Sierra Club v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency

• Decision Date: 27 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. CIV. 2:12–0044 WBS CKD.,CIV. 2:12–0044 WBS CKD.
• Citation: 916 F.Supp.2d 1098
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
• Parties: SIERRA CLUB and Friends of the West Shore, Plaintiffs, v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, County of Placer, and Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer, Defendants. Homewood Village Resorts, LLC, and JMA Ventures, LLC, Defendants and Real Parties in Interest.

916 F.Supp.2d 1098

SIERRA CLUB and Friends of the West Shore, Plaintiffs,

v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, County of Placer, and Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer, Defendants.Homewood Village Resorts, LLC, and JMA Ventures, LLC, Defendants and Real Parties in Interest.

No. CIV. 2:12–0044 WBS CKD.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Jan. 4, 2013.

Memorandum Denying Motion to Amend Feb. 27, 2013.

Paul Robert Cort, Trent William Orr, Wendy Sangbee Park, Earthjustice, San Francisco, CA, Michael R. Lozeau, Lozeau Drury LLP, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew B. Sabey, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Karin E. Schwab, Auburn, CA, for Defendants.

Howard F. Wilkins, III, Whitman F. Manley, Remy Moose Manley, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants and Real Parties in Interest.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: CROSS–MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore (“FOWS”) brought this action against defendants the County of Placer, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer (“County”), the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”), Homewood Village Resorts, LLC, and JMA Ventures, LLC (collectively, “defendants”), alleging violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000–21176 and the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (“Compact”), Pub. L. No. 96–551, 94 Stat. 3233 (1980); Cal. Gov't Code § 66801 et seq.; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 277.200 et seq. Plaintiffs' allegations pertain to TRPA and the County's approval of the Homewood Ski Area Master Plan (the “Project”), which allows for the expansion of the Homewood Mountain Resort in Homewood, California. Presently before the court are plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

I. Introduction and FactsA. Compact and TRPA's Regulation

The Lake Tahoe Region (“Region”) is located on the California–Nevada border and comprises about 501 square miles, including the waters of Lake Tahoe, which cover 191 square miles.¹ (RP at i.) The primary focus of environmental regulation in the Region is to protect the exceptional water clarity of the lake. Id. Homewood is a town on the lake's west shore and lies within Placer County, California.

In 1968, California and Nevada entered into the Compact, which was approved by Congress in 1969. League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 739 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1265 (E.D.Cal.2010) (“ League” ) (Karlton, J.), aff'd in part, vacated in part, remanded,469 Fed.Appx. 621 (9th Cir.2012). The Compact guides all planning and development in the Region and was amended in 1980 to direct TRPA, the agency it created, “to establish environmental threshold carrying capacities” for the Region. (Compl. Ex. A (“Compact”) art. I(b) (Docket No. 1).) The “environmental threshold carrying capacities” are environmental standards “necessary to maintain a significant scenic, recreational, educational, scientific or natural value of the region or to maintain public health and safety within the region” and “shall include but not be limited to standards for air quality, water quality, soil conservation, vegetation preservation and noise.” ( Id. art. II(i).) TRPA has adopted thirty-six threshold standards, including standards for water quality, air quality, noise, and scenic quality. ( See Administrative Record (“AR”) 12879 (TRPA Resolution adopting thresholds).)

The Compact also required TRPA “to adopt and enforce a regional plan and implementing ordinances which will achieve and maintain [the thresholds] while providing opportunities for orderly growth and development consistent with such capacities.” (Compact art. I(b).) In 1987, TRPA adopted the Regional Plan, which describes the needs and goals of the Region and provides policies to guide action affecting the Region's resources. (RP at iii.) The Regional Plan is implemented by the Code of Ordinances and the Rules of Procedure promulgated by TRPA. See Comm. for Reasonable Regulation of Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 311 F.Supp.2d 972, 979–80 (D.Nev.2004).

TRPA also has regulatory authority over specific projects. For each project that may have a significant effect on the environment, TRPA must adopt findings that the project will not interfere with implementation of the Regional Plan or cause the thresholds to be exceeded. (Compact art. V(g).) TRPA must also prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) for the project, similar to that required by CEQA, identifying the project's significant environmental impacts, the impacts that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented, alternatives to the project, and mitigation measures that must be implemented to assure meeting the standards of the region, among other things. ( Id. art. VII(a)(2)(A)-(D).)

Changes to TRPA's implementing documents require particular findings. When TRPA amends the Regional Plan, it must find “that the Regional Plan, as amended, achieves and maintains the thresholds.” ² (Park Decl. Ex. 1 (“Code”) § 6.4 (Docket No. 40).) Likewise, when it amends the Code, it must find that “the Regional Plan, and all of its elements, as implemented through the Code, Rules, and other TRPA plans and programs, as amended, achieves and maintains the thresholds.” Id. § 6.5.

B. Homewood Project

Homewood was developed in about 1900 as a vacation resort. (AR 3105.) It is mainly a residential town, with only 906 residents in 2004. ( Id. at 3005, 3119.) The Homewood Mountain Resort (“Resort” or “HMR”) opened in 1962 and is the largest tourism feature in the town. ( Id. at 3119, 12733.) It has four main chairlifts and two distinct lodge areas, the South Base and North Base. ( Id. at 7351.) It is primarily a “day ski” area because it has no overnight accommodations. ( Id. at 40478.)

In 2006 and 2007, the owners of the resort, JMA Ventures and Homewood Village Resorts LLC (collectively, “JMA”), proposed the Project, a planned expansion of the Resort from 25,000 square feet to over one million square feet that would add 325 new residential and tourist accommodation units to the surrounding Homewood community. ( Id. at 2691–92, 3481.) The Project is intended to update the Resort's ski facilities and bring new development rights, including commercial floor area, residential units, and tourist accommodation units, to the Project area, which currently has no residential or tourist accommodation units. ( Id. at 3119.) The Resort is currently operating at a loss, and the Project is also designed to generate enough revenue to fund the environmental benefits the Project will bring and ensure its continued economic viability. ( Id. at 2749, 18968.)

In February 2008, TRPA's Governing Board accepted the Project into the “Community Enhancement Program” (“CEP”), which was created to provide incentives to developers to create “mixed-use, transit-orientated development” in the Region. ( Id. at 7351.) It grants projects development rights—bonus commercial floor area allocations and bonus tourist accommodation units (“TAUs”)—from a pool reserved for projects that provide a “substantial environmental benefit” or “mitigation in excess” of legal requirements. ³See Code §§ 33.3.D(3)(C)(ii), 33.4.A(3). For the Project to participate in this program, TRPA adopted a resolution listing the minimum requirements it must meet. (AR 2680.) The benefits the Project will provide include water quality improvements, retirement of sensitive lands, and an overall reduction in land coverage. ( Id. at 3920; see also AR 2977–79 (noting other Project benefits).)

To meet the environmental review requirements of both CEQA and the Compact, the County and TRPA jointly issued the draft environmental impact report-environmental impact statement (“EIR–EIS”) in January 2011. ( Id. at 239.) The draft studied the proposed Project and five alternatives, including a “reduced project alternative,” which proposed a fifteen percent reduction in development for a total of 297 residential and tourist accommodation units. ( Id. at 268–70.) The proposed project required several land-use planning amendments to the Regional Plan, Code, and Plan Area Statements (“PASs”). ⁴ These amendments are considered part of the proposed project and were analyzed during the Project's environmental review. ( See id. at 3926.) They include amendments to the Regional Plan and to the Code to remove the requirement that additional TAUs in a ski area be allocated only under an adopted community plan, ( id. at 36–61); amendments to several PASs for the Resort to expand its urban boundary, ( id. at 358, 540–41); and additional Code amendments to allow additional height and groundwater interception for below-grade parking in the proposed project's areas, ( id. at 360–61).⁵

In October 2011, TRPA and the County issued the final EIR–EIS. ( Id. at 2675–7333.) It modified the proposed project, “Alternative 1A,” to meet concerns raised during the comment period. ( Id. at 2756.) The same amendments remained necessary. ( Id. at 2788–89.) The EIR–EIS found that neither the reduced alternative (Alternative 6), nor any smaller project, would produce enough revenue to support the Project's proposed environmental improvements and ensure the continued viability of the ski operations. ( Id. at 326.) Later in October, the County approved the Project and the EIR–EIS. ( Id. at 9236, 9245.) Plaintiffs appealed both. ( Id. at 8311.) The County denied the appeal and certified the EIR–EIS. ( Id. at 41–42.) On December 14, 2011, TRPA held a hearing on the Project. (TRPA Administrative Record (“TAR”) at 205–07.) It certified the EIR–EIS, approved the amendments, and approved the Project. ( Id. at 1017–21.)

II. Legal Standard

Although the parties bring cross-motions for summary judgment, this is a record-review case and there are no material facts in dispute.⁶ The ordinary standards for summary judgment are therefore not...