Opinion ID: 2631819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Amendment of the instant Redevelopment Plan is unnecessary

Text: As an initial matter, the district court misconstrued the OPA by stating that the OPA contemplates the vacation of four public streets and a public park from the land which Stratosphere ... would acquire. Rather, the OPA requires Stratosphere to relocate the park from one part of the project area to another, onto Stratosphere property and property to be acquired by and for the Agency. Stratosphere was to then convey, without remuneration, its share of that property to the Agency. With the OPA thus understood, we are convinced that NRS 279.608(1) does not require amendment of the Redevelopment Plan to show the vacation of portions of four streets and the relocation of a park. Although the OPA certainly contemplates redevelopment beyond four streets and a park, [38] the district court did not go further in ordering dismissal. We likewise limit our review of Stratosphere's project. Here, the vacation of the four streets and the relocation of the park do not constitute a material deviation from or change to the plan. Provision for each of these actions was explicitly and comprehensively made in the Redevelopment Plan. All that remained to be filled in were the details of location. Old Omaha Ass'n v. City of Omaha [39] provides support. Nebraska's Community Development Law provides that  `[a] redevelopment plan may be modified at any time,' but if modified after the lease or sale of real property in the redevelopment project area, a redeveloper of that property who is affected by the proposed modification must consent to the modification. [40] Old Omaha Association (the Association) entered into a redevelopment agreement with the City of Omaha to construct and operate a parking facility on a parcel of real property in the redevelopment area. [41] Twelve years later, the City of Omaha began eminent domain proceedings to acquire the site occupied by the Association's surface parking lot for the construction of a six-level parking garage with retail or commercial space on the first level. [42] On appeal from the trial court's denial of injunctive relief to stop the condemnation proceedings, the Association argued that the change from a surface parking lot to a multilevel parking garage with retail facilities was a modification of the redevelopment plan requiring the Association's consent. [43] The appellate court disagreed, reasoning that the redevelopment plan generally contemplated (1) that future land uses would include commercial or office usage on the ground floor of a typical structure, and adequate areas for automobile storage, both within individual buildings and throughout the area; and (2) that vehicle circulation problem[s] in the area could be remedied by the development of adequate off-street parking facilities. [44] The fact that the redevelopment plan painted with a broad brush did not persuade the court that the changes sought by the City of Omaha modified the plan. [45] The Redevelopment Plan at issue here is equal in foresight to, and paints no more broadly than, the redevelopment plan in Old Omaha Ass'n. For instance, the Redevelopment Plan provides that the Agency may establish ... traffic circulation, traffic access and other development and design controls necessary for proper development of both private and public areas within the Redevelopment Area. The City of Las Vegas is required to aid the Agency in this regard by opening, closing, vacating, widening or changing the grades of streets, alleys and other public rights-of-way ... in the Redevelopment Area. Further, the Redevelopment Plan states that the Agency may install and construct or ... cause to be installed and constructed ... parks, and that [a]ny public agency, with or without consideration, may ... [c]ause parks... to be furnished adjacent to or in connection with redevelopment projects. To accomplish these tasks, [t]he Agency is authorized to demolish or cause to be demolished buildings, structures, or other improvements from any real property in the Redevelopment Area owned by the Agency as necessary to carry out the objectives of th[e] Plan. The vacation of portions of the four streets and the relocation of the park at issue here fall well within these clear parameters. Finally, the Agency has concluded that Stratosphere's project does not require amendment of the Redevelopment Plan. `The construction placed on a statute by the agency charged with the duty of administering it is entitled to deference.' [46] The persuasive force of such an interpretation is strengthened when the legislature, by its failure to amend a statute, `silently acquiesces' in the administrative interpretation. [47] The Agency has been involved in eleven redevelopment projects without invoking NRS 279.608(1), since the Redevelopment Plan's 1986 approval. Although the record is silent as to the scope and precise dates of these other projects, legislative acquiescence in the avoidance of NRS 279.608(1) can be inferred from the fact that the statute has not been amended since before the Redevelopment Plan's approval.