Glenbrook Homeowners v. Tahoe Regional
| Citation | 425 F.3d 611 |
| Decision Date | 21 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-15002.,No. 03-17224.,No. 03-15001.,No. 03-17302.,No. 04-17314.,03-17224.,03-15002.,04-17314.,03-17302.,03-15001. |
| Parties | GLENBROOK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; Claudia Huntington; Huntington Glenbrook Trust, Plaintiffs, and Glenbrook Preservation Association, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee, Lawrence W. Ruvo Living Trust 1989; Harvey Whittemore; Postmistress Properties, LLC; Lakeshore House, LLC; Outrageous Investments, LLC; Edward Fein, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. Glenbrook Homeowners Association; Glenbrook Preservation Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Claudia Huntington; Huntington Glenbrook Trust; Claire Huntington McCloud, Plaintiffs, v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Defendant, and Lawrence W. Ruvo Living Trust 1989; Harvey Whittemore; Postmistress Properties, LLC; Lakeshore House, LLC; Outrageous Investments, LLC, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. Edward Fein, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. Glenbrook Homeowners Association; Glenbrook Preservation Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Claudia Huntington; Huntington Glenbrook Trust, Plaintiffs, v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Defendant, Edward Fein, Defendant-Intervenor, and Lawrence W. Ruvo Living Trust 1989; Harvey Whittemore; Postmistress Properties, LLC; Lakeshore House, LLC; Outrageous Investments, LLC, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants. Glenbrook Homeowners Association, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Glenbrook Preservation Association; Claudia Huntington; Huntington Glenbrook Trust, Plaintiffs, v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Defendant-Appellee, Lawrence W. Ruvo Living Trust 1989; Harvey Whittemore; Postmistress Properties, LLC; Lakeshore House, LLC; Outrageous Investments, LLC; Edward Fein, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees. Glenbrook Homeowners Association; Glenbrook Preservation Association; Plaintiffs, and Claudia Huntington; Huntington Glenbrook Trust; Claire Huntington McCloud, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Defendant-Appellee, and Lawrence W. Ruvo Living Trust 1989; Harvey Whittemore; Postmistress Properties, LLC; Lakeshore House, LLC; Outrageous Investments, LLC; Edward Fein, Defendants-Intervenors. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Ronald A. Zumbrun, The Zumbrun Law Firm, Sacramento, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants/appellees, Glenbrook Preservation Association.
Mark H. Gunderson, Mark H. Gunderson, Ltd., Reno, NV, for plaintiffs-appellants-cross-appellees, Glenbrook Homeowners Association.
John L. Marshall, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Stateline, NV; William J. White and Matthew D. Vespa, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
E. Leif Reid, Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Reno, NV, for defendants-intervenors-appellees-cross-appellants, Harvey Whittemore, Postmistress Properties, LLC, Lakeshore House, LLC, and Outrageous Investments, LLC.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-00-00690-RLH/RAM, CV-01-00678-RLH/RAM, CV-02-00075-RLH/RAM.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, CANBY, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY,* District Judge.
I. Background
These appeals arise from a dispute over a proposed pier project in Glenbrook, Nevada, which borders Lake Tahoe. The Lawrence W. Ruvo Trust ("Ruvo"), Harvey Whittemore ("Whittemore"), Edward Fein ("Fein"), and others (collectively "Ruvo/Fein") sought to build a pier on Fein's property on the shore of Lake Tahoe. The Glenbrook Preservation Association ("GPA"), Glenbrook Homeowners' Association ("GHOA"), Huntington Glenbrook Trust, Claudia Huntington, and Claire Huntington ("Huntington Parties") (collectively "Glenbrook Parties") opposed the project.
Ruvo/Fein sought approval of the pier from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ("TRPA"), a bi-state agency charged with preservation of the Lake Tahoe region under the Tahoe Regional Compact ("Compact"). After public hearings, the TRPA approved the pier project subject to certain conditions, including conditions allowing construction of the pier only if an appropriate court determines that: (1) the pier "will not unreasonably interfere with any recreational/access rights GHOA holds in the project area" ("Condition N"); and (2) "as of the date [of the TRPA's final approval of the project] the owners of the Fein parcels . . . do not have a legal right to use the GHOA community pier independent of actions by GHOA." ("Condition O").
Three suits were filed: (1) GPA sued TRPA in the Eastern District of California, alleging that TRPA was not complying with the Compact and was unduly influenced by certain individuals (Ruvo/Fein intervened as Defendants and GHOA joined as plaintiff/real party in interest); (2) The Huntington Parties filed a complaint (containing allegations almost identical to those raised by GPA in the California case) against TRPA in the District of Nevada; and (3) Ruvo/Fein filed a complaint against GHOA in Nevada state court, to which GHOA filed an answer and counterclaim. All three cases were subsequently consolidated in the District of Nevada.
In April 2002 TRPA and Ruvo/Fein filed motions to dismiss which were granted in part and denied in part.
In December 2002 TRPA and Ruvo/Fein filed motions for summary judgment. GHOA answered and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The district court adopted a magistrate's report which disposed of all remaining claims by granting TRPA's motion, and granting in part and denying in part the motions of GHOA and Ruvo/Fein. See Glenbrook Pres. Ass'n v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, CV-N-00-690-RLH (RAM) (D.Nev. Sept. 19, 2003) (district court order adopting magistrate's report and recommendation ("Report"), Glenbrook Pres. Ass'n v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, CV-N-00-690-RLH (RAM) (D.Nev. Aug. 5, 2003)). By adopting the Report, the court held that: (1) TRPA's approval of the pier was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record; (2) Condition N was satisfied; and (3) Condition O was not satisfied because the Fein parcels had a right of access to the GHOA pier. These holdings are the focus of the instant appeals.
II. Challenge to TRPA's Conditional Approval of the Pier
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. See Balint v. Carson City, 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). Because summary judgment here involves the decision of an administrative agency, we "view the case from the same position as the district court." Nevada Land Action Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 8 F.3d 713, 716 (9th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). We review TRPA's decisions regarding project approval only for "prejudicial abuse of discretion," which occurs when "the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the act or decision of the [TRPA] was not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record." (Compact at Article VI(j).)
The Glenbrook Parties apparently challenge TRPA's approval of the permit on the ground that the TRPA did not "proceed in a manner required by law, asserting that relevant law compelled TRPA to: (1) require an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the pier project; (2) consider alleged" "Cumulative Impacts" of the Pier; (3) consider alleged "Cumulative Impacts" of an entertainment complex the Glenbrook Parties claim the pier owners are building; and (4) require an Environmental Impact Statement due to alleged controversy over the pier project (collectively "Four Requirements").
The Glenbrook Parties do not claim that the Four Requirements are explicit in either the Compact or the ordinances promulgated thereunder by the TRPA. Rather, the Glenbrook Parties' challenge is entirely dependent on the assertion that certain regulatory requirements allegedly arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 ("NEPA"), also arise under the Compact. Because this fundamental assumption is wrong, the Glenbrook Parties' challenges to TRPA's action fail.
The NEPA explicitly states that it applies only to agencies of the federal government. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2). The Glenbrook Parties nevertheless argue for the importation of alleged NEPA requirements into the Compact under Article VII of the Compact. This Article, entitled "Environmental Impact Statements," was enacted in the 1980 amendments to the Compact and its text is substantially similar to the NEPA's section regarding Environmental Impact Statements ("EIS").1 Compare Compact Article VII with 42 U.S.C. § 4332.
The Glenbrook Parties assert that this similar language triggers the general rule of statutory construction that the "adoption of the wording of a statute from another legislative jurisdiction carries with it the previous judicial interpretation of the wording." Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 309, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957) overruled on other grounds by Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 2, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). In support of this argument, the Glenbrook Parties presented us with no cases in which a court imposed the Four Requirements solely on the basis of the language of the NEPA. Rather, the authorities relied on by the Glenbrook Parties are limited to cases interpreting federal regulations promulgated under the NEPA. The obligations Glenbrook seeks to impose on TRPA arise not from the language of the NEPA, but rather from judicial interpretations of language that appears neither in the NEPA nor in Article VII of the Compact. We find the authority offered too far removed for the canon of statutory construction cited by the Glenbrook Parties to apply. Accordingly, there is no basis for importing the Four Requirements into the Compact.
III. Declaratory Judgement re: Conditions N and O
The Complaint of Ruvo/Fein and the Counterclaim of GHOA both sought declaratory judgment as to the rights, status and other legal relations with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
...interpretation of the Compact only where those cases rest on language analogous to that used in the Compact. Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. TRPA, 425 F.3d 611, 615-16 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 309, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1957)) (explaining that NEPA......
-
Ctr. For Sierra Nev. Conservation v. U.S. Forest Serv.
...but not the other, cases interpreting those regulations do not apply to the latter statute. Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 425 F.3d 611, 615-16 (9th Cir. 2005).An Environmental Protection Agency regulation interprets the CWA notice provision, and this regulation ......
-
Ctr. for Sierra Nev. Conservation v. U.S. Forest Serv.
...other, cases interpreting those regulations do not apply to the latter statute. Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 425 F.3d 611, 615–16 (9th Cir.2005). An Environmental Protection Agency regulation interprets the CWA notice provision, and this regulation includes an ......
-
Dayton Valley Investors v. Union Pacific R. Co.
...and dominant tenements [of an easement], the easement merges into the fee ... and is terminated.'" Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 425 F.3d 611, 618 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 109 Nev. 842, 858 P.2d 1258, 1261 (1993)). Thus, as o......