27 22. For instance, after purchasing the property, Plaintiffs planted a row of native cypress trees 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 -7COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 8 of 27 1 on the property. Plaintiffs almost immediately received a letter from San Mateo County stating 2 that they must immediately remove the trees and obtain a permit before planting them again. 3 Plaintiffs immediately removed the trees and gave them to the neighboring property owner to the 4 North. The neighbor planted the cypress trees on its property. Plaintiffs are informed and 5 believe, and based thereon allege that unlike the County’s treatment of Plaintiffs, San Mateo 6 County has not questioned, interfered with, or asked the neighboring property owner to remove 7 the trees, and has not required the neighbor to get a permit to maintain the trees on its property. 8 23. 9 charging a fee to people who wanted to use and access the beach by driving down Martins Beach 10 Road and parking a vehicle in the lot. Consistent with the Deeney’s practice, Plaintiffs did not 11 allow individuals to walk onto the Property. Like the Deeneys, Plaintiffs closed the road leading 12 to the beach for private events, in the winter, and whenever an attendant was unavailable to 13 collect the fee. Consistent with the Deeney’s practice, Plaintiffs did not apply for a permit to 14 open and close the gate, whenever they deemed it necessary to do so. 15 24. 16 from the County entitled “Informational Warning Letter” stating that Planning Department staff 17 had observed that the gate of the driveway used to access the beach is closed and posted with a 18 “Beach Temporarily Closed” sign. The County demanded a schedule of operation and an 19 explanation of how the schedule related to the “historic patterns of public use” to evaluate 20 whether future beach closures would trigger the need for a Coastal Development Permit. On 21 information and belief, the County never sought such information from the Deeney family when 22 they engaged in the same kinds of routine, temporary closures of the Property to the public. 23 25. 24 require Plaintiffs to maintain public access, Plaintiffs intended to voluntarily maintain the same 25 amount and type of access as its predecessors, the Deeneys. 26 26. 27 immediately allow public access on a year round basis with an entrance fee not to exceed two 28 dollars; (2) provide evidence documenting that the specific times, hours, terms and fees H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Further, after Plaintiffs purchased the Property, they continued the Deeney’s practice of When Martins Beach Road was closed for the winter, Plaintiffs received correspondence Plaintiffs advised the County that although Plaintiffs did not concede the County’s right to Unsatisfied, the County issued another letter giving Plaintiff three options: (1) to 748\1268067.8 -8COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 9 of 27 1 associated with the public use are the same as those that were in place in 1973 when the Coastal 2 Development Permit requirements took effect; or (3) apply for a Coastal Development Permit 3 requesting authorization for any changes in the times and terms of public use that have taken 4 place since 1973 (35 years prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of the Property). The County thus insisted 5 that maintaining the same public access terms that the Deeneys had maintained would not suffice. 6 27. 7 differently than others who are similarly situated in that no other private Coastal Property owner 8 in California has been forced to obtain a Coastal Development Permit in order to limit or 9 eliminate permissive beach use and/or access, to close a private business, or to engage in the most Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that they are being treated 10 mundane acts of property ownership such as opening and closing a gate on its property. 11 28. 12 Commission has been to allow property owners to close private beaches and other businesses on 13 the coast –whether temporarily or permanently—without first obtaining government approval. 14 On information and belief, in no other instances have private property owners been harassed and 15 coerced into granting a right of public access to their private property against their will. 16 On information and belief, the consistent policy and practice of the County and the (a) Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Red White and Blue Beach, once a 17 popular beach and campground north of Santa Cruz, closed its operations without obtaining a 18 Coastal Development Permit. 19 20 (b) Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that a popular beach in San Gregorio, California was allowed to close its operations without obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. 21 (c) Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that the beach commonly known as 22 Sturgeon Beach, operates as they see fit. They open and close whenever they deem it necessary 23 to do so and on information and belief, have never been approached by the County Defendants or 24 the CCC Defendants to change their fees, to change their hours of operation, or to allow 25 permanent public access to their private property. 26 Plaintiffs Sought to Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies By Requesting An Administrative Hearing; San Mateo County and the Coastal Commission Refuse 27 29. In hopes of putting an end to the County’s and Coastal Commission’s efforts to interfere 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 -9COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 10 of 27 1 with their property rights, on June 16, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the County of San 2 Mateo and the California Coastal Commission seeking a judicial declaration of their rights and 3 obligations with regard to the Property. (See San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 4 CIV485116). Rather than allow the Court to resolve the issue, the County and the Coastal 5 Commission filed demurrers. The Court sustained the demurrers on the grounds that Plaintiff 6 could not seek a judicial determination until it had complied with the administrative process 7 provided by the California Coastal Act and received a final determination by either permit 8 application or administrative enforcement hearing. 9 30. Since then, Plaintiffs have consistently and repeatedly requested an administrative 10 enforcement hearing pursuant to the objective rules of the County and the Coastal Commission, 11 but the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants have targeted Plaintiffs and 12 unfairly deprived them of administrative hearings before San Mateo County and/or the California 13 Coastal Commission, unless and until Plaintiffs agree to allow unfettered public access to their 14 private property. The San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants have intentionally 15 refused to pursue an enforcement action, or allow Plaintiffs to reach a hearing, knowing that 16 without doing so, Plaintiff cannot be afforded due process, cannot obtain a final determination on 17 the issue, and cannot affirmatively seek judicial relief. 18 San Mateo County Superior Court Found There is No Right of Public Access on the Property 19 31. As On October 21, 2012, five men trespassed on the Property through the closed and 20 locked gate to surf at Martins Beach, were asked to leave, and refused. The property manager 21 contacted the San Mateo County Sherriff’s Office to report the trespass. Patrol Officers from the 22 Sherriff’s Office responded to the call, read the men their Miranda rights, fingerprinted, 23 photographed and issued arrest citations for trespassing. The arrest was widely reported in the 24 media and on social networking sites. 25 32. On October 29, 2012, an “unincorporated association” referred to as “Friends of Martins 26 Beach” filed a lawsuit against Plaintiffs in San Mateo County Superior Court, asserting seven 27 separate causes of action, alleging theories requiring Plaintiffs to allow public access and seeking 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 - 10 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 11 of 27 1 to establish the general public’s right to use certain portions of the Property (See San Mateo 2 County Superior Court Case No. CIV517634 hereinafter referred to as the “Friends of Martins 3 Beach Lawsuit”). Plaintiffs cross-complained asserting two causes of action for declaratory and 4 injunctive relief. 5 33. 6 the five men because the “Friends of Martins Beach” lawsuit was pending in the Superior Court. 7 After the trespassing charges were dismissed, the incidents of trespass intensified and trespassers 8 began ignoring requests that they leave the Property and became confrontational with the property 9 manager. The property manager continued to contact the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office to 10 report trespassers and was repeatedly told that the patrol force would no longer issue citations or 11 respond to trespass calls on the Property due to the civil dispute. After the San Mateo County 12 Sheriff’s Office stopped issuing citations, the incidents of trespass increased and became more 13 and more widely publicized in the media. 14 34. 15 Summary Judgment in Case No. CIV517634 in favor of Plaintiffs and against Friends of Martins 16 Beach. In its written decision dated April 30, 2014, the Court expressly held “the private property 17 at issue is indisputably owned in fee simply by the Defendants [Plaintiffs herein] and that 18 [Friends of Martins Beach] has no cognizable legal theory which gives it the right to access 19 Defendants’ private property.” Friends of Martins Beach appealed the decision to the First 20 District Court of Appeal. 21 35. 22 and reversing in part the decision of the trial court. (See Friends of Martin's Beach v. Martin's 23 Beach 1 LLC (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 1312 [review denied and ordered not to be officially 24 published (July 20, 2016)].) The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for trial of the 25 cause of action for express dedication asserted by Friends of Martins Beach. The remanded cause 26 of action is now pending in San Mateo County Superior Court. The Court of Appeal affirmed the 27 trial court’s decision in favor of Martins Beach 1, LLC and Martins Beach 2, LLC on all other 28 causes of action. H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office dismissed trespassing charges against On October 24, 2013, the San Mateo County Superior Court, by oral ruling, granted On April 27, 2016, the First District Court of Appeal issued its decision affirming in part, 748\1268067.8 - 11 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 12 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Incidents of Trespass Increased and the Sheriff and the County of San Mateo Refused to Enforce the Trespass Laws 36. Subsequent to the Court’s ruling in the Friends of Martins Beach case, Martins wrote a letter to the District Attorney’s Office, the Office of San Mateo County Counsel, and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office attaching a copy of the San Mateo County Superior Court Judgment in the Friends of Martins Beach case, where the Court expressly found that that there is no right of “public access or easement for the public to use or access the Property for any purpose whatsoever.” Martins requested that trespass laws be immediately enforced as they had been for decades. 37. The County of San Mateo took the position that the right of others to access Martins Beach “remains unclear and unresolved”. To this day, and despite repeated requests for enforcement, the Sheriff and the County continue to refuse to enforce the trespass laws on the Martins Beach property as they did for decades when the property was owned by the Deeney family. 38. The incidents of trespass on the Property have progressively increased in frequency since the Friends of Martins Beach Lawsuit was filed and decided. Trespassers have become increasingly threatening and aggressive, disregarding their own safety and the safety of the residents of the Property, and exposing the LLCs to potential liability. 39. After learning that the Sherriff’s Office would not cite trespassers, Plaintiffs hired a private security guard from time to time to monitor the Property for trespassers. Many of the trespassers ignored the security guard and continued down the road to the beach. Plaintiffs are effectively prevented from exercising their constitutional right to exclude others from their private property. The Surfrider Foundation Lawsuit 40. On March 12, 2013, the Surfrider Foundation (“Surfrider”) filed a lawsuit against Plaintiffs in San Mateo County Superior Court alleging causes of action for: (1) Declaratory Relief seeking a declaration that Plaintiffs acts constituted a violation of the Coastal Act by conducting “development’ in a “coastal zone” without a permit by closing the pre-existing gate 748\1268067.8 - 12 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 13 of 27 1 on the property, employing security guards, and painting a billboard on the property; (2) 2 Injunctive Relief to prevent Plaintiffs from “blocking access” to the coastal zone at the Property 3 without a CDP; and (3) Daily Fines for Violations of the Coastal Act (San Mateo County 4 Superior Court Case No. CIV520336). Plaintiffs cross-complained asserting two causes of action 5 for declaratory and injunctive relief. 6 41. 7 2015, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Surfrider and against Plaintiffs finding that by 8 closing a pre-existing gate on the property, employing security guards, and painting a billboard on 9 the property, Plaintiffs engaged in “development” in violation of the Coastal Act. The court 10 issued injunctive relief requiring Plaintiffs to cease preventing the public from accessing and 11 using the water, beach and coast at the Property until resolution of its CDP application and to 12 unlock and open the gate across Martins Beach Road to the same extent that it was unlocked and 13 open at the time Plaintiffs purchased the Property. The Court ruled against Surfrider on its claim 14 for penalties finding that Plaintiffs acted in good faith. 15 42. 16 The Coastal Commission Improperly Asserted its Jurisdiction and Insisted Access Be Provided as a Pre-Condition to Approving The Permit Application For the Revetment 17 43. On May 8, 2014, a bench trial commenced in the Surfrider litigation. On December 1, The Surfrider case is currently on appeal. Under the California Coastal Act, once the CCC certified San Mateo’s Local Coastal 18 Program in 1981, the authority to permit coastal development was delegated from the 19 Commission to the County, except the Commission retained jurisdiction to permit “any 20 development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, submerged tidelands, or on public trust 21 lands.” (Pub. Res. Code §30519(b).) 22 44. Sometime after Plaintiffs purchased the Property, some of the cabin residences were 23 facing the imminent threat of damage or destruction due to strong wave action, including Cabins 24 1, 2, and 3. Allen Cunha leases a residence from Martins Beach 1, LLC, known as Cabin 1. With 25 the permission of property owner, Martins Beach 1, LLC and on behalf of Mr. Cunha, a respected 26 consulting, civil, geotechnical, and costal engineering firm known as Haro, Kasunich & 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 - 13 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 14 of 27 1 Associates, designed a rip-rap revetment 1 to be installed immediately in front of an existing 2 seawall on the Property. The revetment and all work necessary to perform the project was to take 3 place in an area landward of the mean high tide line (“MHTL”), and therefore outside the permit 4 jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. 5 45. 6 Development Permit to install the revetment. Despite survey evidence that the project was to take 7 place in an area landward of the MHTL, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the CCC, the 8 County refused to process the application on the grounds that the project fell within the CCC’s, 9 not the County’s, jurisdiction. Specifically, Steve Monowitz, then Deputy Director of Planning 10 at the County, concluded “it is in the best interest of everyone involved to confirm that the CCC 11 concurs with this determination, so I suggest we wait to hear back from [the Commission] before 12 proceeding.” 13 46. 14 existing and proposed seawalls...appear to be bisected by the Coastal Commission permit 15 jurisdiction boundary in the manner indicated on Exhibit 2.” The exhibit attached to BD 01-2012 16 graphically depicted the Commission’s permit jurisdiction extending well landward of the 17 existing seawall and reaching nearly to the threshold of the front door of Mr. Cunha’s residence. 18 The Boundary Determination was inconsistent with the standard methodology typically used by 19 the CCC to determine the location of the MHTL. 20 47. 21 agreed to revisit the conclusion of the boundary determination and requested additional 22 documents and information, all of which was provided. 23 48. 24 submitted to the County for an emergency permit to install temporary shore protection structure. 25 The County issued the Emergency Coastal Development Permit which stated “This approval does 26 1 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Haro, Kasunich & Associates, Inc. submitted to the County an application for a Coastal The CCC eventually issued Boundary Determination 01-2012 which stated, in part, “the After the legal and technical errors in BD 01-2012 were pointed out, the Commission In the meantime, as the threat to three residences worsened, and an application was A flexible channel or bank lining or facing consisting of a well graded mixture of rock, broken concrete, or other material, usually dumped or hand-placed, which provides protection from erosion. See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/hec/hec11sI.pdf. 748\1268067.8 - 14 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 15 of 27 1 not authorize any part of the described project that the California Coastal Commission determines 2 is within and under their permitting jurisdictional authority. Nor shall this approval be interpreted 3 to imply that the County disagrees with the Coastal Commission’s jurisdictional determination. 4 Nothing in this approval shall be interpreted to waive or prejudice the County’s rights under the 5 provisions of Chapter 4 of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations as they apply to the 6 parcel’s non-conforming uses, structures and situations.” 7 49. 8 that it “is asserting jurisdiction over that portion of the existing seawall and proposed seawall 9 projects, as shown on Exhibit 2.” Exhibit 2 shows the Commission’s permit boundary in 10 basically the same place as the “illustrative” line drawn in BD 01-2012 except that it strays 11 further landward to again reach Mr. Cunha’s front door. The BD offers no explanation for the 12 determination other than the conclusory assertion that it is based on “information provided and 13 available in our office” and “on the existence of tidelands, submerged lands and public trust 14 lands.” The BD fails to mention the MHTL, or explain whether or how its depicted boundary 15 relates to the MHTL. 16 50. 17 temporary emergency development of a 960-foot long rock rip-rap revetment on the Property. 18 The CCC’s Emergency Coastal Development Permit explained that the County also issued an 19 Emergency Coastal Development Permit “for that portion of the temporary emergency 20 development that is located inland of the CCC’s retained jurisdiction area…” The Commission 21 explained that the “two ECDP’s together authorize the temporary emergency development at this 22 site.” 23 51. 24 development carried out under this ECDP is at the Permitees’ risk and is considered to be 25 temporary work done in an emergency situation to abate an emergency. If the Permitees wish to 26 have the temporary emergency development become a longer term development, a regular CDP 27 must be obtained. A regular CDP is subject to all the provisions of the California Coastal Act and 28 may be conditioned or denied accordingly.” H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK The CCC then issued a new Boundary Determination—BD 01-2013—in which it declared The CCC then issued Emergency Coastal Development Permit 2-13-007-G authorizing The CCC’s Emergency Coastal Development Permit states “the temporary emergency 748\1268067.8 - 15 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 16 of 27 1 52. 2 Subsequently, Allen Cunha filed an application for a CDP to allow the rip-rap revetment that was 3 constructed pursuant to the Emergency Coastal Development Permit to temporarily remain in 4 place (for up to five more years). The CCC would not process the application unless and until 5 Plaintiffs were included as an applicant so as to maintain leverage over Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 6 applied, as requested, and also requested that the emergency permit be extended while the 7 temporary permit application was pending. 8 53. 9 the application for a temporary revetment is pending. The CCC has consistently and repeatedly 10 responded to multiple submissions from the Plaintiff by deeming the application “incomplete” 11 and requesting information that is either irrelevant or unavailable. Although the CCC refuses to 12 process the application for a temporary revetment, it repeatedly threatens fines since the 13 Emergency Permit has not been extended. The CCC has consistently taken the positon that it is 14 the applicant’s burden to prove that the revetment will not interfere with public access. 15 54. 16 tide line (“MHTL”) to the State Lands Commission for a Boundary Determination. The survey 17 shows that the MHTL lies seaward of the temporary revetment project area. Subsequently, the 18 State Lands Commission (“SLC”) performed its own survey of the Property which closely 19 corresponds to the MHTL as depicted by Haro, Kasunich & Associates. Both surveys confirm 20 that no portion of the revetment project area is within the Commission’s permit jurisdiction. 21 Both surveys were sent to the CCC. The CCC has failed to respond and both the CCC and 22 County refuse to process the application for a Coastal Development Permit to allow the rip-rap 23 revetment to remain in place. 24 The California Legislature Enacted a Law Requiring the State to Negotiate with the Property Owner to Obtain Access or to Acquire a Right-of-Way or Easement 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 55. The revetment was constructed pursuant to the Emergency Coastal Development Permit. The CCC has refused to grant or deny the request to extend the emergency permit while Ultimately, Mr. Cunha and Martins Beach 1, LLC submitted a survey of the mean high To the extent there was any doubt that Plaintiffs were being singled out for uniquely disfavored treatment, the Legislature adopted, and Governor Brown signed into law SB 968, which singles out Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ property for a special permitting process that 748\1268067.8 - 16 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 17 of 27 1 2 specifically allows the public to ‘acquire a right-of-way or easement. 56. 3 SB 968 was codified as Public Resources Code section 6213.5, and provides, in part: 5 (a)(1) The commission shall consult, and enter into any necessary negotiations, with the owners of the property known as Martins Beach…to acquire a right-ofway or easement…for the creation of a public access route to and along the shoreline… at Martins Beach… 6 … 7 (b) If the commission is unable to reach an agreement to acquire a right-ofway or easement...by January 1, 2016, the commission may acquire a right-of-way or easement, pursuant to Section 6210.9... 4 8 9 10 57. The obvious purpose of this legislation is to create yet one more piece of leverage, for 11 Defendants to use in trying to intimidate, harass, and coerce Plaintiffs into sacrificing their private 12 property rights. 13 58. 14 acknowledges that no ‘public access’ rights currently exist over Plaintiffs property, the CCC 15 Defendants continue to use their control over the permitting process as leverage in an attempt to 16 coerce Plaintiffs to cede their private property rights. Moreover, despite the express language of Public Resources Code section 6213.5, which FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against the SLC Defendants Prohibiting Enforcement of Public Resources Code §6213.5 Pursuant To The Equal Protection Clause in the United States and California Constitution 42 U.S.C. §1983, U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amendment, Cal. Const., Art I, §7) 17 18 19 20 59. 21 incorporate those allegations herein by this reference. 22 60. 23 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause in 24 Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The First Claim for Relief is also brought 25 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 which states in pertinent part: “Every person who, under color of 26 any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state…subjects, or causes to be 27 subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 58 above, and The First Claim for Relief is brought pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 - 17 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 18 of 27 1 deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities securities by the Constitution and laws, shall 2 be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for 3 redress…” 4 61. 5 Clauses and 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that on its face, the statute individually targets Plaintiffs, rather 6 than applying generally to all similarly situated property owners on the coast. The statute 7 therefore deprives Plaintiffs of their right to be treated the same as all other coastal property 8 owners in the State. 9 62. Public Resources Code Section 6213.5 violates the Federal and State Equal Protection Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that unless the SLC 10 Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this court from enforcing § 6213.5, which is 11 unconstitutional as described above, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that their 12 constitutional rights will be violated. 13 63. 14 injunction enjoining the SLC Defendants and their agents, attorneys, servants, employees, and 15 representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from enforcing or 16 instituting proceedings to enforce Public Resources Code section 6213.5 against Plaintiffs. 17 64. 18 Plaintiffs rights and to prevent the SLC Defendants from continuing to engage in, or refuse to 19 rectify, unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious conduct prescribed by section 1983. 20 Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to, and seek to recover, an award of attorneys’ fees and costs 21 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The threat of such irreparable and permanent damage justifies the issuance of an Plaintiffs have been forced to bring this Complaint and to pursue this action to vindicate 22 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against the SLC Defendants Prohibiting Enforcement of Public Resources Code § 6213.5 Cal. Const., Art IV, §16) 23 24 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 65. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 64 above, and incorporate those allegations herein by this reference. 66. The Second Claim for Relief is brought pursuant to Article IV, section 16 of the California Constitution which provides “[a] local or special statute is invalid in any case if a 748\1268067.8 - 18 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 19 of 27 1 general statute can be made applicable.” 2 67. 3 section 16 of the California Constitution in that a generally applicable statute can be made 4 applicable. Specifically, Public Resources Code Section 6210.9, provides that if the “[State 5 Lands Commission] has public land, including school land, tide or submerged lands, and lands 6 subject to the public trust for commerce, navigation, and fisheries, to which there is no access 7 available, it may, in the name of the state, acquire by purchase, lease, gift, exchange, or, if all 8 negotiations fail, by condemnation, a right-of-way or easement across privately owned land or 9 other land that it deems necessary to provide access to such public land.” Public Resources Code §6213.5 is unconstitutional and in direct conflict with Article IV, 10 68. 11 California Constitution in that Public Resources Code section 6213.5 applies only to Plaintiffs’ 12 Property and is not a law of general applicability. 13 69. 14 Resources Code section 6213.5 is unconstitutional and void. 15 70. 16 Defendants are restrained and enjoined by order of this court from enforcing § 6213.5, which is 17 unconstitutional as described above, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in that their 18 constitutional rights will be violated. 19 71. 20 injunction enjoining the SLC Defendants and their agents, attorneys, servants, employees, and 21 representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from enforcing or 22 instituting proceedings to enforce Public Resources Code section 6213.5 against Plaintiffs. Public Resources Code section 6213.5 therefore violates Article IV, section 16 of the Plaintiffs therefore request that a declaratory judgment be entered decreeing that Public Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that unless the SLC The threat of such irreparable and permanent damage justifies the issuance of an 23 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against the SLC Defendants Prohibiting Enforcement of Public Resources Code § 6213.5 Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder - U.S. Const., Art I, §10) 24 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 72. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 71 above, and incorporate those allegations herein by this reference. 73. The Third Claim for Relief is brought pursuant to Article 1, Section 10, of the 748\1268067.8 - 19 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 20 of 27 1 Constitution of the United States. Public Resources Code Section 6213.5 is a Bill of Attainder in 2 violation of Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, in that a motivating 3 factor for the legislative enactment is punitive and is a mere pretext for discriminatory conduct. 4 74. 5 Resources Code section 6213.5 is a Bill of Attainder and is therefore unconstitutional and void. Plaintiffs therefore request that a declaratory judgment be entered decreeing that Public 6 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Equal Protection Under the United States and California Constitutions Against The San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants 42 U.S.C. §1983, U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amendment, Cal. Const., Art I, §7) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 75. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 74 above, and incorporate those allegations herein by this reference. 76. The Fourth Claim for Relief is brought pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and pursuant to Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause in both the California and United States Constitution forbids the state from intentionally treating one person differently than other similarly situated people without a rational basis. The United States and California Constitutions require that laws bear equally in their burdens and benefits upon persons standing in the same category. The Fourth Claim for Relief is also brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that the actions, omissions, and inactions of the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants as alleged herein constitute deprivations of the privileges and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. Such acts, omissions, and inactions constitute a pattern of conduct under color of law within the meaning of section 1983. 77. By doing the things alleged herein, the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of equal protection in violation of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs are a “class of one” in that they have been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Plaintiffs have been treated differently than the prior owner of the Property (the Deeney Family) and other similarly situated coastal property owners as alleged above, without 748\1268067.8 - 20 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 21 of 27 1 any rational basis for such disparate treatment. 2 78. 3 the CCC Defendants acted at all times under color and authority of law. Among other things, 4 acting under the color of law, the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants have 5 engaged in a course of conduct that singles out and treats Plaintiffs differently since they will not 6 cede a portion of their private property for a public access easement. Among other things the San 7 Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants: (a) refuse to take action on any permit 8 application on the Property claiming Plaintiffs must first cure the existing “violation” on the 9 Property by providing public access; (b) refuse to grant Plaintiffs an administrative enforcement 10 hearing; (c) refuse to accept the standard methodology for determining the mean high tide line so 11 the California Coastal Commission may improperly retain jurisdiction over the application for the 12 temporary revetment; (d) refuse to extend the Emergency Permit or act on the CDP application 13 for the temporary revetment claiming that the application is “incomplete” and requesting 14 information that is either irrelevant or unavailable; (e) refuse to enforce trespass laws on the 15 Property; (f) threaten to impose fines and penalties on the owner for failing to comply with 16 demands to provide the public with access to Plaintiffs private property; and (g) demand public 17 access to the private Property be allowed on terms dictated by the CCC and the County. 18 79. 19 that the CCC has all of the “leverage”, and that they would wrap Plaintiffs “in red tape”, and 20 would never allow Plaintiffs to reach a hearing, until Plaintiffs agree to provide access. 21 80. 22 access rights even if the parties fail to reach an agreement during negotiations, the San Mateo 23 County Defendants and the CCC Defendants have thus engaged in a concerted and targeted 24 campaign to coerce Plaintiffs into granting public access rights against their will and without just 25 compensation. 26 81. 27 property owner over whom the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants have 28 similarly leveraged their permitting authority in order to coerce a property owner to give up its H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK While engaging in the conduct herein described, the San Mateo County Defendants and Ms. Haage told Plaintiffs that the CCC “knows how to deal” with people like Plaintiffs, Armed with the unfair terms of Public Resources Code §6213.5, which guarantee public Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that there is no similarly situated 748\1268067.8 - 21 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 22 of 27 1 constitutional property rights. 2 82. 3 to intentionally treat Plaintiffs differently than others similarly situated. 4 83. 5 Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants from violating Plaintiffs constitutional 6 rights. 7 84. 8 committing the above-described violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiffs will continue 9 to suffer great and irreparable harm. There is no rational basis for the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants The appropriate remedy in this case is declaratory and injunctive relief, preventing the San Unless the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants are enjoined from 10 85. 11 Plaintiffs rights and to prevent the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants from 12 continuing to engage in, or refuse to rectify, unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious conduct 13 prescribed by section 1983. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to, and seek to recover, an award of 14 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs have been forced to bring this Complaint and to pursue this action to vindicate 15 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Substantive and Procedural Due Process Against The San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants 42 U.S.C. §1983, U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amendment, Cal. Const., Art 1, §7 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 85 above, and incorporate those allegations herein by this reference. 87. The Fifth Claim for Relief is brought pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, both of which forbid the state from depriving a person of live, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Fifth Claim for Relief is also brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 in that the actions, omissions, and inactions of the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants as alleged herein constitute deprivations of the privileges and immunities guaranteed to Plaintiffs by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. Such acts, omissions, and inactions constitute a pattern of conduct under color of law within the meaning of section 1983. 748\1268067.8 - 22 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 23 of 27 1 88. 2 aforementioned intentional course of conduct to frustrate Plaintiffs legitimate private property 3 rights for purely personal and political reasons. Such conduct is completely contrary to any laws 4 and/or regulations and well beyond legitimate delegated police powers. Accordingly, such 5 conduct is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and violates Plaintiff 6 Substantive and Procedural Due Process Rights. 7 89. 8 Defendants have violated and abridged Plaintiffs’ Substantive Due Process rights by illegally and 9 unfairly targeting Plaintiffs by, among other things failing to consistently apply the objective statutory scheme in the Coastal Act to Plaintiffs in the same way that it is applied to all coastal 11 property owners. Threatening Plaintiffs with fines, penalties, and enforcement actions for alleged 12 violations of the Coastal Act unless and until Plaintiffs agree to cede their constitutional private 13 property rights. Through their conduct, as detailed above, the San Mateo County Defendants and 14 the CCC Defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously interfered with Plaintiffs private property 15 rights, caused a restriction of the right to exclusive use of Plaintiffs private property, and caused a 16 diminution in the value of the Property. The conduct of the San Mateo County Defendants and 17 the CCC Defendants is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the 18 public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. 19 90. 20 Defendants have violated and abridged Plaintiffs’ Procedural Due Process rights by targeting 21 Plaintiffs and unfairly depriving them of administrative hearings before San Mateo County and/or 22 the California Coastal Commission. Among other things, the San Mateo County Defendants and 23 CCC Defendants continue to take the position that almost every conceivable action or movement 24 on the property requires a permit and that no permit will be processed, let alone granted, unless 25 and until Plaintiffs agree to allow unfettered public access to their private property. The San 26 Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants are holding permits hostage and depriving 27 Plaintiffs of their due process rights unless and until Plaintiffs cede their private property 28 rights. Such conduct has caused an impairment of Plaintiffs private property rights, a restriction ATTO RNEY S AT LAW PALO AL TO BURBA NK Acting under the color of state law, the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC 10 H OPKINS & C ARLEY SAN JO SE The San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants have engaged in the Acting under the color of state law, the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC 748\1268067.8 - 23 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 24 of 27 1 on Plaintiffs right to use their property, and a diminution in Plaintiffs property value. 2 91. 3 from committing the above-described violations of Plaintiffs due process rights, Plaintiffs will 4 continue to suffer great and irreparable harm. 5 92. 6 Plaintiffs rights and to prevent the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants from 7 continuing to engage in, or refuse to rectify, unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious conduct 8 prescribed by section 1983. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to, and seek to recover, an award of 9 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Plaintiffs have been forced to bring this Complaint and to pursue this action to vindicate SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Temporary or Permanent Physical Taking of Property Rights Without Just Compensation Against the San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants 42 U.S.C. §1983, U.S. Const., Fifth Amendment, Cal. Const., Art I, §19.) 11 13 Unless the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants County are enjoined 93. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 92 above, and incorporate those allegations herein by this reference. 94. The Sixth Claim for Relief is brought pursuant to the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution which commands that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 95. The Sixth Claim for Relief is also brought pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution which provides in pertinent part: “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court, for the owner…” The protection provided by the takings cause of the California Constitution, is broader than, or at least coextensive with, that provided by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 96. The San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants have created a physical taking of Plaintiffs property by treating said property as if there were an easement for access and an easement for use of the beach by the public. The San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants have temporarily taken Plaintiffs property without compensation as they have ordered Plaintiffs to keep its private beach open to the public at all times and to maintain a public beach, 748\1268067.8 - 24 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 25 of 27 1 public right-of-way, and public parking on private property even though there is no public 2 easement or permit condition so requiring and the San Mateo County Defendants and CCC 3 Defendants do not otherwise have a legal right of access to Plaintiff’s property. The San Mateo 4 County Defendants and CCC Defendants have temporarily taken Plaintiffs property by failing 5 and refusing to enforce Plaintiffs private property rights and trespass laws. The actions of the 6 San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants have eviscerated Plaintiff’s right to exclude 7 others from entering and using its property – one of the most fundamental of all property 8 interests. The actions of the San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants therefore 9 constitute a physical taking in violation of State and Federal Constitutions. 10 97. 11 from committing the above-described violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Plaintiffs will 12 continue to suffer great and irreparable harm. 13 98. 14 Plaintiffs rights and to prevent the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants from 15 continuing to engage in, or refuse to rectify, unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious conduct 16 prescribed by section 1983. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to, and seek to recover, an award of 17 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK Unless the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants County are enjoined Plaintiffs have been forced to bring this Complaint and to pursue this action to vindicate SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Temporary or Permanent Regulatory Taking of Property Rights Without Just Compensation Against the San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants 42 U.S.C. §1983, U.S. Const., Fifth Amendment, Cal. Const., Art I, §19) 99. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 98 above, and incorporate those allegations herein by this reference. 100. The Seventh Claim for Relief is brought pursuant to the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution which commands that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 101. The Seventh Claim for Relief is also brought pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution which provides in pertinent part: “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has 748\1268067.8 - 25 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 26 of 27 1 first been paid to, or into court, for the owner…” The protection provided by the takings cause of 2 the California Constitution, is broader than, or at least coextensive with, that provided by the 3 takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 4 102. 5 permanently taken Plaintiffs property without compensation as they have ordered Plaintiffs to 6 keep their private property open to the public at all times and to maintain public access by way of 7 a private road and maintain public parking, even though there is no permit with any such 8 condition nor any easement nor any other basis for imposing the requirement and the San Mateo 9 County Defendants and CCC Defendants do not otherwise have any right of legal access to or use 10 of Plaintiff’s property. The San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants have ordered 11 Plaintiff to run and operate a business of allowing public access to its private property on the 12 terms (including fee, hours of operation, and days of use) dictated by the San Mateo County 13 Defendants and CCC Defendants, thereby depriving Plaintiff of the opportunity to receive a fair 14 return on its investment and/or to recover its costs. The actions of the San Mateo County 15 Defendants and CCC Defendants therefore constitute a regulatory taking in violation of State and 16 Federal Constitutions. 17 103. 18 keep Martins Beach open to the public, Plaintiffs will be permanently deprived of all rights to, 19 and attributes of ownership of its personal property in violation of the State and Federal 20 Constitutions. 21 104. 22 from committing the above-described violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, Plaintiffs will 23 continue to suffer great and irreparable harm. 24 105. 25 Plaintiffs rights and to prevent the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants from 26 continuing to engage in, or refuse to rectify, unconstitutional and arbitrary and capricious conduct 27 prescribed by section 1983. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to, and seek to recover, an award of 28 attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK The San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants have either temporarily or If the San Mateo County Defendants and CCC Defendants are allowed to force Plaintiff to Unless the San Mateo County Defendants and the CCC Defendants County are enjoined Plaintiffs have been forced to bring this Complaint and to pursue this action to vindicate 748\1268067.8 - 26 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC Case 3:16-cv-05590-JCS Document 1 Filed 09/30/16 Page 27 of 27 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: 3 1. 4 unconstitutional and void pursuant to Article IV, section 16 of the California Constitution; 5 2. 6 unconstitutional and void pursuant to Article 1, section 10 of the United States Constitution; 7 3. 8 employees, and representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from 9 enforcing or instituting proceedings to enforce Public Resources Code section 6213.5 against For a declaratory judgment decreeing that Public Resources Code Section 6213.5 is For a declaratory judgment decreeing that Public Resources Code Section 6213.5 is For an injunction enjoining the SLC Defendants and their agents, attorneys, servants, 10 Plaintiffs; 11 4. 12 and violate Plaintiffs constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws protected by both the 13 United States and California Constitutions; 14 5. 15 and representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from requiring 16 Plaintiffs to maintain public access to Martins Beach pursuant to the takings clause in the U.S. 17 and California Constitutions; 18 6. 19 and representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them from continuing 20 to engage in the illegal and unreasonable conduct as alleged hereinabove; 21 7. For attorneys fees and costs of suit; and 22 8. For such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper. For a declaration that Defendants actions as alleged above are unconstitutional and illegal, For an injunction enjoining Defendants and their agents, attorneys, servants, employees, For an injunction enjoining Defendants and their agents, attorneys, servants, employees, 23 24 Dated: September 30, 2016 25 HOPKINS & CARLEY A Law Corporation By: /s/ Dori L. Yob Dori L. Yob Attorneys for Plaintiff 26 27 28 H OPKINS & C ARLEY ATTO RNEY S AT LAW SAN JO SE PALO AL TO BURBA NK 748\1268067.8 - 27 COMPLAINT OF MARTIN’S BEACH, 1, LLC AND MARTINS BEACH 2, LLC