MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs

 

Seventy-Second Session

May 10, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:51 a.m., on Saturday, May 10, 2003.  Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference in Room 4412 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada, and 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.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman

Mr. Kelvin Atkinson

Mr. Chad Christensen

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Pete Goicoechea

Mr. Tom Grady

Mr. Joe Hardy

Mr. Ron Knecht

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Peggy Pierce

Ms. Valerie Weber

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman (Excused)

Mr. Bob McCleary (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Dina Titus, Senate District No. 7, Clark County

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Melisa Aguon, Secretary, Information Support Specialist

Eric Anderlohr, Committee Manager

Brian Davie, Legislative Services Officer

Brenda Erdoes, Legislative Counsel

Nancy Haywood, Committee Secretary

Pat Hughey, Lead Committee Secretary

Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Myrna Williams, Clark County Commissioner for District E

Keku Kamalani, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Intern for Senator Dina Titus

James H. Bilbray, former U. S. Congressman from Nevada

Jeff van Ee, Citizen

Brett R. Riddle, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Jim Deacon, Ph.D., Citizen

John Hiatt, Conservation Chairman, Red Rock Audubon Society

Pauline van Betten, Member, Red Rock Overlay Task Force

Mark Beecham, representing the Friends of Red Rock Canyon

Karen Hunt, Chairperson for Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club

Ed Thiessen, Board Member, Las Vegas Valley Bicycle Club

Susan Snyder, President, Las Vegas Valley Bicycle Club

Stephanie Garcia-Vause, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson

Jeanne Sharp Howerton, Las Vegas Astronomical Society

Bill Kissam, Citizen, and Former Nevada State Assemblyman

Sheila Sterling, Citizen

Evan Blythin, Chairman, Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council

Mike Ford, Great Basin and Southwest Director for the Conservation Fund

Richard Klutman, Citizen

Steve Morris, representing Jim Rhodes

Jim Rhodes, Rhodes Homes

Barbara Ginoulias, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Current Planning Division, Clark County

Dawn Perry, Citizen

Bairie Bair, Citizen

Chris Fusch, Citizen

Joann Conte, Citizen

Charles Graham, on behalf of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council

Jennifer Kilpatrick, Citizen

 

Chairman Manendo:

Good morning, folks in Carson City and Las Vegas, and the World Wide Web.  Welcome.  This is your Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.  We call it the people’s house.  Madam Secretary, will you please take the roll?  [Roll taken.]  I apologize for the 50-some minute delay.  We’re doing everything we possibly can to accommodate the people from the public.

 

I received some correspondence from folks wondering why we don’t hold all of our hearings here.  It is because Las Vegas is not the capital.  For the new folks in our community, Carson City is our capital, and that’s where we hold our legislative meetings.  Some of the Committee members, Senator Titus and myself included, wanted to have a hearing in Las Vegas so folks from the public could listen and see their government at work.

 

Another piece of correspondence I received said that it was Saturday, we have things to do, and we understand that.  In the Assembly, we are paid for the first 60 days of the two-year term, then we work for free, and it’s the same with the senators.  We’re here because we want to be here.  We have work to do, and we want to hear from you folks. 

 

People have requested that we have a fair hearing.  We will have a fair hearing.  Every single member of the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs has been absolutely wonderful this entire session.  We have nine freshmen on this Committee.  Only one member of this Committee has served on this Committee at any other time.  We’re new folks as well.  I just wanted to give you a little bit of a background.

 

I also want to mention for those testifying that under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Section 218.5345, it is unlawful to misrepresent any fact knowingly when testifying or otherwise communicating to a legislator.  Just keep that in mind.  That’s part of our fair hearing process.

 

In Carson City, if you have a question of any witnesses, you’re going to have to turn on your microphone and let me know.  I don’t have a box where I can see who wants to ask a question or speak.  We’re going to do our best to hear as much testimony as possible and ask questions after each witness.  If there’s something that we need to get on record, we will interrupt, but for the most part, we’re going to try to just let folks have their shot.

 

[Chairman Manendo continued.]  Next to me is Brian Davie.  He’s our staff here in Las Vegas and we’re glad that he’s here.  We have some folks in Carson City, Susan Scholley and Brenda Erdoes.  Some of the correspondence we do is through our computers and mine has been acting funny, so I wanted to let Ms. Scholley know that I don’t think I’m going to be able to communicate in that manner, but we’ll try again.

 

I’m opening the hearing on Senate Bill 358.

 

Senate Bill 358 (1st Reprint):  Provides for certain protections relating to certain lands adjacent to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. (BDR 22‑645)

 

Senator Dina Titus, Senate District No. 7, Clark County:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m proud to be joined this morning by Clark County Commissioner Myrna Williams; my intern, Keku Kamalani in Carson City; and hundreds of people representing dozens of groups who support protecting one of our nation’s greatest natural treasures, the Red Rock Canyon.

 

Recognized initially in NRS in 1993 with the enrollment of Chapter 639 [Statutes of Nevada], Red Rock Canyon is a uniquely beautiful land, which Mother Nature has worked 600 million years to create.  Less than 20 miles from Las Vegas, it’s an awe-inspiring desert playground, sculpted by the winds and rains of time.  Not only is the canyon a scenic area which provides recreational opportunities for thousands of people each year, it is also an area rich in cultural resources which tell a story of human activity in the southern Nevada desert, dating from prehistoric years.  Found throughout the Red Rock Canyon are roasting pits, petroglyphs, and pictographs, as well as broken pots and stone tools, which are pieces of the puzzle that, when put together, tell the story of the ancient ways of life and human adaptation to the southern Nevada desert.

 

The geology of Red Rock Canyon is also fascinating.  The most significant feature is the Keystone Thrust Fault, which began some 65 million years ago.  The gray carbonate rocks of the ancient ocean have been thrust over the tan and red sandstone in one of the most dramatic and easily identified formations in the whole world.

 

Finally, Red Rock Canyon is an oasis in the desert.  Its deep sandstone canyons provide a perennial water supply, moderate temperatures, and a wide variety of vegetation, making it an ideal habitat for over 100 bird species.  There are also, to the surprise of many who aren’t familiar with the desert habitat, 45 species of mammals, and a number of amphibians, frogs, lizards, snakes, and the tiger salamander.  Plant life is equally varied.  In addition to the endangered chollas, you find piñon, junipers, Joshua trees, various grasses, creosote, et cetera. 

 

[Senator Titus continued.]  There’s a 13-mile, one-way loop through the red rocks, which offers visitors a chance to view the diversity and beauty of this area from the comfort of their cars.  There are also more than one dozen trails for family hiking, along with opportunities for picnicking, biking, and rock climbing. 

 

The area receives nearly 1.2 million visitors a year from around the globe, and it is considered a national treasure by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), which is charged with its stewardship and protection.  Assistant Secretary of the Interior Rebecca Watson visited the park earlier this year and commented that she was awestruck by the canyon’s red and beige outcroppings.  She also noted that, because of its fee demonstration program that has brought in $5.5 million since November 1997, and its partnership with volunteers and nonprofit groups, it is a model for how other BLM areas should cope with urban growth.  That’s the perfect segue to why we’re here today.

 

How does the canyon cope with urban growth?  What can we do to deal with encroaching development that is threatening the integrity and sanctity of this precious area?  At the county level, the Clark County Commission began to address this threat last summer with the creation of the Red Rock Design Overlay Committee.  Comprised of developers like Tom Warden and Colleen Wilson-Pappa from the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, environmentalists like Jeff van Ee, residents of Blue Diamond like Evan Blythin and Pauline van Betten, and many others, the committee designated a Red Rock Design Overlay District.  A map was drawn, which you all have a copy of, and a number of restrictions were proposed concerning allowable development features, such as landscaping, color, buffering, screening, signage, and lighting.  These are now before the Clark County Commission and Ms. Myrna Williams can talk to you about that.

 

To augment the excellent work that was started by the Clark County Commission, I worked with the staff in the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning to draft S.B. 358.  This bill will simply lock in existing zoning found today within the overlay district.  That zoning designation is currently rural, which means that on the privately held land within the district today, only one house is allowed for every two acres.  S.B. 358 does not prohibit development.  It doesn’t change that.  It simply makes it impossible for someone to get a zoning variance that would allow denser development. 

 

[Senator Titus continued.]  I want to also point out that this land in the overlay district that is in contention today is outside the federal statute that created a disposal boundary for the disposal of public lands here that was designated as the area that should be developed.  With only a small exception, all the land in the overlay district is federally owned already.

 

You have a little packet of information (Exhibit C) before you that I put together.  I don’t have the resources of Mr. Rhodes to give you that full binder, but if you would look at this, I would appreciate it.  There are some pictures of Red Rock; there are several newspaper articles that give you some background; there are some typical examples of the many letters and e-mails that we’ve received and I know all of you have received.  Some of these have come from supporters within the state, and some have come from all around the country, because visitors enjoy the red rocks as well as do residents. 

 

I want to conclude my testimony by debunking some of the false charges and information that’s been presented this past week in television ads, newspaper ads, radio and TV interviews, solicited e-mails, and on guided tours.  In a last‑ditch effort to block S.B. 358, one developer has spent hundred of thousand of dollars to, I believe, subvert the process and provide misinformation to influence public opinion for his own personal gains.

 

The developer, Mr. Rhodes, argues that zoning is a local matter that should not be interfered with by the state.  Let me point out that this bill (S.B. 358) represents just the opposite.  This is not an adversarial situation between the county and the state, as evidenced by the fact that we are sitting here together before you today.  Instead, it’s an excellent example of cooperation between the local, the state, and even the federal government.  Clark County drew the overlay design zone map.  Clark County set the original zoning designation in its master plan.  Clark County will approve any development designs that occur within the overlay zone.  Clark County hopes to buy the property, which I support, with money from the public lands act that has been sold within the disposal region.  All the state is doing is locking in existing zoning.

 

I would contend that this is necessary for several reasons.  State law is harder to change than local zoning ordinances.  Locking in existing zoning will more likely make the owner a willing seller, and will keep the fair market value from skyrocketing, which will cost less in public dollars.  State action is also necessary because of the owner’s blatant attempt to conflict out so many members of the Clark County Commission.

 

[Senator Titus continued.]  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, state action is appropriate because Red Rock Canyon is a state treasure, just like Lake Tahoe in the north.  It’s appropriate for us to be involved.  The state created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.  We have a standing committee in the Legislature to deal with Lake Tahoe, and every session we appropriate funds and pass laws that deal with Lake Tahoe.  Red Rock Canyon is our Lake Tahoe in the south.  There is nothing else like it, so you cannot make the “nose under the tent” argument against it.

 

A second misinformation that’s out there that you may have heard is denying possible zoning change is a takings.  That is not true, and LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) has provided me with a very detailed opinion that it is not true, and I will submit that to you for the record from Ms. Erdoes.  [A copy of the item was not submitted.]  I would point out to you that the courts have said, “A takings will be found when a law eliminates all of a property’s economic value.”  The courts have also ruled that the fact that a developer may have paid more for the land then it was worth under existing zoning in hopes of securing a zoning change is not a fact to be considered.  The right to speculate is not a right that is protected by the United States Constitution.

 

Is this Red Rock protection bill (S.B. 358) a takings?  No, absolutely not.  The bill easily meets the requirements set forth in the case of Penn Central.  First, the legitimate state interest in protecting Red Rock Canyon is inarguably valid.  Second, this bill (S.B. 358) clearly does not eliminate all the economic value of Mr. Rhodes’ property, nor will it deny him any economically viable use in the future.  Under S.B. 358 Mr. Rhodes can still develop the property at one house for every two acres.  We’re not changing that.  He can still run the gypsum mine which one of his representatives testified still has 20 more years of viability.

 

In short, Mr. Rhodes may have purchased this land with the hope of greater density, but that has to be considered speculation, which as I said, is not constitutionally protected. 

 

Third, Mr. Rhodes suggested I have singled him out with S.B. 358.  Again, that is not true.  I began work on this last legislative session, requested a bill in September 2002, introduced it in early March, and had a hearing on it in March.  At that time, John Pappageorge, representing Mr. Rhodes, testified, and I quote, “On Friday, just five days ago, Jim Rhodes purchased the James Hardie Gypsum Mine site.”  In other words, S.B. 358 was in the works long before the purchase was made.

 

[Senator Titus continued.]  Mr. Rhodes knew that it was in process.  He also knew the James Laing Homes proposal on the same site had been withdrawn because of opposition the previous year, and he knew the Red Rock Design Overlay proposal was moving forward at the county level.  He knew exactly what he was getting into.  Now, however, Mr. Rhodes is saying he’s owned the land for two years.  I ask you, what is the truth and why the change of story?

 

Fourth, you will hear reference to a federal law that states that Congress did not intend for the establishment of conservation areas to lead to the creation of a protective buffer.  I would point out to you that neither did Congress prohibit the creation of such a buffer, nor did it suggest that expanding the conservation zone was prohibited or discouraged.  That law that will be quoted goes on to read, and this is a very important point, and I quote again, “Activities or use of zoned land up to the boundary of the conservation area are not precluded to the extent they are consistent with existing law.”  That’s exactly my point, and that supports S.B. 358.  Existing law is the current rural zoning, not some denser zoning that some people are now trying to secure. 

 

Fifth, you will hear that locking in rural zoning is elitist and means that houses for the wealthy, and not for the average Nevadan, not for the teacher, not for the fire fighter, will be built.  I say to that “hogwash.”  That is populous claptrap and anybody who knows me and my record knows that’s not true.

 

Jim Rhodes wants to develop lots of homes so he can make lots of money.  Developing one house per two acres may not “pencil out,” as they say, because of the enormous cost of reclamation and infrastructure that will be accrued prior to building the first house.  He can’t make any money on 1,200 homes, if that’s all he can build, so maybe he will never build any houses.  That’s why he wants to build 5,500 homes.  But, according to reputable developers, even with 5,500 homes, those would not be affordable housing for the average teacher, not with what teachers make in this state.  They would be very high-end houses.

 

Those would have to be very high-end houses, even if there were 5,500 of them, because of the tremendous cost of developing infrastructure and taking water up that hill. 

 

Sixth, and perhaps this is the most disappointing development of all, I was notified yesterday that Mr. Rhodes had agreed to enter into a labor contract for the construction project if the building trades unions would oppose S.B. 358.  Apparently, that’s what has happened because a letter has gone out to you from Mr. Bob Nard.  The building trades sent this letter to you talking about all these other things that I have just mentioned, but they did not testify before the Senate.  They did not come to me in advance.  We have not heard one word from them until this moment.

 

[Senator Titus continued.]  You know, Mr. Chairman, that no one has fought harder than I have for policies that benefit working men and women and create new jobs, but I believe that this promise of jobs is an empty promise that will never be fulfilled and is the ultimate scam to get the support of one segment of labor.  Why would you believe a promise of jobs when Mr. Rhodes has never used union labor in the many developments that he has built in the past?  Why would you believe Mr. Rhodes’ promise of jobs when his ability to build his housing tract is based on Clark County Commission approval, even if this S.B. 358 fails and the Clark County Commission has made it very clear that they have no intention of doing so?  Why would you believe his promise of jobs when Senators Reid and Ensign, both of whom share my commitment to saving Red Rock, are moving forward to have the federal government buy this land?  Again, no houses will be built and no jobs would be created.  Why would you believe his promises of jobs are anything more than an attempt to get this property, efforts that are in conflict with the Clark County Commissioners, spending thousands and thousands of dollars on misleading advertisement, and now trying to buy union support?

 

I only hope that if some of the union leadership does fall for this, many of their members, men and women who take their own families out to enjoy Red Rock, will not be fooled by this scam.

 

Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I know that some of you have taken Mr. Rhodes’ tour of the gypsum mine.  Those tours remind me of the Yucca Mountain tours that were sponsored by the DOE (U. S. Department of Energy).  You see what they want you to see, and you hear what they want you to hear.  This is not the choice between an ugly mine and a beautiful subdivision.  It’s about 5,500 homes, which means, with a conservative estimate, at least 20,000 cars a day on the Blue Diamond Highway, endangering hikers, bicyclists, and wildlife.  It means air pollution, noise pollution, and light pollution.  It means stringing expensive infrastructure, water and sewer, up the hill to this development.  It means you’ll have to build schools and fire stations and libraries, all of which come from taxpayer dollars, all of which come from people who will live in this valley, not on that hill.  It then means strip malls and grocery stores.  Again, not in the valley, but up on the slopes adjacent to Red Rock.

 

In short, S.B. 358 is not about a choice between a mine and a beautiful development.  It’s about saving southern Nevada’s crown jewel.  I ask you, please do that.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Commissioner Williams?

 

Myrna Williams, Clark County Commissioner for District E:

[Introduced herself.  A copy of Ms. Williams’ written testimony is attached as Exhibit D.]  I am here this morning on behalf of the Clark County Commission to indicate the Commission’s support for Senate Bill 358.  This bill directly impacts Clark County and its citizens.  I would like to take a few moments to provide you with some background on the Red Rock Canyon issue, and explain why the Commission is in support of this measure.

 

Red Rock Canyon is an area of unique, unusual scenic beauty that brings a rural flavor to the otherwise urban portions of Clark County.  In addition to its scenic beauty and geologic significance, Red Rock Canyon provides recreational opportunities to residents as well as visitors from both within and outside of Nevada.

 

Clark County has a long history of protecting the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area and adjacent lands.  Following the establishment of the conservation area by the federal government in 1990, Clark County, in consultation with residents and property owners, adopted a master plan for the Red Rock area that included a small industrial area, a gypsum mine; a very small commercial area, Blue Diamond; parks and recreation, the national conservation area itself; and several thousand acres of private land.

 

In 2002, Clark County adopted the Red Rock Design Overlay District that established standards for commercial development for setbacks, visual impacts, site design, appearance, and materials which were intended to provide additional protection to the scenic, recreational, and rural character of the Red Rock area.  We will be considering an ordinance on May 21, 2003, to expand the overlay district to include residential design standards and additional lands in the Red Rock area.

 

Clark County recognizes the state of Nevada’s interest in the Red Rock area.  Having spent 10 years in the Legislature myself, I understand that this is an area that is analogous to Lake Tahoe for those of us who live in southern Nevada.  Much of what we have protected or swapped in this area, the benefits have gone up north to Lake Tahoe, and it’s time that we get some benefits down here to protect our jewel in the desert. 

 

While any legislative proposal to limit powers of local government is always a concern, Senate Bill 358 is narrow and focused.  Local government retains all authority for planning, zoning, and regulation of land use in the Red Rock area other than the limitations established in Section 8 of S.B. 358.  The bill applies only to a very small area of Clark County.  The bill does not affect Clark County’s ability to implement the Red Rock master plan.  S.B. 358 is written so that it does not affect zoning that exists on the effective date of the legislation.

 

[Myrna Williams continued.]  Section 9 of S.B. 358 indicates the support of the Legislature for the acquisition of vacant private lands by the federal government that is consistent with and supportive of the resolution passed by Clark County on May 6, 2003, entitled, “Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive Land and Natural Area Commonly Known as the James Hardie Gypsum Mine.”

 

We wish to commend Senator Titus and everyone else involved in the development of this bill.  In conclusion, Senate Bill 358 is consistent with long‑established policies and practices of Clark County concerning the Red Rock Canyon area.  On behalf of the Clark County Commission, I urge the Committee to recommend passage of the First Reprint of Senate Bill 358 to the full Assembly.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Commission Williams, am I to understand that the Clark County Commission is in favor of passing S.B. 358?

 

Myrna Williams:

Yes, sir.

 

Assemblyman Goicoechea:

Thank you.  That makes it a lot easier for me.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Commissioner Williams, did the Commission actually hear this bill and vote to support S.B. 358?

 

Myrna Williams:

Yes.  As a matter of a fact, we passed a resolution this past week in support of Senate Bill 358. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Who abstained from that vote?

Myrna Williams:

I think there was only one abstention.

 

Chairman Manendo:

It was a 6-0 vote if I’m not mistaken, and one abstention.  We can look into that and find out later.

 

Senator Titus, I want to commend you.  I know you put together a list of folks in an orderly fashion.  We appreciate that and so does the public.  I believe you want to go to your intern in Carson City.

 

Senator Titus:

I do.  He’s got some things he wants to share with you and then we’ll go down the list.  I just want to take a minute to thank all the many, many people who turned out this morning.  Most of them couldn’t get into this room, and even those who can’t testify, they’re here, and I think it’s so important that their voices are heard.  I’d like to thank them and let Keku Kamalani speak and then we’ll turn it over.  Congressman Bilbray wants to give just a few words, and then from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), and then just go down the list.

 

Chairman Manendo:

If you have cellular phones, they need to be turned off.  I should have said that at the beginning.  I haven’t heard any, so that’s good, because I think everybody knows you’re here and listening.

 

Keku Kamalani, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Intern for Senator Dina Titus:

[Introduced himself.  A copy of Mr. Kamalani’s written testimony is attached as Exhibit E.]  As a member of Senator Titus’ staff, I had the privilege of assisting the Senator in her quest to save Red Rock Canyon from development.  While serving as the Senator’s point man, I had the opportunity to work with a broad coalition comprised of businesses, environmentalists, university professors, recreational clubs, and average citizens.  In what can be described as grassroots mobilization at its best, these people tirelessly attended rallies, wrote e-mails to legislators, and distributed petitions that generated thousands upon thousands of signatures.  They did it with no money, without the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the opposition.  What I now have clutched in my hands are the fruits of their labor.  [Mr. Kamalani held up a document.]  These are the signatures of more than 11,000 people who understand the importance of protecting the crown jewel of southern Nevada.

 

Prior to working on S.B. 358, I had assumed that no one would develop homes in Red Rock Canyon.  To do so would have been blasphemy in the eyes of every southern Nevadan who enjoys the great outdoors.  As we have seen, times have changed.  As a result of working with Senator Titus and witnessing firsthand her struggle to protect Red Rock, I was able to rekindle my love for a state treasure that I had taken for granted. 

 

Thanks to Senator Titus’ hard work and vision, S.B. 358 gives me hope that my children and future generations will have the same opportunity to experience the natural beauty and splendor that we currently associate with Red Rock Canyon.  I urge you to support S.B. 358.  Thank you.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Did you say 11,000?

 

Keku Kamalani:

Yes I did, sir.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I know the Senator is proud of your work, not only on this legislation, but the work you do in the hallways, and I know firsthand that you have worked very hard for the folks in the building to make our legislative process easier.  We appreciate your hard work.  Obviously UNLV has the finest students. 

 

James H. Bilbray, former U.S. Congressman from Nevada:

I will bring Jeff van Ee up with me.  He was president of the Sierra Club during the time when I did the Red Rock Conservation Expansion.  [Chairman Manendo indicated for the record that Congressman Jim Bilbray was speaking.]  When I was elected to Congress in 1986, I passed the Nevada Wilderness Bill that added 700,000 acres, in holdings and private holdings.  In the 102nd Congress, I passed the Spring Mountain National Recreation Area that, again, had private holdings and private developments in that area.  In the 103rd Congress, with the urging of the environmental community, I passed a bill that expanded the Red Rock National Conservation Area and tripled the size of the existing properties.

 

When I was born here there were only 8,000 people in the valley, so we didn’t have to worry about protecting Red Rock or the Spring Mountains or Kyle Canyon or Lee Canyon.  First of all, you could hardly even get up there.  The roads were dirt or gravel, so it was protected.  There was no development except little “hutlets” by Mt. Charleston that are still there.  We realized that people were filing mining claims.  They were soliciting to exchange into those areas and buy property for development for homes and other things, and the feeling was that things were going to happen up there very fast, unless it was protected.

 

[Congressman Bilbray continued.]  When we did the recreation area and the wilderness area, and the expansion of the conservation area, we prohibited any new private holdings in those areas.  There are, unfortunately, still hundreds, if not thousands, of holdings in all those properties that were private ownership.  The reason I’m here today is because one of the questions that has come up from members of the press and from the public is why we did not include the Hardie property and other properties in the conservation area.

 

At that time, when I passed the bill, we had a Democratic-controlled Congress, and even though the Interior Committee was “owned by the environmental community,” as what the developers and the mining interests alleged, we felt that we should not take private property, and that we should let the conservation area and the recreation areas be created and allow the BLM, in the case of the conservation areas, and the Forest Service, in the case of the recreations areas, to work exchanges out to try to take out those private holdings and not put a gun to the developers and the owners of these properties, since you cannot build on a lot you own in Charleston or in Lee Canyon or in Blue Diamond or in Calico Basin.  You had the right to develop those properties, but we encouraged the BLM to take a strong stance to do the exchanges to take those properties out.

 

We discussed the Hardie property.  I brought Jeff van Ee with me today because he was on that committee representing the Sierra Club, Lois Sagel and others, and Friends of Red Rock Canyon that drew these boundary lines.  I didn’t draw the boundary lines.  I wouldn’t know where the boundary lines were.  They drew them up and presented the boundary lines of what they thought needed to be protected.  It’s tens of thousands of acres of land that’s protected.  Why did we put them in?  Because they were privately owned.  These are privately owned properties.  The committee made it very clear we were not in the takings position.  We weren’t going to put a gun to people’s heads.

 

I would ask Jeff van Ee to explain the Hardie property.  In fact, one of the things that Jeff van Ee laughs about is when I first went to the environmental community to expand Red Rock I said I wanted to expand it because I’m afraid people will be building homes on the top of the mountain.  He laughed at me, and the group thought, “Who would ever build any homes on the top of the Red Rock Mountains?”  I was envisioning them on top of Red Rock itself, looking down over the valley.  We see now that is happening.  We recognized we were limited in our ability.  We could not take these people’s properties against their will.  Jeff van Ee can follow up on what the Committee looked at.

 

Jeff van Ee, private citizen:

[Introduced himself.]  During the 30 years that I’ve been a resident of southern Nevada, I’ve been working on a nonprofit basis to protect our public lands.  I have been on numerous advisory committees.  Congressman Bilbray mentioned one advisory committee that was concerned with the Red Rock expansion, and I was on that committee.  I worked to establish the Red Rock National Conservation Area before it was a national conservation area.  I’ve worked with former Congressman Jim Santini on an expansion of the Santini-Burton bill, and that led me to work with Congressman Bilbray on starting to develop what is now referred to as the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act.

 

One of the visions I and others have had in working on these various legislative proposals is to try to allow growth to occur in southern Nevada, to allow homes to be built where they should be built, and to try to preserve those areas that should be preserved for future generations.  When I was on the Southern Nevada Strategic Planning Authority looking at the growth of the Las Vegas Valley in the next 20 years, one of the big issues was open space and parks.  We simply don’t have enough parks in southern Nevada.  I pointed committee members to the potential that we have on the outskirts of Las Vegas to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities, and it was places like the Blue Diamond Hill that I thought could offer a rapidly expanding metropolitan area some recreational opportunities which aren’t appropriate in today’s Red Rock National Conservation Area, but might be appropriate on an area like Blue Diamond Hill. 

 

Such talk and consideration is premature because the hill is being mined, and portions of it are privately owned.  My hope is, when the timing is right, and when James Hardie Gypsum says that enough is enough and they’ve run out of profitable gypsum to mine, that through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, the federal government would have money available to make an offer to James Hardie Gypsum to buy that property and to retire it and allow greater protections to be afforded to Red Rock and, again, to allow an opportunity for some recreational opportunities on that hill that would not be appropriate in other areas.

 

It’s unfortunate we’re here today discussing this situation because I think, had the federal government been more proactive a few years ago or a few months ago in making an offer to buy this property from James Hardie Gypsum, we wouldn’t be where we are today.  But, given that we are considering S.B. 358, I fully support it and, as Congressman Bilbray said, a diverse committee was established to look at the ultimate build-out boundaries of the Las Vegas metropolitan area.  We drew a map, and that was incorporated in the legislation behind the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act.

 

[Jeff van Ee continued.]  This property is outside that map.  It could have been included in the map, but it was privately owned at the time, and an active mine, and it wasn’t a good idea to do it.  One of the considerations in developing the map showing where properties should be developed was the issue of slope.  The Las Vegas Valley Water District said they did not want to see development on slopes greater than, I think it was 16.5 percent, because the cost of getting water up to development is very expensive as we go up in elevation.  Supplying water to Blue Diamond Hill for the development of 5,500 homes would be a very expensive proposition.  Once water is supplied to the top of the hill, it’s going to be watering lawns that have gypsum soils, and gypsum is soluble.  I could foresee problems with settling foundations, cracking, those kinds of things.  I really have to question the motives of this developer in trying to develop Blue Diamond Hill the way that it’s being proposed today.  I’ve worked with other developers, the Howard Hughes Corporation, in doing land exchanges to protect Red Rock, and it’s unfortunate that this kind of negotiation process could not be employed with this developer.

 

To conclude, people are saying that this is an old mining site, and it deserves to be improved, and it deserves to be developed.  We have old mining sites on the south rim of the Grand Canyon and we have mining sites in Death Valley National Park.  Can you imagine the public uproar nationally if a developer came in and said he wanted to put some homes on the south rim of the Grand Canyon to take care of the old uranium mine that’s an eyesore there?  I think it’s a bogus argument, and it’s inappropriate.

 

Congressman Bilbray:

I just wanted to make one point.  Jeff van Ee went a little bit beyond what I was asking him, but that’s fine.  The fact is, we did not put the Hardie property in because it was in private ownership.  We wanted to encourage BLM to do an exchange for that property.  It never worked out, but there was never intent to put private holdings into the conservation area.  We surrounded them and we came up to them, but we didn’t want to interfere with personal property rights.  That’s why we did not include the Hardie property as part of the site.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

If I could just make some comments because I’m not going to be here the entire meeting.  I’m the Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining in the Nevada Legislature, besides serving on this Committee.  Because of S.B. 358 coming up, I was doing some research, and if I could share with the Committee, as well as the folks out there, because when I see a sign that says, “We support a fair hearing,” and from all of the e-mails that I’ve received for and against this, there’s obviously been some misinformation, so I’d like to share some things with the Committee, if the Chairman would allow.

 

[Assemblyman Collins continued.]  I’ve spoken or researched through communications with the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), and the Nevada Mining Association, as well as the Division of Minerals.  Basically the issue of the Blue Diamond Mine and because of its location and mixed land use of federal and private, it is subject to regulation by the state, the BLM, and Clark County Health Department, and theirs is primarily on the air issue.  The mining method is open pit, but it’s not deep pits, and shaping and contouring are relatively straightforward.

 

I understand that from the Division of Minerals that existing gypsum reserves at the site will last 10 to 12 more years, if mining continues at its current rate.  According to NDEP, the mine does have a reclamation permit from the Division of Environmental Protection, and the site must be completely reclaimed before final closure.  The reclamation bond is at roughly $600,000 now and is in the process of increasing it to around $1 million or so.  The permitted post-mine beneficial use on the private land is home sites.

 

The most important aspect of reclamation here will be smoothing, shaping, removal of buildings and other facilities, and doing it safely for the public.  This particular mine is subject to probably 20 major permits from the three governments.  This is relatively simple compared to what gold mines require in other parts of the state.  The environmental laws and regulations have been developed and strengthened in Nevada over the last 25 years and require that mining operators be good stewards of the land and the environment in general.

 

I don’t want to quote this, but when somebody that clearly doesn’t know much about mining makes some of the statements that I’ve received as a legislator, it’s really not fair to our mining industry or to the state of Nevada or its lawmakers, past and present.  Heavily regulated government and the kinds of problems alleged in this case probably don’t exist because of the permitted requirements and the oversight of three governmental entities.  What I also brought, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, as well as the public, is Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 519A from Section 230 to Section 290.

 

There are six pages here of regulations on mining.  In addition to that, there are 36 pages of the Nevada Administrative Code that deal with mining and regulation.  Unless a document can be presented to this Committee that shows somewhere currently or in the past that any exemption or waiver to any part of that land in question in S.B. 358 has been removed from that reclamation, there’s a lot of standing law that says every acre will be completely reclaimed, including vegetation, contouring, and shaping to make it look like its surroundings before the mine can be officially closed, and the money in bonding has been put up to provide for that.  Not a single taxpayers’ dollar would be spent.  I want to make sure that is on the record if we’re going to have a fair hearing.

 

[Assemblyman Collins continued.]  There’s one thing I failed to mention and that is the state of Nevada, as well as the mining industry, have for several years, spent money educating the public on the benefits and the reclamation of these projects, and some people’s opinions are that it’s been harmed with some of the publicity lately.  I wanted to make sure we set the record straight.

 

Chairman Manendo:

This is my third decade living in southern Nevada, and we know how important mining is to Nevada.

 

Brett R. Riddle, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas:

[Introduced himself.  A copy of Dr. Riddle’s written testimony is attached as Exhibit F.  At times during his testimony, Dr. Riddle referred to three large photographs of the Red Rock Canyon area that were on display in Room 4401.]  I’d first like to thank the good people of the town of Blue Diamond for their efforts to protect Red Rock Canyon.  However, I want to make it clear that I am not, nor have I ever been, a resident of Blue Diamond.  Rather, just like most of us in this room this morning, I live in a high-density urban neighborhood in the Las Vegas Valley.

 

At 5,500 homes, along with shopping centers and gas stations, Mr. Rhodes has a plan for turning much of Blue Diamond Hill into a high-density urban environment.  Why should any of us be concerned that such high-density development is being planned for the eastern flank of Red Rock Canyon?  We already have a protected conservation area that includes large expanses of Joshua trees and yucca; black-brush covered desert bajadas and arroyos; bordered on their western edge by vertical cliffs rising into piñon and juniper woodlands; and harboring in their depths the unique and delicate streams lined with cottonwoods and willows.  So, why should it matter if countless houses, supermarkets, and gas stations begin to sprout on the eastern flank of Red Rock Canyon?

 

I would like each of you to consider the concept of a neighborhood.  The urban neighborhoods we live in work well when they include the appropriate complement of things we need:  houses, schools, stores, and fire stations.  Likewise, ecological neighborhoods work well when the different parts—plants, animals, soils, and waters—are healthy and contribute to the integrity and stability of the whole.  Ideally, natural features of the geological and biological landscape should define an ecological neighborhood.  Often, however, legal boundaries don’t follow those natural features.

 

[Dr. Brett Riddle continued.]  The Red Rock Canyon ecological neighborhood is delineated naturally to the east by a very obvious boundary, the abrupt escarpment that separates the relatively flat expanses and high-density urban neighborhoods of the Las Vegas Valley to the east; and from the hills, mountains, and canyons of the Red Rock Canyon ecological neighborhood to the west, including Blue Diamond Hill, the Hardie Gypsum mine, and the proposed high-density urban neighborhood atop the hill.

 

Aldo Leopold, the father of wildlife conservation, proposed a very modern and wise land ethic and ecological conscience.  He had this to say about the mix between ethics, aesthetics, and economic expediency in land use planning:

 

A thing is right only when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community, and the community includes soil, waters, fauna, and flora, as well as people.  It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

 

What will it take to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the Red Rock Canyon ecological neighborhood?  We don’t have all the answers yet, and there are controversies, for example, over how many wild horses and burros can be accommodated.  What we can address more readily are the related aesthetic qualities that represent the expectations of Las Vegas citizens and visitors when they enter the Red Rock Canyon ecological neighborhood.

 

If you look at this photo, taken from about halfway around the scenic loop, you will see a desert hillside topped with evidence of a history of mining, with a network of tracks in this sunlit area off to the right.  I don’t know if you can see this from your vantage point or not, but there are a network of tracks coming down from the top of the hill to almost the bottom of Red Rock Canyon.  As far as I can tell by looking at published maps, these tracks lay mostly on the mine land purchased by Mr. Rhodes.  Please note that this network of tracks can be seen from nearly all vantage points along the scenic loop.

 

Yesterday morning, I was starting to walk up the White Rock Spring Trailhead, not far from where this photo was taken.  At exactly 7:30 a.m., I heard a loud blast.  When I turned around, I saw the entire saddle lying above those tracks blanketed in an enormous cloud of white dust.  It was an amazing site, but by 7:40 a.m., the dust cloud had vanished, and I was again looking at a scarred, but still intact, desert landscape.

 

[Dr. Brett Riddle continued.]  If any portion of this scene eventually becomes a part of a high-density urban neighborhood, the rows of houses, supermarkets, and gas stations will not vanish in the blink of an eye.  The ecological neighborhood of Red Rock Canyon will have been penetrated by a far greater disturbance than is represented by the mining operations.  The countless visitors to Las Vegas and the tour company operators that make a living guiding them through Red Rock Canyon, will need to look in another direction if they want to imagine they are visiting still-intact wild landscape.

 

We who live in the high-density urban neighborhoods of the Las Vegas Valley recognize the need for the kinds of developments that we occupy.  We realize that, for a variety of reasons, a lot of families want to move to Las Vegas and need well-designed neighborhoods and affordable housing.  But many of us also share Mr. Leopold’s land ethic and ecological conscience, and that dictates that we embrace the integrity, stability, and beauty of the Red Rock Canyon ecological neighborhood.

 

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this are is just one of many similar places in the Mojave Desert.  The geological and biological diversity of the Red Rock Canyon is unmatched elsewhere in the vast Mojave Desert.  I know; I work in the Mojave Desert for a living.  This is why many people are excited about the prospects for a new Oliver Ranch Environmental Education Field School in Red Rock Canyon, designed to teach the next generation of citizens and land use planners about biological diversity, and to grow in them an even stronger land ethic and ecological conscience than many of our own generation tend to have.  But the concept behind this very exciting educational resource to transport these young people from the distractions of the city for even a few short days will be tragically undermined if the ranch school becomes bordered on the east by a high-density urban neighborhood with supermarkets and gas stations.

 

We have been very naïve, maybe, in hoping we had a contract with the development community in Las Vegas that went something like this:  Build all the high-density urban neighborhoods you need within the confines of the Las Vegas Valley, but please incorporate a land ethic and ecological conscience into your regional master planning.  Stop the high density development at the obvious boundaries set by the landscape itself, between the edge of the valley and western hills that mark the beginning of the Red Rock Canyon ecological neighborhood.

 

Mr. Rhodes has proposed a significant expansion of high-density development into this ecological neighborhood.  With the prospect of 5,500 houses along with services including supermarkets and gas stations flowing down from Blue Diamond Hill toward the heart of Red Rock Canyon, his proposal represents an irreversible violation of the contract between the developers of our much needed urban neighborhoods and the citizens of the Las Vegas Valley who have a biological and aesthetic connection with Red Rock Canyon.

 

[Dr. Brett Riddle continued.]  Finally, the well-known western author Edward Abbey once said, “The developers and entrepreneurs must somehow be taught a new vocabulary of values.”  In my opinion, that vocabulary must eventually incorporate the land ethic and ecological conscience of Aldo Leopold.  As we can see from Mr. Rhodes’ proposal to breach the integrity, stability, and beauty of the Red Rock Canyon ecological neighborhood with a high-density urban neighborhood, we have not reached the desirable endpoint yet.  However, as members of the Nevada State Assembly, you have the opportunity right now to preserve the biological and aesthetic essence of Red Rock Canyon by voting for S.B. 358.

 

Senator Titus:

Mr. Chairman, our next speaker is Dr. Jim Deacon who is internationally known and respected and a former faculty member at UNLV.  You may know of him from having saved the pupfish, which is another aspect of Nevada’s history, so we’re delighted to have him with us today.

 

Jim Deacon, Ph.D., Citizen:

[Introduced himself.]  I feel very privileged to be here.  I am an emeritus professor from UNLV.  I’m not representing a group.  I think, however, that my viewpoint represents a very broad community viewpoint.  That is that the Red Rock area is recognized, unequivocally, not only in Las Vegas, but around the world, as a world-class ecological unit.  It’s recognized as a community asset by virtually every reasonable person.  Testimony to that is the existence of a state park.  Several years ago, the director of the Nevada State Parks System, Eric Cronkite, got himself fired for having the temerity to have the vision to commit enough money to southern Nevada to purchase Spring Mountain Ranch State Park.

 

The national conservation area has been created.  Visitor use is high.  Senator Titus testified this morning that 1.2 million people use that area, and the publicity and the interest in the hearing that we’re having today is clear testimony to the fact that this is not just another place; this is a special place.  It is a part of the world-class signature that Las Vegas projects to the world.  It’s part of what makes our community a world-class community to the extent that it is.

 

[Dr. Jim Deacon continued.]  What is the value?  Dr. Riddle spoke quite eloquently about the value of the Red Rock area.  What it amounts to is that the world recognizes that the Red Rock area has immense value as a scenic, geologic, biologic, and recreational wonder, and that value imparts value to Las Vegas and to the southern Nevada community.  I think there is also, by the standard of the reasonable person, virtually a universal understanding that high‑density development degrades those kinds of values.  Those values cannot be improved by the proposed development that Mr. Rhodes is suggesting.  The view, the light pollution at night, the traffic raising dust and air pollution, the noise, the whole range of intrusions in this neighborhood demonstrate that this kind of development can do nothing but degrade the community asset that we know as Red Rock Canyon.

 

To be sure, these values have been recognized by other developers.  The Howard Hughes Corporation, when developing Summerlin, negotiated arrangements to sell 5,000 acres in order to avoid encroachment on Red Rock.  John Laing Homes withdrew their proposal.  It has been recognized widely by developers, as well as by the members of the public, that development in this area would degrade an irreplaceable, world-class signature for the southern Nevada community.

 

Thank heavens people like you and Senator Titus understand that a legitimate function of government is to protect the public interest, because there are times when legislation becomes necessary to protect the obvious, the universally agreed upon public interest that is being threatened by people like Mr. Rhodes who simply don’t have the same values that other developers and a majority of the southern Nevada public have with respect to the extent to which it is, in a community sense, permissible to pursue your own private interests.

 

It’s not a question of permitting Mr. Rhodes to develop under existing regulations.  It’s a question of whether or not we are willing to let the community value the asset that we have or be degraded in order to permit tremendous profit from land in an area that reasonably cannot support the kind of development being proposed.  I obviously urge you to pass Senate Bill 358, but it can only be considered an essential precursor to the Reid-Ensign bill that would provide for the funds that would prevent the degradation of the community values that would result from development.

 

Even if the present land zoning is held and development proceeds, that development cannot help but degrade the asset that we have that has become such a significant part of the sense of what southern Nevada quality of life offers.  It seems to me that we’ve reached an understanding where the overwhelming community value demands regulation from our government, such as is represented by this Senate Bill 358.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Just sitting here, I received an e-mail from somebody in Idaho who says they come to Las Vegas specifically to enjoy the outdoors and the great weather, and one of the things they mentioned is they enjoy going up to Red Rock.  So it’s not all gambling.  They did mention the good food we have and the wonderful shows.  Hope you come back if you’re listening in. 

 

Assemblyman Collins:

I understood you to say that you opposed the current use of one home per two acres.  I bring that up because, in the northwest out on Kyle Canyon Road towards Mt. Charleston, that is allowed and it’s affordable housing.  Did I understand that you would like to see total nondevelopment of home sites in that area?

 

Dr. Jim Deacon:

Yes, you did.  My point is that the value to the community can only be degraded by even that much development.  I’m not suggesting that you should include that in Senate Bill 358.  I strongly support Senate Bill 358 as is, which does allow one home site per two acres.

 

John Hiatt, Conservation Chairman, Red Rock Audubon Society:

I, too, was involved with both the Southern Nevada Public Lands Bill as it was originally constituted, and with the group of people who drew the new boundaries for the expansion of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.  We certainly recognized at that time that the Blue Diamond Mine was a key piece of property, but it was a mine and it was private property.  We also knew that all mining comes to an end, and that the mine can be reclaimed and incorporated into Red Rock, and with the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act in place, there would be a source of funds for purchasing of that mine.  I do support S.B. 358 as a first step in securing that land.

 

We’ve heard it represented to us through the newspapers, if not today, that this is an ugly mine site, and that it’s going to be beautified, and it’s going to be a great thing when it’s done.  I would point out that less than half of the land that we’re actually talking about has ever been mined.  It’s still pristine, and most people have never seen it because it is private land.  It’s not an area where people go, but there are amazing things there.  There are slot canyons that hold amazing assemblages of plants.  Birds frequent that area.  This is the home of the Blue Diamond cholla, an endemic species that isn’t found anywhere else.  This is really high value land, and I think that we need to take the long view that we need to protect it.  It needs to be part of Red Rock Canyon and the first step is S.B. 358, which would limit housing and would secure the rights of the community for eventual purchase of this property.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you for keeping your comments brief.

 

Pauline van Betten, Member, Red Rock Overlay Task Force:

[Introduced herself.  At times during her testimony, Ms. van Betten referred to several large photographs of the Red Rock Canyon area that were on display in Room 4401.]  The Red Rock Overlay Task Force was formed to address the issue of development in and around Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.  The Task Force spent many months devising methods of mitigating the impact of future development in a 70-square-mile area adjacent to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.  We considered the impact of many things: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We devised many ways to lessen the impact and damage of future development, such as low-level lighting, low-impact signage, road restrictions, restricting development on ridge lines to protect view sheds, and encouraging the preservation of native vegetation and open spaces, but the greatest of all is reduced density.

 

Aggressive, high-density development is not appropriate for land in the 70‑square-mile area surrounding the Red Rock Canyon.  Aggressive high-density development is not appropriate for the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.  The greatest challenge the Red Rock Overlay Task Force faced was minimizing the visual impact of housing on the James Hardie Mine site, which is a widely dispersed site of approximately 2,600 acres and 1,000 feet higher in elevation that the surrounding area.

 

[Pauline van Betten continued.]  This is a topographical map of the area.  This is the highest area, the 7 peaks and 13 canyons that make up the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.  These black lines indicate the private holdings up on the James Hardie Mine.  These are the ridgelines.  This is Las Vegas.  This is the scenic loop. 

 

This second map further gives you what the visual impact of this area is.  You can clearly see that a lot of these areas won’t be hidden because of the pure nature of the topography.  The areas go over the ridgelines and open out in a valley that is across from the Red Rock scenic loop.  If you’re hiking in Red Rock Canyon, this is what you’re going to see.  These are where the rooftops are going to be.

 

I have a videotape; unfortunately, I couldn’t show it.  If you charged people $5, and told them to drive around the loop and sit down on one of the six benches at the Red Rock Overlay, you’d be looking at this.  It’s 192 acres that was set aside by BLM long ago.  They realized the economic importance of this area and made an agreement with James Hardie to keep it pristine because of the visual impact.  Right now you don’t realize this is private property.

 

This is the mine that you would see, but this now is subject to development.  The beauty of Senator Dina Titus’ bill (S.B. 358) is not only that it reduces density, but that it allows for clustering.  A developer now has the right, and the wonderful opportunity, to move houses off of this area and onto another part of the property that would not have the same kind of visual impact.  S.B. 358 is well thought out.  It’s comprehensive and it deserves your support.

 

The Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area is a resource of natural significance.  It is a key towards a local recreation venue.  Any degradation of this resource will have a lasting impact on the state and regional economy, and the quality of life for all Las Vegas residents.  At this time, it is necessary for the Nevada State Legislature to act in the interests of all of its citizens.  S.B. 358 is in the interest of all of Nevada.  It helps to protect a critical resource for present and future generations.  It helps to enhance our quality of life as it helps to preserve Red Rock Canyon and is a key asset for our visitor-based economy at this critical time.

 

S.B. 358, combined with public acquisition and remediation of the James Hardie Mine for inclusion in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, is sound public policy.  These actions are part of a forward-thinking vision of a bright future for southern Nevada.  Passage of this S.B. 358 is the right thing to do.  Let’s not allow the interests of development speculators get in the way of our grand vision for a better Nevada.

 

[Pauline van Betten continued.]  I’d like to remind you this is not a Blue Diamond issue.  Blue Diamond has 272 people.  These are the signatures of 272 people.  [Ms. van Betten held up a document.]  These are the originals of the 11,000‑plus signatures of people who are concerned that the government would allow the ruination of a national treasure.  [Ms. van Betten held up another document.]

 

The people do not have the money for television commercials, 3-page color ads, ex-commissioners as lobbyists, and expensive lawyers.  This is what the people have:  We have kids who will wash cars in 100 degree heat and hold bake sales to bring their money to help to protect Red Rock for their generation; we have people who will make buttons, make bumper stickers, write letters, send e‑mails, and do all of this after they watched their kids and worked 8 hours, and put them all to bed; and we have the wisdom of our elected officials to do the right thing and protect this canyon.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We know gathering 11,000-plus signatures is not easy to do.

 

Mark Beecham, representing the Friends of Red Rock Canyon:

[Introduced himself.]  The first thing I’d like to do, and this is the first one of these anybody has ever read, is read a general policy statement from the Friends of Red Rock Board of Directors (Page 1 of Exhibit G):

 

The Friends of Red Rock Canyon have been committed to the preservation of Red Rock Canyon since our formation in 1984.  It is vitally important to maintain its priceless beauty, spiritual quality, and ecological integrity for us as well as future generations.  This irreplaceable natural resource would be jarringly and negatively altered by any residential development on adjacent lands which integrate visually and physically with Red Rock Canyon.  As an organization dedicated to Red Rock Canyon, our membership now stands united against any encroachment by residential development on land adjoining the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.

 

[Mark Beecham continued.]  I put together a packet of some statements, this letter, and a little broader history of the Friends of Red Rock and some of the things that we’re involved in (Exhibit G).  Most of the things that I’d actually worked very hard on in this speech have been covered a lot better than I have said them, so I’ll just give you a little bit about Friends of Red Rock and what we’re doing right now.

 

Friends of Red Rock was incorporated in 1984 as a not-for-profit organization for the purpose of assisting the BLM in developing and supervising a volunteer program at Red Rock Canyon.  Friends’ membership is currently over 560.  Friends is an all-volunteer organization with no paid staff.  Since 1984, volunteers have committed over 175,000 hours and in excess of $750,000 in direct financial support of Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.

 

Over the years, Friends of Red Rock has expanded its charter to include assistance in enhancing and preserving the conservation area and its facilities through volunteer activities and financial support.  Many parts of the visitor center have been totally or partially funded by Friends.  We funded a $30,000 boardwalk at the Lost Creek portion of the Children’s Discovery Trail in 2001 to help stop the considerable impact to a fragile riparian area caused by overuse.  Our proposed budget for this year is $154,600.

 

Our activities are organized under several committees including Natural Resources, Ways and Means, Transportation, Scholarships, Environmental Education, Landscaping, and Cultural Resources.  Our main goal is helping the BLM preserve many native species and the natural beauty of Red Rock.  We do a lot of trail cleanup, and we’re doing that in order to preserve Red Rock for visitors.  This is an important issue in that the visitors are a very important part of what we do.

 

The James Hardie Mine, which is not within the Red Rock National Conservation Area boundary, is, physically and geographically, an integral part of Red Rock Canyon.  The mine site is only a portion of Blue Diamond Hill.  The rest is within Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, and is used by visitors.  Several trails have been developed on Blue Diamond Hill that are used frequently.

 

In the photo album I have submitted (Exhibit H), I have one shot of the mine site from the Chinle Trail (Page 4 of Exhibit H).  If that is developed, you’ll be looking at somebody’s back wall or backyard as you’re hiking in Red Rock.  The mine site can be seen from nearly every point on the scenic loop, including the Willow Spring Picnic Area, one of the most popular stops on the loop.  From higher elevations along the escarpment, the entire site can be clearly seen.

 

[Mark Beecham continued.]  The mine site can be reclaimed and replanted with indigenous plans.  Once a housing development is in place, it can never be reclaimed.  The increase in traffic, noise, and light pollution can only degrade the experience of all who visit Red Rock.  There will also be an adverse affect on native plants and wildlife.  Each volunteer has felt the impact of the growth of the Las Vegas Valley.  We have borne the burden of increased litter, graffiti, and wear and tear on trails and facilities in our effort to protect this national treasure.  High density housing within the geographic boundary of Red Rock will substantially and negatively increase the impact.

 

S.B. 358 will ensure that rural zoning will remain in place, not only on Blue Diamond Hill, but also at the entrance to Red Rock along Highway 159.  Visitors to Red Rock do not want to see more urban development.  They want to see the natural beauty that Red Rock has to offer.  The 560 members of the Friends of Red Rock Canyon and I thank you for the opportunity to present our position.

 

Karen Hunt, Chairperson for Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club:

[Introduced herself.]  Sierra Club has a 2,000 member strong community in southern Nevada, and on behalf of the people who could not make it in today, I’m speaking.  Everyone is probably expecting me to give a tree hugging, environmental kind of speech.  That’s a little bit of our reputation, but my background is as a CPA.  I’m a former auditor for one of the big four accounting firms, and I’m also the president-elect of a financial executive group here in town.

 

My presentation, and you have a copy of the package (Exhibit I), is looking at some of the claims that have been made regarding reclamation.  I think Assemblyman Collins would be very surprised that a Sierra Club member would actually be echoing a lot of his comments.  One of the comments and claims that has been made lately is that, instead of destroying natural resources, the project will actually restore much of what has been lost.

 

I’ve spent a little bit of time with BLM this week.  I’ve met with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and I have information in the package (Exhibit I) that will help you understand what the current law is and the current position for reclamation.

 

James Hardie does continue to operate the mine under an agreement with Jim Rhodes.  James Hardie is required under Nevada laws to reclaim the lands disturbed after 1987, and there was a bond posted for $632,000 for this reclamation.  Included in the package that I’ve provided to you (Exhibit I) is a letter dated May 6, 2003, from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, and it requires James Hardie to increase the bond to $1.4 million by June 6, 2003.  That is money that definitely will be available.  We do not need a developer to reclaim this land for us.

 

[Karen Hunt continued.]  There is a question of how much of the land has actually been disturbed.  I obtained a copy of the December 31, 2002, operating report filed by James Hardie and, according to this operating report, there are 456 private acres that have been disturbed that are subject to reclamation.  There are 330 acres that have been disturbed that predate the requirement for James Hardie to reclaim the land.  There are 45 acres that have been reclaimed, but they’re awaiting release.  That leaves only 741 acres out of the 2,400 acres that Jim Rhodes has bought.  It is less than half.  It’s 30 percent of the land that would need to be reclaimed.

 

Based upon the tour that I took, courtesy of Rhodes’ staff last Sunday, I’ve learned that all of the areas visible from the Red Rock National Conservation Area must be reclaimed by James Hardie.  That is one of the major concerns that our community has, based upon the commercials and the pictures of the blasting.  I think all of that will be covered by the current operating plan and reclamation plans that James Hardie has in place.

 

In the package (Exhibit I) are subjects that Assemblyman Collins touched upon, including what must be done for reclamation in terms of topography and in terms of vegetation.  The mining access and haul roads must be reclaimed, and all equipment, buildings, and the giant Foldbelt conveyor must be removed.  The $1.4 million that has been commented on includes $500,000 for that Foldbelt conveyor, so if you strip that out, you’ll have the calculation that I’ve included in your package which translates to, for the 330 acres that someone else is going to be responsible for reclaiming, that’s only about $325,000 of exposure to either whoever buys the land, be it the county using BLM land sales money, or if it’s Jim Rhodes himself.

 

The costs themselves can be minimized if we just focus on protecting the people who might be hiking out there by closing up the holes, putting up the fences, and things like that.  The reclamation of this scarred land is not a reason to approve 5,500 homes.

 

In your package (Exhibit I), I’ve also discussed issues in terms of leapfrog development.  Again we are afraid of the cost to the citizens.  The water main has to be brought 7 miles from the existing water main, and that’s at about $1 million a mile.  There’s a sewer main that is 8 miles away.  There are two or three pumping stations, and even if Jim Rhodes is required to pay for all that, and we’re not sure, because all of those kinds of discussions go on behind closed doors, the taxpayer might still have to pay for the increase in the main to justify the main that feeds into the Jim Rhodes main.  We’re wondering who is going to pay for the electric costs to pump up the hill.  There’s a lot more information included in this package (Exhibit I), but out of courtesy for the biking group, I’m just going to end it here, and if anyone has any questions, I’m available to speak afterwards.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Just want to let the folks know that if you have not signed in, please do so.  That way we have an official record.  That is also a very important way to participate, because then we have your name and your stance on this position.  Also, we are receiving correspondence from folks who have tried to get into the building for the hearing, but we have run out of room.  We apologize for the folks who are trying to listen in over the Internet.  Apparently, there have been some problems.  One of our colleagues is listening in at home and is having trouble connecting to watch the hearing, so even our own colleagues are having difficulty.  Just so the public knows that with this room and the two other rooms that we have, there’s more seating here than we have in Carson City, so we’re doing the best we can with the resources we have on limited budgets. 

 

Ed Thiessen, Board Member, Las Vegas Valley Bicycle Club:

[A copy of Mr. Thiessen’s written testimony is attached at Exhibit J.]  I’m a long-time bicyclist, a cycling instructor for the League of American Bicyclists, and a board member of the Las Vegas Valley Bicycle Club, which urges you to support Senate Bill 358.  Our club of about 300 members promotes safe bicycling and represents the interests of bicyclists in southern Nevada.  Some of these cyclists, myself included, pedal to work.  Some of them pedal to school.  Many of them pedal to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area along State Route 159.  It is the last unspoiled stretch of highway to ride in Clark County.  Hundreds of bicyclists ride to Red Rock every week to enjoy the view and the relatively light traffic volume.

 

Without the development limits protected by Senate Bill 358, suburban sprawl and the high volume of commuter traffic it creates will inundate the region’s best and most popular bicycle route.  This means an increased possibility of crashes along this stretch of road that attracts bicycle enthusiasts of all ages and abilities.  It will drastically and adversely affect the safety of the riders, the riding experience, and the quality of life for residents.  Many cyclists will simply stop riding there.

 

There’s more to Red Rock than just a pretty face.  Our club fields dozens of inquiries every month from tourists looking for places to rent bicycles so they can ride to Red Rock.  One Las Vegas bike shop owner rented 4,280 bicycles to tourists last year.  Every single one of them was ridden to Red Rock.  Those rentals alone account for 36 percent of his annual business.  Some visitors even stay an extra day or two for the chance to pedal to Red Rock.  No one will spend $200 on a bicycle rental and pay for an extra day or two at their hotel to ride through a subdivision.  They can do that just as well at home.

 

[Ed Thiessen continued.]  At a time when Nevada is trying to diversify its economy with small businesses and expand its tourist opportunities, we can’t afford to lose a place like Red Rock to more housing developments.  We urge you to pass S.B. 358 and protect this area from more development than it can handle.  Please vote in favor of Senate Bill 358 for the safety of your southern Nevada bicyclists and the economic stability of the small businesses that depend on the tourism dollars generated by bicycle riding in Red Rock.  Last but not least, let’s please consider lowering the speed limit from the current 60 miles an hour to a much safer and lower 45 miles an hour.

 

Susan Snyder, President, Las Vegas Valley Bicycle Club:

[Introduced herself.]  I wasn’t really planning to speak this morning because Ed Thiessen has already said everything that needs to be said.  I did want to emphasize that the Las Vegas Valley Bicycle Club is 15 years old and has a vested interest in Red Rock.  The freestanding Homer Morgan Bicycle Pavilion that is out there was built by members of our club.  Homer was our number 1 member.  He passed away a couple of years ago, and it was a lot of his sweat and effort that put that free-standing pavilion up out there that the bicycle club built to keep us out of the visitors center and all our sweatiness away from the visitors who are cleaner than we are.

 

We have the two mile stretch of State Route 159 that, as a member of the Highway Cleanup Program, is posted as our route and we clean that up a couple of times a year.  Another thing we do is we stage an annual event that takes riders through Red Rock.  We’ve been doing it for five years now.  Last year this event raised $30,000 for the Ronald McDonald House charity here in southern Nevada.  We hope to attract 1,000 riders to that ride this year instead of 500, and we worry that an increased traffic volume out there with higher density subdivision and development will make that a treacherous road.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

Just a historical note for the record.  The Legislature of the state of Nevada funded the first bike path.  I think it was in 1974 and it went out Charleston a long time ago.  Of course, we haven’t given you money to fix it since, but you’ve developed a lot of Charleston since then, too.

Senator Titus:

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is the last person on that list.  I don’t know how much time you’re going to give.  Other people, of course, would like to speak, but I’ll leave that to your discretion after this panel.

 

Stephanie Garcia-Vause, Legislative Advocate, City of Henderson:

[Introduced herself.]  Considering how many people are here, I’ll keep my comments brief.  Given whom I represent, you may be wondering why I’m here.  Although the City of Henderson is not located adjacent to Red Rock Canyon, we recognize the importance of protecting our environmental, cultural, and historic resources in the Las Vegas Valley.  It was for this reason that the City of Henderson fought very actively to support the creation of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area on our city’s boundary.

 

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area is well known around the country, and around the valley, and is recognized as a significant environmental and cultural resource across the entire nation.  It’s for this reason that the City of Henderson supports this legislation (S.B. 358) because it will help to protect these resources in the Las Vegas Valley.

 

Jeanne Sharp Howerton, Las Vegas Astronomical Society:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m here to officially represent the Las Vegas Astronomical Society, a society of stargazers about 300 members strong.  I would like to start my remarks addressed to Jim Rhodes.  Jim Rhodes, you might remember me.  I’m Mrs. Howerton.  I was your sixth grade math teacher at West Charleston Elementary School.

 

When I was teaching you to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, I never expected that, 30 years later, you would use those skills to divide the land on Blue Diamond Hill, multiply the number of houses that could be built there, add to Red Rock Canyon’s visual pollution, noise pollution, light pollution, air pollution, traffic pollution, and garbage pollution, thus subtracting from the beauty and magic of the entire area.

 

Jim, as your former math teacher, I took a little time to do some math myself.  Using the latest demographic figures, the average household in Las Vegas has 2.65 people.  Jim, if you build 5,400 homes on Blue Diamond Hill, that would be a very conservative estimate of 14,310 people living there, and this is only a few hundred less than the population of Boulder City.  This is approximately the same population as the total number of people living in the following five Nevada counties:  Esmeralda, Eureka, Lincoln, Mineral, and Storey Counties.  Those are the combined totals according to the 2002 census.

 

[Jeanne Sharp Howerton continued.]  These 14,310 people would make this housing development the tenth biggest city in the state of Nevada, ranking behind greater Las Vegas, Reno, Henderson, North Las Vegas, Sparks, Carson City, Pahrump, Elko, and Boulder City.  To think of thrusting a city of this magnitude into Red Rock Canyon is mind-boggling and irresponsible.  By contrast, the census data lists Blue Diamond with 282 people in 2002.

 

Jim, you say you have roots in Las Vegas and you are a life-long resident.  My roots also run deep, really deep.  My grandparents moved here in the 1920s, and my mother and all her siblings graduated from Las Vegas High School in the 1930s and 1940s.  Jim, you said you hiked and biked through Red Rock as a child.  I was there hiking when you were a child, and I still hike and bike through Red Rock Canyon every week.

 

Your projected housing development will be seen from everywhere along the escarpment and from all around the loop drive.  I have climbed to the top of Bridge Mountain, and, yes, it will definitely show.  As a member of the Las Vegas Astronomical Society, every month we show the night sky to hundreds of area children and adults.  It’s the first place most people take their telescopes that they get.  Even as we are gathered here today, members of the Las Vegas Astronomical Society are setting up telescopes at the Red Rock Visitors Center and all day today, they will be looking at the sun and tonight they will be showing visitors the wonders of the night sky.  Even with light shields, light pollution from the tenth biggest city in Nevada will surely diminish the only good astronomical view are for many miles around.

 

Jim, I remember you well from those long ago days that I taught you sixth grade math, and I am counting on you to do the right thing.  Please don’t build Nevada’s tenth largest city in Red Rock Canyon.  To ensure that this does not happen, to the members of the Assembly of the state of Nevada, I ask you please, pass Senate Bill 358.

 

Bill Kissam, Citizen, and Former Nevada State Assemblyman:

[Introduced himself.]  I am a 50-year resident of Las Vegas, 11 years of which have been in Summerlin, and six years as a Nevada State Legislator representing Assembly District No. 4.  I toured the Hardie Gypsum Mine last Sunday with one of my sons, Bill Kissam, Jr., who is a Las Vegas fire fighter and a paramedic, and one of my grandsons, Ryan Kissam.

 

The tour was funded by Jim Rhodes and led by Ken Flynn and Moe Seebeck, and was an eye-opener.  You would have to go on the tour to see the utter devastation of the 2,400 acres to appreciate what Jim Rhodes is proposing to clean up with the housing development.  Only those who have toured the area should have an opinion.  Why the town of Blue Diamond is complaining about what Jim Rhodes is planning which is not visible to them is beyond me. 

 

[Bill Kissam continued.]  Jim’s plans include a different route into his Hidden Hills development to get around Blue Diamond’s complaint about increasing road traffic.  To me, to use county, state, or federal funds to buy out what Jim Rhodes paid for the land is only part of what it would cost to rehabilitate that land to be usable again, which Jim Rhodes will do for us.  Why Hardie Gypsum Mine was allowed to ruin this land and not be responsible for restoring it is beyond comprehension.  Maybe a class action lawsuit is needed.

 

I do thank Senator Dina Titus for her hard work on Senate Bill 358.  My only objection to it is it’s taking away control from Clark County and giving it to the state.  I do want to thank you all for listening to me, and I want to thank Jim Rhodes for what he’s done for the state also.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you for your service here in the state of Nevada.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

To our former colleague, I guess he didn’t recognize the earlier statements that the taxpayers won’t reclaim that land.  I bring that up, in due respect, sir, but to all those who plan to testify, please, as the Chairman read the statement about truthful statements, I would appreciate it if that would continue.

 

Bill Kissam:

If the federal government buys the land, what is supporting the federal government but our taxes?  We are paying for it.  That’s my objection.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Senator Titus, do you have anyone else on your list?

 

Senator Titus:

Maybe one person, and then however you want to open it up.  I think Evan Blythin is here also.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We’re going to take a few more folks in favor, and then we need to get to the opposition.  We need to hear from Mr. Rhodes’ folks before we lose a quorum.

Sheila Sterling, Citizen:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, and I’m here today to speak on behalf of the many hundreds of people who didn’t make it into the room, and on behalf of the history and the future of Red Rock Canyon, which really is a gem of the valley.  It seems that so many of us who live here have seen, over the years, the valley being broken up into smaller and smaller pieces, higher and higher density, until most of the valley now is kind of urban sprawl. 

 

We do have places that we can get away to.  Red Rock is one of them.  Today you have the opportunity to preserve the future of the health and the welfare of the valley and southern Nevada.  The local residents and people from all over the world come here to visit the sacred place, and come here to quiet and to renew their spirits.

 

The pollution and the traffic and the ecosystem now are pretty well pushed to the limits without any development.  This opportunity will not come again.  There will be no second chance.  I’m obviously in full support of S.B. 358 and hope that we do the right thing today and protect and save this irreplaceable habitat for future generations and the health and welfare of all.

 

I am part owner of a construction company in Las Vegas, but this is a much bigger picture.  There is no amount of money that could ever replace this pending disaster, this beautiful and irreplaceable gem.  I hope we can save this 600 million years of heritage and history, and on behalf of all of us, please save Red Rock Canyon.

 

Evan Blythin, Chairman, Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council:

[Introduced himself.]  I live in the “evil” village of Blue Diamond.  I have met Mr. Rhodes several times and I appreciate him also.  This state has been made by entrepreneurs, by people who are willing to take risks and by people who are willing to push.  I think, in this case, he has certainly contributed to the democratic process.  He has provided lunch, and I want to thank him for the sandwich.  He has provided transportation, and he has given us a week of entertainment.

 

One part of that entertainment needs to be addressed.  He has suggested that this is a kind of takings, that we are taking something from him.  I, like most Americans, do not like the idea of the public taking from an individual, but the taking here is quite different.  The takings here is an individual stealing the public trust in various ways.

 

First, I believe that zoning is very important.  We buy a house, we buy a place that’s our piece of the rock, and what we buy is what we’re supposed to buy.  That’s what we have.  But you know how it works.  If a man can take rural and get it changed to residential, he’s just made a “bazillion” dollars.  If he can take residential and convert that to commercial, he’s just made another “bazillion” dollars, and with each takings the people who live there have been diminished, because their home has been wiped out.

 

[Evan Blythin continued.]  In one sense, in terms of zoning, this is a takings.  He wants to change the zoning.  There is also another takings:  Land use plans.  Those are long use plans designed to help us create a community.  The land use plan for Red Rock Canyon is rural open space and public use, and that is the question here.  Is this canyon for private gain or for public use?  He’s attempting to take that too. 

 

As you heard from numerous speakers, we’re talking about a canyon, a very rare ecological gem, something so precious that if we ruin this, we will be the laughingstock of the world, because the world does play here.  They come here to see that canyon.  It is unique. 

 

There is a final takings:  Our resources.  The infrastructure that’s been mentioned here barely touches the kinds of costs that it’s going to take to make a 5,000 home residential area on that hill.  We’re talking $25 million minimum to bring water.  We’re probably talking $15 million to $18 million, and I’m basing these figures on the last developer that made a run at this hill, Laing Homes.  Probably $8 million to $12 million for sewer.  Who knows how much for water.  Who knows how many millions of dollars for traffic problems.

 

As you all know, in Las Vegas we have not caught up with the development that we already have.  Developers have shirked in terms of schools and in terms of basic infrastructure so that we are behind, and now we’re being asked to curb our water use so we can have new development?  If you look at Lake Mead, you can see we are in a perilous position.  I, too, have been here many years, but unlike Mr. Rhodes, I understand that water doesn’t grow on trees.  Water is a precious commodity.  Lake Mead and Lake Powell are down so low that if we go another year in this drought, we’re not going to have enough water to flush our toilets, and he wants some of that?

 

We’re talking four takings here:  zoning; land use; precious natural resource, the canyon; and water, sewer, and power.  I would ask you to support S.B. 358.

 

Mike Ford, Great Basin and Southwest Director for the Conservation Fund:

[Introduced himself.]  The Conservation Fund is a national conservation organization that is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, with offices here in Las Vegas.  I’m here today to testify in support of S.B. 358.  Since 1985, we’ve actually been working in Nevada, and the Conservation Fund has acquired and protected over a million acres of land here in our state.  We’ve done that here in Clark County, at Red Rock.  We’ve done it in the Las Vegas Wash.  We’ve done it on the Virgin and Muddy Rivers.  We’ve also done it on Mt. Charleston.  We’ve also worked elsewhere in the state.

 

[Mike Ford continued.]  For the Committee members here and the ones who are in Carson City, we’re actively working as you drive from Reno to Carson City every day in Washoe Valley at Washoe Lake, acquiring and working with landowners and the county to protect over 2,000 acres.  We’re active in the state, but we’re very quiet about it because we work together in partnerships.  The Conservation Fund assists partners in business, government, and the nonprofit sector, and we work on projects that integrate economic development with conservation and environmental protection.  We have a strong record of working together with landowners.

 

I’ve worked for four years in Clark County with Mr. Rhodes trying to protect property up on Mt. Charleston, so we work with communities, business people, and others.  We’re not for or against things.  We’re for sound solutions and balanced solutions that I think most Nevadans embrace.  Obviously development is a hot issue in Nevada and our community is constantly grappling with how to handle the influx of new visitors.  We’ve heard that from Senator Titus who covered it very well in her statement, and from other speakers.  At this time, as we continue to grapple with traffic congestion and disappearing open space, it’s stretched all of us to the max.

 

Clearly the debate on how to accommodate new development in and around the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area is loud and acrimonious, but it’s very regrettable that the current debate is being cast into progress versus preservation, rich versus poor, growth versus no growth, and cities versus suburbs.  We don’t think that debate is very productive, and the truth is that development is both inevitable and desirable, but the destruction of community character and natural resources that often accompanies growth is not.  I don’t think there’s any disagreement.  I certainly haven’t heard that in any of the ads, and I haven’t heard that from anybody today.

 

Our community can grow without destroying the beauty and livability of the land in and around Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, and Senate Bill 358 does just that.  Instead of debating whether the growth will occur, we should be addressing the patterns of development, where we put it, how we arrange it, what it looks like; all goals of S.B. 358.  If we assure that premise, we can more easily balance our economic development needs and conservation. 

 

[Mike Ford continued.]  I’ve got a prepared statement, which I’ll leave here for the record so I don’t go on.  [Mr. Ford did not leave a copy of his prepared statement.]  I want to conclude with a statement with respect to the Bureau of Land Management’s role in this.  We’ve heard that here and we’ve read it in the papers.  I spent 25 years working for the Bureau of Land Management and was a former deputy director for the Bureau of Land Management here in Nevada.  The Bureau of Land Management approached me last fall about working with the James Hardie Gypsum Mine.  I engaged in discussions as recently as this January at their corporate offices in Mission Viejo, trying to find some kind of balanced solution.  Our organization believes a balanced solution is available, and we’re willing to engage in that as necessary, but right now we urge your support of S.B. 358.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Thank you very much.  Any questions of the witness?  You’re going to be the last one, and then we’re going to do a show of hands of people in support of the legislation.  We need to hear from the opposition this afternoon.

 

Richard Klutman, Citizen:

I wanted to bring something to the attention of the Assembly, which I believe you’re already aware of, but there were many people who supported Dina Titus and S.B. 358, and for whatever the reasons or for whatever took place, it was very difficult for them to get a seat.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We understand that.  Can you please speak to S.B. 358? 

 

Richard Klutman:

I support the bill (S.B. 358) and wanted to let you know there was a lot of support for the bill that just couldn’t make it in here for whatever reason.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We’ve already made that announcement.

 

Richard Klutman:

Okay, that’s all I have to say.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We do apologize.  We have limited space and we’re doing the best we can.  In fact, in the other room it looks like a lot of people have left, so there’s plenty of room for people to listen in.  Did you have any concluding remarks right now, Senator Titus?

 

Senator Titus:

Thank you very much for listening to this side.  I’ll just keep my concluding remarks until the very end, if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Could we just have a show of hands of people in support of Senate Bill 358?  That would be in the other room as well.  Thank you very much.  [Members of the audience in favor of S.B. 358 raised their hands.]  Senator, thank you once again for having your side very organized and sticking to the point and not having repeat testimony.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

I just have a quick question regarding the Blue Diamond water supply.  Pauline, maybe you can address this.  Is there any municipal water out there, or is it all wells?

 

Pauline van Betten:

We have a community well.  Actually the water is a contract with the Las Vegas Valley Water District and James Hardie Mine.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

So, private water?

 

Pauline van Betten:

The Las Vegas Valley Water District has an agreement with James Hardie for a certain amount of the water rights on that well.

 

Senator Titus:

I might be able to add a little to that.  There are about 500 acre-feet worth of water rights that have been acquired that serve the mine now with that property, as I understand it.  That’s enough to run the mine, but that’s not nearly enough to serve 5,500 houses.  You’d have to get additional agreements with the Southern Nevada Water Authority to supplement that 500 acre-feet.

 

Assemblyman Collins:

The only issue I have with the legislation is Section 9, number 2, that says the Legislature supports federal purchase, and the reason is I don’t feel that’s an emphasis of the legislation.  On the other hand, because of the Clark County Public Lands Act, I would prefer money raised in Clark County be spent in Clark County, rather than purchasing rural Nevada property where it’s so limited, and that’s the only reason I would even consider supporting that section, otherwise, I’d ask that it be taken out.  That’s just one member of the Committee.

 

Chairman Manendo:

If anyone wants to give us written testimony, you certainly can do that, and it doesn’t have to be today.  You can mail it to us or you can bring it here to the Legislative Counsel Bureau and they’ll make sure that it’s forwarded to the Committee.  I think everybody knows how to e-mail us because we’re getting them, and that’s fine.  We’re going to turn to the opposition.  I have no idea who is speaking in opposition.  I have not been notified.

 

Steve Morris, representing Jim Rhodes:

[Introduced himself.]  We do have some things to say, including some remarks by Mr. Rhodes and some examination and discussion of exhibits that we have prepared, some of which you have in the booklet before you (Exhibit K).  I would hope that we could take a moment just to set up some of the exhibits here so we can go through them.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We’ll take a recess while you do what that.  [11:53 a.m.]  Committee, come back to order [12:05 p.m.]. 

 

Steve Morris:

My name is Steve Morris and I represent Mr. Rhodes.  Mr. Rhodes is here this morning to my right, and he has a statement he wishes to make to open our presentation, our opposition if you will, to Senate Bill 358.

 

Jim Rhodes, Rhodes Homes:

[Introduced himself.]  I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee about legislation that affects not only me, but the entire Las Vegas community.  I grew up in Las Vegas, and have spent my whole life here.  In the mid-1980s, I started a homebuilding business that, for two decades, has provided affordable, quality homes for Las Vegas families of all income levels and backgrounds.

 

A couple years ago, I saw a piece of property that captured my imagination, not for what it was, but for what it could be.  It was the James Hardie Gypsum Mine site, two-thirds of which has been mined as one of the richest gypsum deposits in the United States.  What I saw on top of the Blue Diamond Hill was not a mine, but a community that could replace the mine, a community that would sit in one of the most beautiful locations in southern Nevada.  What I envisioned was a place where working families of all income levels and from every demographic background could live in a neighborhood that blends with the natural beauty of this spectacular place.  I can’t think of two places anywhere that match the vistas and the openness of this rough jewel in the desert.  I can see neighborhoods that were linked together by biking and hiking trails, and I knew that these trails could be accessible, not only for the residents of the community, but for all those who live in southern Nevada as a recreational retreat from the busy core of Las Vegas.

 

You will soon hear the history of what has happened since and why I am here fighting today for the opportunity to build a community I envisioned.  The legislation you are considering (S.B. 358) would prohibit the diverse inclusive community that I want to build and dictate instead an exclusive community.  I’m asking you to give me a chance to show the people of Clark County and elected officials the kind of community I would like to build for them, and let them decide, as I’m asking for nothing more that due process and fairness.

 

You will now hear testimony from Steve Morris, my legal counsel, who will lay out the issues S.B. 358 has raised, and help you understand why this legislation undermines principles and undermines our democratic process.  Thank you for giving us a chance to state our case.  I hope you deliberate closely and carefully and reach the decision that is right for all the people of southern Nevada.

 

I’d also like to clean up the information regarding my alleged sixth grade teacher.  My sixth grade teacher was Mr. Dakesian, and as mathematics goes, I’ve checked Ms. Titus on high density.  With Clark County high densities, 32 units to the acre times 2,600 acres would equal 83,200 residential units up on top there.  The application we turned in was 5,500, which is rural by nature, and in accordance with Clark County current zoning.  I do want to point out that there’s a major difference between 83,200 units that you’d have at this high density proposal, as opposed to the rural application that is now presently in front of the Clark County Commission.

 

Steve Morris:

[At times during his testimony, Steve Morris referred to several large photographs and maps that were on display in Room 4401.]  I have some things that I would like to discuss that I believe I could better do with this hand mike.  If you notice on the booklet (Exhibit K) that had been handed to you prior to the hearing, we have two pictures (Cover sheet of Exhibit K).  One of those photographs is of Red Rock, and with which we have no quarrel.  That is the Red Rock that is in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, and which we are not here by way of opposing Senate Bill 358 to say it should be in any way diminished or degraded.  We are not asking you to hear us on our point of view to destroy what is another view of Red Rock right here.  This is Red Rock that we want to preserve.  This is what the proponents of S.B. 358 and Senator Titus say they want to preserve.  That’s the mine site.  This is what we are dealing with on the property that we own.  This isn’t property that is owned or administered by the BLM.  This is property that Mr. Rhodes’ company owns.  Mr. Rhodes is a developer.  He has been a long time developer in southern Nevada.  He is not a public enemy.  He is not an environmental pirate.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  This is another view of a different area of the Hardie Mine site.  These are areas within the property that Mr. Rhodes has purchased for development purposes, and we make no quarrel with that.  He is a developer and this is privately held land that is presently zoned rural open.  Mr. Rhodes has a vision for developing this into a community, if fairly considered and evaluated, but we don’t say that you have to agree with us and, in point of fact, we say it’s unnecessary for you to agree with us.  We say we can have both of these things.  We can have this mine site and clean it up and make it the site of attractive and affordable homes where men and women and children can live and play and use it as a departure point to enjoy, across the highway and in the mountains, the Red Rock National Conservation Area, which has the unique attributes, the flora, the fauna, the bird and the animal life, that has been described so eloquently by many of the witnesses here, many of whom are Sierra Club members, as I have been since I was 24, and I’m now 65.

 

I don’t view advocacy of developing a mine site as a decent place for men and women in southern Nevada, whether they are here now or come here later, to live and play, from which to go to work, as already compatible with the use and enjoyment of what Congress said in 1993, would be the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, and which Congress from time to time has expanded through cooperative land exchange programs, to come up with what it is we have today that is on this exhibit.  This exhibit is, in smaller form, in your book (Exhibit K) as exhibit 3b.  This depicts in different shades of brown what the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area is.  This is the state road that goes through here.  This is Blue Diamond Road you see here that cuts through the conservation area, and is to the west of the mine site, the James Hardie land which is shown on this exhibit.

 

It is this land that has not been shaded in brown on either side of the highway that is an issue here.  There is no proposal, pending or in line for later submission by Mr. Rhodes, to develop any portion of the conservation area.  You might say, if that’s the case, if we have no issue here, why is it we’re here?  Why are we opposing S.B. 358 that has been described by so many as absolutely essential to maintain what we do not propose to destroy or diminish?

 

We’re here for this reason.  Sixty-two years ago, your predecessors, you members of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee, and the remainder of your colleagues then in session in 1941, enacted Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 278.  By that statute the Legislature said, with respect to land use and development, with respect to zoning, and with respect to all aspects of land and its utilization, that they were delegating the authority to deal with that property to those who are best suited to deal with it, and the statute calls them governing bodies.  In Clark County, it’s called the Clark County Board of Commissioners.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  In 1941 the Legislature said, with respect to the James Hardie Mine site, which is private property and is presently zoned R-U, rural open, if there are issues with respect to the use and development of that land, a use that is incidental to the ownership of land, is the right, but it doesn’t give you an entitlement, to say to the governing body, to the Clark County Commissioners, that we own the James Hardie property.  It’s presently zoned rural open, and we have a proposal for developing it for residential use that will require a zone change of some of it.  We believe that property rights carry with them the right to at least petition the governing body, the Clark County Commission, to consider this and our proposed use of it.

 

They don’t have to accept it, but the Legislature said 62 years ago that if there is going to be some action taken with respect to the use and development of this land, it should be taken by the Clark County Commissioners.  They’re the people who are on the scene.  They are the people who are directly responsible to the citizens of southern Nevada, a good number of whom have come here in support of S.B. 358, just as the opponents who are here this afternoon are from southern Nevada, for the large part, but not exclusively so.

 

Why do we oppose S.B. 358?  Mr. Kissam said it in these words:  We oppose S.B. 358 because it does one thing in particular, and it has a subheading of what it does, it takes away what was delegated to the Clark County Commission 62 years ago.  It takes land use regulation away from the Clark County Commission and it deprives the owner of this property, whether it is Mr. Rhodes or the James Hardie Mine or someone else, of the right to say to the Clark County Commission that I have a proposal I would like you to consider, and I would like you, when you consider it, to take into account the growth of the community, the surrounding areas, projected growth for the future, the availability of resources, the impact on the environment, and the availability of resources to support this community.  We would like you to consider all of those things, and we would like you to consider our proposal to develop this land consistent with those considerations.

 

S.B. 358 deprives us of that.  If this bill is passed, we can’t talk to the Clark County Commissioners about rezoning.  We can’t talk to them about the development plans that are now pending before the county, but that haven’t been acted on.  They haven’t even been evaluated.  No public hearing has been held.  Commissioner Williams, with us here today, has not seen them, has not considered them, and neither have her colleagues.  All we are asking for is the opportunity to make our case to develop this private property in a manner that is not inconsistent with maintaining what we already have in the Red Rock Canyon, which is the conservation area, which is the site and is the majority of the area, the remarks on which the proponents of S.B. 358 were focused this morning.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  All we’re asking for is this:  let us show you, and if you disagree with us, Clark County Commissioners, so be it.  We have to accept that.  But let us show you, consistent with what you folks did 62 years ago, our plans for developing this property that we believe are not incompatible with the conservation area.  If you agree with this, perhaps you will grant our request for variances and for rezoning, and if you don’t, you don’t.  The decision-making is up to, and under statute we believe it’s fair that it is, the Clark County Commission.

 

Senator Titus and the proponents of this bill wish to deprive the Commission of that opportunity.  They wish to do, if you will, an end run around it.  The simplists say this democratic process, about which there’s been a good deal of talk this morning, cannot operate because we want the state, with respect to the subject matter that it delegated 62 years ago to the county, land use development, zoning and rezoning, to take back that power, but just with respect to this 2,500 acres, so that we cannot develop it.  So that, as Senator Titus said in her remarks earlier this morning referring to, I believe a letter she wrote to the Clark County Commissioners last week (Exhibit L) about which Commissioner Williams had a little something to say, although indirectly.  If we can work together here, if the State, by passing S.B. 358 can work together with the county, we can make it impossible for this person to do anything, the person who owns this land, other than see it.  He won’t have the opportunity, and neither will anyone to whom he sells it, have the opportunity to propose a plan for developing it.

 

Chairman Manendo:

The proposed plan right now, you could build how many homes?

 

Steve Morris:

Between 5,400 and 5,500.  No, I beg your pardon.  Currently, using 3,000 acres as the benchmark for the property, the zoning is now 1 house per 2 acres.

 

Chairman Manendo:

So, you could build how many homes?

 

Steve Morris:

1,500 homes.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Did you purchase the property with the intention of building 1,500 homes or the intention of going after higher density?

 

Steve Morris:

We purchased the property knowing that the zoning was 1 house per 2 acres.  But we acquired title to this property in the belief that we could make a proposal to vary all or some of that to get a higher density and that is the subject of the development plans that are now pending before the county, which, if they were successful as presented, and it’s a give and take process, assuming they’re successful in some part doesn’t mean they’ll be successful in all, we’ll have 2½ houses or 2½ residential units per acre, as distinguished from 1 per 2 acres.  All we’re saying is S.B. 358 deprives us of the opportunity to make that case to the Clark County Commissioners.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I understand that.  At the current zoning level of 1 home per 2 acres, if that’s all that is permitted, do you build the property?

 

Steve Morris:

We will have to make that decision, but our intention when we acquired this, our proposal, is to develop it at a greater density.  That hasn’t been accepted.  We know what the density now is.

 

Chairman Manendo:

So you purchased a property knowing the current zoning, knowing what the density is.  To me that’s kind of a business risk that people would have to take because, if you didn’t get the higher density and you’re back to where you’re at right now, obviously there must have been some thought process in what would happen if denied that.

 

Steve Morris:

That thought process is translated into some of the remarks that Mr. Rhodes made and are in your booklet (Exhibit K), and that is, yes, we can build this property 1 home for 2 acres, but it will become, rather than affordable housing, it will become an elitist community.  It will be very expensive.

 

Chairman Manendo:

What will that affordable housing be?  What price range?

 

Steve Morris:

I don’t have that in mind, and that is something I think because of the . . .

 

Chairman Manendo:

I think it’s important because we’ve been receiving correspondence that, if we’re for higher density, then teachers and firefighters could then live in that development.  Currently, teachers start at less than $30,000 a year.  It’s $26,500 or whatever they make a year, and so to qualify for a home, you’re talking about a $100,000 home?

 

Steve Morris:

With the appropriate mix, there could be some $100,000 units in there as well as much more expensive, but we’re not talking about a community of $3 million homes and up.  We’re not talking about that.  This isn’t a “shell and pea game,” in which we said we bought this property and knew what the zoning was, and now we say we’re entitled to higher density so we can sell more homes at a greater price, and make even more money, to use one speaker’s remarks a “gazillion” dollars or a “bazillion” dollars.

 

We did acquire this property for the purpose of developing it whether it be 1 for 2 or some other number.  If it’s to be some other number, we have to get permission to do that.  In the course of obtaining that permission, if we are successful, I assume the people who regulate the use of this land as they have in the past for many years, the Clark County Commission and its staff, would discuss and propose and probably impose conditions on development at any density, even R-U zoning.  That will factor into the price for which each home is sold.

 

I can’t tell you today that if our application is granted, we can build 5,400 $100,000 homes.  I can’t tell you that.  At the same time, I can’t tell you that if we build 1,500 homes subject to R-U zoning, that it will be a fixed figure either.  I just can’t tell you that, because the regulatory process, the give and take, and the assurances that are required by the governing body to make certain that this property, when developed, is compatible with the surrounding areas has a cost component to it.  Until we engage in that process, we don’t know what it is.

 

On the other hand, if you pass S.B. 358, we’ll never get to that process.  All we’re asking for is to leave local matters in local hands.  I believe Ms. van Betten said in a press release I read several weeks ago that it was necessary to go to the state because the county apparently couldn’t act in relation to this.  The county has been acting in relation to land use matters like this and others since 1941 when you, as the Legislature, said this is what they should be doing.  The county has been doing that for 62 years now, and we think the county can do that in this case and in countless other cases.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  That brings up another reason why we are fearful of S.B. 358 and why we oppose it.  We think it sets a very dangerous precedent.  What’s to say, if the environmental and use arguments carry the day, for James Hardie to prevent the same arguments from being made with respect to a variety of other areas in the state, some of which are in southern Nevada—Kyle Canyon, Sloan Canyon, Lake Mead—the list will go on and on and on.

 

Our point is that, as a matter of fairness in addition to being a matter of law, we believe that all property owners, and we include ourselves in that group, should have the opportunity to say to the governing board, the Clark County Commissioners, as we have with other projects in the past and as with the Summerlin project the Howard Hughes Corporation had at every juncture in developing its property all of which butts up on the conservation area directly and it’s not separated from it by a road or a buffer zone such as we have here, just as they had that same opportunity, we’d like that opportunity.  We would like others to have it too, because bluntly, that’s the American way and that is the way it has been codified in the statute that S.B. 358 overturns with respect to just this one piece of land, the James Hardie Mine site.  That’s the sole focus of this legislation. 

 

I heard Senator Titus’ remarks based on a memorandum produced by a member of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, but this isn’t special legislation.  The time and place to debate that is, for those arguments that are raised and decided, in court.  I can say to you as a lawyer, and admittedly as a partisan lawyer, that I respectfully disagree with that opinion.  When you combine what this statute does and focus, as the statute does, on just the land it affects and the reason for it being in business, and you take a look at Senator Titus’ letter of May 6, 2003 (Exhibit L), addressed to the Clark County Commissioners, she has this to say, “I am writing in full support of your proposed resolution advocating the acquisition of the former James Hardie gypsum mine lands and subsequent transfer of those lands, once restored, to the BLM to be managed as a part of the Red Rock Conservation Area.  You are to be commended for your leadership and perseverance on this important issue.”

 

If in point of fact that comes to pass, if the land is acquired, it will be acquired.  If the county, or the federal government, or the county acting through the federal government, or with or at its behest and with its funds, in some manner engineers a trade or a condemnation of this land and we have to give it up, we will.  We’ll follow the law, just as we’d like to follow the law to present a proposal to develop it.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  Senator Titus went on and said (Exhibit L), “As you know, I am sponsoring a companion bill in the Legislature, S.B. 358”—and this is relevant, I believe, because of the remarks that Commissioner Williams made here this morning— “which would freeze the current rural zoning in the area while your proposed acquisition is being negotiated.  This is an important intermediate step for two reasons:  First, the current owner is much more likely to be a willing seller”— that translates to me, and I’m speaking as a lawyer, that this is how they put pressure on this guy to sell at whatever price is offered—“if he is denied the ability to more densely develop the land.”  S.B. 358, not the county commission to whom Senator Titus is writing, will deny us that opportunity.

 

If we are to be denied that opportunity, we say that it should be pursuant to NRS Chapter 278 and the authority that you folks have vested in the Clark County Commissioners in the last century.  She says, “Second, such limitations will prevent the fair market value from skyrocketing and thus save taxpayer dollars.”  She concludes by saying this: “I believe this three-pronged, county‑state-federal, collaborative approach to preserving Red Rock is the appropriate way to proceed.  I look forward to continuing to work with you to save our natural treasure for generations to come.”

 

We can all understand that, but that letter (Exhibit L) is not talking about this, which I said is not in controversy, when we started this proceeding.  We’re not talking about preserving this.  We’re cooperating in preserving this.  This is what we’re talking about preserving, this mine site.  With respect to this, there’s been some testimony by a member of the Committee and from the floor, about reclamation.  In fact, we had a former professor and certified public accountant from one of the big four accounting firms, as she described herself, coming to lecture us about reclamation and its cost.  What I understood her to say were two things.

 

One, only a very small portion of the land that has been scarred or developed as a mine site is subject to a reclamation agreement with the Hardie Mine folks, with respect to which, at the present time, there’s only $600,000 in the kitty to do the reclamation, but which on June 6, assuming Hardie is responsive, will increase to $1.4 million.

 

As you heard when Mr. Even Blythin spoke, that’s a drop in the bucket with respect to what it’s going to cost, and if it doesn’t, as Mr. Kissam said, come out of the taxpayer’s pocket, whose pockets is it going to come out of?  It’s going to come out of the owner’s or the developer’s pocket if plans to develop this are approved, whether its 1 per 2 or more.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  I think you can look at this photograph.  You don’t have to be an engineer or to have worked in earthmoving to understand that this extent of damage to pristine land is not going to be restored and the land returned to its pristine state with all of its vegetative and wildlife attributes to it for $1.4 million or anything close to it.  Only if we are successful before the Clark County Commission in proposing a plan of development that the commission finds acceptable and compatible with the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, we’ll have to pay that greater cost, whatever it is to reclaim and restore this property.

 

Please recall that only a few minutes ago, there was a great deal of talk about aggressive, one speaker used the term “aggressive, high-density development.”  Several speakers used the term “high-density development.”  Several speakers came here and said, and one of them very forcefully, “I oppose any development up there at all, R-U or otherwise; I just don’t want this property developed.”  I commend him for his candor.  Other speakers were opposed to high-density development.  That’s an easy term to throw around, but it has a meaning.  It has a meaning that’s defined in the Clark County Municipal Code in Chapter 30.  That is the code, by virtue of NRS Chapter 278, that the Clark County Commissioners prepared years and years ago, and updates from time to time, to describe the criteria for the development of land.  One of the criteria that the county defines with respect to land and density is low density, medium density, and high density.

 

You heard Mr. Rhodes a moment ago say that high density is 32 residential units per acre.  Low density is 8.  If the proposal that Rhodes has submitted to the Clark County Commissioners is allowed to proceed and if it’s accepted on its merits, the development on this site will proceed at the rate of 2.5 residential units per acre, 25 percent of what the Clark County Code now calls low density.  It’s an inflammatory use of the term “high density,” and it’s misleading in the context in which we appear today to talk about Mr. Rhodes and his plans to develop this aggressively as high-density development.

 

We have a couple of things that we would like to add to this, and one of them is by way of video (Exhibit M), of statements of people who identify themselves on video, and that video can be played only from Carson City.  We’d like to make that a part of this record.  We would like for you to consider their statements.  Then we would like to follow, to the extent that you have time available and tolerance to abide that time, and we would like to present to you some folks who are here in the audience who have waited since early morning to address S.B. 358.  I believe, for the most part, they are either supporters of Mr. Rhodes or opponents of S.B. 358.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  Before I do that, I’d like to make two things a part of this record.  One I’ve already read into it, and that’s the letter from Senator Titus to the Clark County Commission on May 6, 2003 (Exhibit L).  I would like to read into the record some remarks in the form of a statement that were made by one of the 121 people who took a tour of the mine site this past week, which Mr. Evan Blythin referred to as entertainment, and I would like to submit all of these into the record (Exhibit N) as well as the 9 we received who were unimpressed with the tour (Exhibit O), who said they don’t support this development, even though they’ve seen this site.

 

We want you to consider those 9 along with the 121 that we have which do, and I think I can typify what is here in these statements by those who took the tour, and as a consequence of which, support Mr. Rhodes, by reading from a single one of these.  This is a statement submitted by Devin Austin (Page 108 of Exhibit N).  His address, his telephone number, and his e-mail are here on his remarks.  Some of the speakers commented on that tour whether by way of pejorative entertainment or by way of denigration, but this is consistent with what’s in the rest of them.  This is what he said:

 

I found this tour very informational.  I had never been to this site before and thought it would make an excellent location of a planned community.  I had Moe for our tour guide and thought he did a great job explaining the site and answering some very tough questions thrown at him.  I did not see any reason for the residents of Blue Diamond or the politicians to complain or make it any more difficult to develop this property.  In my opinion, I believe this property would look a lot better having houses, parks, and other features rather than an ugly mine site.

 

That really encapsulates our position here today.  In our opposition to S.B. 358, we would like the opportunity to present to the Clark County Commissioners, the ultimate authority on zoning and rezoning, whether we can develop this mine site as a planned community or not.  We would not like to be pre-empted to be precluded from the opportunity of exercising that right incident to the ownership of property, to make our case before the zoning authorities.  That is the sum and the substance of our opposition to S.B. 358.

 

If I could ask the video operator in Carson City to put the video (Exhibit M) in, I believe we can have some statements by others who will give their own reasons in their own words for opposing this bill (S.B. 358).

 

[The videotape “Jim Rhodes Development Project Testimonials” (Exhibit M) was shown from 12:45 p.m. to 1:04 p.m.  The videotape contained the testimonials of eight individuals explaining why they were in favor of Mr. Rhodes’ project and in opposition to S.B. 358.]

 

Steve Morris:

We have several speakers and before we get to them, could I state for the record two things that I neglected to mention when I was speaking earlier.  One is the chart I wanted to show.  This exhibit is part of a proposal that we’ve not been able to make because we haven’t yet gotten to the planning department or the Clark County Commissioners to debate it, but it is an exhibit that has on it something that is very responsive to one of the concerns that was articulated here earlier.  The concern was articulated by the bicyclists who were fearful of the increased traffic on the Blue Diamond Road, and the dangers it would pose to a bicyclist and others using the road.  These are the proposed roads from Las Vegas, in and out of this site.  They don’t utilize the Blue Diamond Road.  They don’t utilize Charleston Avenue.  These are the main entries and exits from, at least as proposed, this particular piece of property.

 

I think that, if we have our opportunity to present that and debate it on its merits, that or some alternative can be adopted that would altogether alleviate the concerns that this increased traffic is going to fall on and be a burden to Blue Diamond Road and, therefore, be, not only a safety issue, but also a fiscal issue for the state, because I assume it would fall to the state to improve or develop that road.  This would be, if it were approved, our responsibility.

 

The second thing I would like to point out to you, if we can come back to the same map we’ve looked at a couple of times, is responsive to comments that were made during the introduction of the information by the proponents of S.B. 358, and was alluded to by Congressman Bilbray when he was here, and that is the efforts that have been made over time to define Red Rock Conservation Area.  Those are the ones in brown on the map.

 

At the present time, and through three separate sets of efforts by the federal government, including land trades, to fill out and to reach what is now the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in terms extent, and this is in your booklet (Exhibit K), as well as a map showing the roads, exhibit number 10 in your booklet (Exhibit K).  This is on the first page of the introduction in opposition to S.B. 358 and that is what Congress had to say as it went through the process and seeking the input and the cooperation of state, county, and local residents and interest groups.  This is what Congress had to say when it ended up with what is now called the conservation area that altogether excludes the James Hardie land.

 

[Steve Morris continued.]  It said, “Congress does not intend for the establishment of the conservation area”—this area you see in brown—“to lead to the creation of protected perimeters or buffer zones around the conservation area,” which in substance is what the proposal is for the James Hardie land site, a buffer area that can be later included into, if all things go as the proponents of S.B. 358 believe they will go, the conservation area.  Congress went on to say, “The fact that there may be activities or uses on lands outside the conservation area, they would not be permitted in the conservation area.”  Certainly we know that a residential development would not be tolerated in the conservation area.

 

That’s what’s Congress is addressing here among other things:  “the fact that there may be activities or uses on lands outside the conservation area that would not be permitted in the conservation area shall not preclude such activities or uses on such lands up to the boundary of—the boundary for James Hardie land adjoins the conservation area—“up to the boundary of the conservation area or the extent consistent with applicable law.”

 

It’s that last phrase that was addressed by one of the speakers in the opening remarks this morning that I want to focus on because it highlights and comes back to the tenor of the presentation we’ve been making thus far, at least the one that I’ve been making, to the extent permitted by law includes, unless you pass this statute, it includes the right to apply for and to have considered whether successful or not, our plan to develop this property as something other than R-U, which is its existing zoning, and that is something I believe Congress specifically acknowledged as it went through the process of putting the conservation area together.

 

If there is land such as we own outside the conservation area that can be developed, Congress didn’t address zoning.  It didn’t say, if it can be developed consistent with the zoning that’s in place now under the local governing body’s ordinances, so be it.  What Congress said is “to the extent provided by law, this land can be considered for development” whether R-U or some other classification for zoning and for the use of the land, and that’s all we’re asking for here in opposing S.B. 358.  Give us the opportunity to make that case to the Clark County Planning Department and the Clark County Commissioners.  If they agree with this, we’ll all be happy and the democratic process will have worked.  If they disagree with us, and we can’t develop it as we propose, we’ll all be happy and the democratic process will have worked, but it will not work if you adopt S.B. 358.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Mr. Morris has made several references to the Clark County Commission and their involvement.  One of the members of that commission was here earlier today and spoke of the resolution.  Have we been given a copy of that resolution or will we ever see that?

 

Senator Titus:

Mr. Chairman, there’s somebody here from Clark County who is a zoning expert, and who may be able to answer that question.  Commissioner Williams had to leave.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I have not seen a copy.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Since it’s been referred to so much, that would be helpful.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We’ll request that.

 

Steve Morris:

We’d be happy to supplement the record with that.  The Clark County Commissioners did adopt a resolution urging the federal government to take the appropriate steps to, if it can, purchase this land.  We’ve all read and we’ve all seen, just as you have, statements that have been made by the congressional delegation with respect to that process.  We’ve also seen some statements from the BLM with regard to how long that might take.  But, as far as it goes, it’s just a resolution.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

It would be helpful to read that.

 

Steve Morris:

We’ll be happy to submit a copy of that at the close of the hearing.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Mr. Morris, in your booklet (Exhibit K) in the map exhibits, I was wondering if you could straighten something out for me.  In the first map, which is exhibit 1, Vicinity Map, Las Vegas Valley Area, it goes down all the areas and one of those near the bottom is the Red Rock Advisory Board.  The area is in pink and this proposed development is right in the middle of that.  Could you explain exactly what the Red Rock Advisory Board is and what jurisdiction they have. 

 

Steve Morris:

That I can answer, but I cannot answer the question of what the Red Rock Advisory Board is.  I’m not knowledgeable on that first hand.  If I’m not mistaken, these are areas in the Las Vegas Valley with respect to where there are organizations in place that advise and comment on land use and development or proposals for the use of land in those areas.  I believe the one that has been attributed to the Red Rock Advisory Board that is purple, is shown in Township 21 South, and the numbers are 164 and 175.  I believe that is the area to which that advisory board pertains.

 

Assemblyman Christensen:

Do we have any written positions on that board as to where they are on this, or do you have anything in this book?

 

Steve Morris:

I don’t have anything, but I believe there were some spokespeople here from them today who are proponents of this legislation. 

 

Barbara Ginoulias, Assistant Director, Comprehensive Planning, Current Planning Division, Clark County:

[Introduced himself.]  I’m not sure of the map that you’re referring to, but there is a Red Rock Citizens Advisory Council that is an appointed board which gives recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on land use issues within that area and surrounding or impacting that area.  Evan Blythin, who spoke earlier, is a member of that board, and I believe that board does support this legislation (S.B. 358). 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

While you’re still in the map section, look at exhibit 7, Aerial Photo and Topo, and tell us about the selected lands, offered lands, and how they interact with the James Hardie land and the relationship.

 

Steve Morris:

The James Hardie land is the land that is presently under deed and is owned by Mr. Rhodes’ company.  There are other areas of land that are within what is called the Hardie Mine Site that the government would like included in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, and there are some lands that the government is willing to trade for that.

 

There is an agreement in existence which has not be executed, that has not yet been performed, by which these lands that are in blue and green will be exchanged, so that there will be no pocket of conservation land within the Hardie Mine Site.  It will consolidate the little bits and pieces that are outside the boundary now, in exchange for some other land that would go into it.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

So the green lands are actually owned by James Hardie Land, not by Jim Rhodes, and those green-colored lands are going to be offered to the federal government for preservation?

 

Steve Morris:

They have been, and they are the subject of an exchange agreement now.  The agreement is in existence, but it has not been performed.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

Then the selected lands, or the blue lands, will revert to whom?

 

Steve Morris:

That would become a part of this site. 

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

That would become a part of the Jim Rhodes extended ranch?

 

Steve Morris:

Correct.  I don’t know about extended ranch, but it would be part of this property, yes.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

We saw a photo of the Marble Claims.  Could you point out on the map where the Marble Claims are?  Is that that green area on your map that’s on your easel?

 

Steve Morris:

That’s right here.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

So, that’s the green?

Steve Morris:

Twenty-four, yes.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

That is land that is in the process of being theoretically deeded over to the federal government for protection and preservation?

 

Steve Morris:

That’s correct.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

There would not be homes on that particular piece of land even if anything happens with preservation or building?

 

Steve Morris:

As long as that agreement’s performed, it will not be.

 

Assemblyman Hardy:

The agreement you’re talking about is the agreement between James Hardie, Inc., and the federal government?

 

Steve Morris:

The answer to that is yes.  There is an agreement.  Our plans for development, assuming we ever get to the point of debating it, do not include that.

 

Assemblywoman Koivisto:

Mr. Morris, you refer to the democratic process and stated that, by the Nevada Legislature getting involved in this, we were somehow going around the democratic process.  My question to you is, how many Clark County Commissioners can even vote on this thing because they haven’t been co‑opted?  How many Clark County Commissioners are going to be able to vote on this and not have a conflict?  That, as far as I’m concerned, is a real violation of the democratic process, because that means a lot of citizens of this county are not going to be represented if this vote is done by the county commission.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We are also discussing legislation dealing with that.  That’s one of the things that we hear from our constituents on a daily basis is county commissioners having conflicts of interest, having to conflict out of issues and items.  We hear that as elected officials, their frustrations as well, even though we’re at the state level, which is one of the things I want to mention.  One of the witnesses said that this is a county issue and the state shouldn’t have any involvement with this.  We can revoke the charter of cities.  We have that power.  We have every right to be involved with issues such as this, county and city.

 

Steve Morris:

Please don’t misunderstand the remarks I made.  You selected the term co‑opted.  I consider that a pejorative term.  I don’t mean to agree with you, because I don’t agree with you in any sense that we or Mr. Rhodes and his folks have set out in some manner to systematically disenfranchise or eliminate a great number of county commissioners and prohibit them from voting on this, so that the citizens they represent in turn will be disenfranchised.

 

I think the point that has been made is the one you addressed, Chairman Manendo, and the problem that has arisen is that all of us, except for lawyers who are full-time advocates.  Legislators and county commissioners and city councilmen and so on, they’re part-time public servants and sometimes full-time private citizens, and there are occasions when elective bodies such as the county commission are comprised of people who are in professions that render services to people that come before them.  That’s all that has happened here with one exception, and you read about that.  We’re not trying that case or debating that here.  There is an exception to that in Mark James, we believe, but with respect to the other commissioners, we haven’t set out to co-opt any or all of them, but it is the case that some of them are in firms that have worked or done work for Rhodes Development.

 

Chairman Manendo:

I think Mrs. Koivisto was asking a question of how many county commissioners are going to be able to vote on this issue, or would be able to vote on this issue, as opposed to ones that have been conflicted out.  My remarks were basically in general, because we hear this all the time from folks that only a certain amount of commissioners are making decisions for this valley because of conflicts and reasons that they have to abstain.  That’s just something we hear at the state level and that this Committee hears all the time.  Just kind of a general statement.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

Ms. Koivisto had the same question I had.  I did have a question for the county.  It goes back to exhibit 1, Vicinity Map.  My colleague from District 13 spoke about it a moment ago, about Red Rock and the advisory board.  From my knowledge, each advisory board comes up with a master plan for each township, and I’m almost certain Red Rock should have one at this point, and I believe you said you could get it or you would be able to provide it for us.

Barbara Ginoulias:

Yes, I could probably have it here in about 20 minutes if you wanted to see that.  It’s part of the Northwest Plan, but there is an area specific for the Red Rock vicinity included within that Northwest Plan.  I could run to my office and have it copied and bring it back.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

That master plan will tell us, not only what that is planned for, but the surrounding area as well?

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

That’s correct.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

If she can provide it for the entire Committee, we would appreciate that.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Could you make a phone call and have that delivered?

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

I actually have another staff person here.

 

Chairman Manendo:

If someone could get a copy, that would be great.

 

Assemblyman Grady:

Mr. Goicoechea has to leave because he had a meeting in Austin at 4 o’clock with some of his constituents.  He and I both had a question following along the same lines as Mrs. Koivisto, and it has to do with the resolution.  I have the greatest respect for Myrna Williams.  She testified that there was a resolution that passed 6-0 with the Clark County Commissioners.  My question to Mr. Morris, was he or his client there at that meeting and did they participate in the discussion where the 6-0 resolution was passed?

 

Steve Morris:

We were not present and we did not participate in the discussion.  I understood that resolution to be after the fact that the Clark County Commission is urging the federal government to provide the funds with which this site can be acquired.  That resolution is one we’re happy to provide; I just don’t have it with me to submit to the Committee so it will become a part of this record.

Assemblyman Knecht:

A follow-up question to Mr. Grady’s.  Did Mr. Morris or his client get timely notice and reasonable opportunity to appear on that matter?

 

Steve Morris:

I didn’t have any notice, and I don’t know of any specific notice that we received.  I didn’t get any notice, and I don’t know of any others that were sent out or that was given to us.

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

Mr. Morris said there was no notice of that resolution at the Clark County Commission meeting.

 

Steve Morris:

No, I said we didn’t receive any.  They may have done the notice.  I didn’t receive any notice of it.

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

Are you on our regular mailing list?

 

Steve Morris:

I don’t know that I am or I’m not.  In any event, the answer to your question is no, I did not get notice of that meeting, if in point of fact a debate occurred at the county commission, and I haven’t heard until this morning that it did, over this particular Senate Bill 358.  If that was debated, I didn’t know it, I didn’t participate in it, and I didn’t know that it was until somebody said this morning; County Commission Williams implied that it was debated.  I understood the debate, from what I read about it after the fact, to be whether the county should exhort the federal government to provide money to buy this site, and that, as I understand it, is the resolution that was adopted.  In any event, the resolution we are happy to submit to you folks will resolve that issue, if it is an issue.  The resolution will say what it is.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

You just used the word “extort.”  Are you suggesting that there’s extortion, that the county commission is engaging in extortion and asking?

 

Steve Morris:

No, I didn’t say “extortion,” I said “exhorted.”  In importunity it asked the federal government.  It said we have no control over what you do, but as a government unit, we are asking you to provide the money to acquire this land.

Assemblywoman Pierce:

My mistake.  I misunderstood you.  When the county commission set up the committee to design an overlay plan, were you at that meeting?

 

Steve Morris:

We were not consulted on that. 

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

You weren’t at that meeting?

 

Steve Morris:

No, we were not.  In point of fact, the Hardie Mine folks from whom we acquired title, on more than one occasion communicated what it had read about that process going on, and complained, number one, that it had not been a part of it, that the landowner’s position and interests were not being considered, and number two, that it was unfair for this planning process which would affect this particular land to go ahead without any input from the property owner.  I think I may even have with me some letters.  What I have in mind are two letters that were written in January of this year that address what I just said.  There was apparently a planning process that’s now called an “overlay ordinance process” going on, and that the property owner was not a participant in that.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Why weren’t you there?

 

Steve Morris:

I can’t answer that question.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Do you not make it your business to find out, to check the agendas and all the public notices for county commission meetings?

 

Steve Morris:

That I did not do.  These are planning sessions, as I understand them, that were not county commissioner agenda items.  These were largely planning meetings with respect to the development of the overlay ordinance that were participated in by county staff personnel, Ms. Ginoulias’ staff, interest groups, and others.  That group, whoever and whatever its extent was, did not include the owners of the James Hardie Mine, and the owners of the mine who are our predecessors in title.  We bought the mine from those folks, and complained about reading about this process going on and not being made a part of it.

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Maybe I need to ask the county.  Was there a point at which there was an agenda item on a Clark County Commission meeting that set up the overlay committee?

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

Yes, there were a few agenda items on the agenda, as well as this resolution that was passed was part of an agenda.  It’s publicly noticed, as are all commission agendas.  I was not involved with the committee directly, but it is my understanding that the James Hardie people were contacted several times to participate in the committee, and there was no response from them at the time.  I don’t believe Mr. Rhodes was contacted directly because I don’t believe that we were acknowledged that Mr. Rhodes was involved with the property at this time, starting, probably in September or so of last year.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Last September?

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

I believe so.

 

Steve Morris:

We were not a party to that process.  That process that she is referring to, whether the creation of the overlay committee was established by a noticed agenda item or not, the committee did not seek, and therefore did not have the advice of the property owner as it was deliberating whatever it is it was talking about that eventually became the overlay ordinance, which was introduced last month, and of which we had notice.  We knew that the overlay ordinance would be introduced, but we didn’t participate or know about the meetings that led up to the preparation of that ordinance, and that ordinance is scheduled for a hearing on the 21st of this May before the Clark County Commissioners.  We will appear and speak about that ordinance at that time.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

In this vast organization that Mr. Rhodes has and your staff, you have no one who regularly monitors the public notices that come from the county commission to check to see if they’re going to deal with anything that has to do with the numerous Jim Rhodes projects and properties?  You have no one whose job that is?

Steve Morris:

We certainly didn’t have anyone whose job it was last year to try to determine the existence of and the times for meetings of a committee that we did not know about.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I’m asking about the original agenda items on county commission agendas that set up the overlay committee.  My understanding is, from Mr. Rhodes, that he has owned this property for two years.  Is that correct?

 

Steve Morris:

No, that is incorrect.  He has been interested in this property for more than two years, but he purchased this property on March 21 of this year, and he signed an agreement by which he was obligated to purchase the property in September of 2002.  On September 25, he signed an agreement to buy this property, but he purchased the property on March 21, 2003.  Between the time that he agreed to buy the property in September 2002, and the time when he actually bought it on March 21, 2003, there were a number of meetings that were not, at least to my knowledge and I will be corrected if they were, but I have no knowledge after the fact or contemporaneously, that the committee, whatever its composition was, that was meeting to prepare what became the Red Rock Overlay Ordinance, was ever published in a location accessible to us or sent to us so that we should have been aware of meetings they were having to discuss the extent and the substance of the overlay ordinance, which is now before the county commission.  It has not yet been debated, but it’s scheduled for debate on the 21st of this month.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I took the tour last night with Mr. Rhodes, and I’m pretty sure that Mr. Rhodes told me last night that he has owned this land for two years. 

 

Mr. Rhodes:

I had a letter of intent for two years.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Mr. Rhodes just said he had a letter of intent for two years.  Having had a letter of intent for two years on a piece of land, you have no one on your staff whose job it is to regularly look through the county commission agendas and notify you that there is an agenda item which has to do with a piece of land for which you have a letter of intent?

Jim Rhodes:

You can ask county staff here, but county staff always notices all their agenda items to be heard.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

You have no one on your staff whose job description it is to, on a regular basis, look at county commission agendas to find out if there is anything on those agendas which pertain to lands that you own, lands that you want to own, lands that you have a letter of intent on?  You have no one in your office whose job description covers that?

 

Jim Rhodes:

When they send you a letter saying that they’re going to have something done is a total different character than what you’re speaking of.  What they do is they send out a notice to the affected property owners that you could be affected and you should show up and be heard.  That’s two different things, what they do and what you’re talking about.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

What I’m getting at is that you’re presenting to us that you’re being treated unfairly, that you have never had a chance to present your plans and your dreams and wishes to the county commission, and what I’m saying is it seems to me that there have been a number of occasions in the last year in which this piece of land was discussed, was on an agenda, was part of an agenda item before the county commission, and you chose not to show up.

 

Jim Rhodes:

No, no.  Excuse me.  That’s apples and oranges.  That’s not a fair characterization of what you’re speaking of.  If I was to turn in an application for a zone change, Clark County would notice within 600 feet or the 30 closest property owners, and they’d send out regular mail to the people who were affected by their possible future decision, and they’re noticed that way.  That is the notice that I did not receive.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I get back to my original question.  There is no one on your staff whose job description it is to regularly search the county commission agendas to see if there is any agenda item which pertains to land you own, projects you hope to pursue, land you might want to own in the future?

 

Jim Rhodes:

The answer is no.  Most other homebuilders do not have the same thing you’re asking.  It would be kind of a silly job to do.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I would suggest that in the future you should get someone who does that.

 

Jim Rhodes:

Should I then at the same time check everything in Washington, DC, and the state of Nevada, and North Las Vegas, and the City of Henderson?

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

If you own property, I suggest that you do that.  That’s how everyone in this county finds out.  That’s how the people in this room find out.  Agendas are publicly noticed.

 

Jim Rhodes:

But that’s not correct.  You’re mischaracterizing it immensely.  What they do is they send you out mail saying you’re noticed.  It’s not fair that you say that it would be, to run with that.  That’s not what happens.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

How did you find out about this meeting?

 

Jim Rhodes:

How did I find out about this meeting?  I saw it in the newspaper, but you cannot show me inside the newspaper where this thing ever happened during that time line.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

You read about this in the newspaper?  No one in your office, no one connected to your organization ever read anything about the overlay committee, the plans, the discussion?  No one in your office reads newspapers, except they happened to read the newspaper this week?

 

Jim Rhodes:

Wait, wait, wait, wait.  It’s that you’re a much better speaker than I am.  You’re twisting those words around.  What they do is they notice people within 600 feet.  Is that correct, Barbara?  Is it 600 feet?

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

It depends on the type of application.  Not all public items have a mailing notice.  Many items heard by the commission are simply part of an agenda that’s posted in proper locations and on our Web site.  We also have a registry for people who are interested.  They can sign up and they are sent all of our agendas.

 

Jim Rhodes:

We’re the largest privately owned piece of property.  I would think I would go far out of my way to make sure people got noticed correctly.  That’s why they have noticing laws, so later on, when this would be questioned, they can pull out that they’ve got the notices and here’s where they’ve all been sent out, and we noticed it properly.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

Apparently there is a way to get on a list with the county to be notified about agenda items.  I suggest that you do that.

 

Jim Rhodes:

That would circumvent, that’s not what the law is set up for, proper noticing.

 

Chairman Manendo:

Are you saying that the county did not properly notice you?

 

Steve Morris:

What we are saying is this.  I think in some respects it’s an apples and oranges debate.  If the county commission had an agenda item that addressed property that we owned, or that anyone owned, as an element of due process of law, if the county commission was to consider, if the city council was to consider some action that would in some way affect the ownership or the rights to use property, they legally have to give notice to the affected property owners.  

 

That isn’t what we’re speaking of here.  What we are speaking of, and what I thought we were trying to address is, whatever the process was that resulted in the preparation of the overlay ordinance, which is now a matter of public record and will be a matter of public debate before the commission next week or the week after next, those meetings are meetings of which we did not have notice.  Those were not Clark County Commission agenda items.

 

Those were meetings of a committee that was working to prepare an ordinance for later submission to the commission, which it has done and which will be considered later this month.  But last year, or whenever it was that the process started, the owner of the mine at that time was James Hardie, and Hardie did not get notice of, or it failed to read the papers or failed to read the agendas, if there were agendas, but Hardie and its interests were not among the items considered, at least not while a representative of Hardie was present while the people were meeting to prepare what has now become the Red Rock Overlay Ordinance that is pending before the County Commission.

 

In that process, the preparation, the writing of the proposals and the debate on what the guidelines or standards should be, the Hardie Mine folks and we were excluded from that process.  Hardie Mines owned the property then.  We didn’t.  They didn’t get notice of any such meetings, and they wrote to the County Commissioners to complain about the fact that they were reading in the newspaper from time to time that a Red Rock Overlay Ordinance was being discussed outside the context of a Clark County Commission meeting, and they, number one, asked to be a part of that process, and number two, complained about the fact that they had not been.  That’s our only point.

 

Assemblywoman Pierce:

I disagree that you have been excluded from anything.  I think that either you chose not to participate or for some reason you do not have staffing necessary to find out about items on the Clark County Commission agenda, but I don’t agree that you’ve been excluded from anything.

 

Barbara Ginoulias:

Just to clarify a few points.  I believe James Hardie Company was sent two notices regarding these meetings.  It was sent to the same address to which their tax bill is sent.  I believe the complaint came from them this year, not last year, at the time that they were noticed about these meetings, and were invited to participate and, like I said, chose for one reason or another not to.

 

Dawn Perry, Citizen:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m just a citizen.  I’m a literacy specialist with the Clark County School District.  I saw the property and, wow, this could be beautiful.  I know that Senator Titus stated that this would not be elitist.  Well, it would be elitist if it is zoned the way that it is now.  If they rezoned, there would be an actual community there for 15,000 people.

 

Chairman Manendo:

What’s your definition of a community?

 

Dawn Perry:

A small community like a master planned community, like Summerlin or Desert Shores or a nice community.  Also, Senator Titus stated that if Mr. Rhodes did this project, the teachers and fire fighters couldn’t afford it anyway.  That’s not true.  I am an educator.  I have been here 12 years.  I have a decent income now, I could afford to move to a community like this.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We still haven’t heard what that price would be, so you’re saying you could afford a home price that we have not heard.

 

Dawn Perry:

Well, they’re talking $100,000 to $300,000 in the area, yes.

 

Chairman Manendo:

You can afford a $300,000 home?

 

Dawn Perry:

Absolutely. 

 

Chairman Manendo:

We’re paying teachers well then?

 

Dawn Perry:

If you do enough education and you do enough extra activities and you make wise investment properties, yes, you can afford a $300,000 home.  I’ve also noticed that the area is separate from Red Rock, and I also enjoy going there and hiking.  As a citizen, I would like for the property to be rezoned to R-2 so Clark County residents with average incomes and families could afford to reside in a new, beautiful community.  That’s really all I have to say.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

I had a question earlier, but I think you addressed it when Mr. Manendo asked the definition of a community.  I guess what would have been better was the definition of an affordable home, and the definition of affordable home is not $300,000.  I think that’s kind of where you were going with that.

 

Dawn Perry:

No, but I said from $100,000 to $300,000.

 

Chairman Manendo:

There’s a big difference between an affordable home at $100,000 and an affordable home at $300,000.

 

Dawn Perry:

Definitely.

 

Assemblyman Atkinson:

That was just my point.

 

Bairie Bair, Citizen:

[Introduced himself.]  I am a native Nevadan.  I’ve been a 57-year resident of Las Vegas.  I’ve not only watched the growth and the changes, I’ve been an active part of the growth and the changes being in construction myself.  I recently viewed the area where the planned housing project is proposed to be developed and see that it will not, in any way, affect the Red Rock Recreation Area such as endanger the wildlife, anymore than the Las Vegas affected the Lake Mead recreation area.

 

[Bairie Bair continued.]  All the planned communities that have been built in the Clark County area have not only improved the beauty of the communities, but also economically.  I’ve seen Jim Rhodes provide many people with American dreams, with a home for their family to grow.  The family in Blue Diamond has their American dream, so should they cheat other families out of that dream?  This planned community can only improve the beauty of this Red Rock area.  I believe in my mind and in my heart that this is good, and not only the right thing to do for the citizens of Clark County, but for everybody involved.  Let Jim Rhodes show you what a dream can do for the people of Clark County.

 

Chris Fusch, Citizen:

[Introduced himself.]  I am also a life-long resident of Las Vegas.  I was born and raised here.  I’m 39 years old.  I spent my youth in the Red Rock area and in the surrounding areas, doing all different types of things, going out in the desert and shooting and things like that when it was allowed back then; it’s not anymore.  I spent a lot of time in that area, and when I heard that Jim Rhodes was going to build a community on Blue Diamond Hill, at first I was a little bit concerned because I think, like everyone else, I did not fully understand where it was.  I decided to take the tour and, after I took the tour and looked at it, I realized that the area there had been severely destroyed.

 

I happened to be in a van with a lady who I believe is here.  I cannot remember her name now, but she basically had a lot of information about the Red Rock area and all the things around it, and seemed to know a whole bunch about it.  As we were leaving, I asked her how long she had been here, and she said she had been here about six years, and I thought that was kind of interesting because I’ve been here my whole life.

 

I think it’s a good idea to put a community up there.  I am also very against the state of Nevada telling a property owner what he can do with his property.  I think that he should have the right, if it was zoned initially for one way and he can go to the county commission and have that zoning changed, that I believe he should have the right to do that.  I’m against S.B. 358.  The two reasons I’m against the bill is basically, as a citizen of Clark County, I already said that I don’t want the state to tell the property owner what they can do, and the other thing is, as a citizen of Clark County, I would like the opportunity, if it presents itself, for myself to live on Blue Diamond Hill as others in this room I believe do too.

 

Joann Conte, Citizen:

[Introduced herself.]  I’m a 15-year resident of Las Vegas Valley.  I was leaning more towards S.B. 358 that Senator Titus has proposed, but I still had some questions.  That’s the reason I wanted to take the tour.  I took the tour that they provided and I also viewed the property from another area.

 

The property there on Blue Diamond Hill is not a part of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.  I don’t know if you’re aware of that or not.  The federal law creating the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area stated that Congress does not intend for the establishment of conservation areas to lead to creation of protective perimeters or buffer zones around the conservation area.  The fact that there may be activities or uses on lands outside the conservation area shall not preclude such activities or uses on such lands up to the boundary of the conservation area to the extent consistent with other applicable law.  This is based on federal law.

 

A master planned community would be compatible for the conservation area.  I’ve done a lot of searching on a lot of this.  The U.S. Code, Title 16, was passed by Congress when they set up the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.  This includes its own buffer.  There is no other buffer that’s needed.  The township of Blue Diamond is a part of the Red Rock Canyon area.  Blue Diamond Hill is not.

 

The state-approved reclamation plans states:  Due to its proximity to the City of Las Vegas, the proposed post-mining use of Blue Diamond Hill is residential and commercial real estate development.  I still had questions, though.  That’s the reason why I went on the tour.  I do have a question for our illustrious legislators up here.  How many of you have actually gone on a tour of the property?  Would you please raise your hands?  [Those Committee members that had gone on the tour raised their hands.] 

 

Chairman Manendo:

There are some folks that had to leave that toured the site as well.

 

Joann Conte:

There are three that raised their hands.  How many that left, would you say, had toured the property?

 

Chairman Manendo:

I’m not sure.  I know there was one or two for sure.

 

Joann Conte:

I’d like to share with you what I actually saw with my own eyes when I was there.  When I went on the tour of Blue Diamond Hill, the top area in question is not even visible from Blue Diamond or the Red Rock area.  It’s a long way up there.  It’s completely breathtaking views from up there.

 

Eighty years of mining has taken a tremendous toll of the land.  The deep cuts in the hillsides, the craters, removal of vegetation.  Before the lands could even be preserved, they need to be reclaimed and restored.  It’s going to take a massive expense and effort to restore these hundreds of acres.  The owner, Jim Rhodes, is willing to take on the effort and expense as part of community development.  To me, that’s a lot better deal for the taxpayers than for the government to foot the bill.

 

Hidden Hills housing options would range from first-time homebuyers for young families to clustered low-maintenance homes for seniors, which I am, and other neighborhoods would be incorporated housing for middle income to upper income residents.  What I learned is S.B. 358 is not a public interest legislation, but it’s a special interest legislation.  The supporters of S.B. 358 have made assumptions about Blue Diamond Hill or Hidden Hills without ever seeing the owner’s, Jim Rhodes’, plans.  This is an assault on private property rights and to target a particular piece of land and landowner is just not right, and it’s not what our country stands for.

 

Charles Graham, on behalf of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council:

[Introduced himself.]  I have a correspondence that Mr. Robert Nard, Secretary Treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, asked me to present to the Committee today (Exhibit P):

 

Dear Chairman Manendo:

 

The Southern Nevada Building Trades Council, representing 18 local unions, would like to be on record against S.B. 358.

 

We do support protecting the natural beauty and the geological significance of Red Rock Canyon.  We also believe those protections exist today in federal law.  We do not, however, support the state creating an artificial barrier to growth.  Creating such a barrier is both anti-growth and anti-jobs.  We believe in managed growth for the Las Vegas Valley.  Managing growth allows for the best opportunity for job creation and the best scenario for maximizing our quality of life.

 

S.B. 358 is an anti-growth measure.  That is bad for our local economy.  It is bad for creating good jobs, and it is bad for our state.

 

There has been a great deal of publicity about a proposed residential development, which would be prohibited by this legislation.  The actual site was a gypsum mine for over 50 years.  That means the area was excavated by using explosives to blow craters in the ground and haul the dirt to a mill.  A residential development in this area would be a great improvement to what exists now.

 

We also believe that local government, not the State Legislature, should make zoning decisions.  We have a long history of local government’s role in zoning issues and we should not set a new precedent today with this bill.  We adamantly oppose S.B. 358.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Nard

Secretary Treasurer

 

Chairman Manendo:

Can we see a show of hands of the folks against the legislation?  [Those in the audience opposed to S.B. 358 raised their hands.]  In the other room, it looks like they have their hands up as well.  We’ve actually exceeded the time, so if you have a wrap-up, and then Senator Titus has a wrap-up.  You can wrap up if you want, if you want to say some closing remarks.  The proponents had about an hour and 50 minutes, and you folks have had over two hours, so this has been pretty fair.

 

Unidentified Citizen:

I’ve waited over two hours to talk.

 

Second Unidentified Citizens:

We’ve been here since 7 o’clock this morning.

 

Steve Morris:

I will yield to them.

Chairman Manendo:

That’s fine.  They are going to yield to you folks.

 

Jennifer Kilpatrick, Citizen:

[Introduced herself.]  I live on Comanche Canyon Road in Las Vegas.  I’m essentially in a tract in the flats looking up at Blue Diamond Hill.  My overall conclusion is that I would certainly like to have a house on Blue Diamond Hill, and have the lovely view that I know exists.  I think that S.B. 358 presents a watershed in deciding how this valley is going to look, whether all the urbanization is going to be on the valley floor or whether we’re going to have selected urbanization up high, sort of like a West Hollywood or Mulholland Drive.  I read S.B. 358, and I thought the drafting was sort of muddled, which is why I stated I’m opposed to it.

 

As I’m sure the members of the Committee know, under the U.S. Constitution, police power, which is the zoning powers, is delegated to the states.  This county, as well as any city in this county, is merely a creature of the state.  One of you joked that you could revoke the charter of a city or a county.

 

Chairman Manendo:

That was me, and I wasn’t joking.  We have the powers to revoke city charters.

 

Jennifer Kilpatrick:

I believe that you certainly do.  The point is that when you step into an area that’s been delegated to the local people, you have to really aggressively state that it’s a reason for state concern.  Certainly that’s been done up in Lake Tahoe where there’s a joint powers agreement with California saying that Lake Tahoe is really important.  I ask you whether a line of lights visible from the valley floor above my house is more important that a line of lights above the valley floor from somebody in Summerlin?

 

I think the basic decision that you’ve got to make on S.B. 358 is, “Is this particular ridge a matter of statewide concern where you should pull back those local powers?”  I would ask you to think carefully about that because, I guarantee you, that if you do it this time, as this community grows, it will happen again and again.

 

Senator Titus:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for staying so long and hearing all of us.  There is a lot that I could respond to, but I think most of the charges that were made, I rebutted in my opening statement.  Those had to do with the takings issue, with local control, with the congressional action with this being a state concern.  Two things I want to point out and then I’ll wrap it up.  I kept hearing the attorney refer to NRS Chapter 278 and how, 62 years ago, the state gave the power to zone to local governments.  I believe he said that 14 times.

 

[Senator Titus continued.]  I want to remind you that, yes, local governments are creatures of the state and 62 years ago, we did say zoning is primarily a concern for local government.  However, since that time, when it’s been a matter of state concern, the state has stepped in, and I would remind you that this state Legislature has passed gaming enterprise zones, which very much are involved with local zoning issues.  The Nevada Legislature also passed the rural designation zones for here in Clark County that have to do with zoning, and those don’t count the whole Lake Tahoe situation that I described.

 

Secondly, you keep hearing the notion we want an opportunity; all we want is an opportunity to make our case before the county commission.  I would argue that they have had an opportunity to make their case before a public body—this public body.  We in the Legislature represent people who live here in Clark County just like county commissioners do, so to suggest that they haven’t been able to make a case for this development and this plan before a duly elected public body I think is disingenuous.

 

I’d like to wrap up by pointing out that there were members of the Paiute tribe, members of a rock climbers association, and of a petroglyph association who didn’t get to testify and who would like to have it in the record.  I especially want to thank my intern, Keku Kamalani, for all the work that he has done getting together with people and organizing their efforts to have their voices heard.  We didn’t send a letter to Mr. Rhodes inviting him today, but for some reason, he was able to find out about this meeting.

 

Over the years, Mr. Rhodes has built a lot of houses and he’s made a lot of money.  He has a lot of powerful friends, he can afford fancy lawyers and expensive PR firms, he can afford books like you have, and t-shirts for all the people who are here today, and I think that’s great.  That’s the American way.  We all want to do well.  We all want to make money.  I don’t begrudge him that at all, but I’m really not here to talk about Jim Rhodes.  I’m here to talk about Red Rock.

 

There’s a lot of land left in this valley where you can build more houses.  I don’t doubt that Mr. Rhodes will build those houses, but he doesn’t need to build them at Red Rock.  Red Rock belongs to all Nevadans, not just to people who can live in those 55 houses or those 1,200 houses, or to Mr. Rhodes.  This is not an issue that’s about political party.  It’s not about Democrats versus Republicans.  It’s not about north versus south.  It’s not about state versus county.  This is about that father who rides his bicycle with his son.  It’s about that elderly couple that has a picnic on a Sunday afternoon.  It’s about a hike.  It’s about an international tourist.  It’s about a wild burro.  It’s about the heart and soul of southern Nevada.  It took Mother Nature 600 million years to build Red Rock.  It can take one developer to destroy it, and one vote to save it.  I hope you will cast that one vote.

 

Chairman Manendo:

We gave equal time and we thank you very much.  In Carson City, we thank you; Committee members and staff, for your work here as well.  We will be taking this issue up in work session next week.

 

Steve Morris:

What day?

 

Chairman Manendo:

Check the agendas.  Actually, we post our agendas on the Web site.  We do not have to comply with the Open Meeting Laws, but we always do.  Thank you very much.  This meeting is adjourned.  Thank you all.  [2:15 p.m.]

 

[Exhibit Q from Susan Ivy Allen and Exhibit R from Dirk Griffith are also attached to these minutes and made a part of the record for this meeting.]

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Pat Hughey

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman

 

 

DATE: