Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont

588 F.Supp.3d 1010

TEMPLE OF 1001 BUDDHAS, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CITY OF FREMONT, Defendant.

Case No. 21-cv-04661-CRB

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed March 4, 2022

Angela Alioto Veronese, Jordanna Gabrielle Thigpen, Angela Mia Veronese, Steven Robinson, Law Offices of Joseph L. Alioto and Angela Alioto, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Kimberly Ying-Yen Chin, Maria Nozzolino, Steven Douglas Werth, Allen, Glaessner, Hazelwood & Werth LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

CHARLES R. BREYER, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Miaolan Lee lives on property owned by the Temple of 1001 Buddhas in Fremont, California. For the past eight years, City of Fremont employees have had numerous interactions with Lee and the property, all pertaining to whether certain structures on the property comply with various California laws and regulations and municipal codes. After numerous searches, inspections, orders, and negotiations, the City issued an amended Notice and Order to Abate Nuisance in March 2021. The 58-page Notice and Order listed thirteen violations of the Fremont Municipal Code and California laws (including but not limited to the California Building Code, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code), and set a deadline for Lee to submit plans to fix the problems, which would require demolishing certain structures.

Lee and the Temple sued the City, asserting various federal and California claims. The Court previously granted the City's motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Lee and the Temple filed an amended complaint with nine claims. The City now moves to dismiss again. The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss all claims. The Court denies leave to amend Claims 2, 4, and 8, and grants leave to amend as to Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Factual Background

This lawsuit concerns property located at 6800 Mill Creek Road in Fremont, California. See FAC (dkt. 26) ¶ 14. The property consists of 29 acres and is zoned as "open space" under the City's laws. Id. ¶¶ 14, 21. It is situated on a hillside where the slope of the land is 15% or higher, in a very high fire hazard area, and an earthquake-induced landslide zone. See RJN, Ex I (dkt. 28-9), at 2.¹

California's Williamson Act provides that any city may "by contract limit the use of agricultural land for the purpose of preserving such land pursuant and subject to the conditions set forth in the contract" and elsewhere in the Act. Cal. Gov. Code § 51240. Such a contract must exclude land "uses other than agricultural, and other than those compatible with agricultural uses, for the duration of the contract." Id. § 51243. After an initial ten-year term, the contract renews annually unless either party serves a notice of nonrenewal. Id. In 1978, pursuant to the Williamson Act, a predecessor-in-interest to the property signed a "Land Conservation Contract" with the City. FAC ¶ 18. The contract with the City stated:

During the term of this contract, or any renewal thereof, the said property shall not be used for any purpose, other than agricultural uses for producing agricultural commodities for commercial purposes and compatible uses as listed below.

Id. The contract then listed potential compatible uses, including "living quarters and home occupations," "public and quasi-public buildings," and "accessory use to the above." Id. The contract appears to still be in effect, as Lee does not allege that she (or the City) has ever served notice of nonrenewal. Id. ¶ 19.

In 2010, Lee purchased the property. Id. ¶ 15. In the ensuing years, Lee initiated considerable additional construction on the property. See id. ¶ 20. She uses several of the structures for religious purposes. Id. ¶ 20. In March 2018, Lee deeded ownership of the property to the Temple of 1001 Buddhas, but she has continued to live there. Id. ¶ 16.² It currently contains the following structures:

1) Main Buddha Hall (a one-story garage that existed when Lee acquired the property but that was turned into a three-story building) (id. ¶¶ 20(a), 52, 89);

2) Meditation Hall (a barn that existed when Lee acquired the property but that was turned into a two-story structure) (id. ¶¶ 20(b), 52, 88);

3) Hindu God House Structure (120-square-foot gazebo with pond) (id. ¶¶ 20(c), 86);

4) Tree House;

5) Retreat House (a new two-story dwelling built to house individuals attending religious retreats) (id. ¶¶ 20(e), 44, 52, 90);

6) Green House;

7) Horse run-in shed;

8) A vacant mobile home at the creek (a structure that existed when Lee acquired the property but that was later modified);

9) Main Residence (a structure that existed when Lee acquired the property); and

10) Solar panels.

Id. ¶ 20. Although Lee does not always refer to the structures by consistent terminology, the main dispute in this case appears to concern the Main Buddha Hall, the Meditation Hall, and the Retreat House, each of which have undergone extensive construction since Lee purchased the property. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 44, 52.

Beginning in 2017, City employees began to have numerous interactions with Lee and the property. In October 2017, City Code Enforcement Manager Leonard Powell sent Lee an email requesting access to the property. Id. ¶ 30. The next day, Powell and other City employees "trespassed" on the property and took pictures. Id. ¶¶ 31, 32.³

This upset Lee. In January 2018, Lee met with Gary West, the City's Building Department Chief, and complained that City employees were discriminating against her and had trespassed on the property. Id. ¶ 38. West told Lee that he urgently needed to inspect the property. Id. ¶ 39. He then sought and obtained an inspection warrant from the Superior Court.⁴ Id. ¶ 40. On February 9, 2019, City employees searched the entire property, including Lee's bedroom and "most closets and drawers in the residence." Id. ¶ 41. They "rummaged through everything," including food in the kitchen and Lee's make-up. Id. City employees then placed license plate recording cameras across the street from the property from February 28, 2018 to March 9, 2018. Id. ¶ 42.

On March 28, 2018, Lee's attorney wrote to the City stating that Lee "remained ready to cooperate with any and all requests and inspections." Id. ¶ 43. The next day, the City issued a "Notice and Order to Abate Nuisance" listing numerous alleged violations of the Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) and stating that no one could occupy three structures on the property (the Main Buddha Hall, the Meditation Hall, and the Retreat House). Id. ¶ 44. In particular, the City noted that the three buildings were:

(1) "erected and/or altered in violation of [FMC] Title 15,"

(2) "located in [a] very high fire hazard severity zone without adequate fire-resistance-rated construction and fire protection systems,"

(3) "lack[ing] adequate light, ventilation, illumination, insulation, sanitary facilities, and other essential equipment,"

(4) "on hillsides in earthquake induced landslide zones without appropriate mitigation measures,"

(5) "constructed without adequate structural and foundation systems," creating a "substantial risk of partial or complete collapse in [the] event of earthquake and earthquake induced landslides,"

(6) "constructed without plans or permits and the City [was] unable to determine the electrical connections and service for each," and

(7) lacking in "proper on site waste disposal and waste water treatment" so as to "pose contamination risk to adjoining streams, springs, and groundwater."

RJN Ex. I (dkt. 28-9). After Lee appealed the Notice and Order, the City Attorney told her that the Notice and Order would remain in effect based on the Land Conservation Contract. FAC ¶ 46.

In May 2018, Lee met with City staff "to attempt to resolve all concerns stated by the City." Id. ¶ 47. She agreed to allow City employees to inspect the property several days later. But Tanu Jagtap, a City Code Enforcement Officer, cancelled the appointment and instead sought and obtained an inspection warrant from the Superior Court. Id. The Officer's warrant application stated that Lee had not consented to City employees entering the property. Id. City employees executed the warrant and inspected the property again. Id. ¶¶ 48–49. On June 8, at the City's request, Jagtap conducted a fourth inspection of Lee's property with her own engineers and consultants present. Id. ¶ 50.

The City took additional action based on this inspection. In June 2018, Lee emailed a letter to Fremont's Mayor and City Council discussing her situation. FAC ¶ 51. West sent Lee a Notice and Order to Vacate the Main Buddha Hall, the Meditation Hall, and the Retreat House. Id. ¶ 52. This Notice and Order stated that the buildings were "unlawful, unsafe[,] and unfit for human occupancy," and was signed by West. Id. It required Lee to remove "all personal property" from them within two weeks. Id. Lee refused to remove Buddha statues from one structure. Id. ¶ 54. According to Lee, West informed her that she could pray in a dome meditation hall on the property and in the main house, but nowhere else. Id. ¶ 55. Later that month, City employees "requested and obtained entry" to the property, then posted notices barring entry on the "condemned buildings" and at the main entrance. Id. ¶ 56.

Lee responded to the June 2018 Notice and Order in various ways. For example, she sent the City notices of appeal, retained various structural engineers and consultants to perform work on the buildings, and updated the City as she attempted to bring the buildings into compliance with the City's instructions. Id. ¶¶ 58, 61. City employees had several meetings with Lee's consultants and representatives regarding plans for the property and permit applications. Id. ¶¶ 64–65.

But these steps did not lead to a mutually agreeable resolution. In May 2019, the City recorded a Notice of Substandard Building/Structure with the County Recorder's Office of the County of Alameda, indicating that several buildings...