Opinion ID: 2388616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The City complied with NRS 278.0282 when passing Resolution 6712

Text: 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 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 [b]efore 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 unanimously 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 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 distinction between proposed amendments and ratified or effective amendments. See, e.g., Kimble v. Swackhamer, 94 Nev. 600, 602, 584 P.2d 161, 162 (1978) (the Legislature could ratify or reject a proposed amendment to the federal constitution (discussing Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221, 40 S.Ct. 495, 64 L.Ed. 871 (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., 403 N.J.Super. 80, 957 A.2d 213, 215 (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.