The Senate Subcommittee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Jon C. Porter, at 8:39 a.m., on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Jon C. Porter, Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Senator Dina Titus (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Janice McClure, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Porter opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 121.

Senator Porter stated that the City of Reno and Washoe County requested to be included in S.B. 121. He asked the City of Las Vegas representatives if they would like to make comments to the subcommittee.

Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated that he had talked to both Clark County and the home builders with regard to the language in the zoning tables. They felt that this language was cumbersome for the homeowners to understand. This bill is designed to be a consumer rights matter to make the homeowners aware of what exactly they are getting into. Therefore, Mr. Musgrove proposed that the language be a simple legend on the side of a map that refers to general land use categories, with a brief description of what the category means. He further stated that Irene Porter, representing the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, could testify that most of their people are already doing that. The biggest concern is the language in section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b) of S.B. 121.

Senator Porter inquired of Mr. Musgrove if he was suggesting that section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b), be on the map or on the closing documents.

Mr. Musgrove replied that it should be a separate document in very plain English with bold type that specifies there is a master plan, explaining it is for general comprehension and long-term development. He felt this would be one last eye-opening experience for the homeowner to understand before they sign on the dotted line.

Senator Porter indicated that he had made available at this meeting copies of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.260 that shows determination, establishment, enforcement and amendment of zoning districts, and regulations and restrictions on hearing notices.

Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Southern Nevada Home Builders Association (SNHBA), stated that most builders use a legal size sheet of paper showing the subject subdivision unit, all the surrounding parcels, and on those

surrounding parcels are delineated both the current zoning and the master planning. Then they do a legend that shows the delineation of each of the master plan districts and a legend showing the zoning district. The builder then puts a statement on the map stating that the information is current as of the date specified, the city planning department from where the information was received, that both the zoning and master planning are subject to change, and that they recommend the consumer call the local planning department for additional information on any of these uses. Ms. Porter believed that part of the misunderstanding here was because this statute had not been in effect for very long. She recalled the bill went into effect in 1995. Senator Porter stated that it went into effect in 1993 and 1997.

Ms. Porter stated it would have been somewhere in the middle of 1994 before everyone was fairly well educated on this issue. With the tremendous growth in the last 10 years, there are a lot of people who never would have received the original zoning designation maps. She suggested the master plan maps were not amended into it until 1997. So that has only been going on for a year and a half. It will take a number of years before people have gotten all of it. In addition to the map, there is a Buyer Awareness Report that has to be given to every new homeowner. (Exhibit C) Ms. Porter stressed that one of the problems is when a person divides their land into four lots under the parcel map law and then sells those lots to individuals to build their houses, these usually are not members of the home builders association. Ms. Porter stated she does not know how these homeowners are getting the appropriate information.

Senator Porter inquired of Ms. Porter if the documents she provided the full committee are required by law or is it just something that her members are doing. Ms. Porter responded that it is both. Many of those items are required by federal or state law. There are other items in there that her members are adding voluntarily to help protect themselves in the event of lawsuits. There are many pages of disclosure that are required by state statutes now.

Senator Porter suggested looking at S.B. 121 and seeing what aspects of the bill the city would definitely like and things they would not.

Ms. Porter stated that SNHBA would have a continuing problem of trying to do the additional 500-foot radius around every individual house. She stressed that she would not have any problem coming up with some language in section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b), that matches up with what they are already doing.

Senator Porter, in going back to the 500-foot radius issue, inquired of Ms. Porter what portion of that language she could accept. Ms. Porter replied that their problem is where they would have to customize the language for each house doing a 500-foot radius.

Pat Coward, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, stated they would have no problem with dropping that language.

Senator Porter inquired if Mr. Coward was saying they could eliminate any reference to the 500-foot radius on section 1, subsection 4. Mr. Coward replied that was correct.

Senator Porter inquired what language could be agreed upon in section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b). Ms. Porter stated that they could print the language required by section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b), on the map. Right now they are doing it on a legal size sheet of paper where the legends are, too.

Senator Porter inquired if the City of Las Vegas agreed with Ms. Porter’s proposal. Mr. Coward replied yes.

Senator Porter inquired if anyone had a problem with the language contained in section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (c). Ms. Porter stated that language leads to difficulties in reference to the tables that create the lengthy documents.

Mr. Musgrove stated that is where the City of Las Vegas was willing to change the language to have a legend which specifies general land use categories, rather than the table that specifically lists each and every zoning designation.

Senator Porter asked Mr. Musgrove to explain what changing to a legend means. Mr. Musgrove explained that a legend is broader in scope and not as detailed, in terms of a table being minutia. He suggested the language provide a legend of general land use categories and a description that would go along with that general land use category.

Ms. Porter inquired if it could be done like it normally would in any zoning ordinance. Mr. Musgrove replied to Ms. Porter that it could and suggested offering an example of what might be included in a specific type of zoning. Ms. Porter stated that once you specify one, you have to specify everything or you are going to end up being sued. Mr. Musgrove withdrew his suggestion of adding an example of what might be included in a specific type of zoning, agreeing with Ms. Porter that it might be too cumbersome.

Senator Porter inquired if Mr. Musgrove would like to change section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (c), completely in that it would be a legend instead of a list. Mr. Musgrove replied that was correct.

Ms. Porter asked what the current law states about listing those land use categories. Mr. Musgrove stated that he and Lesa Coder of the Clark County Planning Department have a suggested language change on page 2, line 43, from "shows every allowable use within those designations" to "describes the designations and/or the general category of uses permitted within them." Additionally, he would like to discuss the effective date of this bill.

Senator Porter suggested going back to the suggested language change. Ms. Porter expressed concern that Mr. Musgrove’s suggested language change would get them back to listing uses again.

Lesa M. Coder, Lobbyist, Assistant Director of Planning, Clark County, suggested that particular language keeping in mind that if they were to say "neighborhood retail" it would be more general than saying "dry cleaner" or "pet store." Those are types of specific land uses that would be found in the zoning code. She pointed out that it probably would not be a bad idea to run that by the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) for intent. Clark County Planning could not think of a better way to describe general land use. Land use guides typically would be commercial industrial, leading one to wonder if that includes an office warehouse, a Longs, or a Lucky’s. Ms. Coder suggested that a little bit of description would be good, but to get too far into that, to say it is a dry cleaners, a grocery store or a pet store, is too specific.

Ms. Porter stated that it would leave over 300 builders in the situation of having to make up their own descriptions for each of these categories. She suggested if there are going to be one-line descriptions, then each of the local governments should come up with them so there is some standardization. Senator Porter stated that he would also like to discuss standardization while he has the experts present.

Ms. Coder suggested that typically there is a description for each of the designations within the land use guides. That would seem to be a jumping-off point to give better description to the general category. The land use guides are pretty much cookie-cutter in terms of how the information is organized and what the contents are. So that may be one way that would not leave it at the discretion necessarily of the public, but would have already been stated in a document adopted by each entity.

Senator Porter stated that it is more important for the buyer to understand the notices. The language needs to be very plain and very understandable. The problem is that many people are confused by zoning terms and legal terms. He suggested that the LCB staff take some suggestions and create some language.

Senator McGinness stated doing another table of general descriptions like neighborhood retail would confuse the issue even further in that it will open up a whole new category and a whole new NRS chapter.

Senator Porter inquired if this was something they should go into more detail on now, or if they should work on some language. He asked Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, what he would prefer to do.

Mr. Wilkinson replied that it would be difficult for him to come up with the exact language that is going to adequately address everyone’s concerns since this is a technical area. He stated he did not want to make this language too broad or too narrow. He requested more guidance.

Senator Porter requested some language that is more understandable. Ms. Porter suggested that they could probably come up with something very general because every local government is doing something different.

Senator Porter asked if there were any other parts of S.B. 121 that were in question.

Ms. Coder replied that Clark County has been finalizing 20- and 30-year old zoning over the past 5 years. She stated that she is trying to update that data through their geographic information system so they can produce those maps in an automated fashion for the public. Ms. Coder stated although Clark County has made the conversion within the Las Vegas Valley, throughout the course of the remainder of this year they would be doing that conversion for all of the outlying areas. Ms. Coder expressed concern about whether or not Clark County could meet an effective date to have the outlying area maps available for the public. She said Clark County has the land use guides, but the zoning maps are not easily reproduced. Their preference for an effective date would be December 1, 1999.

Senator Porter asked if anyone had a problem with the December 1 effective date. Mr. Coward stated that the City of Las Vegas had no problem at all with the December 1 effective date. Ms. Porter stated that it gave her time to let people know what they are doing.

Senator Porter asked if there were any other questions or concerns about the bill. Mr. Coward commented that he was really concerned that getting too far into the definitions would cause more problems. Senator Porter stated that they need to find a way to help the public understand the notices. He suggested that possibly when the notices go out there could be an explanation at the bottom.

Mr. Musgrove agreed with Senator Porter’s suggestion of an explanation on the notices. It should be something that can be incorporated for the benefit of those that need to understand the notices. Senator Porter explained that these notices go out to the residents within 500 feet of a proposed zone change. The notices are very specific and contain legal terminology describing the zone change.

Ms. Porter stated that when doing the notice of public hearing on a zone change, there is also a requirement to put a legal notice in the newspaper. She suggested that the legal notices in the newspaper remain very small and that this proposed provision only applies to the notices mailed to the public, otherwise there would be a huge cost to the local governments.

Ms. Coder concurred with Ms. Porter’s comments regarding the inclusion of an explanation in the notices that are mailed out to individuals. Ms. Coder further stated that Clark County tries to provide a reasonable explanation in general terms that they think the public will understand. Further down in the body of the notice they get more specific. She stated it is not part of the legal notice, but it does give a very specific description of the actual request.

Senator Porter was not sure how the statutes would be worded other than to provide an explanation. The current requirement is that the notice must be written in language which is easy to understand, must set forth the time, the place, the purpose of the hearing and a physical description of or a map detailing the proposed change. He stressed that the statute currently requires that the notice be made easy to understand.

Ms. Porter suggested adding to the proposed language that the existing and the master plan zoning of the property should be indicated in the notices. Senator Porter suggested there be something more precise such as a brief summary of the intent of the change. Mr. Coward and Ms. Porter both concurred.

Ms. Coder stated that it should be easy for Clark County to conform as well. Mr. Coward understood this requirement is for any area of 400,000 in population or more. Ms. Porter stated there is no population cap. It applies to all notices statewide. Senator Porter stated he also believed it should be on all notices statewide.

John Hester, A.I.C.P., Community Development Manager, Community Development Department, City of Reno, stated that the City of Reno also would have no problem with the suggested language change regarding notices mailed to the public.

Senator McGinness stated that as a rural resident, he believed if the only thing being added is a brief summary of the intent of the change he did not think that would be something that rurals could not live with either.

Senator Porter stated he wanted to discuss the standardization of zoning language for Clark County specifically because he was not sure of the situation in northern Nevada. He said it appears that each entity uses a little bit different terminology. He suggested standardizing the language in Clark County on descriptions.

Ms. Porter suggested that the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition try with their planning staffs to standardize some of the categories and the language describing it. Ms. Coder agreed with Ms. Porter and stated that it would be a challenging task because there are so many different terminologies used from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Ms. Coder stated she believed with as much commonality as possible, better service could be provided.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, Intergovernmental Relations Director, City of Henderson, stated that this could be communicated to the group as early as February 18. She said the additional information is something the City of Henderson needs to put high up on its work program for this year if that is the intent of this subcommittee.

Senator Porter referred the subcommittee back to the phrase "shows every allowable use within those designations" on page 2, line 43 of S.B. 121.

Ms. Fretwell suggested adding a phrase on page 2 at the end of line 17, "and general land uses described therein," then the local governments are providing that information in the required up-to-date format. She directed attention to section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (a), line 34, that the local governments are required to update and provide that information and then the sellers are required to disseminate it. That information goes back to the land use categories that are categorized in the master plans and there is no question who provides that information, which is the most recent information available by the local governments. Ms. Coder agreed that Ms. Fretwell’s suggested added language to page 2, line 17, would work well.

Senator Porter stated that section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (c), would be completely deleted and that line 17 of page 2 would be changed according to Ms. Fretwell’s suggestion, also the reference to the 500-foot rule would be deleted. The Senator pointed out that the language in section 1, subsection 5, paragraph (b), would be included on the maps. Language for the notices has been covered and the effective date of S.B. 121 will be December 1, 1999 to allow time for Clark County Planning to finish their project.

Senator Porter indicated that he brought up the subject of standardized zoning earlier to spur debate. He stated he is hoping that will be handled by the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition. Senator McGinness suggested a letter from the subcommittee to the affected governments would help. Senator Porter stated the subcommittee would bring the recommended changes before the full committee.

There being no further testimony, Senator Porter closed the hearing on S.B. 121 and adjourned the subcommittee meeting at 9:18 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Janice McClure,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Jon C. Porter, Chairman

DATE: