Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont
| Decision Date | 28 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 21-cv-04661-CRB |
| Citation | 562 F.Supp.3d 408 |
| Parties | TEMPLE OF 1001 BUDDHAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FREMONT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Angela Alioto Veronese, 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.
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 the City's land use laws and various California laws and regulations. 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 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 a dozen claims under federal and California law. The City now moves to dismiss. The Court determines that oral argument is unnecessary and grants the City's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
This lawsuit concerns property located at 6800 Mill Creek Road in Fremont, California.
Although Lee did not own the property until 2010, the story begins more than thirty years earlier. In 1978, a predecessor in interest to the property signed a "Land Conservation Contract" under California's Williamson Act with the City. Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶ 15. The 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.
Consistent with that requirement, the predecessor in interest's 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.
Compl. ¶ 15. 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.
Lee purchased the property, which remains subject to the Land Conservation Contract, in 2010. Id. ¶¶ 13, 16. In March 2018, Lee deeded ownership of the property to the Temple of 1001 Buddhas, but she has continued to live there. Id. ¶ 14.1 The property is zoned as "open space" under the City's laws, and it contains various structures that Lee has used for religious purposes. Id. ¶¶ 17, 19.
Starting several years after Lee's purchase, City employees have had numerous interactions with Lee and the property, culminating in the instant lawsuit.2
As relevant here, in October 2017, City Code Enforcement Manager Leonard Powell sent Lee an email requesting access to the property. Id. 27. The next day, Powell and other City employees "trespassed" on the property and took pictures. Id. ¶¶ 28, 29.3
This upset Lee. And 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. ¶ 34. West told Lee that he urgently needed to inspect the property. Id. ¶ 35. He then sought and obtained an inspection warrant from the Superior Court. Id. ¶ 36. On February 8, 2019, the City hung a notice of inspection on the property's front gate. Id. The next day, City employees searched the entire property, including Lee's bedroom and "most closets in the residence." Id. ¶ 38. 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. ¶ 39.
Soon it became apparent why City employees had entered the property. On March 29, 2018, 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 dwelling unit, and the meditation hall). Id. ¶ 40. 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. 12-8). 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. See Compl. ¶ 42.4
In May 2018, Lee met with City staff "to attempt to resolve all concerns stated by the City." Id. ¶ 43. She agreed to allow City employees to inspect the property several days later. But 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. ¶¶ 44–45.
The City took additional action based on this inspection. In June 2018, West sent Lee a Notice and Order to vacate three buildings on the property (a new two-story structure, a three-story building that had been a one-story garage, and a two-story building that was formerly a barn). Id. ¶ 47. This Notice and Order stated that the buildings were "unlawful, unsafe[,] and unfit for human occupancy." 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. ¶ 48. 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. ¶ 49. 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. ¶ 50.
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. ¶¶ 52, 55. City employees had several meetings with Lee's consultants and representatives regarding plans for the property and permit applications. Id. ¶¶ 57–58.
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. Id. ¶ 59. The next month, Lee sent City Councilmember Raj Salwan a letter "complaining about discriminatory code enforcement" and the "inspection warrants." Id. ¶ 60. According to Lee, the Chief City Attorney told Salwan that the City was "going to sue Ms. Lee" because of Lee's opposition to the religious and racial discrimination she was experiencing. Id. ¶ 60.5 Lee alleges that despite her efforts, the City had decided to not engage in a "collaborative process." Id. ¶ 62. "In fact, it was impossible" for her to "complete the application process" and get the necessary permits because the City "wanted the Temple to be torn down." Id. Lee nonetheless applied for permits on October 7, 2019. Id. ¶ 63.6
Shortly thereafter, City employees made inartful statements suggesting that Lee was using religious rhetoric to obscure the problems with the property. In December 2019, Lee met with Wayne Morris, the City's Deputy Community Director, and Powell. Id. Morris and Powell "insisted that Ms. Lee was using religion as a protective shield." Id. According to Lee, Morris asked whether Lee thought "Buddha is ok with this construction." Id. Lee alleges that Morris laughed while asking whether she thought that "Buddha is ok with what you are doing?" Id. Morris then told Lee that the permit process was "going to be so expensive" that Lee would "give up and demolish." Id. Morris expressed that the buildings "need to come out." Id.
In January 2020, Morris, Powell, and James Willis (another city employee) inspected the property again. Id. ¶ 67. Two days later, Lee told Willis that her neighbor had performed unpermitted work on his property. Id. ¶ 68. When Lee first met her neighbor, the neighbor told her that he had completed various construction projects without the City's approval and used herbicide extensively...
To continue reading
Request your trial