No Value: HERO (HANNIG ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA 501(C)3 NON-PROFIT PUBLIC CHARITY) vs. JEFF GEE, et al

On July 21, 2023 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Hero, and Aguirre, Alicia C., Does 1-100, Inclusive, Eakin, Kaia, Espinoza-Garnica, Lissette, Gee, Jeff, Howard, Diane, Saballos, Elmer Martinez, Sturken, Chris, The City Of Redwood City, for (02) Unlimited Writ of Mandate in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
1 STEPHANIE A. MARGOSSIAN (SBN 259762)
stephanie@hanniglaw.com
2 HANNIG LAW LLP
990 Industrial Rd. Suite 207
3 San Carlos, CA 94070
Phone: (650) 482-3040
4 Fax: (650) 482-2820

5 Attorney for Plaintiff
HERO
6

9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11 HERO (Hannig Environmental Research Case No. 23-CIV-03421
Organization), a California 501(c)3 non-profit
12
public charity, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
13 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR
14 WRIT OF MANDAMUS
v.
15 Date: February 22, 2024
THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY; and DOES Time: 2:00 p.m.
16 1 through 100, inclusive, Dept.: 3
17 Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. Susan
Defendants. Greenberg
18

19 On February 22, 2024, the Court, the Honorable Judge Susan Greenberg presiding,

20 regularly heard the motion of Plaintiff Hannig Environmental Research Organization (HERO)
21 (“Plaintiff”) for an order permitting it to file a Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus
22
under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 & 576.
23
For reasons stated on the record, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED,
24

26 {HERO:6090:KW:H0227156.DOCX.1 }-1-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THE MOTION IS GRANTED and Plaintiff shall be permitted to file the Proposed
1
Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus attached hereto as Exhibit A. Plaintiff shall
2

3 file its Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus within ten (10) days of the entry of this

4 order.

6
DATED: ___________________ ____________________________________
7 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
8

26 {HERO:6090:KW:H0227156.DOCX.1 }-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
EXHIBIT A
STEPHANIE MARGOSSIAN (SBN 259762)
1 stephanie@hanniglaw.com
HANNIG LAW LLP
2 990 Industrial Rd. Suite 207
San Carlos, CA 94070
3 Phone: (650) 482-3040
Fax: (650) 482-2820
4
Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff
5 HERO
6

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

10 IN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
11
12 HERO (Hannig Environmental Research Case No.: 23-CIV-03421
Organization, a California 501(c)3 non-profit
13 public charity), SECOND AMENDED PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
14 Petitioner/Plaintiff, INCLUDING PRELIMINARY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS,
15 vs. COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
DUTY BY PUBLIC, INTENTIONAL
16 THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY; and Does 1- RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS
100, inclusive, MATERIAL INTO MARINE
17 ENVIRONMENT, FAILURE TO
Respondents/Defendants. PREVENT AND DISCLOSE DEATH
18 OF CHILD ON UNLAWFUL
RESIDENCE ON PUBLIC TRUST
19 LANDS, VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE, NUISANCE,
20 TRESPASS, CONFLICT OF
INTEREST BY CITY ATTORNEYS,
21 AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
22 Dept.: 3
23 Assigned for All Purposes to:
Hon. Susan Greenberg
24
Action Filed: July 21, 2023
25 Trial Date: None set
26

Hannig Law LLP 28
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }1
1 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

2 1. Hannig 1 Environmental Research Organization (hereinafter "HERO" or “Petitioner”) a

3 501(c)(3) public charity, brings this petition and complaint as a public health and marine

4 environment interest group, because Redwood City (“THE CITY”, “REDWOOD CITY”,

5 or “Respondent”) refuses to act lawfully despite repeated citizen efforts including prior

6 litigation and a settlement agreement to abide by the Office of the Attorney General of

7 California’s opinion that Redwood City was acting unlawfully.

8 I. HERO’S STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION IN THIS COURT.

9 2. Judicial decisions have greatly reinforced and expanded the right of a member of the public to

10 sue as a taxpayer or private attorney general. 2 HERO, is a California legal entity designated

11 as a 501(c)(3) charity for the public benefit that pays both California state and Redwood City

12 local taxes, and is led by a long-time Redwood City taxpayer. HERO has standing to: (i)

13 lawfully assert and exercise public trust rights to preserve, protect, and restrain the improper

14 handling of the public trust land granted to REDWOOD CITY as trustee; and (ii) to seek

15 relief and corrective action against THE CITY as Trustee and as a municipal entity for the

16 harm THE CITY has caused to public trust properties throughout San Francisco Bay. 3

17 3. Additionally, HERO has standing under the “Citizen Action” exception to the beneficial

18 interest requirement for purposes of standing. 4 These liberal standing requirements have been

19 applied to citizens and citizen groups acting in the public interest to protect against effects of

20 environmental abuse. 5

23 1
HERO is named in honor of Frank Hannig, a decorated sea plane pilot war hero and a marine enthusiast also
24 known for his involvement in the Redwood City and legal communities, who served as foreman of the San Mateo
County Grand Jury, and his wife Theresa Hannig, who was a Redwood City school teacher, served for many years
25 as a volunteer education docent at the San Mateo County Superior Court and was awarded the Liberty Bell Award;
both were selected as Redwood City Outstanding Citizens. Both are now deceased. Both supported their son’s
2015 legal action against Redwood City over the unlawful City actions at Docktown, and HERO is proud to
26 continue their legacy.
2
Cal Civ. Proc. Code, section 1021.5; Nestande v. Watson (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 232, 239-241.
27 3
Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 261-63.
4
Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011) 52Cal.4th 155, 167-170.
Hannig Law LLP 28 5
Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. v. County of Kern (1996) Cal.App.4th 346, 354.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }2
1 4. Where the question presented is one of public right, and the Writ of Mandate would compel

2 enforcement of a public duty, HERO need not show any special interest in the result. 6 “It is

3 sufficient that [it] is interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question

4 enforced.” 7

5 5. The Superior Court of San Mateo has jurisdiction over this complaint to issue a Writ of

6 Mandate pursuant to C.C.P. § 1085. This Court has primary jurisdiction to hear this Public

7 Trust dispute.

8 6. Venue is proper in San Mateo County because the res held in trust by Redwood City as

9 fiduciary is located within San Mateo County. 8 Furthermore, the violation of Redwood City’s

10 fiduciary duties owed to the public concerning the PUBLIC TRUST LAND as defined

11 herein, embezzlement and acts which support other relief have occurred primarily if not

12 exclusively in San Mateo County. 9 Venue is proper in San Mateo County because the City of

13 Redwood City 10 is located within San Mateo County. 11 7.

14 7. The Courts have held that no administrative remedy need be exhausted before seeking judicial

15 intervention in this type of case. 12 Judicial decisions have greatly reinforced and expanded

16 the right of a member of the public to sue as a taxpayer or private attorney general. 13

17 II. PUBLIC TRUST LANDS AT AND AROUND DOCKTOWN ARE A TAXPAYER

18 CONCERN.

19 A. The Public Trust Doctrine

20 8. The State of California acquired tide and submerged lands and the beds of navigable waterways

22
6
Save the Plastic Bag Coalition at 166.
7
23 Id. citing Bd. of Soc. Welfare v. County of L.A. (1945) 27 Cal.2d 98, 100-101.
8
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, section 392(a).
9
24 Cal Civ. Code, section 393(a).
10
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, section 394(a).
11
25 Cal Civ. Proc. Code, section 395(a).
12
See National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 452 (“The federal court's second question
asked whether plaintiffs must exhaust an administrative remedy before filing suit. Our response is “no.” The courts
26 and the Water Board have concurrent jurisdiction in cases of this kind. If the nature or complexity of the issues indicate
that an initial determination by the board is appropriate, the courts may refer the matter to the board.”) (emphasis
27 added).
Hannig Law LLP 28 13
See Id. at 431 n. 11 quoting Van Atta v. Scott (1980) 27 Cal.3d 424, 447-450.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }3
1 as sovereign lands under the equal footing doctrine upon its admission to the Union in 1850.14

2 The State holds these lands in trust for the benefit of all of the people of California for the

3 purposes of commerce, navigation and fisheries. 15 The public’s rights to navigable waterways

4 were originally granted to English subjects by the King, were brought to the United States by

5 English settlors, passed to the citizens of the United States after the Revolutionary War, and

6 then passed to the residents of the individual states upon their creation. 16 Pursuant to this

7 tradition, whether a private right to navigable water is held by a king or government agency,

8 that right is subject to the rights of the public. 17 ”The title to these lands, is by the people,

9 vested in the state in trust for said public uses. The administration and execution of this trust

10 is committed by the constitution to the legislative department, subject to certain expressed

11 reservations and restrictions.”. 18 Ultimately, the Public Trust belongs to the people of the state

12 of California, who have entrusted the state with management of those lands for their benefit.

13 The people of California can hold the state accountable for mismanagement of the Public Trust

14 at both the ballot box and in the Court through private attorney general actions such as this.

15 DOCKTOWN is located on a small portion of the Public Trust Lands, which were conveyed

16 to the City of Redwood City, as Trustee for the People of the State of California. 19

17 9.Besides statutory obligations, three types of common law restrictions in addition to statutory

18 obligations are imposed trustees of public trust property: (i) The trust property must not only

19 be used for a public purpose, but held available for the general public; (ii) the trust property

20 may not be sold, even for fair market value; and (iii) the trust property must be maintained for

21 particular trust uses. 20 The particular trust uses are generally expressed in two ways: (i) either

22 the trust property must be held open for traditional uses, such as fishing, recreation, or

23
14
24 Shivley v. Bowlby (1894) 152 U.S. 1, at 29.
15
Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 6009(a), See also Ted J. Hannig, The Public Trust Doctrine Expansion and Integration: A
25 Proposed Balancing Test, Santa Clara Law Review, January 1983, Volume 23, Number 3.
16
Shivley at 57-58.
17
Id. at 13.
26 18
People ex. inf. Webb v. California Fish Co., (1913) 166 Cal. 576, 597 (emphasis added); Cal. Const. Art. 10 Sec.
§ 4.
27 19
Chapter 194, Statutes of 2019.
20
Beachapedia, State of the Beach/Perspectives/Public Trust
Hannig Law LLP 28 http://www.beachapedia.org/State_of_the_Beach/Perspectives/Public_Trust (March 14, 2013).
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }4
1 navigation, or (ii) the uses must relate to the natural uses peculiar to that particular piece of

2 trust property. 21

3 10. Traditionally, public trust uses were limited to water-related commerce, navigation, and

4 fishing. 22 However, the California Supreme Court has held that the public trust doctrine

5 embraces the right of the public to use the navigable waters of the State for bathing, swimming,

6 boating, and general recreational purposes. 23 The Court has also held that the public trust

7 doctrine is sufficiently flexible to encompass changing public needs, such as the preservation

8 of lands in their natural state for scientific study, open space, and wildlife habitat. 24

9 11. THE CITY and its elected officials do not possess an ownership interest that affords

10 them the rights to do whatever they please with PUBLIC TRUST LANDS, or which are

11 superior to that of the public’s. Rather, their positions as trustees of the Public Trust means

12 that THE CITY and its elected officials manage the public trust lands as agents of the people

13 of the state of California. As such, THE CITY’s rights to PUBLIC TRUST LAND are subject

14 to those of the public.

15 12. Residential use is wholly inconsistent with several basic tenants of the Public Trust

16 Doctrine. 25 Further, releasing toxic and harmful Styrofoam in a continuous stream into the

17 marine and public trust environment where it can cause harm and death for generations is the

18 epitome of unlawful conduct by a public trust trustee in addition to violating the California

19 Water Resources code and constituting public nuisance.

20 B. Federal - Wildlife Refuge Lands Surrounding Redwood Creek, DOCKTOWN, and

21 Other Adjacent Areas (the “REFUGE”), Receive the Attention of the President and

22 $600 Million in 2023 Taxpayer Funding for Preservation.

23 13. San Francisco Bay is one of the most extensive wetland systems along the Pacific Coast,

26 21
Id.
22
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 452.
27 23
Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 259.
24
Id.
Hannig Law LLP 28 25
Illinois Central Railroad at 435.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }5
1 which taxpayers have historically and continue to invest in greatly. 26 The San Francisco Bay

2 wetlands provide habitat for millions of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds along the Pacific

3 Flyway as well as resident wildlife. 27 In June 2023, the President of the United States visited

4 nearby public trust wetlands emphasizing their importance to the environmental future of our

5 Country and the need for adaptation to climate threat. 28 During his visit, President Biden

6 announced six hundred million dollars of taxpayer funding would be used for select climate

7 adaption projects including the preservation of nearby PUBLIC TRUST PROPERTY. 29

8 14. While climate change poses a threat to the public trust lands, THE CITY’s unlawful

9 release of hazardous materials at DOCKTOWN poses a greater immediate and preventable

10 threat to the PUBLIC TRUST PROPERTY. Due to the extended life cycle of Styrofoam, the

11 contamination will clearly compromise some of the six hundred million dollars of tax-payer

12 funded investment in the surrounding wetlands.

13 15. Redwood Creek is a 9.5 mile long perennial stream originating in the Woodside Glens

14 neighborhood of Woodside, California, snaking its way east across San Mateo County before

15 flowing under City Hall and then U.S. Highway 101. 30 As Redwood Creek passes under the

16 highway, it becomes a tidal channel with extensive mudflats and marsh areas. 31

17 16. Redwood Creek is adjacent to and flows through, THE REFUGE, which includes the Bair

18 Island State Marine Park (hereinafter “BAIR ISLAND”). 32 Redwood Creek flows between

19 the Port of REDWOOD CITY and the Don Edwards National Wildlife refuge and is a

20 tributary to San Francisco Bay. 33

21
26
22 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, p. 7.
27
23 Id. at 5.
28
Danielle Echeverria, Biden, in Palo Alto, Announces Large Pot of Money in Funding to Fight Climate Change,
24 San Francisco Chronicle, June 19, 2023, .
29
25 Id.
30
Guide to San Francisco Bay Area Creeks, Redwood Creek Watershed Map,
.
26 31
Id.
32
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Final
27 Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, pp. 48 and 142.
33
Guide to San Francisco Bay Area Creeks, Redwood Creek Watershed Map,
Hannig Law LLP 28 .
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }6
1 17. These portions of THE REFUGE, which includes BAIR ISLAND and Greco Island, are

2 commonly referred to as the West Bay Unit under the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay

3 National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 34 A multi-million-dollar

4 restoration incorporating new virgin soil was implemented to restore all of BAIR ISLAND to

5 tidal salt marsh to provide habitat for endangered species and other native wildlife. 35 Greco

6 Island also contains extensive mature tidal marshes and wild expanses of mudflats. 36

7 18. THE REFUGE contains thousands of acres of BAIR ISLAND tidal wetlands to provide

8 habitat for many threatened and endangered tidal marsh species. 37 The San Francisco Estuary,

9 which BAIR ISLAND and Greco Island are part of, contain two hundred fifty species of birds,

10 one hundred twenty species of fish, eighty-one species of mammals, thirty species of reptiles,

11 and fourteen species of amphibians. 38

12 19. Some of the more rare endangered species are the bald eagle, Vaux’s Swift, bank swallow,

13 yellow breasted chat, pallid bat, common loon, American white pelican, and Barrow’s

14 goldeneye. 39 Many of the shorebird species are “mudflat specialists,” which forage primarily

15 on intertidal mudflats when those flats are available at low tide. 40 Many of these species will

16 accidentally consume other animals or plants that have been contaminated with the

17 decaying Styrofoam through REDWOOD CITY’S mismanagement of DOCKTOWN and the

18 surrounding PUBLIC TRUST LANDS. Blue Styrofoam from DOCKTOWN has been found

19 in THE REFUGE and is most likely harming and killing wildlife, including rare and

20 endangered species.

21 20. Historically, native Olympia oysters Ostrea lurida were an abundant and ecologically

22 important part of the fauna in West Coast estuaries and an important fishery for the region.41

23
34
24 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report, Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, p.35.
35
25 Id. at 36.
36
Id at 37.
37
Id at 36.
26 38
Id. at 60.
39
Id. at 79.
27 40
Id. at 85.
41
Marilyn Latta & Katharyn Boyer, San Francisco Bay Living Shorelines: Nearshore Linkages Project Summary of
Hannig Law LLP 28 Key Findings Two Years Post-installation, State Coastal Conservancy (April 30, 2015), p. 3,
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }7
1 Oysters are filter feeders, and they will filter in blue powder Styrofoam debris, killing the

2 oyster or incorporating it into their bodies which, like many other creatures, pass the toxins up

3 the food chain, ultimately to humans. 42

4 III. TRUSTEE DUTIES HELD BY THE CITY AND ITS INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL

5 MEMBERS.

6 A. THE CITY and THE COUNCIL Are Bound by Law to Perform Non-Delegable

7 Duties with Regard to the PUBLIC TRUST.

8 21. This action is brought against THE CITY in its capacity as a municipal government and as a

9 public trust trustee.

10 22. State law provides that as grantee of PUBLIC TRUST LAND, THE CITY also acquires a

11 non-delegable duty as Trustee of the Public Trust. These duties include, but are not limited to,

12 the duties of full disclosure and due care. Defendants Does 1 to 100, inclusive, are sued under

13 fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 474. HERO is informed and

14 believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the defendants sued under fictitious names is

15 in some manner responsible for the wrongs and damages alleged below. In so acting

16 Defendants Does 1 to 100 were functioning as the agent, servant, partner, and employee of the

17 co-defendants, and in taking the actions alleged herein was acting within the course and scope

18 of his or her authority as such agent, servant, partner, and employee, with the permission and

19 consent of the co-defendants. The named defendants and Doe defendants are sometimes

20 hereafter referred to, collectively and/or individually, as “DEFENDANTS.”

21 23. THE CITY accepted the position of trustee of all lands within the Public Trust, including

22 submerged land where DOCKTOWN is located ("PUBLIC TRUST PROPERTY" or

23 "PUBLIC TRUST LANDS") and as a fiduciary for the people of the State of California with

24 respect to the PUBLIC TRUST PROPERTY. The prior litigation Citizens for the Public

25 Trust et. al. v. the City of Redwood City (“CITIZENS LITIGATION”) discusses THE

26
.
42
Seaquaria: Ocean Education, Olympia Oyster Info Sheet, (November 2019) < https://seaquaria.org/wp-
Hannig Law LLP 28 content/uploads/2020/04/Olympia-Oyster-Info-Sheet.pdf>.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }8
1 CITY’S role as Trustee. 43 However, THE CITY failed to pay attention to that discussion, and

2 continues to egregiously violate the numerous express statutory duties and common law public

3 trust and fiduciary duties imposed on THE CITY. Such failure extends to the City Attorney’s

4 Office, which Petitioner alleges on information and belief, has failed to recognize (or

5 intentionally ignored) the conflict of interest between REDWOOD CITY on behalf of the

6 City taxpayers on one hand, and the Public Trust, for the benefit of all taxpayers in the State

7 of California, on the other hand. There exists an express conflict of interest as statutorily any

8 Trustee of public trust property must enforce claims that are part of the trust property and

9 defend claims that might result in loss to the trust. 44 The City Attorney has not and cannot act

10 on behalf of THE CITY as Trustee to pursue such claims against THE CITY itself.

11 B. The Granting Statute of PUBLIC TRUST LANDS from the California State Lands

12 Commission to REDWOOD CITY in 1945 Clearly Requires THE CITY to Maintain

13 Navigability of the Public Trust area.

14 24. Redwood City acquired its interest in the PUBLIC TRUST LANDS that is now underneath

15 DOCKTOWN in the Granting Statute from the State of California on or around April 16,

16 1945. 45 The Granting Statute explicitly delineated the uses that were permissible pursuant to

17 the granting statute:

18
(a)[t]hat said lands shall be used by said city, and its successors, only for
19 the establishment, improvement and conduct of a harbor, including an
airport or aviation facilities, and for the construction, maintenance and
20 operation thereon of wharves, docks, piers, slips, quays and other utilities,
structures, facilities and appliances necessary or convenient for the
21
promotion and accommodation of commerce and navigation by air as
22 well as by water, and for the construction, maintenance, and operation of
flood control projects, and said city, or its successors, shall not, at any
23 time, grant, convey, give or alienate said lands, or any part thereof, to
any individual, firm or corporation for any purposes whatever;
24 provided, that said city, or its successors, may grant franchises thereon for
limited periods (but in no event exceeding 50 years), for wharves and other
25

26
43
Citizens for the Public Trust and Ted J. Hannig v. The City of Redwood City, No. 536168 (San Mateo Super. Ct.
27 filed January 26, 2016) [EXHIBIT A].
44
Cal. Pub. Res. Code, section 6009.1(11)&(12).
Hannig Law LLP 28 45
Chapter 1359, Statutes of 1945.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }9
public uses and purposes and may lease said lands, or any part thereof, for
1 limited periods (but in no event exceeding 50 years), for purposes consistent
2 with the trust upon which said lands are held by the State of California, and
with the requirements of commerce and navigation at said harbor, and
3 collect and retain rents from such leases. 46 (emphasis added)

4
25. The plain language of the Granting Statute clearly indicates that the only permissible public
5
trust uses are for purposes that further either navigation or commerce. 47 HERO requests this
6
Court order THE CITY of Redwood City to dredge Redwood Creek and restore it to the
7 navigable condition that existed prior to DOCKTOWN.
8 C. REDWOOD CITY’S General Plan Claims It Strives to Preserve and Protect Creeks,
9 Sloughs, Streams, Wetlands, Plants, Wildlife, Associated Habitats and Incorporate
10 Public Access, but THE CITY’s own Styrofoam pollution is in violation of the
11 Policies THE CITY set forth in its own General Plan.
12 26. REDWOOD CITY created its General Plan in 2010 to articulate a long-term vision for the
13 evolution of THE CITY’s resources. 48 The General Plan covered the years 2010 to 2030. 49
14 27. THE CITY’s General Plan is broken down into separate elements. 50 The Natural Resources
15 element states that, “[R]esources are meant to flourish through conservation, such as marine
16 wildlife or the wetland grasses that thrive on Bair, Bird, and Greco Islands.” 51 The introduction
17 of this element concludes by saying that “[t]hese resources share a common theme: they are
18 meant to be conserved and protected, so that future generations of Redwood City residents
19 can continue [to] enjoy the high quality of life we know today.” 52
20 28. Discussion of the Natural Resources element occupies fifty-four pages of the General Plan and
21 provides an overview of the natural resources found in REDWOOD CITY, which THE CITY
22

23
46
24 Id.
47
Id.
48
25 Peter Ingram, Introduction Letter to Members of the Redwood City Community, Redwood City General Plan
(October 11, 2010) < https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5083/635782756571500000>.
49
General Plan, Redwood City,
26 https://www.redwoodcity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5083/635782756571500000 (last visited September
24, 2023).
27 50
Id.
51
Redwood City, General Plan: Natural Resources (October 11, 2010), p. NR-2.
Hannig Law LLP 28 52
Id.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }10
1 ostensibly wants to protect and preserve. 53 The natural resources cited include Redwood Creek,

2 BAIR ISLAND and Greco Island. 54 This section also lists endangered species found in the

3 REFUGE, including the California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse. 55

4 29. THE CITY’s relevant goals and policies outlined in the General Plan are listed below:

5
Goal NR-5: Protect, Restore, and maintain creeks, sloughs, and streams to ensure
6 adequate water flow, prevent erosion, provide for viable riparian plant and wildlife
7 habitats and, where appropriate, allow for recreation activities…

8 Policy NR 5.1: Restore, maintain, and enhance Redwood City’s creeks, streams,
and sloughs to preserve and protect riparian and wetland plants, wildlife and
9 associated habitats…
10
Goal NR-6: Preserve and enhance the bay lands, natural wetlands, and
11 ecosystem to assist with improved air quality and carbon dioxide sequestration…

12 Policy NR-6.2: Restore and maintain marshlands including tidal flats, tidal
marshes, and salt marshes as appropriate…
13
Policy NR-6.4: Allow for appropriate public access to Bayfront open space lands
14
for recreation activities while protecting and restoring the Bayfront’s natural
15 ecosystem and minimizing environmental damage, as appropriate…

16 Policy NR-6.5: Take steps to reduce urban runoff into creeks and the bay…
17 Goal NR-8: Identify, protect, and restore open spaces, sensitive biological
resources, native habitat, and vegetation communities that support wildlife…
18
19 Policy NR-8.1: Pursue efforts to protect sensitive biological resources, including
local, state, and federally designated sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered
20 plant, fish, and wildlife species and their habitats… 56 (emphasis added)
21 30. REDWOOD CITY citizens and HERO, and all residents of California that are the

22 beneficiaries of the PUBLIC TRUST, are being misled by THE CITY’s stated goals. Clearly,

23 THE CITY has not pursued those goals in its management of the PUBLIC TRUST, and THE

24 CITY is actively sabotaging the realization of those goals by allowing residential use at

25 DOCKTOWN, releasing Styrofoam, allowing docks to decay to dangerous levels of disrepair,

26
53
Redwood City, General Plan: Natural Resources (October 11, 2010).
27 54
Id.
55
Id. at NR-33.
Hannig Law LLP 28 56
Id. at NR-40-42.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }11
1 and allowing repeated releases of hazardous materials from sinking inoperable vessels.

2 31. Despite THE CITY’s superficial commitment to the environment, THE CITY’s conduct

3 belies these goals, through most notably the glaring environmental harm THE CITY has

4 caused and is causing by its management and mismanagement of DOCKTOWN. The City of

5 Redwood City’s General Plan provides as an identified goal of the City “Goal NR-6: Preserve

6 and enhance the bay lands, natural wetlands, and ecosystem to assist with improved air

7 quality and carbon dioxide sequestration…” 57 (emphasis added).

8 32. THE CITY’s acts and omissions as alleged herein do not only violate THE CITY’S statutory

9 and common law duties for the public trust, they are violate its own expressed General Plan

10 goals.

11 IV. JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IS NECESSARY AS THE CITY HAS A HISTORY OF

12 KNOWINGLY OPERATING ILLEGALLY AT DOCKTOWN.

13 A. On April 12, 2000, City Council Member/Vice Mayor Richard Claire

14 Documents THE CITY’s liability exposure regarding DOCKTOWN.

15 33. Former REDWOOD CITY Council Member and Vice Mayor Richard Claire sent a memo

16 dated April 12, 2000, to the City Council, City Manager, Building and Inspection Manager,

17 Assistant City Attorney, and the Police Chief directly warning that THE CITY faced litigation

18 and had liability exposure on numerous grounds without corrective action at DOCKTOWN

19 (hereinafter, “VICE MAYOR MEMO”). 58 Although the VICE MAYOR MEMO was sent

20 over twenty-three years ago, THE CITY ignored these warnings and failed to act until over

21 ten years later after another group of REDWOOD CITY citizens took it upon themselves to

22 hold THE CITY accountable by filing the CITIZENS LITIGATION. Illegal operations at

23 DOCKTOWN and violation of Public Trust duties have become a pattern and practice of THE

24 CITY.

25 34. Mr. Claire’s most important point from the VICE MAYOR MEMO was as follows:

27 57
Id. at NR-41.
58
Mem. from Richard Claire, Council Member, Redwood City Council on Docktown Marina, 1548 Maple Street to
Hannig Law LLP 28 the Redwood City Council (April 12, 2000) [EXHIBIT B].
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }12
1
DOCKTOWN Marina is currently being used as residential live aboard
2 marina. This [situation] is a violation of their revocable permit with THE
3 CITY. The resulting contamination and pollution puts THE CITY at risk
through fines, abatements, assessments, lawsuits, etc. by other agencies,
4 organizations or private parties. 59 (emphasis added)

5 35. Mr. Claire also pointed out in his memo that the San Mateo County Environmental Health

6 Department had conducted water sampling and then posted public signs stating that the water

7 was contaminated. 60 An exhibit attached to the VICE MAYOR MEMO contained an email

8 in which an environmental consultant was concerned that the presence of fecal coliform

9 bacteria was worsening at DOCKTOWN and that the consultant wanted to take steps to

10 measure and contain any further increase of fecal coliform bacteria. 61 This email was then

11 forwarded to the Building and Inspections Department and the City Attorney. 62

12 36. Furthermore, the VICE MAYOR MEMO stated that the houseboats and floating homes at

13 DOCKTOWN were being built without permits at an accelerated rate. 63 Moreover, these

14 structures were being built without the proper infrastructure to support residential use,

15 including proper water and sewage disposal. 64 As has been demonstrated, the VICE

16 MAYOR MEMO highlighted THE CITY’s multiple environmental violations, which

17 would include violations of the Clean Water Act, as well as other federal, state, and local

18 ordinances. 65

19 37. Mr. Claire concluded in the VICE MAYOR MEMO that THE CITY has been aware of the

20 dire environmental situation at DOCKTOWN for a number of years and that the marina

21 was even twenty-three years ago in an obvious state of disrepair. 66 Mr. Claire gave THE

22 CITY a direct recommendation as to the condition of DOCKTOWN:

24
59
25 Id.
60
Id. at 1.
61
Id.
26 62
Id.
63
Id. at 2.
27 64
Id.
65
Id.
Hannig Law LLP 28 66
Id.
{HERO:6090:SAM:H0227164.DOCX.1 }13
I have met with [CITY] staff on April 6, 2000, and directed Code Enforcement to
1 enforce any issues concerning health and safety. I recommend that the Council
2 direct THE CITY Attorney to issue a cease and desist order to curtail any further
development in violation of the Redwood City code, applicable state law, and the
3 terms and conditions of the permit. 67 (emphasis added.)

4
38. An attachment to the VICE MAYOR MEMO listed the current violations at DOCKTOWN
5
prepared by THE CITY. 68 The first violation stated that:
6

7 [l]ive aboard and floating home use is not approved. Preamble: “for the purpose of
conducting a commercial small boat marina business, including the right to
8 maintain piers, docks, wharves, floats and other facilities necessary or convenient
9 for the berthing and servicing of boats; including the operation of a sailing school,
a yacht sales and brokerage business, and for no other purpose. 69
10

11 39. Residential use of PUBLIC TRUST PROPERTY is not consistent with the Public Trust

12 Doctrine or the Granting Statute for very good reason because PUBLIC TRUST

13 PROPERTIES are environmentally sensitive. Managing THE CITY’s derelict dock in such
a way that contaminates the public trust with hazardous wastes and materials, including
14
Styrofoam and allowing residential use of said property is entirely contrary to the fundamental
15
rationales of the Public Trust Doctrine and the Granting Statute and harmful to the public,
16
which THE CITY is supposed to be serving.
17
40. Prior to its assumption of management duties in March 2013, THE CITY considered
18
houseboat use in DOCKTOWN to be a violation of the revocable permit for the “Redwood
19
Creek Property.” 70 After THE CITY took over operations and management of DOCKTOWN
20
directly, THE CITY openly and conveniently approved of residential use at DOC

Case Info

Judge

Greenberg, Susan Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 29, 2024

Case Filing Date

July 21, 2023

County

Parties

AGUIRRE, ALICIA C. Respondent
DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE Respondent
EAKIN, KAIA Respondent
ESPINOZA-GARNICA, LISSETTE Respondent
GEE, JEFF Respondent
HERO (HANNIG ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA 501(C)3 NON-PROFI Petitioner
HERO (HANNIG ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA 501(C)3 NON-PROFIT PUBLIC CHARITY) Petitioner
HOWARD, DIANE Respondent
MARGOSSIAN, STEPHANIE Attorney
SABALLOS, ELMER MARTINEZ Respondent
STURKEN, CHRIS Respondent
THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY Respondent
WHITE, WILLIAM J. Attorney
Susannah French Attorney
Vaneeta Chintamaneni Attorney
Veronica Ramirez Attorneys for Defendants
Kevin Siegel Attorneys for Defendants
Maxwell Blum Attorneys for Defendants
Iudis Sominskaia Attorneys for Defendants
Ted Hannig Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Trevor Ross Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Mary Ignacio Attorneys for Defendants
Michelle Kenyon Attorneys for Defendants
Albert Tong Attorneys for Defendants
Alison Madden Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Karen Frostrom Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Andrew Kennedy Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dylan Crosby Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

No Value: HERO (HANNIG ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA 501(C)3 NON-PROFIT PUBLIC CHARITY) vs. JEFF GEE, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties