Title: City of Reno v. Citizens for Cold Springs

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

126 Nev., Advance Opinion 27

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CITY OF RENO, No, 50801
Appellant,

CITIZENS FOR COLD SPRINGS; | FILE D

ANTHONY MIDMORE; AND JOAN
LISCOM, JUL 29 2010

Respondents.
——_— ie

Appeal from an amended district court order in a land use
action. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Robert H. Perry,
Judge.

 

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

John J. Kadlic, City Attorney, and Marilyn D. Craig, Deputy City
Attorney, Reno,
for Appellant,

John L. Marshall, Reno,
for Respondents

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP and Michael A/T. Pagni and Mark W.
Dunagan, Reno,
for Amici Curiae.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.
OPINION
By the Court, GIBBONS, J.
In this appeal, we consider whether the City of Reno violated
Nevada law by conditionally approving amendments to the Reno Master
Plan prior to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission's

10-1957?

 

 
decision that the proposed amendments conformed to the Truckee
Meadows Regional Plan. We also consider whether the City violated a
former provision in the Reno Municipal Code (RMC) by failing to make a
sufficient finding about plans for water services and infrastructure before
passing a zoning ordinance that corresponded with the proposed master-
plan amendments. We conclude that the City complied with Nevada law
because the master-plan amendments only became effective after the
Regional Planning Commission determined that the proposed
amendments conformed to the regional plan. We further conclude that the
City violated the RMC because the findings it made prior to approval of
the zoning ordinance about planned water services and infrastructure
deferred the subject to a later date and were too general in nature to
satisfy the mandates of the code. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse
in part,
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. Passage of Resolution 6712 and Ordinance 5809

Cold Springs is a predominately rural area located north of
Reno, It is a closed hydrographic basin that traps water and sewer
outflow within its confines. Because of the closed nature of Cold Springs
water services and infrastructure, there are limited water supplies and
sewage disposal available to its citizens. In 2006, the City passed a zoning
ordinance that annexed approximately 6,800 acres of undeveloped land in
Cold Springs.!' The City annexed this land because developers proposed

*This court considered issues surrounding the annexation of land in

Cold Springs in the case of Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno, 125
Nev. _, 218 P.3d 847 (2009).

 

 
on

 

substantial urbanization in the area, including 13.5 million square feet of
new commercial space and 6,860 new residential units. After the
annexation, Nevada's statutory scheme required the Reno Planning
Commission and City Council to modify the City’s master plan and zoning
provisions before development could begin.

Pursuant to NRS 278.030(1), the governing entity of each
Nevada city with a population of 25,000 people or more must create a
planning commission. City planning commissions are responsible for
drafting and adopting master plans. Sustainable Growth v, Jumpers,
LLG, 122 Nev. 53, 62, 128 P.3d 452, 459 (2006) (citing NRS 278.150(1)-(2)).
Master plans contain long-term, comprehensive guides for the orderly
development and growth of an area. Id. (citing NRS 278.150(1)-(2).
Before adopting a substantial amendment to a master plan, the city
planning commission must hold at least one public hearing after providing
notice by publication of the hearing’s time and place, NRS 278.210().
Once the city planning commission adopts the master-plan amendments,

the local governing body may adopt such amendments if they can be

 

practically applied for the area’s development. NRS 278.220(1). Before
adopting any amendment, however, the governing body must hold a public
hearing after providing notice by publication of the hearing’s time and
place. NRS 278.220(3),

When a governing body adopts an amendment to a master
plan, it must also abide by the procedures set forth in NRS 278.0282,
Subsection 1 of NRS 278.0282 states that “[bJefore the adoption or
amendment of any master plan, ... each governing body and any other
affected entity shall submit the proposed plan or amendment to the
regional planning commission.” Once the governing body submits the

 
proposed master-plan amendment, the regional planning commission shall
“determine whether the proposed plan or amendment conforms with the
comprehensive regional plan.” NRS 278.0282(1). Regional plans set forth
goals and policies for the physical development and orderly management
of the regional area in question. NRS 278.0272(1)-2),

Governing bodies may also enact zoning ordinances with a
procedure similar to that used to adopt amendments to master plans.
NRS 278,260(1) sets forth that local governing entities must provide for
the manner in which zoning ordinances are amended. Under RMC section
2.100, a local committee must first consider a proposed ordinance and,
after the city meets requirements for the notice and publication of the
provision, the Reno City Council must either adopt or reject the proposed
ordinance within 45 days after the publication. Any proposed zoning
changes must also substantially conform to the applicable master plan
Nova Horizon v, City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721, 723
(1989). Pursuant to NRS 278.0284, “[alny action of a local government
relating to...zoning...must conform to the master plan of the local
government. In adopting any ordinance or regulation relating
to... zoning, ... the local government shall make a specific finding that
the ordinance conforms to the master plan.” In addition, NRS 278.250(2)
states that “zoning regulations must be adopted in accordance with the
master plan for land use.

In this case, the Reno Planning Commission held a public
hearing to discuss amendments to the Reno Master Plan and the passage
of @ corresponding zoning ordinance. The proposed zoning ordinance

would rezone the subject property in Cold Springs from generally rural

land-use designations to industrial, commercial, and urban residential

 

 
 

om

 

classifications. The proposed master-plan amendments would alter the
Reno Master Plan so that it was in agreement with the proposed zoning
ordinance. ‘The Reno Planning Commission then approved the master-
plan amendments and corresponding zoning ordinance. When considering
these provisions, it deferred issues about supplying the prospective
development with water services and infrastructure to a later date.

After the Reno Planning Commission approved the proposed
amendments and ordinance, the Reno City Council considered them at a
public hearing. The City Council then conditionally approved the master-
plan amendments in Resolution 6712, which would change the Reno
‘Master Plan by altering the land-use designations for the subject property.
‘The resolution stated that it would “become effective upon a determination
of conformance by the Regional Planning Commission.” Next, the City
Council changed Cold Springs’ rural zoning designations to primarily
urban designations in Ordinance 5809. Although Ordinance 5809
originally stated that it would become effective several days after its
adoption, the City Council amended the ordinance so that it would become
effective upon the Regional Planning Commission's determination that the
master-plan amendments conformed to the regional plan. When passing
Resolution 6712 and Ordinance 6809, the City Council did not find that
Cold Springs’ existing water services and infrastructure were adequate to
serve the potential growth on the property. Nor did it make a finding
specifying plans to supply additional water services and infrastructure to
the subject property to meet the anticipated demand caused by
development.

Following the passage of these provisions, the City Council
submitted the proposed master-plan amendments to the Regional

 
Planning Commission at the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency
so that it could determine whether the amendments conformed to the
‘Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. The Nevada Legislature created the
‘Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency in 1989 to foster
coordination between Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County. ‘The agency is
comprised of a director, staff, the Regional Planning Governing Board, and
the Regional Planning Commission. The agency adopted the first Truckee
Meadows Regional Plan in 1991. ‘Then in 2002, it adopted a regional plan
that created a streamlined, simplified process for coordinating land-use
development in Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County. In this case, the
Regional Planning Commission unanimously determined that the
proposed amendments to the Reno Master Plan conformed to the Truckee
‘Meadows Regional Plan. Upon the finding of conformance, both
Resolution 6712 and Ordinance 5809 went into effect.
II. District court proceedings

Respondents filed suit against the City in 2006. Respondents
consist of citizens, taxpayers, residents, and property owners of the subject
land in Cold Springs. ‘They are concerned about the proposed
urbanization and development in Cold Springs because this area has

limited water supplies and infr

 

tructure. Their complaint requested
declaratory and injunctive relief, and petitioned for a writ of mandamus.

After the parties experienced confusion regarding the proper mechai

 

for respondents’ challenge, respondents filed an amended complaint that
petitioned for both a writ of mandamus and judicial review.

In the amended complaint, respondents alleged that the City
erred by adopting Ordinance 5809 because this zoning ordinance did not

conform to the existing master plan at the time of its passage and

 

 
adoption. According to respondents, the City attempted to amend the
existing master plan by adopting Resolution 6712, but it failed to properly
enact the resolution because it did not obtain a determination from the
Regional Planning Commission stating that the master-plan amendments
conformed to the regional plan prior to the resolutions passage.
Respondents also alleged that the City erred by adopting Ordinance 5809
because the City did not make a finding about plans for water services and
infrastructure prior to the ordinanee's passage, nor did the ordinance
promote orderly development.

‘The district court considered respondents’ arguments during a
hearing. After the hearing, the district court ordered the City to set aside
Ordinance 5809. ‘The parties then agreed to submit a proposed amended
order to the district court to clarify its findings. In the amended order, the
district court concluded that “the requirements of first obtaining an
amendment to the Master Plan and having a plan to provide services are
more than mere procedural guidelines.” Although the district court did
not order the City to set aside Resolution 6712, it partly based its decision
to mandate that the City set aside Ordinance 5809 upon the premise that
the City did not properly amend the Reno Master Plan before adopting
Ordinance 5809. The district court also concluded that the City
disregarded procedure in the RMC when adopting Ordinance 5809
because it did not make a finding regarding plans for the provision of
services and infrastructure necessary due to the future development in

Cold Springs. The City now appeals from the district court's amended

order,

 

 
pisc

 

ION
L. Standard of review

In this case, respondents filed a complaint in district court for
declaratory and injunctive relief, and for a writ of mandamus. A writ of
mandamus is a remedy that exists “to compel the performance of an act
which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from office.” Board of
Comm'rs v. Dayton Dev, Co,, 91 Nev. 71, 75, 530 P.2d 1187, 1189 (1975).
‘This extraordinary remedy can also correct a governing body's manifest
abuse of discretion in zoning cases. Id.

After respondents filed their complaint, this court issued its
decision in Kay v, Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 146 P.3d 801 (2006). In Kay, the
appellant filed petitions in district court for a writ of mandamus and
judicial review to contest a local government's zoning and land-use

decision. Id, at 1103, 146 P.3d at 804, ‘This court concluded in Kay that a

 

petition for judicial review was the proper mechanism for seeking review
of a local government's zoning and planning decision in district court. Id.
at 1104-06, 146 P.8d at 804-05. ‘The court arrived at this conclusion based
on the express language in NRS 278,3195(4), which sets forth that a
person who administratively appeals a zoning decision under the
applicable ordinance to the governing board and is aggrieved by the
board's decision may appeal by timely filing a petition for judicial review
in district court. Id, at 1104-05, 146 P.3d at 804-05,

Given the ruling in Kay, respondents amended their complaint
to petition for both a writ of mandamus and judicial review. After a
hearing, the district court ordered the City to set aside Ordinance 5809.
In its order, the district court noted that the parties initially disputed

whether a petition for a writ of mandamus or for judicial review was the

 

 
appropriate vehicle for respondents’ challenge. The district court also
noted that later on during the proceedings, the parties appeared to agree
that the proper vehicle was a writ of mandamus. The City continues to
argue on appeal that the proper vehicle for respondents’ challenge was @
writ of mandamus. According to the City, a petition for judicial review is
improper in this case because the City’s enactment of Ordinance 5809 was
a legislative act that is not subject to NRS 278.3195(4). However, we
conclude that the petition for judicial review was the proper mechanism,

‘The enactment of zoning ordinances and amendments by local
municipal entities constitutes sound legislative action. McKenzie v.
Shelly, 77 Nev. 287, 242, 962 P.2d 268, 270 (1961). Some courts do not
extend judicial review to the legislative process of enacting zoning
amendments. 4 Patricia E. Salkin, American Law of Zoning § 42:5 (6th ed.
2010). However, the procedural actions of municipal legislative entities
may still be subject to judicial review. Id, In City of Beechwood Village v.
Council, Bte,, 574 S.W.2d 322, 823 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978), the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky reviewed an amendment to a zoning map adopted by
a local legislative body. The court in Beechwood Village invalidated the
zoning amendment because the local legislative body failed to make a
sufficient finding explaining why the amendment conformed to the
community's comprehensive plan. Id, at 323-25,

Similarly, the Court of Appeals of New York concluded in
Voolckers v. Guelli, 446 N.B.2d 764, 767-68 (N.Y. 1983), that courts could
judicially review the voting procedures used by local town boards to enact

 

zoning amendments. In Yoelckers, respondents argued on appeal that the

lower courts had exceeded their authority by reviewing a legislative

action, meaning the town board's action related to a proposed zoning code

 

 
amendment. Id. at 767. The court disagreed and concluded that “a
determination of such a nature—addressing a question of procedure only,
eschewing any intrusion into the substance of the matter being voted on—
is within the scope of judicial authority.” Id. at 768.

In this case, we consider two procedural issues raised by the
parties: (1) whether the City complied with NRS 278.0282 when passing
the amendments to the Reno Master Plan in Resolution 6712, and (2)
whether the City complied with former RMC section 18.06.404(4)(1)(b)
when rezoning the subject property in Ordinance 5809. Because these
issues are procedural and do not require this court to consider the
substance or content of the enactments, we conclude that a petition for
judicial review was the proper vehicle for respondents’ challenge. See
Voolckers, 446 N.E.2d at 767-68.

When considering petitions for judicial review in zoning cases,

both the ‘ide

 

trict court and this court review the agency record to d

 

whether substantial evidence supports the governing body's findings.
Kay, 122 Nev. at 1105, 146 P.3d at 805. Substantial evidence is that
which a reasonable mind could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion,
State, Emp. Security v, Hilton Hotels, 102 Nev. 606, 608, 729 P.2d 497,
498 (1986). This court will not substitute its judgment for that of a

municipal entity if substantial evidence supports the entity's action,
‘McKenzie, 77 Nev. at 240, 362 P.2d at 269.

 

 
ons

 

‘The two issues on appeal also require this court to interpret
NRS 278.0282 and former RMC section 18.06.404(d)(1)(b)? “Statutory
construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” Kay,
122 Nev. at 1104, 146 P.3d at 804. Courts also apply a de novo standard

 

of review when interpreting municipal code provisions. U.S. v. Iverson.
162 F.8d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998); Asphalt Specialt. v. City of Commerce
City, 218 P.8d 741, 745 (Colo. App. 2009). When the language in a
provision is clear and unambiguous, this court gives “effect to that
meaning and will not consider outside sources beyond that statute.”
NAIW v, Nevada Self-Insurers Association, 126 Nev. _, _, 225 P.8d
1265, 1271 (2010). If there is more than one reasonable interpretation of
the statute, this court considers legislative intent and other similar
statutory provisions when construing the statute's language. Id.
II, The City complied with NRS 278.0282 when passing Resolution 6712
‘The City argues on appeal that it complied with Nevada law,
specifically NRS 278.0282, when passing amendments to the Reno Master
Plan in Resolution 6712, According to the City, it properly adopted
Resolution 6712 because its language stated that the master-plan
amendments would only become effective after the Regional Planning
Commission determined that the proposed amendments conformed to the
regional plan, Respondents argue that the City violated NRS 278.0282
because it adopted the master-plan amendments prior to the Regional

“The City amended RMC section 18.06.404 on September 9, 2009,
after the district court issued its amended order in this case on June 5,
2008. Thus, we will analyze this matter in accordance with the version of
RMC section 18.06.404 that was in effect on June 5, 2008,

u

 
om

 

Planning Commission's determination that the amendments conformed to
the regional plan. We conclude that the City’s argument has merit.

NRS 278.0282(1) states that “[bJefore the adoption or
amendment of any master plan, ... each governing body and any other
affected entity shall submit the proposed plan or amendment to the
regional planning commission.” Once the governing body submits the
proposed master-plan amendment, the Regional Planning Commission
shall “determine whether the proposed plan or amendment conforms with
the comprehensive regional plan.” NRS 278.0282(1). If the commission
concludes that the master-plan amendment does not conform to the

regional plan, it must specify which parts of the amendment do not

 

conform and explain its reasoning. Id.

In this case, the Reno City Council passed amendments that
altered the land-use designations for Cold Springs in the Reno Master
Plan. It conditionally approved these proposed amendments in Resolution
6712, before the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission found
that the amendments conformed to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.
‘The City Council included a provision in Resolution 6712 that stated the
amendments would only “become effective upon a determination of
conformance by the Regional Planning Commission.” After the City
submitted the master-plan amendments to the Regional Planning

Commission, the commission unanimous

 

concluded that the proposed

amendments conformed to the regional plan and the resolution became

 

operative.

We conclude that the sequence of events used when passing
Resolution 6712 complied with the procedures set forth in NRS 278.0282,
Subsection 1 of NRS 278.0282 requires that a governing body submit

12.

 
“proposed” amendments to the Regional Planning Commission prior to the
amendment of a master plan. The term “proposed” indicates that the
Regional Planning Commission must review master-plan amendments
before they are ratified and become effective.

Caselaw draws a distinetion between proposed amendments
swackhamer.
}94 Nev. 600, 602, 584 P.2d 161, 162 (1978) (the Legislature could “ratify or

jand ratified or effective amendments. See, eg., Kimble

 

 

reject a proposed amendment to the federal constitution” (discussing
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920))); Williams v, Griffin, 91 Nev. 743,

745, 542 P.2d 732, 733 (1975) (agencies may refuse to issue permits when

 

[doing so would conflict with proposed ordinances that are not yet in effect);
Maragliano v. Land Use Bd., 957 A.2d 213, 215 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
2008) (if a governing body proposes to amend a zoning ordinance, planning
boards should not grant development approvals until the amendment
takes effect). Because the City added a provision to Resolution 6712 that
prevented the resolution from becoming effective until the Regional
Planning Commission determined that the proposed master-plan
amendments conformed to the regional plan, we conclude that the City
complied with the express language in NRS 278.0282 when adopting
Resolution 6712.

II. The City violated former RMC section 18.06,404(4)(1)0) when passing
Ordinance 5809

‘The City argues that the district court erred when it ordered
[that Ordinance 5809 be set aside because the City complied with former
RMC section 18.06.404(4)(1)(b) when passing the ordinance. According to
the City, this municipal code provision did not require the local
government to make a finding setting forth detailed plans about water

 

 
om

 

services and infrastructure prior to the approval of Ordinance 5808.
Respondents argue that the City failed to comply with former RMC section
18.06.404(4)(1)(b) when enacting Ordinance 5809 because it did not make
a sufficient finding about the plans for water services and infrastructure.
A. ‘The requirements of former RMC section 18.06.404(4)(1)()

Former RMC section 18,06.404(4)(1)(b) mandated that when
approving a zoning-map amendment, the Reno Planning Commission and
City Council must find that there is a plan to support proposed
development with sufficient services and infrastructure. It stated the
following:

In approving any zoning map amendment, the

planning commission and city council shall find
the following:

b.The change in zoning represents orderly
development of the city and there are, or are
planned to be adequate services and
infrastructure to support the proposed zoning
change and existing uses in the area

RMC § 18,06.404(4)(1)() (2008). Because this version of the code was in
effect at the time when the district court issued its amended order, we
analyze the appeal under former RMC section 18.06.404(d)(1)(b).*

'Similar to former RMC section 18.06.404(4)(1)(b), the current
version of RMC section 18,06.404(d)(1) states that the Reno Planning
Commission and City Council “shall make findings regarding the
requirements of NRS 278.2502), as applicable, and the proposed
amendment's conformity to the City of Reno Master Plan.” Pursuant to
NRS 278.250(2), local governments must design zoning regulations to,
among other things, “preserve the quality of air and water resources” and

continued on next page

 

u

 
oo

 

In this case, the parties acknowledge that the existing water
and sewer services in Cold Springs cannot support the proposed
development and urbanization permitted by the change in zoning.
Because Cold Springs’ existing water and sewer services cannot support
the proposed development, former RMC section 18.06.404(4)(1)(b) required
the Reno Planning Commission and City Council to make a finding, when
passing Ordinance 5809, regarding plans to supply adequate water
services and infrastructure to support the proposed development. ‘The
City argues that it complied with this former code provision because it
made findings which set forth that the details regarding the provision of
water services and infrastructure would be established before
development begins. According to the City, it was improper for the district
court to require detailed plans about water services and infrastructure at
the zoning and planning stage of the process.

We conclude that this is not a reasonable interpretation of
former RMC section 18,06.404(4)(1)(). Courts must construe ordinances
in a manner that gives meaning to all of the terms and language. Bd. of
County Comm'rs v. CMC of Nevada, 99 Nev. 739, 744, 670 P.2d 102, 105
(1983). Courts “should read each sentence, phrase, and word to render it
meaningful within the context of the purpose of the legislation.” Id. The
City’s interpretation that former RMC section 18.06.404(d)(1)(b) permits

governing entities to defer findings or make broad conclusions about
~ continued

“develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of transportation and
public facilities and services.”

15

 
4

 

services and infrastructure would render the following phrase in the code
to be meaningless: “the planning commission and city council shall
find...there are, or are planned to be adequate services and
infrastructure to support the proposed zoning change and existing uses in

the area.” Also, deferring the requirement to make a finding about plans
for adequate services and infrastructure could prevent governing entities
from designing proper zoning regulations that promote the orderly
development of an area.

In contrast, respondents in this case interpret former RMC
section 18.06.404(4)(1)(b) as requiring local governments to make a finding
about plans for adequate services and infrastructure prior to the adoption
of amendments to the master plan. This constitutes @ reasonable
interpretation of the former code provision. Pursuant to this provision’s
plain language, governing entities must make a finding during the zoning
and planning stage of development about how officials plan to meet the
water and infrastructure demands generated by the proposed zoning
change. The provision’s clear and unambiguous language does not permit
governing entities to merely defer findings regarding plans for water
services and infrastructure to a later date or to make vague conclusions
that fail to articulate even a general plan for the provision of water
services and infrastructure.

According to amici curiae, actual plans for water services and
infrastructure cannot be created before local governments enact applicable
zoning ordinances. However, the express language in former RMC section
18.06.404(€)(1)(b) does not require local governments or developers to
submit complete, all-inclusive development plans prior to the approval of
new zoning ordinances. Such a requirement would be redundant because

16

 
on ae

 

Nevada's statutory scheme already requires developers to submit detailed
plans regarding water and sewer services during later stages in the
development process. See. e.g., NRS 278.835; NRS 278.872; NRS 278.377;
NRS 278A.540. As set forth above, the provision’s plain language is
subject to only one reasonable interpretation: local government must make
a finding about plans for adequate services and infrastructure prior to the
adoption of amendments to the master plan. In this finding, local
government must set forth an estimate of the water services and
infrastructure required to serve the proposed development facilitated by
the zoning amendment and must state how the governing entity plans to
meet this demand.

B, Substantial evidence does not show that the City made a
sufficient finding about plans for services and infrastructure

After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that
substantial evidence does not show that the City made a sufficient finding
regarding how officials plan to meet the water demands and infrastructure
needs generated by the proposed development in Cold Springs. When
approving Ordinance 5809, the evidence shows that the Reno Planning
Commission stated: “As future development projects are brought forward,
issues such as sanitary sewer, water service and other critical
infrastructure needs will be addressed.” In addition, the Reno City
Council made the following statement: “[W]hile the details of the provision
of water and sewer will be required when the development is proposed,
there is infrastructure in place that could be expanded, such as an existing
sewer plant, and a water purveyor called Utilities, Inc. Alternatively, new
utilities could be built by the developer.”

 
on ae

 

‘These statements do not satisfy the requirements of former
RMC section 18.06.404(d)(1)(b) because they do not articulate even a
general plan to meet the potential demands for water services and
infrastructure generated by the zoning change. While the City is not
required to set forth detailed, all-inclusive development plans for water
services and infrastructure, former RMC section 18.06.404(d)(1)(b) did
require something more than the deferral of the issue or broad, evasive
conclusions about how officials can build or expand utilities if necessary.
‘See Annapolis Market v. Parker, 802 A.2d 1029, 1045-46 (Md. 2002)
(findings of fact should be meaningful and should not merely set forth
broad conclusions, make boilerplate resolutions, or defer issues to a later
date). ‘The parties in this case agree that the existing water services and
infrastructure cannot support the potential development in Cold Springs,
and merely deferring the subject or broadly concluding that a developer
could build new utilities if necessary oversimplifies complex water-supply
issues, Because the City did not satisfy the applicable provision of the
RMC, we conclude that the district court did not err by ordering the City
to set aside Ordinance 5809,
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the City did not violate NRS 278.0282 by

 

conditionally approving amendments to the Reno Master Plan prior to
submitting the amendments to the Regional Planning Commission for
review. The City complied with NRS 278.0282 because Resolution 6712
provided that the proposed master-plan amendments would become
effective after the Regional Planning Commission determined that they
conformed to the regional plan. We further conclude that the City violated
former RMC section 18.06.404(4)(1)(6) because there is no substantial

18

 
evidence showing that it made an adequate finding about planned water
services and infrastructure before passing Ordinance 5809. Accordingly,
we reverse the district court's finding that the City failed to properly
amend the Reno Master Plan and affirm the district court's conclusion
that the City violated former RMC 404 (€)(1)0),

   

Gibbons
We concur:
Parraguirre
1-\an
Hardesty
woos 19