811 F.3d 1154
9th Cir.2016Background
- The Presidio Trust Act created the Trust to manage Area B of the Presidio and pursue preservation and self-sustainability.
- The 2011 Update to the 2002 Plan proposed a 70,000-square-foot lodge in the Main Post, offset by demolitions totaling over 90,000 square feet in the same district.
- The lodge would be twelve small buildings, designed to resemble Civil War-era Graham Street barracks, near the Main Parade Ground.
- The Trust argued a ‘banking’ interpretation of 104(c)(3) allowed new construction so long as it was offset by demolition anywhere in Area B.
- Associations sued, arguing 104(c)(3) requires replacement of existing structures of similar size in existing areas of development, effectively a location- and size-restricted rule.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Trust; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed Chevron step one and 110(f) NHPA requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 104(c)(3) permithood for lodge as replacement? | Associations: replacement must occur in same area, similar size; banking not allowed. | Trust: broad banking interpretation permitted replacement anywhere in Area B. | Lodge satisfies replacement with proximate demolition in Main Post. |
| Chevron step-one validity of banking interpretation? | Statute ambiguous or narrow; banking not compelled. | Statute grants discretion; banking interpretation reasonable. | Banking interpretation impermissible; narrower proximity-based reading adopted. |
| NHPA Section 110(f) substantive duty? | 110(f) imposes heightened substantive obligation to minimize harm. | 110(f) is procedural; does not mandate a substantive outcome. | 110(f) is procedural; Trust satisfied heightened planning and alternatives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (establishes two-step Chevron deference framework)
- Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015) (limits agencies' interpretations when unreasonable under statutory purpose)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) (persuasive weight depends on agency reasoning and consistency)
- City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) (limits on agency interpretation under Chevron framework)
- Boise Cascade Corp. v. E.P.A., 942 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991) (statutory interpretation to interpret agency action within purpose)
- Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) (illustrates interpretive context for statutory language)