BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 630|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 630
Author: Pavley (D) and Steinberg (D)
Amended: 5/24/13
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 7-2, 4/9/13
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Monning, Wolk
NOES: Cannella, Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 4-1, 5/23/13
AYES: De León, Gaines, Hill, Padilla
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Lara, Steinberg
SUBJECT : California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill declares an agreement between the Governors
of the States of Nevada and California covering the
implementation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (TRPC),
and declares that the State of Nevada has agreed to repeal its
2011 statutory provisions requiring its withdrawal from the
TRPC.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Ratifies the TRPC, a bilateral agreement between the States
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
2
of Nevada and California to regulate development in the Lake
Tahoe basin. The compact established Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency (TRPA) as a separate legal entity, comprised of
members from the States of Nevada and California, responsible
for implementing a "regional plan," as defined, regulating
development in the Lake Tahoe region, as defined.
2. Creates TRPA as a separate legal entity and as a political
subdivision of the State of California, and prescribes the
membership, functions, and duties of the TRPA, as specified.
3. Requires the TRPA, within 18 months of its formation, to
prepare, adopt, and review and maintain a comprehensive
long-term general plan for the development of the Tahoe
region, referred to as the "regional plan," as prescribed.
4. Requires that within one year after adoption of environmental
threshold carrying capacities for the Tahoe region, the TRPA
to amend its regional plan so that, at a minimum, the plan
and all of its elements, as implemented through agency
ordinances, rules, and regulations, achieves and maintains
the adopted environmental threshold carrying capacities, and
requires that the advisory planning commission appointed by
the TRPA and the governing body of the TRPA continuously
review and maintain the regional plan. This provision is
contained in the bistate TRPC in the Government Code.
This bill:
1. Declares an agreement between the Governors of the States of
Nevada and California covering the implementation of the TRPC
that was jointly announced by the Governors of these states
on May 14, 2013, which is proposed to be codified in
specified legislation in Nevada and California.
2. Declares that the State of Nevada has agreed to repeal its
2011 statutory provisions requiring its withdrawal from the
TRPC and proposing a change in the voting structure of the
TRPA.
3. Revises TRPC to require that, in reviewing and maintaining
the plan, the planning commission and the governing body also
ensure that the regional plan reflects changing economic
conditions and the economic effect of regulation on commerce.
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
3
4. Revises TRPC to require that, when adopting or amending a
regional plan or taking an action or making a decision, the
TRPA act in accordance with the requirements of the TRPC and
its implementing ordinances, rules, and regulations and to
place upon a party challenging any element of the regional
plan, or an action or decision of the TRPA, the burden of
showing that the regional plan is not in conformance with
those requirements.
5. Provides that this bill will not become effective unless, on
or before January 1, 2014, the Governor issues a written
declaration stating that the State of Nevada has enacted
substantially similar legislation to this bill, and that the
Nevada legislation became effective on or before January 1,
2014.
Background
TRPA was first created in 1969 through a bi-state compact
between California and Nevada that was also ratified by the
United States Congress. The compact was revised in 1980 and
gave TRPA authority to adopt environmental quality standards
(called "thresholds"). Thresholds on various environmental
indicators were first adopted in 1982.
The TRPA board consists of seven voting members from each state
and one federal member. The members represent local governments
and the public. Development project approvals require five
affirmative votes from the state in which the project is located
and a total of at least nine affirmative votes. To amend the
regional plan or the ordinances of the TRPA, four votes are
required from each state.
The compact allows either California or Nevada to withdraw based
on passage of a statute to that effect.
Prior to TRPA, both California and Nevada had state-only Tahoe
regional planning agencies: NTRPA and CTRPA. The NTRPA still
exists, but has virtually no workload. The CTRPA statutes are
still in the California code, but are basically a relic. Those
statutes have not been effective since the Legislature approved
the TRPA compact.
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
4
The states' share of funding TRPA was intended to be split so
that 2/3 would be provided by California and 1/3 by Nevada, with
additional federal funding not a part of that formula. Nevada,
although hard hit by the recession, is lagging, although there
are indications it may increase its contributions in the next
fiscal year. Currently, of the $14.7 million TRPA budget,
California contributes $4.1 million (28%) and Nevada contributes
$1.3 million (9%). Federal funds and other sources contribute
$6.6 million (63%).
A long-range regional plan was adopted by TRPA in 1984, and,
after litigation and protracted negotiations, a successor
regional plan was adopted in 1987. The regional plan is the
overall approach TRPA will use to achieve the thresholds. That
plan remained in effect until December, 2012, when a new
regional plan update was approved. Despite several prolonged
attempts, TRPA itself was never able successfully to complete
negotiations for a new regional plan after 1987. The 2012
update resulted in large part from marathon negotiations on the
part of several key leaders and TRPA board members from both
states who established negotiations parallel to the TRPA
process. Those efforts resulted in amendments to the draft that
TRPA had proposed and the resulting regional plan update
modified TRPA's original proposal.
The 2012 update makes several significant changes that will have
the effect of expanding or expediting development projects many
of which were sought by Nevada interests or local governments.
SB 271 in Nevada . The discontent with TRPA in Nevada has been
historic but most recently culminated with the passage of SB 271
in 2011. That law demanded that a new regional plan be
approved, and, as indicated earlier, that occurred. That law
stated that Nevada would withdraw from the compact as early as
2015 (but with a possible extension to 2017) unless California
changed its laws regarding the voting structure of TRPA for both
the approval of regional plan amendments as well as approval of
projects. In both cases, Nevada and some local governments from
both sides of the state line desire a pro-development voting
structure. These items would constitute amendments to the
compact and would require both states to adopt the same language
and Congress to ratify that language.
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
5
SB 271 also has two other requirements. One is that the new
regional plan reflects Lake Tahoe's economic conditions (both
the compact and the regional plan already do this). The second
is that a party challenging the regional plan has the burden of
proof to show that the plan violates the compact. Some legal
authorities believe this requirement re-states existing law.
California may be open to a compromise that allows the retention
of those provisions provided the voting structure provisions of
SB 271 are repealed.
There is no indication that California has any interest in
changing the voting structure. Even if it did, that change
would have to be approved by Congress and there is no indication
that Congress has any interest in the topic or that any such
congressional action would occur prior to the deadlines in SB
271.
SB 229 in Nevada . Based on conversations and unofficial
statements from various Nevada officials, many in California
believed that the successful adoption of the regional plan
update ended any real need of, or utility for, SB 271.
Apparently that is also the case with some in Nevada. To that
end, SB 229, introduced in the 2013 Nevada legislature, repeals
SB 271. However, at a hearing on April 2, various elected and
appointed Nevada officials, some representing its governor, and
including two Nevada TRPA board members, said that the
administration opposed SB 229 in its current form. Many of the
speakers at the hearing openly acknowledged that SB 271 was
considered effective leverage over California. Negotiations are
still underway to determine if some successful way can be
achieved to amend SB 229 in a way that could be acceptable in
both states.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there are
minor costs, if any.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/24/13)
League to Save Lake Tahoe
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/24/13)
CONTINUED
SB 630
Page
6
South Tahoe Association of Realtors
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the League to Save Lake
Tahoe (League), California needs a contingency plan for
protecting Lake Tahoe in case SB 271 in Nevada remains in effect
and Nevada fulfills is commitment to withdraw from the bi-state
compact. The League states that TRPA, as controversial as it
has been, has been the single most important entity to help
protect Lake Tahoe. They point out that environmental issues in
the Tahoe Basin do not respect state lines, and offers as an
example TRPA's successful program to checks boats for quagga and
zebra mussels.
While a single environmental regulator like TRPA is still the
best way to protect Lake Tahoe, the League believes that if
Nevada exits the compact in 2015, California needs a plan in
place and there is a seamless transition to a new CTRPA should
that become necessary.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The South Tahoe Association of
Realtors states if Nevada withdraws from the compact they will
support a CTRPA that adopts completely the most recent regional
plan update. It characterizes this bill as
allowing California to withdraw from the compact if Nevada does
not act during the remainder of its 2013 legislative session.
They also suggest that this bill is the product of special
interests who are not interested in bi-state cooperation.
RM:k 5/25/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED