In Spencer v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, published February 27, 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 5 reversed an order granting judgment on the pleadings for the defendant city. The complaint alleged that a group of local surfers kept outsiders from accessing a premier surfing spot by threats, intimidation and violence. The complaint further alleged that the city allowed the group to build a masonry and wood structure on city property and use it as their "hangout"; and by allegedly being complicit in the group's activity and tacitly approving it. The complaint alleged that the city was liable for conspiracy to deny access under the California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code section 30000 et seq. The trial court concluded that merely allowing the structure to be built on city property was not actionable against the city, absent allegations the city itself performed the construction; and that neither the harassment nor the city's alleged condoning of the harassment is conduct reached by the Act.
The appellate court disagreed. The Act, as interpreted by case law decided while this case was on appeal, establishes that a landowner, such as the city, that has the ability to remove a structure may violate the Act by allowing an unpermitted structure to be maintained on its property--here, for decades. Further, while the trial court concluded that the alleged harassment by the group was not "development" under the Act, the appellate court deemed this interpretation of "development" too narrow. The Act's definition of "development" in Public Resources Code section 30106 includes, on land, change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto. Case law has applied the term "development" as used in the Act as applying to more than constructing physical impediments, including landowners hiring security guards to keep persons from accessing the coast. Setting up headquarters on city property, physically obstructing trail access to the beach, and intimidating outsiders with word and deed, all with the effect of blocking access to the water, is "development" under the Act. Finally, the city can be held liable for conspiracy with the group. Parties can be held liable for Coastal Act violations under the doctrine of conspiracy. Allegations that many city residents and the city council do not want outsiders in the city; that at least one city official stated that residents want to keep outsiders away; that the group has been blocking access to the coast for decades; that the city was aware of the conduct and was complicit in it; that the former police chief agreed to look into the situation, and then "backed off"; that the city did not enforce its laws against the group; and that the city instead acted to exclude outsiders from the beach by targeting them with traffic citations, parking tickets, and towing, adequately pleaded a cause of action for conspiracy.