Opinion ID: 2631819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Standards for amendment of a redevelopment plan

Text: Absent from Nevada's Community Redevelopment Law is a clear directive as to the quality and quantity of redevelopment necessary to require a redevelopment plan's amendment. As enacted in 1959, subsection (1) of NRS 279.608 merely read: If at any time after the adoption of a tentative or redevelopment plan for a project area by the legislative body, it becomes necessary or desirable to amend or modify such plan, the legislative body may amend such plan upon the recommendation of the agency. [7] This statutory provision was derived verbatim from former California Health and Safety Code section 33747. [8] In 1983, the Nevada Legislature amended NRS 279.608(1) by changing such to the, and by adding a second sentence: An amendment or modification may include without limitation the addition of one or more areas to any redevelopment project which are adjacent to the project area and which benefit from the project. [9] This added sentence was modeled after California's amendment to its Health and Safety Code section 33450 (formerly, section 33747). [10] Our Legislature's addition of the sentence seems to have been prompted by the City of Reno's efforts to implement and expand its proposed downtown and river improvement plan. [11] In 1985, our Legislature again embraced a California amendment to its Health and Safety Code, to help shape NRS 279.608(1) into its current form. Excised from the statute was the tentative or language; but the Nevada Legislature went even further than its California counterpart, and also excised the for a project area language: If at any time after the adoption of a redevelopment plan by the legislative body, it becomes necessary or desirable to amend or modify the plan, the legislative body may amend the plan upon the recommendation of the agency. An amendment or modification may include the addition of one or more areas to any redevelopment area. [12] According to documents generated during the 63rd Legislative Session, the for a project area language was eliminated simply because the distinction [between a redevelopment area and a project area] serves no useful purpose. [13] Because NRS 279.608(1) does not clearly establish a standard for determining when amendment must occur, we may look for guidance to California's judicial interpretations of its analogous statute. [14] Further, we may presume that the Nevada Legislature intended for NRS 279.608(1) to have the construction given to California Health and Safety Code section 33450 and its predecessor by the California courts at the time NRS 279.608(1) was enacted and amended. [15] Finally, given that the district court, in interpreting NRS 279.608(1), looked to the required contents for any redevelopment plan, [16] California decisional law on that topic is also pertinent. In In re Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project 1B, [17] a 1964 decision, the California Supreme Court assessed the validity of a redevelopment plan allegedly deficient in its portrayal of proposed open spaces, limitations on buildings, and property to be devoted to public purposes. [18] The landowners asserted that the plan contained no standards to guide the discretion of the redevelopment agency. [19] The court, incidentally noting that any amendment of a redevelopment plan would take over two months, upheld the plan, recognizing that redevelopment plans must be flexible so that amendment is not required for every redevelopment contingency: The Legislature can be assumed to have recognized that a final plan must be enacted before the agency can commence acquisition of land and that thereafter the land must be resold to redevelopers for actual construction so that some appreciable interval of time must elapse between the evolution and formulation of the final plan by the agency, its adoption by the legislative body and its ultimate fulfillment by redevelopers. Obviously, some flexibility in the final plan so far as it [shows open spaces, limitations on buildings, and property to be devoted to public purposes] is essential to avoid the necessity of constantly seeking amendment by the legislative body each time that some unforeseeable exigency arises .... It cannot be seriously argued that a final plan must be a compilation of blueprints or working drawings, representing final engineering studies, primarily because the agency is not the one who does the building. The final plan is not required to be precise from an engineering standpoint but only as reasonably precise and detailed from a planning standpoint as may be expected in light of the complexity and diversity of the conditions which will be encountered. [20] The theme that a redevelopment agency is to be spared the burden of constantly amending a redevelopment plan was further fleshed out in a 1985 California Court of Appeal decision, Paris v. Community Redevelopment Agency . [21] There, Paris sought to remodel a portion of his building into a movie theater. [22] Because the building was located within a redevelopment area managed by the City of Pico-Rivera's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), Paris' proposal was submitted to CRA's director for review. [23] The director found that the proposal did not conform to the 1974 redevelopment plan's definition of a commercial use, and that the proposal conflicted with a 1983 CRA resolution specifically prohibiting movie theaters in the area of Paris' building. [24] Consequently, Paris' proposal was denied. [25] On appeal from a trial court's refusal to compel the issuance of a building permit for his proposed movie theater, Paris argued that CRA's resolution was invalid because it was, in effect, an amendment of the redevelopment plan which did not comply with formal requirements for amending the plan. [26] The California Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that the resolution was not intended as an amendment of the redevelopment plan, and that [n]ecessarily some of the statements in a redevelopment plan will be general and tentative, and formal amendment of the plan is not required for a subsequent administrative interpretation and filling in of details. [27] Both Bunker Hill and Paris were decided before the NRS 279.608(1) amendment process was completed, and therefore provide insight into the statute's intended meaning. But the district court alluded to neither case in its dismissal orders. Instead, the district court formulated a materiality test based on the combined effect of (1) NRS 279.572's language that a redevelopment plan must show open spaces, street layouts, building limitations, etc.; and (2) some unidentified requirement that redevelopment plans be specific at the time public hearings are first conducted. In regard to the first factor, the district court construed the statutory language must show as imposing a specificity requirement on street layouts, open spaces, etc. But neither the Moldons nor the Crocketts and APFS have provided any authority that must show means, as the district court proposed, must be specific. NRS 279.572 is silent regarding the degree to which open spaces and street layouts, etc., must be shown. Thus, while we are receptive to a materiality test for determining the necessity of amendment under NRS 279.608(1), we are not persuaded that its focus should be fixed by an unsupported construction of NRS 279.572. A redevelopment agency should not be saddled with the burden of amending a redevelopment plan to include every new redevelopment project or change to a redevelopment project, without regard to the nature of the project or the change. At the very least, inappreciable or intangible new redevelopment projects or changes to existing projects should not require amendment of a redevelopment plan. On the other hand, redevelopment outside the bounds of the applicable redevelopment plan, without public input through the amendment process, would be intolerable. [28] We conclude that the acceptable middle ground between these two extremes lies in a materiality test, read in conjunction with the Paris rule, that formal amendment of [a redevelopment] plan is not required for a subsequent administrative interpretation and filling in of details. [29] Thus, under the standard we adopt today, formal amendment of a redevelopment plan would be mandated for material deviations from or changes to a redevelopment plan; but formal amendment would be unnecessary for an administrative interpretation of the plan or a filling in of details. Combining a materiality test with the Paris rule provides a comprehensive standard by which to measure the necessity of amendment. We stress, however, that the filling-in of redevelopment details outside of the amendment process is limited by the language of the redevelopment plan. Fundamentally, redevelopment that is consistent with the redevelopment plan's express language or a liberal construction of that language does not require plan amendment because there is no deviation from or change to the plan's contours. As we earlier alluded, a district court's materiality determination will ordinarily be a question of law, involving a comparison of the proposed redevelopment action to the existing redevelopment plan. But we do not rule out the possibility that the determination will present legal or factual questions, warranting a pre-trial, evidentiary hearing. The standard we have announced should enable a redevelopment agency to retain the flexibility and resources necessary to accomplish its legislated goal of eliminating urban blight, and is consistent with the Legislature's statements that (1) blighted areas constitute[ ] a serious and growing menace which is injurious and inimical to the public health, safety and welfare of the people of the communities in which they exist and of the people of the state; [30] (2) [t]his menace is becoming increasingly direct and substantial in its significance and effect; [31] and (3) [t]he benefits which will result from ... the redevelopment of blighted areas will accrue to all the inhabitants and property owners of the communities in which they exist. [32] Certainly not unfounded is the district court's concern that an overly general redevelopment plan might give way to unchecked agency approval of any redevelopment project without public input through the amendment process. But such a redevelopment plan is subject to legislative review [33] and to public input and challenge before its adoption. [34] Thus, arguments regarding the generality of a redevelopment plan can be adequately addressed during the redevelopment plan approval process, and up to 90 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance adopting or amending the plan. [35] And triggering the amendment process for material deviations from or changes to a redevelopment plan should ensure that a clearly identifiable link remains between the plan and a subsequently proposed redevelopment project or a change to an existing redevelopment project. In creating and applying this standard, we note that the United States Supreme Court long ago approved the use of eminent domain to accomplish redevelopment. [36] We are particularly cognizant of the High Court's pronouncement that [o]nce the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the [redevelopment] project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch. [37] Thus, in considering whether a redevelopment plan must be amended, the judiciary's role is limited.