Phil Speight, Vice Chairman, City of Henderson
Richard Holmes, alternate for Dale Askew, Clark County
Pat Importuna, City of North Las Vegas
John Sullard, Boulder City
Dale Askew, Chairman, Clark County
Virginia Valentine, City of Las Vegas
The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition Technical Committee meeting was called to order by
Phil Speight, Vice Chairman, at 3:08 p.m. Thursday, April 8, 1999, in the Joshua Conference Room, 6th Floor, at the Clark County Government Center, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89106.The Agenda for the April 8, 1999, meeting was duly posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
A motion was made to approve the March 11, 1999 Agenda. This motion was approved unanimously.
The minutes for the March 11, 1999 meeting were not available. It was agreed that this item would be held until the next meeting, scheduled for May 13, 1999.
John Schlegel distributed a memo from Dale Askew regarding the SNRPC Legislative recommendations, which included an attachment summary of the recommendation developed to date (Exhibit A). A two-page summary corresponding with the attachment was also distributed (Exhibit B).
Mr. Speight suggested the members use Exhibit B as a guide to address the legislative issues.
Beginning with Assembly Bill 388, the members were informed that this bill makes various changes to the process of land use planning in certain counties. The lobbyist's recommendation is to support with compromise language. The SNRPC Board recommendation was to oppose this bill because it is something that is already being done.
Assembly Bill 403 revises the manner in which fees collected by short term lessors of passenger cars are required to be distributed. The lobbyist recommendation is to support this bill as written. The SNRPC Board voted to take a neutral position.
Staff had not yet received any recommendations on Assembly Bill 424.
Assembly Bill 493 makes various changes concerning regional planning. The lobbyist and the SNRPC Board opposed this bill.
Assembly Bill 522 revises provisions governing location of gaming establishments in residential neighborhoods. The lobbyist did not take a position on this bill. The SNRPC Board voted to oppose.
Assembly Bill 538 makes various changes to provisions governing master plans for land use and zoning regulations. The lobbyist did not take a position on this bill. The SNRPC Board voted not to take a position until further information is received regarding whether or not the bill will cause a duplication of effort.
Assembly Bill 563 establishes provisions to promote interspersion of new residential and commercial development in certain established neighborhoods.
Mr. Speight asked if the SNRPC generally takes a position to oppose bills related to planning that the local governments already have the provision to do within the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) rather than have these provisions legislated?
Mr. Holmes stated that the bills were opposed, not as bad ideas or concepts but as a mandate coming from the legislature. If the language could be changed to be more permissive and encourage the local government to enact the same type of provision in their plans, this would encourage a more neutral position. The bills that mandate provisions which can be provided by the existing authorities were in major opposition.
Mr. Speight commented that the local governments have the ability to administer Assembly Bill 565 and 566, the next two bills listed on exhibit B, by changing their regulations and ordinances to allow the amenities that are recommended.
Mr. Holmes stated because it was read in a permissive way, the lobbyist supports Assembly Bill 566. In addition, AB 563, and 565 were both opposed as a mandate.
Mr. Rosenquist explained, AB 569 requires expressed written consent of the property owner before the property can be down zoned, but the way the language is written, it could be interpreted to indicate that a property cannot be down planned.
Lesa Coder informed the members that she believes revised language has been written for this bill in that the requirement would be more of a notification rather than requiring consent.
Note: (The lobbyists from the City of Henderson, the City of North Las Vegas, the City of Las Vegas, and Boulder City participated in the meeting via conference call at this point in the meeting.)
Mr. Speight asked, is it the collective decision of the Lobbyist to oppose AB 569 as presented?
Mr. Dan Musgrove, lobbyist for the City of Las Vegas, informed the members that it is the collective decision of the lobbyists to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speight asked if amended language is coming out on this bill?
Mr. Musgrove informed the members that they had not received any amendments on this bill as yet. The amendments may come out on April 9, 1999 in work sessions.
Mr. Musgrove gave an update that Mr. Doug Mashae and Governor Fares had not addressed any of the significant planning bills on April 8, 1999 in work sessions. One more session is scheduled for April 9, 1999 at 8:00 a.m. and will proceed until all bills are addressed or until 12:00 a.m.
The lobbyist stated that there had not been any discussion of suspending rules for any of the bills for the SNRPC.
Continuing with AB 571 and AB 572, Mr. Holmes stated that the discussion during the previous week in Carson City was consistent with the Southern Nevada Strategic Plan Authorities' (SNSPA)strategic plan, in that a bondable revenue source for park construction would be established.
Assembly Bill 640: Revises annexation requirements.
Mr. Musgrove stated that this bill was heard on April 2, 1999 and they are waiting for amendments. Initially the City of Las Vegas was neutral, but now they are taking an opposing position, although they are waiting to see what the amendments are.
Mr. Holmes stated that there had been discussion regarding the Clark County and the City of Henderson agreement defining local planning areas and various future annexation. It may turn out that a small island is created in the Henderson expansion, therefore, they would be in support of the bill.
Assembly Bill 191: Establishes requirements relating to projects of significant impact in the Las Vegas urban growth area.
Mr. Rosenquist stated that the recommendation from the lobbyist is to support AB 191 with an increase in the threshold. At the last SNRPC meeting, the members did not take a position. They recommended the language be amended to change the definition of Section II regarding the ability for anyone who reasonably believed the local elected officials were taking an action contrary to the impact statements could file a complaint with the Attorney General's office and proceed to district court. The amended language did not change the threshold.
Mr. Musgrove informed the members that this bill had already passed out of the Senate and is now in the Assembly with amendments. The amendments removed all of the objectionable threshold language and definition language of Section II, therefore, this bill could be taken off the list.
Senate Bill 323: Makes various changes regarding manufactured homes.
Lesa Coder gave a report from the discussion of this bill in Carson City, in conclusion stating that Clark County is very much opposed to this bill.
Mr. Musgrove stated that the lobbyists have remained neutral on this bill.
Mr. Speight suggested that the SNRPC members oppose SB 323 because it goes against the zoning ordinance and does not give the local government the ability nor the authority to determine design standards and architectural review parameters.
Senate Bill 391: Establishes provisions to preserve the rural character and density of certain annexed territories.
Mr. Musgrove stated that the wording in this bill was worked out on April 7, 1999. Most of the objectionable language was fixed. There will be a snapshot and it will be revisited in five years.
Ms. Coder added that this bill was approved with amendments. It will protect existing, developed Rural Estates (RE) to allow for 330 foot buffers around that of the same density. It would be effective as of that date so it would not be possible to add to a rural Neighborhood Preservation (RNP) overlay.
Senate Bill 393: Makes various changes concerning land use planning.
Mr. Rosenquist stated that there have been substantial revisions to this bill. The SNRPC Board members have taken the position to oppose. The amendments would make this bill more tolerable, but it would still be prescriptive rather than enabling.
Mr. Musgrove stated that the lobbyist had not seen this bill yet. It could come out tonight, April 8, 1999.
Senate Bill 394: Provides for coordination of planning among various governmental entities in certain counties with respect to air pollution, land use and transportation.
Mr. Rosenquist stated that the SNRPC Board members agreed to support this bill with amendments. The amended bill would delete the requirement for an all-inclusive annual report.
Senate Bill 436: Creates Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition.
Mr. Rosenquist continued, the SNRPC Board agreed to support as enabling with minor changes in regards to the citizens' participation.
Mr. Musgrove informed the members that this bill had not been acted upon yet.
The members agreed that everyone was in support of the next five bills listed on Exhibit B, labeled SNSPA Bills authored by Senator J. Porter.
Mr. Holmes asked had Senate Bill 434 which establishes Committee for the Economic Diversification of Southern Nevada been withdrawn?
Mr. Musgrove informed the members that it had been withdrawn by Senator Porter.
Mr. Rosenquist asked to go back to Assembly Bill 424 to receive the lobbyist recommendation.
Mr. Musgrove stated that this bill has not come up in the work session. Therefore, they do not have a recommendation at this time.
He further stated that April 19 is the day when the bills will be voted out of their respective houses. There will not be any committee meeting next week, unless other house bills are heard. Whatever form a bill takes as of midnight Friday, April 9, the respective entities should have the amended version of any bill to their representative so that quick decisions can be made. Monday, April 19, is the "drop dead" date.
The members agreed to hold this item for the next meeting scheduled for May 13, 1999.
None
Meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.