Beach Access in Focus Again — Spencer v Palos Verdes Estates – Cal App 2023

One of the many great things about attending the annual American Law Insititute Eminent Domain conference is learning about new cases.  Spencer fits the bill – maybe not as a great case, but under the category of truth is stranger than fiction.   It’s not technically an eminent domain or condemnation case, but it relates to property and argument over the meaning of the word “development” which might be useful in practice as owner’s counsel.

The case alleges that the municipality conspired with a surfer gang – the ‘Bay Boys’ – to exclude non-residents from beach access in violation of California Law.  I imagine that wasn’t the only one at the conference who immediately thought of the movie Point Break when hearing the lecturer describe the facts of the case. Quick video clip of the surfer gang bullies:

The opinion sets the backdrop at the outset:

“Lunada Bay is a premier surf spot located in, and owned by, the City of Palos Verdes Estates. According to plaintiffs, City residents and officials are not welcoming to outsiders and are sometimes openly hostile towards them. The Lunada Bay Boys (Bay Boys) are a group of young and middle-aged men, local to the City, who consider themselves to be the self-appointed
guardians of Lunada Bay. One of their tenets is to keep outsiders away from the surf location. They accomplish this through threats and violence. Plaintiffs are (1) two non-locals who encountered harassment by the Bay Boys when they tried to surf Lunada Bay, and (2) a non-profit dedicated to preserving coastal access. They brought suit against the Bay Boys, some of its
individual members, and the City itself, for conspiracy to deny access under the California Coastal Act.” Slip op at 2.

The entire text of the opinion may be found here: Spencer v Palos Verdes Estates 2023 Cal App.

“The premise of plaintiffs’ complaint against the City is that the Coastal Act requires a permit for all “development.” The Coastal Act defines “development” broadly, and includes, a “change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure . . . .” (§ 30106, italics added.) There are two claimed “development activities” at issue in this appeal: (1) the construction of the Rock Fort (“construction . . . of any structure”) and (2) the harassment conducted by the Bay Boys (activities resulting in a “change in the . . . use of water or of access thereto”).” Slip op. at 5.  The claims pertaining to the Rock Fort have been raging for years. (see Newsweek Fort Article here)  The trial court ruled in the City’s favor on this count because it had not constructed the Fort.  The appellate court ultimately reversed the finding of no liability against the City (at the motion for judgment on the pleadings stage) because the Fort had been on the City owned property for over four decades.

Plaintiffs allege the Bay Boys have “intentionally and maliciously blocked public access to the beach at Lunada Bay for over 40 years. In what is a multi-generational practice of extreme ‘localism,’ the Bay Boys use physical violence, threats of bodily harm, vandalism to vehicles, verbal harassment and intimidation to prevent access to the public beach. The City . . .
has long been aware of the unlawful exclusion of outsiders and has conspired with the Bay Boys to ‘protect’ Lunada Bay.”  Specifically, plaintiffs allege that, “[w]ith City knowledge and complicity, the individual Defendant members of the Bay Boys conspire to keep the public away by: (1) physically obstructing outsiders’ access to the beach trails; (2) throwing rocks;
(3) running people over with surfboards in the water; (4) punching outsiders; (5) stealing outsiders’ wallets, wetsuits, and surfboards; (6) vandalizing vehicles, slashing tires, and waxing pejorative slurs onto vehicle windows; (7) levying threats; and (8) intimidating outsiders with pejorative and other verbal insults, gestures, and threats of serious injury.”

The appellate court found that the pleadings were sufficient to allege a violation of the Coastal Act under a very broad interpretation of the word  “development.” “ ‘Development’ means, on land, in or under water, . . . change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto . . . .” (§ 30106.) We conclude a change in the access to water brought about by an organized scheme of harassment of, or similar impediment imposed on, those seeking access may be just as much a change in access to water as one brought about by a physical impediment. Accordingly, as the harassment and other conduct alleged here directly interferes with, and sometimes precludes, access to the Pacific Ocean, it can be seen to fall within the language of the statute. Whether there is proof of this state of affairs is left to another day.” Slip op. at 26.

Lastly, the appellate court found that the City may be liable for conspiring with the Bay Boys.  “Here, plaintiffs have alleged the following: Many City residents and the City Council do not want outsiders in the City; at least one City official stated that City residents wanted to keep outsiders away; the Bay Boys had a decades-long practice of blocking access to Lunada Bay, both by words and acts; the City was aware of this conduct and complicit in it; the former police chief agreed to look into the situation and then “backed off”; the City had a “coz[y]” relationship with the Bay Boys; the City did not enforce its laws against the Bay Boys; instead, the City itself acted to exclude outsiders from the beach by targeting them with traffic citations, parking tickets, and towing.  Whether plaintiffs will be able to establish these allegations when put to the task is not before us now. At this point, they have sufficiently alleged an actionable conspiracy in which the City has participated.”

Case will probably settle . . . otherwise might just be a Hollywood hit!