IN ATTENDANCE:
Councilman Shari Buck, Chair, City of North Las Vegas
Councilman Joe Hardy, Vice Chair, City of Boulder City
Commissioner Dario Herrera, Clark County
Councilman Steve Kirk, City of Henderson
Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald, City of Las Vegas
Trustee Mary Beth Scow, Clark County School District
The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition was called to order by Councilman Shari Buck, Chair, at 3:35 p.m., Thursday, January 24, 2002, in the Mead conference Room #2, at the Las Vegas Valley Water District, 1001 south Valley View, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89153.
The Agenda for the January 24, 2002, meeting was duly posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
Councilman Buck stated that the City of Las Vegas have made a request to withdraw agenda item VI, a report from HomeBase on “Reducing Homelessness in Southern Nevada” and the Work Group Data Briefs. The homeless task force is continuing discussions and does not have any conclusion to present at this time. A motion was made to approve the amended agenda for January 24, 2002. The motion was approved unanimously.
A motion was made to approve the November 29, 2001, meeting minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.
Kurt Fritsch, City of North Las Vegas, informed the members that all items discussed at the Technical Committee meeting are reflected on the Coalition’s agenda today. He stated that Mr. Duerksen is present to give an update on the consultant’s contract. Regarding agenda item VII, the work plan is not complete therefore, staff is requesting that the Coalition refer the work plan back to the Technical Committee and have it come before the Coalition when the work plan is complete.
Each member received a copy of a memo regarding the SNRPC Conformity and Amendment Review Process (Exhibit A), a memo regarding Regional Policy Plan Conformance -Frequently Asked Questions (Exhibit B), and a document entitle Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition Plan Amendment Review Process (Exhibit C). Bristol Ellington, City of Henderson, introduced Chris Duerksen of Clarion Associates. Mr. Ellington stated that Mr. Duerksen would give the Coalition an overview on the self-assessment phase of the conformity review process as well as the plan amendment review process. At the end of the presentation a recommendation of approval is requested for the plan amendment process. Mr. Duerksen stated since the Regional Plan is now adopted, the second phase of the planning process is to assure conformity with the Plan by the various municipalities and agencies. He stated that he would first address the amendment review process after which, he would address how the conformity process is going. Regarding the amendment review process the legislation does not indicate which plans the SNRPC should review, it simply states all plans. However, it the SNRPC reviewed all plan amendments from all the agencies, approximately 26 agencies, there wouldn’t be time to do anything else. Therefore, it is recommended that only the major plan amendments be reviewed. Referring to Exhibit C, page 2, Mr. Duerksen gave an outline on the guidelines to guide agencies in determining the kinds of amendments that should be referred to the SNRPC pursuant to the statute. They are: 1) Revisions that affect or are likely to affect whether the agency plan remains in conformity with the regional plan; 2) Changes in key concepts, policies, and priorities of the agency plans; 3) Major alternations in an urban service area; 4) Noteworthy changes in subarea and neighborhood plans; and 5) Changes in a plan that has the potential to result in significant changes to other agency plans or in regional infrastructure levels of service or capacity. The amendments that would not typically not be reviewed by the SNRPC. They are: 1) Changes in the design/scope of site-specific projects (e.g., a detention pond or highway project) that complied with policies in a plan that had been certified as conforming by the SNRPC and will not render the agency plan nonconforming; 2) Minor text amendments, and 3) Land use map amendments related to specific projects. The process would work as such, when someone has a major plan amendment; it is suggested that the Planning Directors review it first. The planning directors would determine if the plan would stay in conformity. If the planning directors determine that the amendment would stay in conformity the SNRPC would not review unless they particularly wanted to. Via a “call up” procedure, each member of the SNRPC would be noticed of the amendment and would have 10 days to decide if an amendment is to come before the SNRPC Board. Any one member of the SNRPC Board can call up an item. After receiving the notice, and if the SNRPC Board agrees with the planning directors, a letter would be mailed to the agency informing them that the amendment is in conformance. If the planning directors find that the plan amendment would altar the Regional Plan, the planning directors would enter into negotiations with the agency to try to work it out. If they are unsuccessful the plan would come before the SNRPC Board for review and the Board would discuss the amendment with the agency.
Councilman Buck introduced the newest member to the SNRPC Board, Mary Beth Scow representing the Clark County School District. In response a question, Mr. Duerksen stated that the process is for all agencies, local governments, and regional entities. Site specific projects are under the Projects of Regional Significance process, which are also reviewed by the SNRPC. To clarify the discussion on Projects of Regional Significance, Mr. Ellington stated that as far as the notification requirement, if the project requires a conditional use and a public hearing, all local jurisdictions must be noticed also. A permitted use would not have to be notice and would not be considered as a project of regional significance. Mr. Duerksen continued stating that the consultants have been reviewing plans by the various agencies and jurisdictions. Several submissions have been received from various agencies. The deadline for review is March 1, 2002, and all conformity agreements are to be complete by July 1, 2002. Mr. Duerksen stated that he has reviewed the Regional Transportation Commission’s submission and it is detailed, responsive, and positive. The ground work done in September and October consisting of meeting with the agencies and informing them of what is required by the legislation, and providing forms and templates has paid off.
After discussion, a motion was made to receive the report and to adopt the plan amendment review process. The motion was approved unanimously.
A request was made to table this item until a future meeting.
Each member received a copy of the SNRPC preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 2002- 2003 (Exhibit D). Frank Fiori, City of Las Vegas, informed the members that in accordance with the SNRPC bylaws it is required that a preliminary budget is presented in January and a final budget is to be adopted no later than April of each year. Referring to Exhibit D, Mr. Fiori stated that the planning directors are still working on developing a work plan. The SNRPC has accomplished several achievements, to include the adopted Regional Policy Plan, the projects of regional significance, and the conformance process that was adopted today. All the implementation items within the Regional Policy Plan that were adopted will be prioritized in order to create a work plan. A cost will be attached to the items and added into the budget under the implementation and professional services category. It is requested that the budget is referred back to the Technical Committee and is presented back to the SNRPC Board at a future meeting.
After discussion, a motion was made to accept the preliminary budget and wait for the final budget to be presented at a future meeting. This motion was approved unanimously.
The next SNRPC Board meeting was scheduled for January 24, 2002, at 3:30 p.m., at the Las Vegas Valley Water District.
There were no public comments.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:04 p.m.