Pacific Legal Foundation

1 J. DAVID BREEMER, No.
215039
E-mail: jdb@pacificlegal.org
2 Pacific Legal Foundation
3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
3 Sacramento, California 95834
Telephone: (916) 419-7111
4 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747
5 DAVID J. BYERS, No. 83388

E-mail: info@landuselaw.com
6 McCracken & Byers LLP
1920 Leslie Street
7 San Mateo, CA 94403
Telephone: (605) 377-4890
8 Facsimile: (605)377-4895
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Sacramento, CA 95834
13
14 DAN STERLING and DENISE STERLING, ) No. ____________

)
15 Plaintiffs and Petitioners, ) VERIFIED PETITION FOR
) WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
16 v. ) MANDATE (CCP § 1094.5) AND
) COMPLAINT FOR
17 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, ) DECLARATORY RELIEF
)
18 Defendant and Respondent. )
)
19
20 INTRODUCTION
21 Dan Sterling and Denise Sterling (Sterlings) seek an administrative writ of mandate and
22 declaration invalidating the California Coastal Commission’s (Commission) unlawful and
23 unconstitutional imposition of a perpetual affirmative agricultural easement on 143 acres of their
24 land as a condition of a building permit for a single-family home. This action is brought pursuant
25 to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §§ 1094.5 and 1060, Public Resources Code §§ 30801 and
26 30804. All further statutory references are to the Public Resources Code, unless otherwise
27 indicated. By this verified petition and complaint, Petitioners allege:
28 ///
Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

and Complaint for Declaratory Relief -1-
1 BACKGROUND
2 1. Petitioners and Plaintiffs Dan and Denise Sterling are the legal owners of, and have paid
3 all property taxes due on, a 143-acre parcel of real property, located in El Granada, California, in
4 the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. The property is designated County Assessor Parcel
5 No. 047-320-060. Their land, and the site of their proposed home construction project, is located
6 at 300 San Juan Avenue. The Sterlings have lived on the property in a preexisting mobile home
7 with their four children since acquiring it approximately 10 years ago.
8 2. For a decade, the Sterlings have attempted to secure a permit to build a permanent home
9 that would adequately house their family. The Sterlings were applicants for such a permit before
10 the Commission on February 5, 2009. At that time, the Commission approved a permit subject to
11 a condition that the Sterlings record and dedicate an agricultural easement on all of their land to
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 an approved agency. The easement requires all their land outside the immediate home area,
13 approximately 142 acres, to be kept in active agricultural operation, forever. As owners of the land
14 subject to the easement, and applicants for the conditional permit, the Sterlings are aggrieved
15 persons pursuant to Section 30801, and entitled to seek a writ of mandate.
16 3. Respondent and Defendant Commission is the state administrative body authorized
17 under the Public Resources Code to apply the California Coastal Act of 1976, Section 30000, et
18 seq. (Coastal Act), consistent with the limits of that Act and the United States Constitution, to
19 certify a local government’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) as the operative rules for building in the
20 relevant coastal area, and to apply the rules of a certified LCP when a local permit decision is
21 appealed to the Commission.
22 4. The Commission may sue and be sued under Section 30334.
23 5. The Commission has certified an LCP for the County of San Mateo (County), and the
24 County has adopted and, at all times relevant here, applies the certified LCP in the coastal zone,
25 which encompasses the Sterlings’ property.
26 6. Once a local government like the County has adopted a certified LCP, it assumes initial
27 permit jurisdiction. Accordingly, applicants for a coastal development permit must submit their
28 application to the County, which will apply the guidance in the LCP to decide whether to grant or

1 deny a permit application. Any local final decision on a coastal permit may then be appealed to
2 the Commission. When such an appeal occurs, the Commission may hear the permit issue on a de
3 novo basis, by independently applying the LCP standards, provided it first finds that a “substantial
4 issue” warrants its oversight.
5 7. This petition arises from the Commission’s decision to apply the County’s LCP to
6 require the Sterlings to dedicate an agricultural easement on 142 + acres to build in a 10,000-
7 square-foot area not in agricultural use.
8 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9 The General Characteristics of the Property
10 8. The 143-acre parcel of land (Parcel) at the heart of this dispute lies on the outskirts of
11 the residentially developed area of El Granada, California. Under the County’s land use code, the
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 Parcel is zoned for Planned Agricultural Development (PAD). This classification generally allows
13 residential development as a conditional use on a minimum parcel of 40 acres. As currently
14 configured, the Sterlings’ Parcel is entitled to one residential development allotment. The County
15 has determined that the Parcel is large enough to be subdivided so as to create at least one more
16 development credit.
17 9. The Parcel consists primarily of “steep slopes covered in shrubs,” and is almost entirely
18 classified as nonprime agricultural land. Such land is generally considered suitable only for water-
19 less agricultural uses, such as livestock grazing. Historically, the upland areas of the Parcel have
20 been utilized for small scale cattle grazing. The Sterlings have at all times grazed, and still do
21 graze, about 10 cattle on the upland areas.
22 10. A creek bisects the Parcel from northeast to southwest. About 10 acres of land adjacent
23 to the creek are considered prime agricultural soil, theoretically suitable for crops. Based on
24 information and belief, and on the expert opinions of members of the San Mateo Farm Bureau and
25 National Resource Conservation Service included in the administrative record, the small and
26 isolated prime land area has never been actively farmed, and there is currently not sufficient area
27 or infrastructure to engage in any form of commercial operation. Indeed, no area of the Parcel has
28 ever been used for production of crops.

1 Early Administrative Process
2 11. Before the Sterlings acquired the Parcel, someone placed an unpermitted mobile home
3 on an area of land north of the creek. After their purchase, the Sterlings moved into the preexisting
4 mobile home, believing it would provide temporary quarters as they pursued a more suitable and
5 permanent family residence. At this point, the Sterlings allowed ten cattle—considered a
6 sustainable number—on the upland areas.
7 12. Soon after they acquired the Parcel, the Sterlings embarked on what would turn out to
8 be a decade-long attempt to acquire a permit for a home for their family. In 2000, they applied to
9 the County to subdivide their land into two parcels, one large and one small. The proposal sought
10 to build a 6,456-square-foot home on the larger proposed parcel, and to legalize the mobile home
11 as temporary construction housing.

(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 13. The County Planning Commission held no formal hearings on the application until
13 2005, five years after submission. It then held five public hearings without making any substantive
14 decision. The Planning Commission ultimately denied the application at a sixth and final hearing
15 in September of 2005. The denial was primarily based on concerns about the potential impacts of
16 subdividing the Parcel.
17 14. The Sterlings appealed the Planning Commission’s denial to the County Board of
18 Supervisors.
19 15. During the administrative appeal process, the Sterlings withdrew the subdivision
20 portion of their application. They also modified their proposal to move their home site off of prime
21 agricultural soil near the creek and onto nonprime soil farther from the creek. They further
22 volunteered to remove the mobile home.
23 16. On December 12, 2006, the County Board of Supervisors approved the revised building
24 plan subject to numerous conditions, but did not require imposition of a permanent, affirmative
25 agricultural easement.
26 17. The County found that the proposed home and related development was consistent with
27 the agricultural policies of the LCP and satisfied the specific approval criteria for residential
28 development in the PAD zone.

1 Early Commission Process
2 18. On January 8, 2007, two members of the California Coastal Commission appealed the
3 County’s approval of the Sterlings’ development to themselves and the rest of the Commission.
4 19. Between the time of the filing of the appeal to the Commission, and February 15, 2007,
5 the Commission staff issued an “Appeal Staff Report.” This Report recommended that the
6 Commission determine that a “substantial issue” existed with respect to the County’s approval of
7 the Sterling home, warranting exercise of the Commission’s jurisdiction over the permit on a de
8 novo basis under the standards of the LCP. The Report set a hearing on the “substantial issue”
9 determination for February 15, 2007.
10 20. Approximately a week before the scheduled hearing, the Sterlings sent a letter to the
11 Commission advising it that they would be attending the “substantial issue” hearing and wished
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 to be heard in objection to the staff recommendation. They received no reply to this letter.
13 21. Dan and Denise Sterling and their four children subsequently flew themselves and their
14 agent, at great expense, from San Francisco, California, to San Diego, California, where their
15 substantial issue hearing was held, intending to defend the County’s approval of their home.
16 22. At the February 15, 2007, hearing, the Sterlings’ agent filled out a standard, “Speaker
17 Form,” informing the Commission once more that the Sterlings wished to be heard before the
18 Commission voted. But when the Sterlings’ item was called, the staff informed the Commission
19 that, while they had received the Sterlings’ letter of intent to participate, the Commission was not
20 required to give the Sterlings an opportunity to be heard before the Commission voted on the
21 substantial issue determination.
22 23. With the Sterlings watching in the audience, the Commission then voted without
23 allowing the Sterlings or their agent a chance to say anything. The Commission’s vote adopted the
24 staff report, and thus found that a substantial issue justified the exercise of its de novo review. By
25 this vote, the Commission voided the prior local approval of the Sterlings’ permit.
26
27
28

1 The De Novo Decision Process
2 24. After the Commission took jurisdiction over the Sterlings’ project, the Commission
3 staff held onto the matter for about approximately two years while demanding more information
4 and refusing to set any final hearing date.
5 25. The application put before the Commission staff and later, the Commission itself, asked
6 the Commission to approve a 6,546-square-foot home, and related residential infrastructure, on one
7 of two proposed 9,515-square-foot sites. One of the sites was coterminous with the pad for the
8 existing mobile home site, on an area north of the creek characterized by prime soil (the North site).
9 The second site was south of the creek on nonprime soil (the South site). Neither potential site had
10 been historically used for agriculture and neither was being used that way at the time of the
11 Sterlings’ acquisition or when their application was before the Commission. Under either plan, the
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 Sterlings would continue to use the upland area of their property for grazing and no development
13 would occur in any existing agricultural area.
14 26. When the Commission staff failed to timely set a hearing date, the Sterlings threatened
15 to file a suit to force the Commission to hold a hearing. The Commission staff subsequently issued
16 a staff report and recommendation on the Sterlings’ permit, and set the matter for a final de novo
17 hearing on February 5, 2009.
18 27. In its prehearing staff report, the Commission staff concluded that the North site was
19 not desirable because it was surrounded by prime agricultural soil and closer to the creek than the
20 South site. The staff, and later the Commission, accordingly evaluated only the South site for
21 issuance of a permit under the rules of the LCP.
22 28. The South site is a flat area characterized by nonnative plants about 100 feet south of
23 the creek. It is not in a sensitive habitat area or visible from public roads. It is not in an area used
24 for farming or grazing now or in the recent past. On the site, the Sterlings proposed a 6,456-
25 square-foot home and garage and associated infrastructure on a 9,515,-square-foot area. They
26 asked to use the mobile home at the North site as temporary housing during construction and to
27 remove it when the permanent home was finished.
28 ///

1 29. Nothing in the South site application contemplated development outside the 9,515-
2 square-foot area, or rendered any prime soil or existing grazing area unusable for agriculture. As
3 part of their application to the Commission, the Sterlings submitted an agricultural management
4 plan expressly confirming that they would continue the existing cattle grazing operation while and
5 after their home was built.
6 30. Included in the Sterlings’ application was a letter from the District Conservationist for
7 the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), familiar with the Sterling land and proposal.
8 The letter declared that “Mr. Sterling’s current agricultural operation (rotational cattle grazing) is,
9 in my assessment, responsible and appropriate use of the land.” The NRCS letter further avered
10 that “the small tillable land adjacent to the creek is likely too small to support a commercial
11 cropping system. The cost of developing, operating, and maintaining irrigation infrastructure, and
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 developing access to grow crops on small patches of ground make crop production an infeasible
13 activity on this parcel.”
14 31. The Executive Administrator of the San Mateo Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau) also
15 submitted a letter to the Commission. Based on personal knowledge of the project and site, the
16 Farm Bureau agent’s letter declared the Sterlings’ home “will not diminish or impact existing or
17 potential adjacent agricultural activity” and that “the north or south home site has not been utilized
18 for agricultural use.”
19 32. The Farm Bureau letter further stated that “there was never any use of the small portion
20 of prime soils on the site. The limited amount of soils that are in small pockets of land adjacent
21 to the creek, the lack of adequate access and necessary farming infrastructure has not been pursued
22 by others in the past for agricultural purposes and does not appear to meet the definition of
23 ‘Feasible.’”
24 The Commission’s Final Decision and Findings
25 33. Upon evaluating the submitted application and material, the Commission staff
26 recommended that a coastal development permit could be issued to the Sterlings for a home on the
27 South site, consistent with the agricultural preservation policies in the LCP, only if the Sterlings
28 ///

1 satisfied eleven special conditions, in addition to the approximately thirty conditions imposed by
2 the County.
3 34. One of the conditions demanded that the Sterlings dedicate an affirmative agricultural
4 use easement on all their land outside a 10,000-square-foot building area to an approved agency.
5 This condition would require the Sterlings to keep 142+ acres of their land in active agricultural
6 use, forever, and would preclude any future attempt to subdivide or build a second home for the
7 Sterlings’ children.
8 35. After learning of the Staff recommendation, the Sterlings objected in writing to the
9 agricultural easement condition.
10 36. On February 5, 2009, the Commission held a public hearing on the Sterling project.
11 After the Commission staff presented its report and recommendation, the Sterlings’ agent objected
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 orally to the agricultural easement, and public comments were heard. The Commission then
13 unanimously voted to approve the permit subject to its staff recommendations, including the
14 agricultural easement. This vote adopted the staff report as the Commission’s formal findings.
15 37. The agricultural easement adopted by the Commission as a necessary permit condition
16 specifically provided, in part: (a) “All areas of the Property [except for the 10,000 square foot
17 development area and driveway] shall at all times be maintained in active agricultural use”; (b) the
18 Sterlings must, as permittees, either personally conduct agriculture on all their land or enter into
19 a lease with third party willing to engage in agricultural use on the land; (c) “[Prior to issuance of
20 the coastal development permit], the applicants [the Sterlings] shall dedicate an agricultural
21 conservation easement to a public agency or private association approved by the [Commission]
22 Executive Director”; (d) the Commission’s Executive Director or the Grantee of the easement may
23 demand, at any time, a report from the Sterlings confirming their compliance with the easement.
24 The Easement Findings
25 38. The Commission did not base its authority to impose an affirmative agricultural
26 easement on any particular provision in the County LCP, since the LCP only explicitly allows such
27 a condition in the context of a subdivision application. Instead, it implied a right to impose such
28 a condition from general LCP policies relating to agricultural lands.

1 39. To justify the imposition of the affirmative agricultural easement on the Sterlings’
2 land, the Commission made a series of contested findings, including:
3 (a) “the project as proposed has the potential to result in significant adverse impacts
4 to agricultural resources both individually and cumulatively in a manner inconsistent with the
5 requirements of the LCP . . . .”
6 (b) “[t]he applicants have failed to provide factual evidence that the proposed
7 conditionally permitted single-family residential use will not diminish the productivity or viability
8 of agricultural land or the ability to keep all prime agricultural land and other land suitable for
9 agricultural production . . . . Thus the Commission finds that the applicant has failed to
10 demonstrate that the proposed project is consistent with the agricultural policies of the LCP.”
11 (c) that the Parcel provided an economically viable use to the Sterlings as undeveloped,
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 nonprime agricultural land (in contravention of the NRCS and Farm Bureau opinions), and
13 therefore that one possible option for the Commission was to deny the project outright based on
14 the supposed adverse impacts of a single home on 9,515-square-feet out of 143 acres.
15 (d) that the affirmative agricultural easement provided an alternative to project denial:
16 “[T]he proposed residential development could be approved consistent with the LCP only if
17 conditioned, in part, to require an ‘Affirmative Agricultural Easement’ to ensure that the
18 agricultural land remains in agricultural production in perpetuity.”
19 40. As to the need for the easement, the Commission found that (a) the condition “will
20 specifically address and directly offset the impacts of the proposed development to agricultural
21 productivity by ensuring that productivity is maintained on the property and by eliminating the
22 impact the proposed residence will have on the productivity of other lands suitable for agriculture.
23 Therefore . . . a clear nexus exists between the nature of the requirements of [the easement
24 condition] and the nature of the significant adverse cumulative impacts to the agricultural lands and
25 economy of Coastside San Mateo caused by the proposed residential development;” and (b) “the
26 easement requirements . . . are also roughly proportional to the significant adverse cumulative
27 impacts attributable to the proposed residential development.”
28 ///

1 41. Disagreeing with the Commission’s findings, and objecting to the appropriation of their
2 property interests through the easement, the Sterlings asked the Commission to prepare the
3 administrative record on or about February 23, 2009, in anticipation of this suit.
4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
5 Administrative Mandate (CCP § 1094.5)—Abuse of

Discretion by Proceeding in Excess of Jurisdiction
6 and Failing To Act in the Manner Required by Law
7 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 set forth above are realleged and incorporated herein by this
8 reference.
9 43. The Commission’s imposition of the affirmative agricultural easement was not in
10 accordance with the law.
11 44. The Commission’s permitting decision is not authorized by the County’s LCP. The
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 LCP does not allow imposition of agricultural easements on residential permits. It allows such
13 easements only when agricultural land is subdivided. No land has been subdivided in this case.
14 45. The Commission may not imply a right to impose an easement condition from general
15 LCP policies, particularly where the LCP lists specific circumstances in which such conditions are
16 to be imposed, and those circumstances do not exist in this case.
17 46. Therefore, the agricultural easement was not applied in accordance with law, is outside
18 the scope of Commission’s jurisdiction, and is ultra vires and an abuse of discretion.
19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20 Administrative Mandate (CCP § 1094.5)—

Failure to Proceed in Accordance with the Law of Takings
21
23 reference.
24 48. Section 30010 of the Coastal Act prohibits the Commission from making any decision
25 that takes private property without just compensation. The section specifically states: “The
26 Legislature hereby finds and declares that this division is not intended, and shall not be construed
27 as authorizing the commission, port governing body, or local government acting pursuant to this
28 division to exercise their power to grant or deny a permit in a manner which will take or damage

and Complaint for Declaratory Relief - 10 -
1 private property for public use, without the payment of just compensation therefor. This section
2 is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution
3 of the State of California or the United States.”
4 49. Under the federal and state constitutions, a public adjudicatory body conditioning a
5 building permit on an exaction of a private property interest must demonstrate that the proposed
6 project causes the need for the exaction, i.e., that there is direct nexus between the impact of the
7 project and the demanded exaction, to avoid a taking.
8 50. Under the federal and state constitutions, an adjudicatory land use body also must make
9 an individualized determination that an exaction of private property required as a permit condition
10 is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the adverse public impacts of the proposed
11 development, to avoid a taking.

(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 51. The Commission acts in an adjudicatory capacity when it makes individual permit
13 decisions. The Commission acted in an adjudicatory capacity when it exacted an agricultural
14 easement as a condition of the Sterlings’ permit.
15 52. The Commission has failed to show that there is a nexus between the Sterlings’
16 placement of a home on 10,000-square-feet of land not being used for agriculture and its condition
17 requiring the Sterings to deed a farming easement transferring all land use rights over the remaining
18 142+ acres to the public or private agency. See Exhibit 1, attached hereto.
19 53. The Commission has failed to show that requiring an affirmative agricultural easement
20 on 142+ acres of the Sterlings’ land is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of
21 the Sterlings’ 10,000-square-foot development.
22 54. The Commission’s easement exaction deprives the Sterlings of valuable real property
23 interests, and amounts to an unconstitutional taking of the Sterlings’ property in violation of the
24 Coastal Act and state and federal constitutions. The condition is therefore not in accordance with
25 the law, an abuse of discretion, and null and void.
26
27
28

1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Declaratory Relief—Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property
4 reference.
5 56. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states through
6 the Fourteenth Amendment.
7 57. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking
8 private property without just compensation.
9 58. Article I, Section 19(a), of the California Constitution states: “Private property may
10 be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless
11 waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.”
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 59. When an adjudicatory body conditions a building permit on exaction of a private

13 property interest for public use, it must demonstrate that the proposed project causes the need for
14 the exaction; that is, that there is direct nexus between the impact of the project and the demanded
15 exaction.
16 60. An adjudicatory land use body also must make an individualized determination that an
17 exaction of private property required as a permit condition is roughly proportional in nature and
18 extent to the adverse public impacts of the proposed development.
19 61. The Commission acted in an adjudicatory capacity when it imposed the agricultural
20 easement on the Sterlings’ permit.
21 62. The Commission has failed to show that there is a nexus between the Sterlings’
22 placement of a home on 10,000-square-feet of land not being used for agriculture and the need to
23 take a perpetual farming easement on the 142+ acres of the Sterlings’ remaining land.
24 63. The Commission has failed to show that requiring an affirmative agricultural easement
25 on 142+ acres of land is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the Sterlings’
26 10,000-square-foot building area.
27 64. The Commission has not paid compensation for taking a valuable agricultural easement
28 from the Sterlings.

1 65. The agricultural easement is not reasonably related or proportionate to the impacts of
2 the Sterlings’ home, amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property in violation of the Fifth
3 Amendment to the Constitution and Article I, Section 19, of the California Constitution, and must
4 be voided.
5 66. There is an actual controversy as to the constitutionality of the agricultural easement
6 imposed on the Sterling’s permit sufficient to justify declaratory relief.
7 67. A declaration that the agricultural easement violates the federal and/or state
8 constitutional prohibitions against taking property without just compensation and that the
9 Commission may not constitutionally impose the easement without just compensation, is
10 appropriate and necessary to clarify the rights and duties of the parties.
11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 Administrative Mandate (CCP § 1094.5)—

Lack of Substantial Evidence

13
15 reference.
16 69. There is no substantial evidence for the findings purportedly supporting the Commis-
17 sion’s imposition of the agricultural easement.
18 . 70. The Commission lacks substantial evidence for its finding that the prime soil on the
19 Sterlings’ land has been farmed in the past or can be viably farmed now.
20 71. There is no substantial evidence for the Commission’s finding that the Sterlings have
21 an economically viable use in their land if the Parcel is left in an undeveloped state as exclusive
22 agricultural lands.
23 72. There is no substantial evidence for the finding that the Sterlings’ proposed home on
24 a 10,000-square-foot pad has a significant adverse impact on 142+ acres of adjacent agricultural
25 lands or the ability of those lands to be utilized for agricultural purposes.
26 73. There is no substantial evidence that the Sterlings’ home has a cumulative significant
27 adverse impact on agricultural lands or the viability thereof.
28 ///

1 74. The Commission abused its discretion in imposing the agricultural easement on
2 findings, including that it is necessary to mitigate for adverse impacts, for which there is no
3 substantial supporting evidence.
4 RELIEF REQUESTED
5 WHEREFORE, Petitioners and Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Respondent and
6 Defendant California Coastal Commission as follows:
7 1. For a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the Commission to issue a permit
8 without the subject agricultural easement condition.
9 2. That the Court declare the agricultural easement to be unconstitutional without provision
10 of just compensation and that the Commission may not impose the easement condition without
11 providing such compensation.

(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
12 3. Attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

13 4. For such other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
14 DATED: March __, 2009.
15 Respectfully submitted,
16 J. DAVID BREEMER
17
18 ___________________________________
J. DAVID BREEMER
19
Attorney for Plaintiffs and Petitioners
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 VERIFICATION
2 Dan Sterling and Denise Sterling declare as follows:
3 We have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate and
4 Complaint for Declaratory Relief and, except for matters stated on information and belief, the facts
5 stated therein are true on our own knowledge, and as to those matters stated on information and
6 belief, we believe them to be true.
7 We declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
8 foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed this ____ day of March, 2009,
9 at San Mateo County, California.
10
11 _______________________________________
(916) 419-7111 FAX (916) 419-7747
DAN STERLING
12
13 _______________________________________
DENISE STERLING
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Pacific Legal Foundation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pacific Legal Foundation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 J. DAVID BREEMER, No.

5 DAVID J. BYERS, No. 83388

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners

11 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

14 DAN STERLING and DENISE STERLING, ) No. ____________

22 declaration invalidating the California Coastal Commission’s (Commission) unlawful and

23 unconstitutional imposition of a perpetual affirmative agricultural easement on 143 acres of their

27 indicated. By this verified petition and complaint, Petitioners allege:

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

7 with their four children since acquiring it approximately 10 years ago.

15 persons pursuant to Section 30801, and entitled to seek a writ of mandate.

16 3. Respondent and Defendant Commission is the state administrative body authorized

21 appealed to the Commission.

22 4. The Commission may sue and be sued under Section 30334.

25 which encompasses the Sterlings’ property.

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

4 issue” warrants its oversight.

7 square-foot area not in agricultural use.

9 The General Characteristics of the Property

13 residential development as a conditional use on a minimum parcel of 40 acres. As currently

21 graze, about 10 cattle on the upland areas.

28 ever been used for production of crops.

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

6 sustainable number—on the upland areas.

11 as temporary construction housing.

16 subdividing the Parcel.

22 volunteered to remove the mobile home.

28 development in the PAD zone.

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

9 determination for February 15, 2007.

21 substantial issue determination.

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

4 and refusing to set any final hearing date.

13 would occur in any existing agricultural area.

17 hearing on February 5, 2009.

21 issuance of a permit under the rules of the LCP.

27 remove it when the permanent home was finished.

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

5 after their home was built.

13 activity on this parcel.”

18 for agricultural use.”

24 The Commission’s Final Decision and Findings

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

9 agricultural easement condition.

21 conservation easement to a public agency or private association approved by the [Commission]

24 The Easement Findings

28 a condition from general LCP policies relating to agricultural lands.

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

2 land, the Commission made a series of contested findings, including:

5 requirements of the LCP . . . .”

17 conditioned, in part, to require an ‘Affirmative Agricultural Easement’ to ensure that the

18 agricultural land remains in agricultural production in perpetuity.”

27 impacts attributable to the proposed residential development.”

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ

3 administrative record on or about February 23, 2009, in anticipation of this suit.

4 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

5 Administrative Mandate (CCP § 1094.5)—Abuse of

10 accordance with the law.

16 to be imposed, and those circumstances do not exist in this case.

19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Administrative Mandate (CCP § 1094.5)—

Petition for Writ of Admin. Writ