Opinion ID: 454747
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Propriety of the Injunction as Applied to TSR

Text: 8 The preliminary injunction, with certain exceptions, prohibits TRPA from taking any action to approve any project, as defined in the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact ..., or to approve the construction of any man-made development within the agency's jurisdiction... until TRPA adopts a plan in compliance with the Compact. TSR initially argues that the injunction should not apply to repairs to water-related structures because those repairs are not projects as the Compact defines that term. A project is an activity undertaken by any person ... if the activity may substantially affect the land, water, air, space or any other natural resources of the region. Article II(h). TSR cites common sense for the proposition that shorezone repairs prevent debris from littering the lake, and contends that the plaintiffs presented no contrary evidence showing substantial adverse effects from such repairs. 9 TSR's argument misses the mark. The Compact requires TRPA review and approval of all projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Article VI(b). As part of this review authority, the agency is empowered to determine what is a project subject to its review and approval. Article VI(a). 1 TRPA has decided that repairs to water-related structures are projects within the meaning of the Compact. Under the TRPA Shorezone Ordinance, adopted by the agency in 1976, a permit is required for all new construction of water-related structures; for structural repairs of non-conforming structures; and for any other repairs of conforming or non-conforming structures if the cost of repairs exceeds $500 in a one year period. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Ordinance No. 76-3, Section 4.11. TSR's argument that repairs are not projects, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion that TRPA had no power to enact the Shorezone Ordinance. But the validity of the Shorezone Ordinance is not at issue in this litigation, and TSR is not entitled to insist that the court enjoin TRPA from enforcing it. 2 10 Once it is accepted that repairs of shorezone structures are projects and therefore subject to regulation, the further question arises whether the district court properly issued an injunction preventing some repairs and conditioning permission to perform others on specified property improvements. TSR argues that the plaintiffs failed to show that irreparable harm to the environment of Lake Tahoe would result from small-scale shorezone repair and construction. It also argues that the burden on property owners who may be unable to protect their property from wind and water damage outweighs the benefit of the restrictions on their activity. 11 Although the preliminary injunction may place a heavy burden on the members of TSR, the district court did not abuse its discretion by including their activities within the scope of the injunction. The district court found that the plaintiffs probably would succeed on the merits of their claim that the procedures for project approval set forth in the proposed Regional Plan violate the Compact. Through the review and approval process, TRPA enforces the Compact's substantive requirement that development at Lake Tahoe shall not exceed the environmental threshold carrying capacity of the region. If the approval process fails to ensure that the environmental thresholds are observed, the environmental deterioration at which the Compact is directed will continue. The district court therefore properly enjoined the permit process itself, pending a final decision on the merits of the claim that the permit approval procedures do not protect the environment at Lake Tahoe. 12 The public interest strongly supports the preliminary injunction. The district court has greater power to fashion equitable relief in defense of the public interest than it has when only private interests are involved. Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40, Railway Employees Department of the American Federation of Labor, 300 U.S. 515, 552, 57 S.Ct. 592, 601, 81 L.Ed. 789 (1937). It may define the public interest by reference to the policies expressed in legislation. Id. at 551-52, 57 S.Ct. at 601-602. Here the Compact, which has been adopted as law by the California and Nevada legislatures and by Congress, expresses a legislative judgment that development and urbanization of the Lake Tahoe region pose a threat to the irreplaceable environmental and ecological values of the region. Article I (Findings and Declarations of Policy). 3 The Compact establishes a public interest in protecting, preserving, and enhancing these values for the residents of the region and for visitors to the region. Article I(a)(7). To protect the public interest, the legislators created TRPA and gave it broad regulatory powers. The injunction prevents TRPA from asserting its powers in a manner that may be inconsistent with the legislative mandate for environmental protection. 13 The district court attempted to mitigate the harsh effect of the injunction by creating exceptions which allow limited repairs and construction in the shorezone. TSR, however, argues that the exceptions are unreasonably narrow. In the proceedings below, TSR asked the court to allow repairs to all existing shorezone structures, whether or not they constitute non-conforming uses under the Shorezone Ordinance, to the extent now permitted by the Ordinance. 4 It also asked for a provision allowing repair, reconstruction, and construction of shoreline protective devices to the extent allowed by the existing Ordinance. The district court rejected these proposals. Its Order prohibits structural repairs to existing, non-conforming water-related structures except to the extent that the repairs make the structure conforming. It also prevents new construction of any jetty or breakwater. 5 Finally, it conditions approval of any shorezone repairs or construction on the applicant's agreement to install all water quality measures appropriate for the (entire) property, as set forth in the Lake Tahoe Basin Water Quality Plan, Handbook of Best Management Practices. 14 In attempting to balance the need to halt potentially destructive development against the legitimate interests of affected property owners, the district court necessarily has broad discretion. We find that the best management practices requirement imposes a reasonable limit on TRPA's ability to issue permits under its existing procedures. The proposed TRPA Regional Plan will require the installation of best management practices on all shorezone property. New homes already must comply with that requirement. TRPA itself has found that the implementation of best management practices will contribute to meeting the water quality goals for Lake Tahoe. TRPA Goals and Policies, Water Quality Element, at II-37, 38. Although TSR asserts that the cost of installing best management practices will make necessary repairs economically unfeasible, it has not provided enough evidence to require a conclusion that the district court abused its discretion. We note that the district court retains jurisdiction to modify this requirement, or any other provision of the injunction, if it finds reason to do so in the future. 15 We also find that the limitations on repairs to non-conforming water-related structures are within the district court's discretion. Even if the injunction were vacated entirely, the existing Shorezone Ordinance would limit the property owners' ability to repair non-conforming structures. See note 4 supra. The law permits such restrictions as a means of gradually eliminating non-conforming uses. Paramount Rock Co. v. County of San Diego, 180 Cal.App.2d 217, 4 Cal.Rptr. 317, 324 (1960) (collecting cases). The district court reasonably incorporated similar but stricter restrictions into the injunction, to promote the goals of the Compact during the interim period before a final Regional Plan takes effect.