The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:20 a.m., on Thursday, May 6, 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. Sandra Tiffany

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

Mr. Wendell Williams

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Constandina Titus, Senatorial District 7

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Senatorial District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Viola S. Kennison, a member of Walker River Piute Tribe

Senator Costandina Titus, Senatorial District 7, testified. She asserted S.B. 191 was a smart growth bill, which if enacted into law, would benefit taxpayers, local governments, and developers through better growth management. She enumerated the things S.B. 191 would not do. It would not: create new bureaucracy; hamstring local government by placing state constraints on planning and zoning decisions; require regional conformity throughout local governments in southern Nevada; impose undue hardship on developers and, thereby, raise the cost of affordable housing; mandate specific mitigation; or threaten the economy of southern Nevada. She contended allegations S.B. 191 would do those things were inappropriate and inaccurate.

Senator Titus stated S.B. 191 would codify a process currently utilized to various degrees at the level of local government. The bill merely standardized infrastructure impact statements and, through doing so, ensured local governments would make more informed decisions about development and implement more rational mitigation policies, which would benefit developers by permitting them to know what was expected of them at the outset. It eliminated capricious mitigation requirements, which would make it easier to project costs and raise investment capital. In addition, it leveled the playing field by adding mid-size residential developments, as well as commercial and industrial projects, to the list of developments for which needed infrastructure information must be provided.

Senator Titus explained S.B. 191 required a person who proposed to develop a project of significant impact with Las Vegas’ urban growth zone to submit an infrastructure impact statement to the appropriate local government prior to approval of his project. She pointed out "project of significant impact" was defined in section 1, subsection 6, of the bill, and its definition was similar to the definition used in NRS 278 to define a project of regional significance in Washoe County. The urban growth zone in which such projects could occur consisted of the area within the federal Bureau of Land Management’s land exchange boundary as delineated in the public lands bill passed by congress. It also consisted of " . . . the land inside the ring."

Senator Titus said an infrastructure impact statement must include the information specified in section 1, subsection 2, of S.B. 191, which would inform a local government what infrastructure was needed to serve a particular project. Sections 3 and 4 of the bill made it clear there was no requirement for a complex, cumbersome, environmental impact study, merely a compilation of readily available information. Upon receipt of an impact statement, a local government would determine whether or not there was sufficient infrastructure to support a proposed development. That determination would be left strictly to the local government involved, which would define the term "sufficient" and have the power to either approve or reject a project. A local government also had the option to require appropriate mitigation to bring infrastructure to a sufficient level before it approved a project.

Senator Titus pointed out section 2 dealt with enforcement in the event a local government failed to meet the requirements of S.B. 191. However, it had come to her attention existing law contained provisions under which an individual could bring legal action against a governmental agency; therefore, she would support an amendment to delete section 2.

Senator Titus said she was aware some amendments to S.B. 191 would be proposed. Southern Nevada Home Builders Association wanted section 1, subsection 1, to define the approval stage of a project as approval of the final map to which she did not object. Southern Nevada Home Builders Association also wanted the words "per grade" replaced with the words "elementary, middle school, and high school," and she had no objection to that amendment. In addition, the association had some concern about a school district being able to prohibit a project; however, she had not seen the proposed amendment which would address that concern in its final form and, therefore, could not say whether or not she would support it.

Assemblywoman Freeman commented on the kind of commercial growth occurring on south Virginia Street in the city of Reno. She declared it was as though someone had gone mad and asked whether Las Vegas was experiencing that type of commercial growth. Senator Titus replied affirmatively and indicated she believed S.B. 191 addressed the concern about such growth.

Mrs. Freeman asked whether many developers and builders in southern Nevada were from out-of-state. Senator Titus replied she did not know.

Assemblyman Lee indicated he was aware of a proposal to amend S.B. 191 to delete the language "300 units" and replace it with the language "500 units." He asked whether Senator Titus concurred with that amendment. Senator Titus replied she thought that amendment was appropriate and would support it.

Mr. Lee said, "And with the tourist accommodations . . . are you going to match that or are you -- ?" Senator Titus responded she would leave the number of tourist accommodations as specified in the S.B. 191, which was the number of rooms statutorily specified as the number required to constitute a full scale casino.

Assemblywoman Berman referred to the language of section 1, subsection 6(c), which said "a commercial or industrial facility generating more than 3,000 average daily vehicle trips" and asked whether it mattered how large the facility was. Senator Titus replied in attempting to determine what factor had the greatest impact on a neighborhood, consideration was given to using the number of a facility’s employees. However, it appeared the amount of traffic a facility generated had a greater impact than the number of people it employed.

Mr. Thomas cited section 1, subsection 1, of S.B. 191, and asked what intent lay behind requiring an impact statement to be submitted 15 days before a project was to be considered for approval. Senator Titus replied that requirement resulted from an amendment submitted, in the senate, by the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club believed if it had the information contained in the impact statement prior to the time a decision was to be made as to whether or not to approve a project, it would be able to offer testimony as to whether or not the project should be approved.

Mr. Thomas referred to Senator Titus’ testimony regarding a forthcoming amendment to define a project’s approval stage as approval of the final map. He pointed out a final map came late in the process. He asserted if there was a desire to be proactive and take a good look at a project’s impact, " . . it’s going to need to be done at the time of a zoning change or something of that nature." If an impact statement was submitted no more than 15 days before the final map, little would be accomplished. He suggested it might be best if an impact statement was submitted concurrently with the application to perform a project.

Mr. Thomas referred to the definition of "project of significant impact" contained in S.B. 191 and suggested there might be a need to examine that definition. He pointed out a zoning change was not always accompanied by a tentative map. He also pointed out a 300-unit project consisting of typical single family dwellings would equate to a 63 acre project, and a 500-unit project would equate to a 106 acre project. He suggested an 80-acre project would be appropriate to target as a project of significant impact.

Mr. Thomas referred to Ms. Berman’s question of whether the size of a commercial facility which generated 3,000 vehicle trips per day had any significance. He said he did not know whether such a facility would constitute a 40-acre project or an 80-acre project or what size it might be.

Senator Titus pointed out although a warehouse might be an enormous building, few people might work in it, and it would not create a large impact on the surrounding area. However, a smaller building might contain many employees and, therefore, generate a lot of traffic, which was the rationale for using the amount of traffic a facility generated, rather than its size, to determine whether it would create a significant impact.

Mr. Thomas said he would like the committee to " . . . get an idea of some type of C2 development, standard commercial, retail, office, park, what that would do."

Chairman Bache stated he compared S.B. 191 to the bills sponsored by Senator Porter and Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, and he was concerned about consistency among the three bills. He pointed out the definition of a project of regional significance utilized in Assembly Bill 493, Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s regional planning bill, was different from the definition contained in section 1, subsection 6, of S.B. 191.

Senator Titus responded the definition contained in S.B. 191 defined a project of significant impact on a local government. A project which had an impact on the city of Las Vegas, city of Henderson, or city of North Las Vegas would be different from a project with regional impact. There were projects, smaller than projects with regional impact, which had local impact, and it was with respect to those projects she believed infrastructure impact studies should be conducted.

Irene Porter, Executive director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, testified. She submitted written proposed amendments to S.B. 191 (Exhibit C) and said Southern Nevada Home Builders Association would support S.B. 191 if those amendments were made. The first proposed amendment added to section 1, subsection 1, the sentence "In the case of a residential subdivision, approval is defined as prior to the approval of the final map." She explained between the time of the tentative map and the final map, a builder was required to do comprehensive studies of drainage, traffic, and various other matters. Those studies cost approximately $1,200 per lot and contained a great deal of information. Therefore, it made little sense to prepare a brief statement which might or might not be relevant to a project’s development prior to the tentative map stage when " . . . you could use the language and you could use the information more appropriately prior to the final map to develop what really has to be built in infrastructure."

Ms. Porter pointed out section 1, subsection 4, of S.B. 191 specifically stated an impact statement could include, by reference, any relevant information or data which was a matter of public record and generally available to the public. Such information included, without limitation, information contained in a report required by another federal or state law or local ordinance. Southern Nevada Home Builders Association recommended that section be amended by inserting after the word "ordinance" the words "or condition imposed as a part of the approval process." That amendment would allow the information contained in the comprehensive studies to be used to determine what infrastructure must be included in the development of a residential project.

Ms. Porter referred to section 1, subsection 2(b), and proposed that section be amended by deleting the words "per grade" and inserting he words "elementary, middle school, and high school." She explained Clark County was able to provide information about student enrollment only on the basis of elementary, middle school, and high school enrollment; it could not provide that information per grade.

Ms. Porter said Southern Nevada Home Builders Association proposed section 1, subsection 5(c), be amended by adding the language "the local government or unit thereof determines that the school district has been given the opportunity to review the project pursuant to NRS 278.346, where applicable." She called attention to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.346 and explained since 1977, there had been a statutory requirement that a local government submit a copy of the tentative map for any residential project to its school district. The school district then had 15 days in which to indicate whether it wished a school site included in the project. If it did, proceedings to complete the subdivision ceased until a determination of what must be done to provide the school site was made. Although that statutory provision had existed for 22 years, and for 22 years every local government in southern Nevada had provided Clark County School District with every tentative map, the school district had not availed itself of that provision.

Ms. Porter stated Southern Nevada Home Builders Association proposed section 1, subsection 5(c), be further amended by adding the language "and that the project is in compliance with the adopted school district master plan provided by the school district and has the school district master plan has been included as an element in the local government adopted master plan." One thing which created confusion and difficulty for both local governments and the development community was the lack of information regarding the general areas on which schools might be sited, in the future, as those areas related to a land use plan. If development projects could be evaluated against a school district’s master plan, included in a local government’s master plan, it would be helpful to the general public, the development community, and local governments.

Ms. Porter explained the next amendment proposed by Southern Nevada Home Builders Association was to delete the words "300 units" from section 1, subsection 6(a), of S.B. 191 and replace them with the words "500 units." She asserted a 500-unit project was not a large project and certainly not one of regional significance. A project consisting of 665 units would be considered a project of regional significance in Washoe County. However, in southern Nevada, a 600-unit project would not be a large project.

Ms. Porter said Southern Nevada Home Builders Association concurred with Senator Titus that section 2 of S.B. 191 should be deleted.

Mrs. Freeman described a problem involving the siting of a school in Washoe County and said she believed it was important to include schools in the planning process. She asked whether Ms. Porter testified southern Nevada had local ordinances addressing inclusion of schools in the planning process. Ms. Porter responded Southern Nevada Home Builders Association proposed S.B. 191 be amended to include the language "and that the project is in compliance with the adopted school district master plan provided by the school district" and to require a school district’s master plan be included in the local government’s master plan.

Ms. Freeman asked whether Clark County School District had a master plan. Ms. Porter replied she was not certain whether or not it did. She had not seen such a plan and none was included in the local government’s master plan.

Senator Titus concurred with the assertion school districts needed to generate master plans. She said during the course of hearings on planning matters, there was much testimony about the lack of coordination with school districts. If school districts could be made to develop master plans and be brought into the planning process in a more coordinated fashion, it would be a major accomplishment.

Senator Titus emphasized S.B. 191 dealt with projects of significant impact not projects of regional significance.

Mr. Lee asked whether the impact statements S.B. 191 required must be certified or what requirements were placed on them. Ms. Porter indicated with respect to residential developments, certain of the studies conducted between the tentative map stage and final map stage, such as traffic studies and drainage studies, would be conducted by professionals and utilized by builders for their impact statements. Ascertaining school enrollment figures might be done either through a professional or by the builder himself. She suggested local governments and the development community would work together to develop formatting and forms for use in providing impact statements.

Senator Titus suggested various governmental entities and agencies would " . . . sign off on . . . " information contained in impact statements which pertained to their areas of concern.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, testified. She expressed the city of Henderson’s support for S.B. 191 as amended in the senate but said there was one specific portion of the bill about which the city was concerned. She referred to the provision contained on page 2, lines 42 and 43, and page 3, lines 1 through 3, and said even if provided a letter from the school district, the city of Henderson would be unable to make a determination regarding the sufficiency of schools. That determination was made by the school district as a separate, autonomous, governing body. The city of Henderson requested S.B. 191 be amended to require that a school district notify a local government regarding school capacity and to establish such notification would meet the intent of the law and be sufficient for the purpose of moving forward with a project.

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director, Current Planning Division, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada, testified, both orally and by providing written testimony (Exhibit D). She explained Clark County was concerned S.B. 191 established criteria which would significantly increase judicial involvement in the land use decision-making process, and the county supported Senator Titus’ proposal to amend S.B. 191 by deleting section 2.

Ms. Coder said Clark County believed S.B. 191 would also result in legal challenges concerning a local government’s capacity to provide various public services over which it might have no control.

Ms. Coder declared Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) opposed S.B. 191. In addition to concerns previously expressed on its behalf, SNRPC was concerned about project applicants being subjected to undue expense by being forced to hire consultants, at exorbitant fees, in order to prepare impact statements.

Ms. Coder stated although Clark County agreed it might be time to develop criteria, procedures, and standards to address projects of significant impact, it believed care should be taken to avoid unwarranted or unanticipated effects. The county supported the approach taken in Assembly Bill 493, which established a more regional perspective and charged SNRPC with developing criteria and procedures. The county believed SNRPC might be able to more appropriately determine thresholds for projects in southern Nevada (than could local governments).

Ms. Tiffany mentioned situations in which islands of county land were located within city boundaries. She referred to a particular project in Las Vegas and pointed out although the city provided water and sewer services, land use and zoning decisions were the prerogative of the county. She asked whether Clark County had an interlocal agreement with the city of Las Vegas which addressed how services such as water and sewer services were to be provided. She also asked whether an interlocal agreement was the appropriate means to address such situations and provide information necessary for an authority to make decisions regarding provision of services.

Ms. Coder replied Clark County entered into interlocal agreements with other local governments to address a wide array of issues. The county recently entered into an agreement with the city of Henderson to take over a joint planning area in order to determine whether the land uses entertained by each jurisdiction were appropriate and how best to provide services and improvements. She suggested service providers, as well as local governments, should be involved in determining how services would be provided.

Ms. Tiffany said, "The question is would an interlocal agreement solve this as far as the information so that you will have the control over, the information not necessarily the jurisdictional." Ms. Coder responded, "Interlocal agreements are a way to do that."

Ms. Tiffany asked why the city of Las Vegas and Clark County did not have an interlocal agreement for provision of sewer and water services. Ms. Coder replied Clark County entertained the idea of such an interlocal agreement; however, she did not believe the agreement had been finalized.

Ms. Tiffany asked Ms. Fretwell whether the city of Henderson had any difficulty obtaining information it needed from a school district to make decisions regarding school capacity and obtaining such information in a timely manner. Ms. Fretwell replied it did not. The school district was quick to respond and tell the city what the school district believed it needed based on a project’s size and scope. However, the city could not control the school district’s timing with respect to when the school district decided to take advantage of dedicated school sites. Currently, there were several sites in Henderson dedicated to schools, and the city’s mayor was adamant about getting the school district involved in the city’s master planning process.

Discussions ensued between Ms. Tiffany and Ms. Fretwell.

Ms. Coder concurred school districts’ plans should be integrated into the master planning process. Although there had been some hesitation on the part of Clark County School district to identify specific locations for school sites because of its desire to negotiate the best price, she believed identifying general locations for school sites in the master planning process would be helpful.

Mr. Lee said Ms. Coder used the word "capriciousness" in her testimony and asked in what context she used that word. Ms. Coder replied she was speaking of judicial review. Clark County believed section 2 of S.B. 191 would spawn a great deal of litigation with respect to decisions on land use applications. The county also believed some impact statements might be challenged.

Mr. Lee asked whether it was Ms. Coder’s testimony Clark County did not favor of any portion of S.B. 191 and believed Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority or some other agency had a more appropriate mechanism than the provisions of S.B. 191 for accomplishing the purpose of the bill. Ms. Coder replied affirmatively. She stated Clark County believed SNRPC, in cooperation with other jurisdictional entities, should be able to " . . . establish any of those thresholds."

Mr. Lee asked whether it was Clark County’s position all development projects should be addressed on a regional level even though an attempt was being made to address quality of life in municipalities. Ms. Coder responded although SNRPC addressed projects of regional significance, it provided a good venue to discuss interlocal standards because each jurisdiction in southern Nevada was represented on the coalition.

Ms. Lee asked whether it was Ms. Coder’s testimony if someone wished to undertake a development project within a municipality, Clark County did not want him to do so unless SNRPC approved his proposed project. Ms. Coder replied that was not her testimony. She was merely stating SNRPC should establish standards and thresholds upon which all jurisdictions agreed.

Mr. Lee asked whether Ms. Coder meant if he wished to build a project in North Las Vegas satisfactory to the city of North Las Vegas but not to the city of Henderson, North Las Vegas must comply with whatever it was told by SNRPC regarding his project. Ms. Coder responded she did not mean individual projects should be submitted to SNRPC for review, merely that SNRPC would establish agreed-upon standards for projects in all jurisdictions of southern Nevada.

Ms. Fretwell gave further testimony. She contended the city of Henderson’s standards were stricter than those established by S.B. 191, and the city wanted to be certain it could continue to impose its stricter standards in order to maintain its community’s standards and quality of life. Therefore, the city would like to see the section of S.B. 191 which permitted local governments to establish stricter standards retained.

Ms. Tiffany said, " I think a benefit of this bill is just what we talked about of the situation where it’s an island in a county and yet some of the services are in a city, and then you’ve got the overlay of the school district, and it’s trying to pull information together from various entities, whether it’s roads or water or sewer or fire or schools, to make a decision whether there’s going to be an impact on this. Is that how you read this bill too, and if so, what do you do where the land is in the county and yet it requires either the water district or the city or the school district information to make this decision, how can we do that?"

Ms. Coder explained Clark County mailed every project application it received to approximately 20 different agencies, including adjacent municipalities, water providers, sewer providers, the airport, the school district, the police department, and the fire department, and solicited their input. With respect to a project on a county island, if the water district and sewer district would not provide water and sewer services for that project, Clark County would know other entities would have to provide those services or the project should not go forward.

Daniel Musgrove, representing the city of Las Vegas, testified. He stated the city of Las Vegas supported S.B. 191 and concurred with the testimony of both Ms. Coder and Ms. Fretwell.

Joseph Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club testified. He explained why the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club (hereafter referred to as the Toiyabe Chapter) requested an impact statement be submitted 15 days prior to the time a project was to be considered for approval. In the past, the document was not made available to the public until notice of the planning commission’s meeting to consider approval of a project was given, which was normally 3 days prior to the meeting. The Toiyabe Chapter believed it was important citizens have the time and opportunity to review the document.

Mr. Johnson referred to legislation dealing with comprehensive planning which was passed by the legislature in 1989, at which time Washoe County had a regional plan. He said that legislation was aimed particularly at difficulties which arose at service area boundaries and in islands of unincorporated land. Although local governments were generally able to work well together with regard to such areas, when they became unable to do so, " . . . developers play one unit off against the other for annexation or what type of project that they will accept." He contended that made a compelling argument for a regional plan and regional approval of an overall master plan.

Mr. Johnson declared the Toiyabe Chapter supported S.B. 191 and supported the amendments proposed by Southern Nevada Home Builders Association.

Mr. Johnson described the problem which arose between school districts and local governments as a "catch 22." He pointed out the fact a project was approved did not guarantee it would be built, nor did it guarantee there would be children in the area to attend school. If school districts built schools based on project approval, schools might built in areas where there were no houses. School districts based their development plans on actual building and actual students. Local governments, on the other hand, based approval of subdivision projects on the promise adequate schools would be available. He asserted there was a problem inherent in attempting to devise and implement two separate master plans dealing with scheduling.

Discussions ensued between Ms. Freeman and Mr. Johnson concerning the problem of determining school siting.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 191.

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Senatorial District 1, testified. He submitted a copy of an article entitled "Protect the petroglyphs" (Exhibit E). He explained S.B. 397 authorized a public entity, in cooperation with the state’s Historic Preservation Office, to enter into cooperative agreements with any person, agency of the Federal Government, or other public entity for the preservation, protection, restoration, or enhancement of unique archeological or historical sites. He contended there were specific sites throughout Nevada in need of protection. One such site was located in southern Nevada and consisted of approximately 320 acres proposed for a wilderness area. It was critical a partnership be formed to preserve that site because residential development was encroaching on it. Among the concerns involved in preserving such sites were conservation and management, cultural resources, and Native American consultation.

Senator Porter addressed the issue of conservation and management. He asserted pictographs and petroglyphs were extremely vulnerable to destruction. An article prepared by the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said, "Unintentional vandalism may be caused by touching, rubbing, or highlighting the petroglyphs with chalk or other materials. Petroglyphs are vulnerable to oils from human hands and people climbing on the images. The key is that we must find a way to conserve and manage these areas."

Senator Porter displayed slides depicting rock art. He explained the site of the rock art show in the slides was a small canyon located approximately 2 miles south of an area under development by Del Webb Corporation. More than 1,700 such sites had been discovered in the mountain range in which that canyon was located.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Del Webb had seen the slides Senator Porter displayed to the committee. Senator Porter responded on several occasions, representatives of Del Webb Corporation toured the site depicted in the slides. Caution was being exercised with respect to divulging the exact location of the site because of concerns about vandalism. United States Senator Harry Reid had played a major role in protecting the site through efforts with the Federal Government; however, it was time the state of Nevada became involved. Del Webb was very interested in becoming a partner in efforts to protect the site.

Mr. Lee asked how Senator Porter perceived S.B. 397 would be used to affect preservation. Senator Porter replied first and foremost, it was important to work in cooperation with Native Americans who still used many sites for spiritual purposes. With respect to the site in Sloan Canyon, the first consideration was to eliminate vehicle traffic in the area and the second to provide on-site management. However, no management plan could be established until cooperative agreements were formed among all stakeholders, from the Indian tribes to the local government, and there was currently no ability to form such cooperative agreements. Certain areas in the site would be chained off, but it would be difficult to enclose the entire site.

Mr. Lee asked how it would be determined which Indian tribe had an interest in a particular site. Senator Porter replied the committee would hear testimony from members of the tribal council who could address Mr. Lee’s question. He stated, "I want to make it clear, on the record, that they are part of this and are an integral part of us finding the proper information in consultation with those affected tribes." He pointed out some sites might have a tribal nature.

Mr. Mortenson said he hoped the intent to preserve sites would not result in citizens being denied access. He pointed out some sites were of significant interest to many groups, such as archeologists.

Albert Brian Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (hereafter referred to as the Washoe Tribe), testified. He expressed the Washoe Tribe’s deep gratitude to Senator Porter. He asserted the sites being discussed not only had empirical value but, in some instances, pertained to the survival of tribal communities throughout Nevada. The information contained in those sites was intended to be passed on to future generations, and the sites were both tremendously important and tremendously endangered.

Mr. Wallace discussed how important the Lake Tahoe area was to the Washoe Tribe and explained the tribe was involved in working out agreements with private developers for protection of various sites, such as sites in Truckee Meadows and Genoa. The Washoe Tribe also made arrangements with the State of Nevada’s Department of Transportation to protect sites along the "28 corridor" on the east shore of Lake Tahoe. He asserted a number of options could be employed to protect sites.

Mr. Wallace submitted a written proposed amendment to section 3, subsection 1, of S.B. 397 (Exhibit F), to insert the words "in consultation with the Indian tribe with aboriginal ties to the local of the site in question" immediately following the words "a public entity." The purpose of the proposed amendment was to provide an opportunity for tribes associated with certain sites to work with the various entities involved to develop means to protect those sites.

Mr. Wallace said he wished to acknowledge the help the Washoe Tribe received from the Historic Preservation Office.

Ron James, State Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Office, Department of Museums, Library, and Arts, State of Nevada, testified. He said although at the time S.B. 397 was heard in the senate, its language had not been entirely refined, everyone agreed the bill was a commendable piece of legislation.

Mr. James said the Historic Preservation Office endorsed the Washoe Tribe’s proposed amendment (Exhibit F) to the extent the office wished to ensure local Indian tribes were able to participate in protecting the sites being discussed. However, the Historic Preservation Office did not want to see a good process hamstrung because of conflicting claims of aboriginal ties or difficulties in determining tribal affiliations. Therefore, the Historic Preservation Office would like the amendment proposed by the Washoe Tribe limited to insertion of the words "in consultation with the local Indian tribe."

Mr. James said Grimes Point, a petroglyph site located on Highway 50, was a good example of a site which could not be fenced off and could not be hidden. The site was very vulnerable to vandalism, and the only means to protect it was through public education, which had resulted in reduced vandalism at the site. He maintained informing the public of a site’s importance and of what the public could learn from it did much to deter vandals.

Senator Porter gave further testimony. He suggested section 3, subsection 1, be amended to include the words "with affected property owners." He wanted the desires of both the Indian tribes and affected property owners to be considered.

Mr. Wallace gave further testimony. He indicated determining tribal affiliations should not pose much difficulty. He explained the United States, through the Indian Claims Commission, had gone through an extensive process to determine tribal affiliations to certain areas of the United States, and tribal affiliations had been fairly well established in Nevada.

Mr. Wallace asserted when people came to understand the value of various sites, they placed a higher value on them and showed them more respect.

Senator Porter gave further testimony. He maintained a statement prepared by BLM would help establish legislative intent with respect to S.B. 397, and he read the statement aloud as follows:

Mr. Williams said he believed the Indian Commission could assist with activities such as those discussed in S.B. 397. He pointed out the Indian Commission was statutorily required to report to both the legislature and the governor, biennially, regarding activities it undertook to " . . . enhance things like this." He asked whether any witnesses could verify whether such reports had been made or received during the past several years.

Mr. Wallace briefly discussed the history and purpose of the Indian Commission. In response to Mr. Williams’ question, he said reports were published and information was provided to tribal communities; however, he was unable to say whether the Indian Commission provided reports to the legislature every 2 years. It was his understanding the commission was afforded an opportunity to report on its progress and activities when it came before the legislature in the course of the appropriations process, and he assumed it made its reports to the legislature at that time.

A brief discussion ensued between Mr. Williams and Mr. Wallace regarding the Indian Commission.

Josh Martinez, intern for Senator Porter, testified. He declared he engaged in vigorous research related to S.B. 397 and contended Sloan Canyon must be protected both to preserve its rock art and because it was currently used as a religious site. He pointed out pursuant to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native Americans had the same right as other people had to worship and have their place of worship protected.

Mr. Martinez informed the committee Sloan Canyon was placed on the national list of historic sites on December 19, 1978, and the Historic Preservation Office recently recorded the canyon’s artifacts. Because Sloan Canyon was located in a wilderness protection area, it was afforded some protection. S.B. 397 would benefit all Indian tribes in Nevada because it would help protect rock art so both current and future generations could observe it and, through it, enjoy history.

Viola S. Kennison, a member of the Walker River Paiute Tribe, testified. She asserted in her view of the world, as an aboriginal person, the land was given to her people by the Creator, and they had a responsibility to care for it; however, they had never sold it because they never owned it. Native Americans had a responsibility to care for historic sites, share those sites with others, and teach others about them.

Ms. Kennison pointed out the American Indian Freedom of Religion Act was passed while President Carter was in office. Prior to that Native American’s religious beliefs were not recognized in the United States.

Ms. Kennison said she would like the proposed amendment presented by Mr. Wallace (Exhibit F) amended to read "a public entity in consultation with the Indian tribe with local and aboriginal ties to the location of the site in question." It was important to her the Indian tribes be the ones to determine who should be in charge of the sites or be responsible for their care because there were sites which were mutually used and acknowledged by the Indian people. Among the Indians, there were restrictions on some sites, and only certain people, at certain times, were allowed to visit those sites. She begged the committee to consider that fact and allow the Indian people to determine who could visit those sites and when.

Chairman Bache asked Mr. Wallace whether the amendment Ms. Kennison proposed was satisfactory to him. Mr. Wallace replied it was.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 397 and announced he would accept a motion.

Chairman Bache clarified Ms. Parnell’s motion was to amend S.B. 397 in accordance with the proposed amendment submitted by Mr. Wallace, as amended by Ms. Kennison, and the amendment proposed by Senator Porter.

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Senatorial District 1, testified. He explained the purpose of S.B. 391 was to protect the rural lifestyle of people in areas of the Las Vegas Valley experiencing tremendous growth. The bill required the governing body of a county with a population of 400,000 or more to preserve the character of its rural neighborhoods. The bill defined a "rural preservation neighborhood" as a subdivided or developed area in which: residents were permitted to raise animals on a noncommercial basis; there were 10 or more dwelling units; there were no more than two residential units per acre; and the boundary of one residential lot was no more that 330 feet from the boundary of another. To the extent practical and in the absence of good cause for doing otherwise, the governing body was required to buffer such neighborhoods from adjacent development by limiting residential densities within a 330 foot buffer area. In addition, the governing body was permitted to modify its infrastructure standards to maintain the rural nature of such areas. Those provisions would expire in 2004.

Senator Porter pointed out in addition, in counties with a population of 400,000 or more, S.B. 391 authorized the governing bodies of the county and its cities, either jointly or independently, to negotiate a master development agreement with respect to undeveloped areas likely to be developed. Such an agreement must be based on an analysis of the cost to meet the area’s anticipated service needs, and that analysis must be reviewed by the regional planning coalition. The governing body could require a developer to pay an equitable share of infrastructure costs prior to proceeding with development and could, itself, pay a portion of those costs.

Senator Porter explained with respect to all counties in Nevada, S.B. 391 authorized inclusion of a rural neighborhood preservation plan in local master plans and required that zoning regulation be designed to ensure protection of existing neighborhoods and communities.

Mr. Thomas said it appeared S.B. 391 targeted only urban areas and asked, "Why couldn’t a rural preservation area be more than 330 feet from another existing residential structure." Senator Porter replied other distances were considered, and it was believed there was a need to preserve the rights of adjacent property owners. The proponents of S.B. 391 believed 330 feet provided a reasonable buffer zone; however, he was open to discussion in that regard. He pointed out circumstances sometimes prevented establishing a 330-foot buffer, and S.B. 391 permitted local government to adjust the buffer zone slightly.

Mr. Thomas said the neighborhood across the street from his neighborhood would nearly qualify for rural preservation because of the size of its lots. That neighborhood was separated from a typical single-family dwelling neighborhood by an 80-foot road, and he believed a street served as an adequate buffer.

Mr. Thomas suggested section 7, subsection 4, of S.B. 391 be amended to say "raise and/or keep animals" because people might keep animals on their property which they did not raise.

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director, Current Planning Division, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada, testified. In response to Mr. Thomas’ contention a 100-foot wide street would provide an adequate buffer, she said the language of S.B. 391 allowed for different types of development adjacent to major thoroughfares but did not prohibit " . . . expansion of a rural preservation area to go to that extent."

Ms. Coder proposed two additional amendments to S.B. 391. She proposed section 9, subsection 2(b), be amended to allow three residential units per acre rather than two and one half residential units. She explained three residential units per acre corresponded to a typical "RD" lot in Clark County, which was a 10,000 square foot lot, typically used as the next transitional step. Her second proposed amendment was to delete section 14, which was somewhat misunderstood and was not necessary for the remainder of the bill to be workable.

Chairman Bache indicated he would allow further questions of Senator Porter before discussions were held concerning Ms. Coder’s proposed amendments.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether S.B. 391 applied only to areas outside the city of Las Vegas or applied to areas within the city as well. Senator Porter replied the bill pertained to sites within Clark County, which included sites within the county’s cities.

Ms. Segerblom asked whether Senator Porter expected S.B. 391 to apply to an undeveloped area within the city of Las Vegas. Senator Porter responded he expected local governments to establish a rural preservation zone within their master plans.

Senator Porter informed Chairman Bache the amendments proposed by Ms. Coder posed no problem with respect to his position on S.B. 391.

Mr. Lee asked, "Does this rural improvement district preservation neighborhood – is it where if you get more than 50 percent of the people in the area, that you don’t have to put in the sidewalks? I mean, is that going to be mandated? Because we have certain areas that people just do not want the sidewalks, and once 50 percent of the people get off the septic or, you know, the sewer, all the infrastructure – quiz me down on that."

Ms. Coder responded S.B. 391 was comprised of two unrelated parts. The first half of the bill pertained to preservation of rural neighborhoods; the second pertained to assessment of improvement needs. She explained the portion of the bill which dealt with preservation of rural neighborhoods did not address offsite improvements. What it did was attempt to preserve those neighborhoods by providing a buffer. Although S.B. 391 did not address offsite improvements, Clark County was attempting to develop improvement standards for rural areas which were different from the standards for urban areas.

Ms. Von Tobel expressed appreciation for Senator Porter’s sponsorship of S.B. 391.

Daniel C. Musgrove, representing the city of Las Vegas, testified. He expressed the city of Las Vegas’ support for S.B. 391 as well as the proposed amendment to the bill.

Carole Vilardo, Executive Director, Nevada Taxpayers Association, testified. She indicated Nevada Taxpayers Association had no position on S.B. 391 other than to request section 14 be deleted. She asserted a discussion of fees did not belong in NRS 278. She pointed out anything required in connection with fees in order to carry out the provisions of S.B. 391 was already addressed in statute.

Mr. Thomas referred to use of the word "may" in section 11 of S.B. 391. He asked whether the things for which section 11 provided could currently be done, and if so, what purpose was served by saying they "may" be done. Senator Porter replied an attempt was made to include language related to Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) in all bills he sponsored. He asked Ms. Coder to address specific details about the coalition.

Ms. Coder said SNRPC supported S.B. 391 as amended on April 7, 1999. Although she could not speak for the coalition, she did not believe the minor amendments to the bill now proposed would change its posture on the bill.

Mr. Thomas pointed out section 12 of S.B. 391 also contained permissive language, and asserted if SNRPC never established the minimum requirements for development of infrastructure discussed in section 12, subsection 2(d)(1), " . . . you’re kind of at a loss."

Ms. Coder explained the language was permissive because " . . . this particular section actually rests in 278 under development agreements." Development agreements were optional, not mandatory, and it was desired to establish a process for negotiating fees on a more consistent basis.

Ms. Segerblom asked Senator Porter to identify the four largest cities in Nevada and advise whether those cities agreed to the provisions of S.B. 391. Senator Porter responded the four largest cities were Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, and Boulder City. Those cities were members of the SNRPC, and they agreed to the provisions of S.B. 391.

Mr. Lee asked if there was a particular reason for the sunset clause in S.B. 391. Senator Porter responded its purpose was to allow people who currently enjoyed a rural lifestyle to continue to do so while allowing local governments to take into account new people who would be moving into areas during the next 4 years when preparing master plans and establishing rural preservation areas.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 391.

Senator Jon C. Porter, Sr., Senatorial District 1, testified. He explained S.B. 436 created the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC), whose members consisted of the city of Las Vegas, city of North Las Vegas, city of Henderson, and Boulder City. The bill established the coalition would be governed by a nine-member board appointed by the local governments involved and addressed terms of office, vacancies, and meeting requirements. The bill required the board to elect a chairman and vice chairman from its membership, hire needed support or technical staff, adopt rules or bylaws, and prepare an annual budget. In addition, it established the powers and duties of the board.

Senator Porter said S.B. 436 also ensured the continuation and implementation of the authority’s 20-year strategic plan. Senator Porter advised in December 1998, all of southern Nevada’s local governments entered into an interlocal agreement and created a mechanism to implement the strategic plan, encourage joint planning, coordinate information, and accomplish various other things.

Senator Porter stated S.B. 436 codified SNRPC and effectively consolidated several regional planning functions under the authority of one regional planning body. It created a mechanism to ensure orderly growth, continual communication, and planning among local governments without creating additional bureaucracy. He asserted it was critical to the future of southern Nevada to formalize SNRPC.

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director, Current Planning Division, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada, testified. She said S.B. 436, as amended, removed citizen membership in SNRPC, which was consistent with Clark County’s wishes, and the county supported the bill.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, representing the city of Henderson, testified the city of Henderson supported S.B. 436.

Joseph Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, testified. He expressed Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club’s support for S.B. 436 and urged the committee to pass the bill.

Daniel C. Musgrove, representing the city of Las Vegas, testified. He stated Las Vegas’ city council unanimously approved the interlocal agreement discussed by Senator Porter and unanimously supported S.B. 436.

Marta Golding Brown, representing the city of North Las Vegas, testified North Las Vegas supported S.B. 436, as written, as well as the interlocal agreement Senator Porter discussed.

Ms. Segerblom asked Senator Porter whether he spoke for Boulder City. Senator Porter replied he represented the state of Nevada. However, he said he had a copy of the interlocal agreement, signed by all affected parties, which was the genesis of S.B. 436 and " . . . Boulder City has agreed to be a part."

Carole Vilardo, Executive Director, Nevada Tax Payers Association, testified. She pointed out section 11 of S.B. 436 addressed the fact SNRPC would serve as Clark County’s debt management commission, which conflicted with existing debt management law and with the provisions of Senate Bill 470. S.B. 436 provided for quarterly meetings; however, during the 1997 legislative session, the legislature provided meetings of Clark County’s debt management commission be held on at least a monthly basis. In addition section 11, subsection 2, required SNRPC’s board to "consult with other agencies." Statute which addressed how the debt management commission would operate was very specific and provided for a hearing at which affected entities could provide input. Members of the debt management commission had no discretion to determine which projects were to be given priority; their only function was to determine whether debt to be issued could be supported through available mechanisms.

Ms. Vilardo pointed out S.B. 470 specifically required the debt management commission include members of the public with expertise in financing, public administration, or banking because such expertise was needed in evaluating complicated bond issues.

Ms. Vilardo said although it was obviously up to the legislature to decide how it wanted the debt management commission to function, she was surprised neither S.B. 436 nor S.B. 470 carried a conflict notice because they did contradict one another.

Mr. Lee said he was sometimes concerned about the regional approach to planning and about someone becoming all powerful and determining what would and would not be placed on an agenda. He asked the purpose of the language of section 8, subsection 2, of S.B. 436, which said, "the term of the initial chairman or vice chairman expires on the date the first meeting is held in the year 2000." He also asked how the chairmanship of the board would be handled after that date.

Senator Porter replied the language Mr. Lee cited was taken from the coalition’s interlocal agreement. He said, "I believe they’re trying to put in consecutive – or parallel to terms of the elected officials for the first couple of years until they line up accordingly because they have staggered terms in each local government, elected at different times. So, they want to make sure they level out in the first 2 years."

Mr. Lee reiterated his concern about one person becoming too powerful. Senator Porter responded currently there was the best cooperation among local governments he could recall. He was not concerned about one chairman having too much authority because there were currently many strong individuals on SNRPC’s board who would continue to be members of the board in the future.

Marvin A. Leavitt, representing the city of Las Vegas, testified. He indicated most of what he had to say was contained in Ms. Vilardo’s testimony. He pointed out the differences in the composition of the board of the debt management commission as established by S.B. 436 and as established by S.B. 470.

Chairman Bache offered to work with Senator Porter to resolve the conflict between S.B. 436 and S.B. 470 with respect to the debt management commission.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 436.

Chairman Bache announced due to lack of a quorum, the committee was sitting as a subcommittee.

Lesa Coder, Assistant Director, Current Planning Division, Comprehensive Planning, Clark County, Nevada, testified. She said S.B. 394, as amended in the senate, called for Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition, Clark County Regional Transportation Commission, and Clark County Health District to coordinate their efforts and would increase understanding and cooperation with respect to the important issue of air quality control. She asserted Clark County strongly supported the bill.

Chairman Bache announced the committee was once again sitting as a full committee rather than a subcommittee.

Daniel C. Musgrove, representing the city of Las Vegas, testified. He said S.B. 394 was consistent with Las Vegas’ city council’s recommendations for a "livable Las Vegas" and urged the committee to support the bill.

Mr. Lee referred to section 6, subsection 4, of S.B. 394 and suggested it might be prudent to distribute a copy of the report discussed in that section to the two largest newspapers in Las Vegas so residents of Las Vegas could know what was happening with regard to SNRPC.

Mr. Musgrove pointed out any items requiring action by the coalition would be placed on a publicized agenda, which would meet all notification requirements established by law.

Mr. Lee said perhaps like he, most people did not read agendas of prospective meetings, and perhaps every 2 years SNRPC should publish a report of its activities so people could read about and understand them.

Mr. Musgrove pointed out in each section of S.B. 394, particularly sections 6 and 7, provisions were included which discussed conducting hearings to solicit public comment.

Senator Constandina Titus, Senatorial District 7, testified. She explained S.B. 394 related to what was known in planning literature by the acronym LUTRAQ, which stood for "land use, transportation, and air quality." Use of the acronym constituted recognition by scholars and practitioners in the field of planning of the need to consider those three elements in conjunction with one another in order to effect good planning. The purpose of S.B. 394 was to bring those elements together to provide for better coordination and planning.

Senator Titus pointed out as written, S.B. 394 pertained to the urban areas of both northern and southern Nevada. However, the purpose of the bill was currently addressed in Washoe County through the county’s regional planning system, and Washoe County would like to be excluded from the bill’s applicability. Therefore, discussions of S.B. 394 would be held primarily from the standpoint of southern Nevada.

Chairman Bache asked whether Senator Titus wanted to delete section 4 of S.B. 394. Senator Titus replied Washoe County prepared a proposed amendment specifying the portions of the bill to be deleted, which consisted primarily of section 4 but included a few other minor references.

Senator Titus explained in southern Nevada’s urban area, long range plans for land use, transportation, and air pollution control were prepared by different agencies for different purposes pursuant to different federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and time parameters. S.B. 394 addressed the lack of coordination in the preparation of those plans and promoted cooperation among the various agencies who prepared those plans, thereby making it easier to promote vigorous economic development, transportation access and mobility, and a clean, healthy environment.

Senator Titus pointed out S.B. 394 recognized existing, relevant agencies and created no new agencies. Section 6 of the bill established how coordination would be affected and required the three agencies involved to cooperate to accomplish various things. Section 2 required before adopting or changing any plan, the agencies both consult with one another and conduct public hearings. The purpose of that requirement was to determine whether the plan one agency planned to either adopt or change was consistent with the plans of the other two agencies and with capital improvement plans already in progress. Every 2 years, a document would be prepared and submitted to the legislature, the state planning body, and other agencies with a need to know so " . . . we can have all of these in a coordinated, one place kind of clearing house for the public to see where these plans are going."

Senator Titus explained the remaining sections of the bill merely repeated identical provisions with respect to each of the three agencies involved. She emphasized no decisions would be mandated by the state. Local governments, acting through existing regional entities, were merely required to communicate, cooperate, and coordinate their planning efforts with respect to the three policy elements so essential to smart growth, land use, transportation, and air quality.

Senator Titus said two sections of S.B. 394, which dealt with air quality, had just been added to the bill, and no disagreement was expressed with regard to those sections. She pointed out a person could not "double-dip" credits for reducing contaminant levels if the reduction was mandated as mitigation for a violation. Also, a person could obtain credit for reducing air pollution through use of solar energy.

Mr. Lee asked whether credits were currently sold or traded. Senator Titus replied there was a system currently in place through which a person could earn and sell credits. What was being said, through S.B. 394, was if someone performed an act he was required to perform as mitigation for a violation, he should not receive credits for doing so.

Joan Lambert, representing Washoe County, testified. She explained through its regional planning efforts, Washoe County had, for the past 10 years, effected coordination between its district board of health, which was responsible for air quality, Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission, and Washoe County Regional Planning Commission’s governing board. Therefore, Washoe County proposed an amendment to S.B. 394 (Exhibit G) which caused the bill not to apply to Washoe County.

Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 394.

Senator Titus said she wished to briefly address S.B. 191, heard earlier in the meeting. She submitted a copy of the minutes of Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition’s meeting of March 25, 1999, (Exhibit H) and pointed out certain things reflected in those minutes.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Bache adjourned the meeting at 1:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sara Kaufman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: