Anselmo v. Mull
| Decision Date | 28 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | CIV. NO. 2:12-01422 WBS EFB |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | REVERGE ANSELMO and SEVEN HILLS LAND AND CATTLE COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. RUSS MULL, LESLIE MORGAN, Shasta County Assessor-Recorder, COUNTY OF SHASTA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA, LES BAUGH, and GLENN HAWES, Defendants. |
Plaintiffs Reverge Anselmo and Seven Hills Land and Cattle Company, LLC brought this action against defendants County of Shasta, California ("the County"), the Board of Supervisors of Shasta County ("the Board"), Leslie Morgan, Russ Mull, Les Baugh, and Glenn Hawes arising out of a series of land use disputes beginning in 2007. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive reliefunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as a writ of mandate compelling defendants to award plaintiffs a land conservation contract pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 ("the Williamson Act"), Cal. Gov't Code § 51200 et seq. The parties both move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Plaintiffs own and operate two properties in Shasta County that are at issue in this action. Since at least 2006, plaintiffs have owned and operated Home Ranch, a 1200-acre property located in the Inwood Valley. (See Anselmo Decl. ¶ 27 (Docket No. 139-5).) In 2007, plaintiffs purchased Bear Creek Ranch, a 670-acre property located three miles away from Home Ranch, which they planned to utilize for raising cattle. (Id. ¶ 2. )
After purchasing Bear Creek Ranch, plaintiffs began clearing the property of weeds, vines, bushes, and dead or dying trees in order to replant the pasture areas of the property. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) California Regional Water Quality Control Board employee Andrew Jensen received a report in October 2007 of potential violations of state and federal water quality laws at Bear Creek Ranch. (Decl. of Andrew Jensen in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Jensen Decl.") ¶ 3 (Docket No. 133-1).) Jensen initiated an investigation of the alleged violations and visited Bear Creek Ranch several times. (Id.) On October 15, 2007, Jensen directed Garrett Glauzer, a construction foreman at Bear Creek Ranch, to cease operations. (Id. Ex. 2.) Jensen reiterated this direction to Anselmo the next day, (id.), andprepared a report documenting his findings and a Cleanup and Abatement Order, which he issued to the County. (Jensen Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6.)
On October 30, 2007, plaintiffs received a letter from James Smith, an Environmental Health Division Manager with the County, stating that plaintiffs had violated the County's grading ordinance by engaging in grading activities without a valid grading permit. Paul Minasian, an attorney for plaintiffs, sent Smith a letter on November 12, 2007, disputing the finding of a grading violation and contending that plaintiffs' activities were exempt under the County's grading ordinance. (Id. Ex. C.) Smith responded in a letter dated December 20, 2007, that the alleged grading activities were not exempt because they had occurred in and adjacent to a drainage way. (Id. Ex. D.) Minasian sent Smith a response on January 2, 2008, in which he reiterated plaintiffs' position that they had not violated the grading ordinance. (Id. Ex. E.)
In December 2007, Anselmo invited Glenn Hawes, a member of the Board, to Bear Creek Ranch to discuss the grading violation. (Anselmo Decl. ¶ 16.) Anselmo testified that Hawes saw the work that was being done on the property and stated that "he did not understand how it could be claimed that this was grading that required a permit." (Id.) Anselmo avers that Hawes advised him to buy mitigation credits and offer them to the County "in order to end the harassment" and that Hawes "explicitly mentioned his Stillwater Plains Mitigation Bank as a potential candidate for those mitigation credits." (Id.)Anselmo refused this offer. (Id. ¶ 16.1.) Although defendants contest plaintiffs' narration of these events, they concede that this meeting occurred, (see Hawes Decl. ¶¶ 7-10 (Docket No. 135)), and that Hawes stated that Anselmo "might be able to resolve the violations" by purchasing a conservation easement for the Home Ranch property. (Id. ¶ 8; Defs.' Statement of Undisputed Facts ( ) ¶ 47 (Docket No. 133-32).)
Anselmo then requested an additional meeting with Hawes, Supervisor Les Baugh, Russ Mull, the Director of the County's Resource Management Department, and Larry Lees, the County Administrative officer. (Anselmo Decl. ¶ 17.) This meeting took place on February 1, 2008, and was also attended by Willy Preston, the legislative aide for then-Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa. (Id.) Anselmo avers that at this meeting, Mull threatened to obstruct his application for a permit to operate a winery at the Home Ranch property if he did not obtain a grading permit. (Anselmo Dep. at 181:12-16.) Although Mull claims that he "did not tell Mr. Anselmo that I would hold up his certificate of occupancy at the Winery Property," he admits that he "told him that . . . a landowner may be denied future discretionary permits if there are outstanding violations on the property." (Decl. of Russ Mull ("Mull Decl.") ¶ 9 (Docket No. 135-2).)
After this meeting, Anselmo called Baugh and asked if there was any other way to cure the grading violation. (Anselmo Decl. ¶ 23; Baugh Decl. ¶ 11 (Docket No. 135-1).) Baugh then contacted Mull and asked what could be done to resolve the grading violation. (Id.; Mull Decl. ¶ 10.) Mull responded that if plaintiffs obtained a hydroelectric permit for the Bear CreekRanch property, it could encompass the grading violation. (Id.) Baugh relayed this message to Anselmo, (Baugh Decl. ¶ 12), who interpreted it as a request for a "face-saving measure." (Anselmo Decl. ¶ 24.)
In the meantime, Bridget Dirks, an Associate Planner with the County, sent plaintiffs a letter on January 30, 2008, stating that plaintiffs would need to conduct a "botanical survey" on the Home Ranch property to determine whether a plant known as Ahart's Paronychia was present. (Defs.' Request for Judicial Notice ( ) Ex. 25 at 35 (Docket No. 133-29).) Anselmo avers that he had the Home Ranch property examined by Tom Benson, a botanist and Natural Resources Conservation Service engineer. (Anselmo Dep. at 206:20-25.) Anselmo avers that Benson wrote a letter to the County's resources management division indicating that plaintiffs' property did not contain hydric soils that could serve as a habitat for Ahart's Paronychia. (Id.) Dirks nonetheless required plaintiffs to conduct the plant study, which plaintiffs contend delayed the approval of their application for a permit for the proposed winery project by several months and cost an additional $5,000. (Id. at 207:2-14; Anselmo Decl. ¶ 26.)
On September 3, 2008, plaintiffs received a letter from Lio Salazar, an Associate Planner with the County, stating that their application for a land conservation contract for the Bear Creek Ranch property ("Williamson Act contract") could not move forward until the grading violations were remedied.1 Salazar reiterated this position in a letter sent on October 8, 2008. (Id. Ex. J.)
Plaintiffs sent a letter to the Board, Mull, and Michael Ralston, the Shasta County Counsel, on October 14, 2008. (Id. Ex. L.) In this letter, plaintiffs contested the finding of a grading violation, argued that the County failed to serve a Notice of Non-Compliance with the grading violation, claimed that they had been denied an opportunity to appeal the grading violation, and threatened further legal action if the Williamson Act contract was not approved.2 (Id.) Following this letter, the County Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board conduct a public hearing and grant plaintiffs' application for a Williamson Act contract. (Id. Exs. 2-3.)
On December 16, 2008, the Board held a meeting at which plaintiffs' application for a Williamson Act was placed on the agenda. (See Minutes, Shasta Cnty Bd. of Supervisors, Dec. 16, 2008 ("Dec. 16 Minutes") (Defs.' RJN Ex. 7) (Docket No. 133-35).) Before the Board considered the contract, it considered the moregeneral question of whether the County should place a moratorium on all new Williamson Act contracts in light of the possibility that the State of California would discontinue subvention payments. (Id. at 8.) County staff estimated that the County could lose as much as $125,000 per year if these payments ceased. (Id.) Although the Board put this issue up for a vote, it failed by a 4-1 margin. (Id.) Only Supervisor David Kehoe voted in favor of the motion. (Id.)
The Board then considered plaintiffs' application for a Williamson Act contract. (Id. at 9-10.) Hawes and Baugh recused themselves from this vote. (Id. at 9.) While Hawes and Baugh contend that they recused themselves because they had been named as defendants in a suit brought by plaintiffs, (see Hawes Decl. ¶ 12; Baugh Decl. ¶ 15), plaintiffs argue that this "was a bad faith pretext to bring about what they believed would constitute a denial of Plaintiffs' application." (Third Am. Compl. ("TAC") ¶ 55.0 (Docket No. 1-2).) The remaining three Supervisors then considered plaintiffs' application for a Williamson Act contract. (Dec. 16 Minutes at 10.) Supervisors Cibula and Hartman voted in favor of awarding the contract, while Kehoe voted against it and reiterated his earlier concerns about discontinued subvention payments. (Id.) As a result, plaintiffs did not receive a Williamson Act contract for Bear Creek Ranch. (Id.)
Plaintiffs amended their Complaint in February, May, and August 2009 to name Baugh, Hawes, the Board, and Leslie Morgan, the County Assessor-Recorder as defendants and to add allegations arising out of the Board's decision to deny plaintiffs a Williamson Act contract. (See TAC 1.) On May 11,2012, defendants filed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial