The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Tuesday, March 30, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Mr. Wendell Williams

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Jan Gilbert, Representing Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada

Chairman Bache requested Dave Ziegler, committee policy analyst, review the land-use handouts (Exhibits C, D, E, and F).

Mr. Ziegler stated Mr. Bache had expressed some concerns relating to planning and zoning, and that information was desired on landscaping measures already referred to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs. Exhibit C summarized the planning and zoning statutes in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapters 278, 278A, and 278B. Referring to Exhibit D, Mr. Ziegler noted how many measures introduced involved planning and zoning statutes, which would affect those chapters. As a group, those measures introduced into the Assembly would make significant changes to the existing statutes with regard to impact fees, master plans, regional planning, variances, zoning, and capital improvement plans.

Mr. Ziegler called the committee’s attention to Exhibit E. The table identified six bills that would affect associated sections of NRS Chapter 278, "Planning and Zoning" and gave an overview of all bills currently before the committee that would affect master plans. Those sections affected – NRS Chapter 278.150-278.210 – dealt with the adoption of master plans. Under current statutes, planning commissions were required to prepare comprehensive master plans that included conservation, housing, and population plans in counties over 100,000. The various pieces of legislation that had been introduced would add mandatory elements to master plans depending on which counties were involved. The passage of A.B. 388, for example, would require that all county and city master plans for counties with populations over 400,000 include all elements, "a" through "p" in NRS Chapter 278.160.

Continuing, Mr. Ziegler referred to a similar table, Exhibit F, which addressed a similar portion of NRS Chapter 278, and was related to variances, zoning, and special-use permits. He thought the existing statutes could be summed up by saying governing bodies of local governments had the authority to divide areas into zoning districts in order to regulate building and land within the zoning districts. NRS Chapter 278.315 was the portion of the statutes that dealt with variances and special-use permits.

In conclusion, Mr. Ziegler said amendments discussed in committee were incorporated into Exhibits E and F. The tables were developed and broken down into the key areas of master planning as distinct from zoning and variances.

Mr. Humke appreciated the information distributed, and he asked where other topics such as eminent domain and redevelopment fit into master planning and zoning. Mr. Ziegler replied eminent domain and redevelopment were pertinent topics within planning and zoning, primarily in downtown urban areas. He noted eminent domain and redevelopment were not covered in Exhibit C.

Mr. Mortenson commented on the fact there were so many pieces of legislation dealing with planning and zoning was testimony to the need for those bills.

Chairman Bache stated that before he opened the hearings on the bills listed on the agenda, he wanted the committee to move on four of the bills heard on March 29, 1999. Those bills included A.B. 528, A.B. 530, A.B. 626, and A.B. 638.

Chairman Bache said the committee members should have received the final amendment verbiage noting the addition of new language by the Test Site Development Corporation regarding the promotion or facilitation of transportation, disposal, or storage of high level nuclear waste surrounding the site.

Chairman Bache said two amendments to the bill had been received, which would change paragraph 3 of A.B. 530. One read: "Meetings of the Veterans Services Commission may convene at any site which teleconferenced to all areas of the state, including Las Vegas and Reno. No site may be selected more than once in any calendar year." Another amendment developed by Assemblyman Neighbors had been received, and read: "Meetings of the Veterans Service Commission may convene at any site and shall encourage videoconferencing, whenever possible. The Veterans Service Commission shall meet at least four times, and not more than eight times, each fiscal year."

Mr. Lee said Mr. Neighbors proposed amendment gave the flexibility the commission and Senator Jacobsen were looking for.

Testimony was heard on March 29, 1999.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, representing District 16, Clark County, requested that Chairman Bache begin by opening the hearing on A.B. 566.

Mr. Thomas said the intent of A.B. 566 was to provide incentives for the construction of a traditional neighborhood development (TND). In order to clarify and expand the definition of a TND, as well as adding a required land-use provision for those counties with populations over 100,000, a proposed amendment to A.B. 566 was provided to the committee (Exhibit H). A provision for a TND to the master plan would provide a vehicle for change to that type of development if so desired.

Continuing, Mr. Thomas reviewed with the committee 13 points of the traditional neighborhood development (Exhibit I). A traditional neighborhood had a discernible center such as a town green, was pedestrian, and provided for a mixed variety of affordable and luxury housing. Turning to page 4 of Exhibit I, Mr. Thomas indicated the pictures of Cedar Park Town Center in Texas revealed one example of how a traditional neighborhood development might appear.

Mr. Thomas said the Federal Government would be granting states and local municipalities with $9.5 billion in interest free bonding for those that codified legislation and ordinances utilizing "smart growth" practices. It was hoped that through the adoption of growth management tools, Nevada could position itself at the forefront with regard to obtaining federal monies.

Ms. Segerblom asked if A.B. 566 was confined to counties with populations over 100,000, or if it was applicable to the entire state. Mr. Thomas replied the bill would apply to those counties with populations over 100,000.

Ms. Segerblom asked if the historical properties preservation plan was included in the master plan, to which Mr. Thomas replied it was not required by statute.

Mr. Thomas noted the amendment to A.B. 566 was similar to A.B. 563 in that the commission on economic development was charged with creating incentives to construct such developments. Two barriers prohibiting the development of traditional developments included current planning and zoning codes, and the fact lending institutions were uncomfortable backing such communities with nothing to which they could compare.

Mrs. Freeman asked if the local municipalities would apply to the economic development for a piece of the federal grant money. Mr. Thomas replied the commission on economic development was charged with developing the incentive plan.

In response to Mr. Mortenson’s question, Mr. Thomas said the proposed legislation applied to city centers. The current paradigm for town growth in the larger cities was an edge city. Because of similar development incentives, many states in the west had opportunities for such community developments.

Mr. Mortenson asked if such a development had been federally recommended. Mr. Thomas replied affirmatively. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development had determined the traditional neighborhood development was a key aspect of sustainable development.

Mr. Mortenson asked if the impetus of the proposed legislation was the return to a more close-knit community allowing for the decreased use of vehicles. Mr. Thomas replied the demand on the automobile would be reduced, while still accommodating for its use.

Mrs. Freeman asked how traditional neighborhoods were incorporated into existing sprawl neighborhoods. Mr. Thomas replied a planned community of that sort would not be developed in the inner cities in which sprawl neighborhoods were located because of the amount of acreage needed for development.

Mrs. Freeman asked if federal grants were intended mostly for the new developments. Mr. Thomas replied affirmatively.

Referring to sections 5 and 6, Ms. Von Tobel asked if it was the intent of the proposed legislation to mandate neighborhood developments. Mr. Thomas replied the language mandated neighborhood developments existed, but the local municipalities were not necessarily required to approve such a development. The language would exist in zoning ordinances for the benefit of a developer.

Ms. Von Tobel remarked she was unsure how cities or counties could not follow the requirement expressed in section 5, subsection 3. Mr. Thomas reiterated the language would exist in a zoning ordinance enabling a vehicle for the development of the traditional neighborhood. The proposed legislation would allow for the compliance of zoning regulations within the master plan.

W. Dean Diederich, planning manager, Washoe County Department of Community Development, said Washoe County discussed the original bill draft with Mr. Thomas, and a number of suggestions had been provided. Those suggestions and comments had been incorporated into the amendments provided to the committee. The county supported the concept of the provisions of A.B. 566 as long as those provisions were recognized to be enabling and a tool to be utilized by the various cities and counties.

Michael Harper, special projects manager, Washoe County Department of Community Development, echoed the sentiments expressed by Mr. Diederich. He added integrated communities were beneficial, and did not necessarily have to be inner city communities. Because the current development agreement process was cumbersome, A.B. 566 would give the developers the opportunity to streamline the process thus encouraging a variety of developments.

Ms. Von Tobel noted the language of the bill appeared to be more mandating than enabling, and asked if Mr. Harper was comfortable with the verbiage of A.B. 566. Mr. Harper replied he was comfortable. A part of the mandating requirement was directed at the state Commission on Economic Development. The county currently had a land-use plan, which integrated the requirement for traditional neighborhood developments as a provision. Because traditional neighborhood developments were enabled through a development grant process, Mr. Harper did not feel amending zoning regulations in Washoe County would be a problem. Mr. Diederich added a means incorporated into both the land-use plan and zoning ordinance enabling the development of traditional neighborhoods was different from mandating a developer utilize those means.

Mr. Mortenson commented the amendment to A.B. 566 essentially mandated the development of traditional neighborhoods be allowed in the master plan, to which Mr. Diederich said yes.

Deborah Murray, planning manager, Clark County Comprehensive Planning, Current Planning Division, said as long as the language in A.B. 566 was enabling legislation Clark County supported the bill. The county felt the legislation beneficial concerning traditional neighborhoods and would encourage those types of developments. A.B. 566 would support the concept of zoning change flexibility in Clark County.

Ms. Murray expressed concern the proposed legislation required the development of a specific housing type, which would require the adoption of specific performance standards. The language proposed would discourage development if the home building industry was locked into building a specific traditional neighborhood. She suggested section 1 be amended to read "The term may include…" No further discussion ensued.

Marta Brown, representing the city of North Las Vegas, said the city was in support of the original legislation, and that proposed additional amendments to A.B. 566 had been provided to committee.

Karen Baggett, deputy director, Division of Economic Development, said the current state plan covered all aspects of development and encouraged quality of life. In order to promote A.B. 566 as enabling legislation, the commission preferred section 6, subsection 1, of the amendment to A.B. 566 be removed.

Chairman Bache clarified Mr. Thomas meant the state commission would provide incentives for developing traditional neighborhoods. Ms. Baggett said the state had an incentive program, and it was very specific by statute, and was unsure where A.B. 566 addressed incentives.

Mr. Thomas remarked incentives were not included in the verbiage of the legislation. The language of A.B. 566 requested the commission develop the proper financial incentives for traditional neighborhood developments. Ms. Baggett responded the commission’s incentives were very specific and currently in statute.

Ms. Parnell commented it appeared sections 1 through 5 pertained to local municipalities, but section 6 pertained to state plans. She suggested amending or deleting section 6, thereby removing state involvement. Mr. Thomas responded the state’s role was necessary in A.B. 563.

Fred Hillerby, representing American Institute of Architects (AIA), said the southern chapter of AIA, in reviewing A.B. 566, concurred in the concept of encouraging innovative developments like traditional neighborhood developments. AIA had not yet reviewed the proposed amendment, but supported A.B. 566.

Elizabeth Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, said she was originally opposed to the bill; however, the enabling language made the legislation palatable. There were several communities already encouraging developments like the traditional neighborhood. There was nothing to preclude the city from constructing developments similar to the traditional neighborhood in the current zoning ordinances. The city of Henderson was in support of Clark County’s amendment and the concept outlined in A.B. 566.

Irene Porter, executive director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association (SNHBA), said although the association was not in opposition to the concept, they were opposed to the bill. The concept of a traditional neighborhood development had been in existence for some time and had currently been used in local governments and zoning ordinances. Because underplanned developments could be constructed as part of a planned unit development, the proposed legislation was unnecessary. As written, and without the amendment from Clark County, the construction of the traditional neighborhood would be mandated.

Continuing, Ms. Porter related a story about a visit to a traditional neighborhood in Portland, Oregon, and said that type of design was particularly used when excessive costs had been imposed by artificial growth boundaries. SNHBA would support A.B. 566 be amended to include an authorization enabling a local government to put the concept of developing traditional neighborhoods in their zoning statutes. She questioned what information would be added to A.B. 566 since the legislation was provided in skeleton form.

Mr. Lee asked if cities or counties with planned unit developments (PUDs) could construct traditional neighborhoods currently, and if A.B. 566 would have no impact on developments. Ms. Porter replied affirmatively. The intent of A.B. 566 was so city and county governments could not prohibit that type of development; however, some verbiage and definitions within the bill were unnecessary. Most local governments would work with developers particularly in the PUD areas.

Chairman Bache asked Ms. Porter if she thought the definition of traditional neighborhood developments was too precise and technical. Ms. Porter replied affirmatively. A.B. 566 was too precise with regard to how the builder was restricted. The builder built to market forces and the people desires. A traditional residential neighborhood could be constructed without incorporating some of the points indicated on Exhibit I.

Carole Vilardo, representing Nevada Taxpayers Association, was concerned with section 6. She did not feel it was appropriate for the commission to be involved with housing issues. She suggested section 6 be removed. If there was state planning required, there was another area into which the language could be written.

Ms. Freeman asked what state agency would determine the use of the federal grant funds if not the Commission on Economic Development. Ms. Vilardo replied most of the federal money coming in had been appropriated for job training. She was unaware of federal monies relative to developing traditional neighborhoods. It did not appear the charge of the economic commission was to be involved with land-use, which was an adjunct of the local municipalities.

In response to Ms. Freeman’s question, Ms. Vilardo said she would work with Mr. Thomas in supplying her with the answers she desired.

Dudley Lowery, representing The Campbell Company, stated the company was in opposition to A.B. 566 with regard to dictating to developers the style of housing to be constructed. He concurred with Ms. Porter’s remarks concerning the amendment of Clark County and did not feel developers needed to be told what and how to build.

In response to Ms. Segerblom’s question, Mr. Lowery said the Clark County amendment would amend section 1, line 7, to read "…may include…" As long as the style of home to be developed was not dictated, he felt comfortable with A.B. 566.

Mr. Thomas said the intent of the legislation was not to dictate how to build a house, but to provide a provision with the code to be used by the developer or builder.

Responding to Ms. Gibbons’ question, Mr. Thomas said it was possible for a developer who wanted to construct a traditional neighborhood in the future to do so, even if A.B. 566 was not enacted, with the PUD ordinance. The vehicle for the development of a traditional neighborhood needed to exist within the code.

In response to Ms. Segerblom’s question, Mr. Thomas said he was not opposed to the word "may" being amended into the legislation; however, he would need to work with the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) to ensure the intent of the neighborhood was maintained.

Mr. Mortenson asked if a developer wanted to construct a traditional neighborhood would A.B. 566 allow for the interspersing of commercial institutions and housing, and did it include specific elements that the master plan might not allow. Mr. Thomas replied that was correct. There was no vehicle for that type of development in the master planning documents.

In response to Ms. Von Tobel’s question, Mr. Thomas said he would work with the legal division and the commission on addressing section 6 and the associated concerns.

With no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 566.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, representing District 16, Clark County, stated the intent of A.B. 563 was to provide incentives for building a traditional neighborhood development in a particular location, commonly referred to as infill development. A definition of an infill development was offered in the amendment to A.B. 563 (Exhibit J).

Mr. Thomas further explained the intent of A.B. 563, as originally written, was to charge the local municipalities with populations of 100,000 or more with the establishment of "smart growth" zones. Those "smart growth" zones would consist of parcels qualifying as infill parcels determined by the municipalities. "Smart growth" initiatives had received national attention, and Nevada would place itself on the forefront for the receipt of federal funding by enacting A.B. 563.

Continuing, Mr. Thomas explained section 9 of A.B. 563 and the amendment to the bill charged the commission to develop incentives to promote interspersion in those neighborhoods benefiting from interspersion. He offered the same previous comments in ensuring the state had the proper vehicle for developing incentives.

Michael Harper, special projects manager, Washoe County Department of Community Development, supported A.B. 563 and suggested amendments to the amendment to the bill for consideration. The first proposed amendment to section 5 would change the required date of June 30, 2000, to 2002 in order to integrate information received from a census to be conducted in 2000. Section 5 would also be amended to include both the county and the affected city with populations of 100,000 or over as appropriate bodies to prepare maps designating areas for infill development. There had been a conflict between the term "smart growth zone" and a term used on Senate bills, "priority funding area," and he suggested using only one term or determining a connection between the two terms.

Mr. Harper said A.B. 563 pertained to a mapping process, which was necessary if those areas likely to benefit from infill development were identified. He suggested in section 7, subsection f, part 1 of Exhibit J be amended to read "must show as appropriate…" if it had been determined there were no areas available or appropriate for infill development, a mandatory mapping process would not need undertaking.

Mr. Humke remarked he found it interesting Mr. Harper suggested changing the term "smart growth zone" to "priority funding zone." Mr. Harper reiterated because there had been a conflict between those terms, only one term should be used.

Vice Chairman Lee asked if there were any elements within A.B. 566 and A.B. 563 that would affect the job currently being performed. Mr. Harper replied there were not. The elements within the bills would provide and enable the vehicle for development.

Deborah Murray, planning manager, Clark County Comprehensive Planning, Current Planning Division, said the county believed A.B. 563 would be beneficial in encouraging local governments to develop within identified neighborhoods where infill parcels existed. The county supported the concept of the bill, but had concerns with the amendments. From the standpoint of the county, the main concern was with section 5, subsection 1. The local governments should be allowed to designate those infill areas as was presently done in conjunction with the land-use process. Infill areas would be determined as applicable at the time they were needed. She recommended section 5, subsection 1 be deleted entirely.

Ms. Murray said concerns had been expressed with mandatory mapping. The county was in the process of rewriting their zoning codes and anticipated a completion date of April 2000; therefore, the timeline of providing maps by June 30, 2000 would be difficult to meet. The county was also examining the regulations that currently existed in the development code, which would encourage infill development in identified areas. She suggested A.B. 563 be combined with A.B. 566.

Marta Brown, representing the city of North Las Vegas, expressed similar concerns likened to those of Washoe and Clark Counties. If section 5, subsection 1 of the amendment to A.B. 563 was to remain, she suggested it revert to similar language from the original version of the bill.

Elizabeth Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, was opposed to A.B. 563. The city of Henderson was concerned with section 3, and how "smart growth zones" would be affected by other bills currently in the Senate. Additionally, the city was concerned with section 5, subsection 1, and section 7, subsection f, part 1. Identifying neighborhoods likely to benefit from infill development was currently being performed through public hearings as land-use plans were developed, and through the notification process with zoning measures.

Ms. Fretwell stated the intent of the bill was fine, but perhaps A.B. 563 was the best performance vehicle. She supported the combination of A.B. 563 and A.B. 566 since the same sections of both pieces of legislation were being amended.

Karen Baggett, deputy director, Division of Economic Development, spoke on behalf of Robert Shriver, executive director, Commission on Economic Development, and read from the text of Exhibit K.

Mr. Thomas commented he would be willing to work with affected parties in order to develop language that would meet the intent of A.B. 563.

Mr. Humke urged Mr. Thomas to keep A.B. 563 and A.B. 566 separate.

Hearing no further testimony, Vice Chairman Lee closed the hearing on A.B. 563.

Assemblyman Kelly Thomas, representing District 16, Clark County, said A.B. 565 addressed the open-space provisions in Washoe and Clark Counties. Concerns had been incorporated into the amendment to A.B. 565 (Exhibit L), which had been provided to the committee.

Referring to a memorandum (Exhibit M), Mr. Thomas indicated the progress being made by Washoe County versus southern Nevada in regard to open space. National guidelines set by the National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) was 7 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. Currently there existed in Washoe County "no fee" park acreage of 9.4 acres; southern Nevada maintained between 1 and 3 acres per 1,000 people. An ordinance codified by the city of North Las Vegas had been utilized in the original bill, whereby a certain percentage of open space was to be dedicated with regard to residential density. The percentage of open-space must roughly equate to 6 acres of open space to every 1,000 residents.

Mr. Thomas reviewed with the committee the reason behind the definition of open space. Section 4 would amend NRS Chapter 278A with the addition of an expanded definition of common recreational spaces.

Responding to Mr. Mortenson’s question, Mr. Thomas said he did not feel any elements in A.B. 565 would be in conflict with the Dolan v. Tigard case.

Referring to section 1, subsection 1 of A.B. 565, Ms. Von Tobel asked how much acreage would be dedicated to open space for subdivisions consisting of 25 or more lots. Mr. Thomas replied the size of the open space dedicated to recreational space should be left up to the locals to decide. Some developers chose to only create a 24-lot subdivision to avoid that requirement. As currently written, A.B. 565 would require any residential subdivision, as few as four lots, to dedicate open space.

Ms. Von Tobel asked if subdivisions in walled-in communities would need to dedicate open space. Mr. Thomas replied affirmatively. Dedicated open space would be contained within the walls of the community.

Michael Harper, special projects manager, Washoe County Department of Community Development, said the department was in support of the bill providing the prior amendments were considered. He recommended amending section 1, subsection 1, by removing the term "shall" in order to make it voluntary and enabling legislation. If dedication of land for common open space or common recreational space was required by ordinance, all lot-and-block subdivisions and gated communities would either be limited or eliminated due to difficulty with compliance.

Mr. Harper expressed concerns with the proliferation of the homeowners’ associations. Homeowners’ associations, which were underfunded by developers, were very reluctant to continue with the maintenance of open space; thus creating an enormous unfunded mandate for the cities and counties for upkeep of dedicated land.

With regard to section 1, subsection 2, Mr. Harper said enacting that type of standard created the potential for a design that might not meet environmental or topographical issues faced. The development of open space should be geared to the need of the community wherein the subdivision was established. If there were instances in which the developer determined that more open space was needed, to limit that open space would not be appropriate. In addition, creating 6 acres to every 1,000 people would inadvertently impinge on the ability of the developer to realize the density permitted for zoning in a particular area. He recommended removing section 1, subsection 2.

Mr. Harper concluded by echoing concerns expressed regarding the precedence set in Dolan v. Tigard and how the case would work in accordance with A.B. 565. As written, A.B. 565 transcended as mandatory requirements and not as an incentive. He reiterated Washoe County Department of Development would support the bill with those amendments.

Deborah Murray, planning manager, Clark County Comprehensive Planning, Current Planning Division, stated the division supported A.B. 565, but had concerns with the proposed new language in the bill. The concept of the bill would have the effect of increasing the amount of open space suitable for recreational purposes within Nevada. It had been suggested to amend section 1, subsection 2, to include verbiage more consistent with the determinations of Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Association (SNSPA) of 2.5 units per dwelling acre. A letter was read for the record from Glen Trowbridge, director of Clark County Parks and Recreation, who was unable to attend. The letter refers to the original bill before the addition of the proposed amendments (Exhibit N):

Ms. Murray said the language had been provided to the committee.

Ms. Segerblom asked if Ms. Murray suggested amending the section from 6 to 2.5 acres. Ms. Murray replied the section should be amended to include language more consistent to what was currently being used.

Carole Vilardo, representing Nevada Taxpayers Association, stated she was not taking a position on A.B. 565, but was raising a number of questions. She was concerned whether or not the bill constituted a "taking," because of the recent rulings in court and would be in addition to RCT. By requiring a developer to provide no fee common open or recreational space, the developer would recoup the cost by building it into the cost of housing, making housing less affordable. She suggested if A.B. 565 was enacted, there needed to specific reference relative to providing an offset credit, or in lieu of RCT.

Mr. Humke asked if Ms. Vilardo thought the bill should require a two-thirds vote because of the requirement on the part of the developer to contribute real property to a common interest, and he asked if that did not constitute a fee. Ms. Vilardo replied she was unsure if a two-thirds vote would apply in that case. However, she was sure the bill mandated an expense on local government.

Mr. Humke asked if the two-thirds requirement would apply to either the developer or the homeowners’ having to bear the maintenance costs. Ms. Vilardo replied A.B. 565 was neither fee specific nor did it give reference to assessments, fee, or taxes, and she was unsure to what the requirement would apply. She added the standing rules on local issues should be amended to specify that when the legislature voted on a monetary issue, two-thirds vote should be required.

Ms. Von Tobel asked who paid the property taxes on land donated for parks. Ms. Vilardo replied a bill had been passed which stated property tax would be eliminated for land donated for public use. She remarked open space was much desired, and she questioned which route would provide the lesser impact on the ability to provide and maintain that open space and would not come back on the taxpayer.

Mr. Mortenson asked if Ms. Vilardo was opposed to communities with populations of over 100,000 having an increase in the amount of recreational space per 1,000 people. He cited the park acreage in Clark County as 1 acre per 1,000 people compared to the national average of 5 acres per 1,000 people. Ms. Vilardo replied there had been a suggested standard of park acreage, but never a set national average. Because land in Nevada was restricted, certain open space land had not been counted in that determination of park acreage. She was not opposed to the additional land; however, the ramifications of that increase needed to be examined in order to avoid potential problems resulting from improper maintenance.

Irene Porter, executive director, Southern Nevada Home Builders’ Association, stated she was not opposed to open space or the development of parks, and remarked if not for the development industry, in the last 20 years, there would have been no parks built at all. She said when determining the statistic of 1 acre per 1,000 people, neither those parks owned by a homeowners association nor the national recreational areas been included in that statistic. The statistic of 1 acre of park space referred only to dedicated open space.

Continuing, Ms. Porter said there was currently a land dedication section in state law, which incidentally, was located in the same section as park tax. Local governments had chosen over the years to collect park tax instead of taking land dedication, which was the original intent of the law in 1973. She spoke in support of the legislation, and added the intent of A.B. 565 was good; however, problems relating to rational proportionality and compliance issues had not been addressed. It was suggested those issues could be addressed by converting park tax to impact fees for neighborhood and community parks.

In response to Mr. Mortenson’s question, Ms. Porter reiterated the statistic of 1 acre per 1,000 people referred to dedicated open space. There were many parks in master planned communities, planned unit developments, townhouse communities, and so on, which were not dedicated. Those parks had not been calculated into that statistic.

Mr. Mortenson remarked he was bothered by the fact much of the park space currently located in planned developments was not accessible to the public.

Dudley Lowery, representing The Campbell Company, said while examining the amendments, a concern arose regarding section 1, subsection 4, part (b), depending on the topography or design of the development, it might not be applicable to centrally locate. The option to place the open space in an area where it was most applicable for the development should be considered.

Mr. Lowery was also concerned with how master planned communities already through the planning process would be affected by the bill. He was unsure if 1,300 acres of newly developed open space, including golf courses, in a 2,200 acre planned community in Clark County, would qualify as open space as defined by A.B. 565.

Mr. Mortenson remarked he felt golf courses should not qualify as open space because of the fees involved.

Jan Gilbert, representing Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, said it was disturbing that people in those communities were not present to testify in favor of the bills. She urged the committee to support A.B. 563, A.B. 566, and A.B. 565.

Marta Brown, representing the city of North Las Vegas, stated the city was in jeopardy with the bills and the associated amendments as proposed. The city of North Las Vegas preferred to continue receiving fees, in lieu of land, in order to purchase land space for parks. Currently the city had park impact fees, and A.B. 565 as written could potentially reduce the amount of fees collected to go toward parks. She requested the opportunity to examine the impact of maintaining those open spaces and recreational areas.

With no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 565.

W. Dean Diederich, planning manager, Washoe County Department of Community Development, said Washoe County requested the committee elect for passage of A.B. 461. The proposed changes to NRS Chapter 278 related to provisions of law for the subdivisions of land. Currently the state law was structured for three types of subdivisions of land:

• The division of large parcel. The simplest subdivision generally falling under the provision of NRS Chapter 278.471 whereby a division of land creates 40 acre, or larger, parcels in quarter-quarter sections. No limit on the number of lots created.

• A parcel map. For four or fewer lots. By default those lots were less than 40 acres.

• Tentative subdivision maps whereby five or more lots were created.

The county requested under section 5 when second and subsequent parcel maps were reviewed, they be allowed to utilize the review provisions for tentative subdivision maps. Mr. Diederich explained if the parcel map provisions were used, the county would be entitled to review street grading, drainage, lot design, and a number of other provisions. Currently under the statute there were different considerations for both parcel maps and tentative subdivision maps. The considerations for the tentative subdivision map included review of environmental and health laws.

Continuing, Mr. Diederich stated Washoe County dealt with a great deal of parcel maps and had taken advantage of the provisions provided to streamline the parcel map review. The review process was an appropriate and rapid process when land was simply to be divided into four individual lots.

Mr. Diederich provided the committee with an example whereby individual lots had been taken and parceled over and over again. He said when former Washoe County Commissioner, Grant Sims, had been apprised of the situation, and explained what the laws regarding review procedures were, he was surprised that second and subsequent maps did not necessitate the same review considerations. The proposed amendments had been examined by other jurisdictions and brought to the attention of the standing committee of the Development Services Advisory Committee.

Mr. Diederich also requested removing the current filing fee restriction on requests for review of a division of large parcel map in section 2, and suggested that fee to be set by local ordinance. Currently the fee was limited to $250 by state law, and was the only process for planning involving fee limitations. Because of the review considerations required for compliance in the development of lots, he did not feel $250 was an adequate fee.

Responding to Ms. Berman’s question, Mr. Diederich said the filing fee would be raised to $750. In another streamlining effort provided by the legislature, the division of large parcel maps could be reviewed and signed off by the director of Community Development.

Chairman Bache explained a bill had been passed in the 1997 Legislative Session relating to public records. Fees charged for development of documents must be the actual cost of the document reproduction. If the amount of the fee was inappropriate for the amount of work processed, it could be challenged on that basis.

Mr. Humke presented a hypothetical situation to the committee wherein a 10-acre parcel had been purchased as a result of a parcel split in the 1970’s, and remarked the Parcel Map Act had not been followed at the time of the split. He asked if under the language of A.B. 461 the county had the option to disapprove the 10-acre parcel for development. Mr. Diederich replied assuming that 10-acre lot was recorded, it was buildable in Washoe County. The land could not be further subdivided due to the 5-year time limitation.

Responding to Mr. Humke’s question, Mr. Diederich said under A.B. 461 any proposed development changes did not change the subdivision law. Developers would still follow current procedures.

Mr. Diederich said if 100 lots were desired on that 10-acre parcel and the owner further divided the land developing second subsequent developments, those developments would be reviewed as tentative subdivisions.

Mr. Lee asked if a subsequent parcel map was attained within 5 years of a land split, and the zoning laws changed in the development area, would a grandfather clause or option come into play regarding the property. Mr. Diederich replied for any change in zoning or the master plan, there were other provisions in NRS Chapter 278 regulating the change. Developers could take advantage of the 5-year option window to decide if new or old zoning changes would be followed for property development. When a second subsequent parcel map was filed, the developer would follow those rules and regulations in effect at the time; however, most jurisdictions allowed for a transition process if there was a dramatic regulation change.

In response to Mr. Mortenson’s question, Mr. Diederich said there were three different processes utilized for the creation of a new parcel of land as mentioned previously. The developer and the private property owner needed to determine which process would be correct in order to develop the land. Washoe County had a situation in which 10 acres of land had been subdivided into 10 one-acre parcels and several maps had been filed to achieve those parcels. In doing that, the development had not been reviewed as a subdivision map with the associated criteria. He expressed the need to maintain consistent review criteria.

Continuing, Mr. Diederich explained as soon as a lot was recorded for development, a developer could begin construction on that lot, and within a short timeframe a parcel map could be subdivided and developed on. A.B. 461 addressed the further subdivision of subdivided land by a developer with which he expressed concern.

Mr. Lee remarked there was a great number of amenities involved before a developer could begin construction on a lot. Mr. Diederich said he was correct to the degree that had been spelled out under NRS Chapter 278.462. Some amenities were not clearly indicated in provisions parcel map review; those amenities only pertained to a subdivision map. The county was not requesting to amend the case laws imposing requirements on parcel maps, but to consider what was determined in the review of findings in order to approve parcel maps by utilizing the findings associated with approving a subdivision map.

Responding to Mr. Lee’s question, Mr. Diederich said the use of the parcel once created was dictated by zoning. The parcel could be sold and used immediately based upon zoning codes.

With no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 461.

Rescheduled to April 1, 1999, at 6:00 p.m.

Daniel Holler, county manager, Douglas County, requested an amendment to A.B. 630 in order to clarify that playing fields for amateur organized sports may be supported with residential construction tax (RCT). The amendment would incorporate those areas used primarily for youth sports. It was not the position of Douglas County to change the intent of the law or the use of the funds (Exhibit O).

Mr. Mortenson asked Mr. Holler if the county was requesting RCT funds be utilized for maintenance or capital construction. Mr. Holler replied RCT would be used for capital construction as currently required.

Scott Morgan, director, Community Services Parks and Recreation, Douglas County, testified he was in support of A.B. 630. No further discussion ensued.

With no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on A.B. 630.

Chairman Bache informed the committee A.B. 74 would be on general file for Wednesday, March 31, 1999, and that he had an amendment to the bill. The amendment would provide for an interim study of public employees in re-employment. No further discussion ensued.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:33 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Rachel Baker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: