BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 630
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 12, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
SB 630 (Pavley) - As Amended: August 6, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 39-0
SUBJECT : California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
SUMMARY : Amends the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (Compact),
which requires ratification by Congress, to (1) clarify that a
party challenging the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's (TRPA)
regional plan or an action of TRPA has the burden of proof and
(2) direct TRPA to ensure that the regional plan reflects
economic considerations in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Ratifies the Compact, which is a bilateral agreement between
the States of Nevada and California to regulate development in
the Lake Tahoe Basin. Establishes TRPA as a separate legal
entity, comprised of members from the States of Nevada and
California, responsible for implementing a regional plan
regulating development in the Lake Tahoe region.
2)Requires TRPA to establish environmental threshold carrying
capacities and to adopt and enforce a regional plan and
implementing ordinances that will achieve and maintain such
capacities while providing opportunities for orderly growth
and development consistent with such capacities.
3)Requires that the governing body of TRPA to consist of a
California delegation, a Nevada delegation, and one non-voting
federal member. Requires the California delegation to consist
of seven members: one from El Dorado County, one from Placer
County, one from the City of South Lake Tahoe, two appointed
by the Governor of California, one appointed by the Speaker of
the California Assembly, and one appointed by the California
Senate Rules Committee. Requires the Nevada delegation to
consist of seven members: one from Douglas County, one from
Washoe County, one from Carson City, two appointed by the
Governor of Nevada, one appointed by the Speaker of the Nevada
Assembly, and one appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Nevada Senate.
SB 630
Page 2
4)Requires, for development project approvals, five affirmative
votes from the state in which the project is located and a
total of at least nine affirmative votes. Requires, for
amendments to the regional plan or the ordinances of TRPA,
four affirmative votes from each state.
THIS BILL :
1)Makes several findings and declarations, including the
following:
a) The State of California, by and through the Governor,
agrees to cooperate with the State of Nevada in seeking to
have Congress ratify the amendments to the Compact made by
this bill.
b) The State of California supports the full implementation
of the regional plan update (RPU) adopted by TRPA in
December 2012.
2)Amends the Compact, which requires ratification by Congress,
to clarify that a party challenging the TRPA regional plan or
an action of TRPA has the burden of proof and to direct TRPA
to ensure that the regional plan reflects economic
considerations in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, there are minor costs, if any.
COMMENTS :
TRPA Background. In 1968, California and Nevada entered into a
bi-state agreement designed to protect natural resources and
control development in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The agreement
(i.e., the Compact), created TRPA to serve as the land use and
environmental protection agency for the Lake Tahoe region and
became effective by Congressional authorization in December
1969. But the 1969 Compact failed to provide the powerful
environmental protection mechanism that it was intended to be.
As a result, the states extensively amended the Compact, and
Congress authorized these amendments in December 1980. One of
the most significant changes in the 1980 Compact was its
requirement that one regional body, TRPA, review and approve all
projects within the region.
SB 630
Page 3
The 1980 Compact recognized that "[i]ncreasing urbanization is
threatening the ecological values of the region and threatening
the public opportunities for use of the public lands." To
preserve these values, it empowered TRPA "to establish
environmental threshold carrying capacities," or "thresholds,"
which are "environmental standard[s] necessary to maintain a
significant scenic, recreational, educational, scientific or
natural value of the region or to maintain public health and
safety within the region." These thresholds include "standards
for air quality, water quality, soil conservation, vegetation
preservation and noise."
Once these thresholds were established, the 1980 Compact
required TRPA "to adopt and enforce a regional plan and
implementing ordinances which will achieve and maintain such
[thresholds] while providing opportunities for orderly growth
and development consistent with such capacities." As such, in
1987, after establishing the thresholds, TRPA adopted a new
regional plan that provided the framework for ensuring that all
development would be consistent with achieving and maintaining
these thresholds.
While the 1987 regional plan has not actually succeeded in
attaining many of the environmental thresholds, including lake
clarity, it has more or less controlled urbanization of the
Tahoe Region.
Nevada threatens to withdraw. Developers and other powerful
business interests in Nevada have long complained that the
Compact and the 1987 regional plan's land-use and environmental
regulations were too restrictive. In June 2011, pressure from
these interests led to passage of Nevada Senate Bill 271 (SB
271), which would have required Nevada to withdraw from the
Compact as early as 2015 if California did not agree to certain
changes in the Compact and TRPA did not adopt a new regional
plan.
SB 271 specifically sought changes to the Compact that would
have (1) manipulated TRPA's voting structure to essentially make
it easier to approve pro-development measures; (2) required TRPA
to consider the changing economic conditions of the Lake Tahoe
Basin and amend the Regional Plan accordingly; and (3) set forth
that any person who legally challenged the Regional Plan had the
burden of proving the Regional Plan does not comply with the
SB 630
Page 4
provisions of the Compact.
The 2012 RPU. A year before the passage of SB 271, TRPA
undertook efforts to update the 1987 regional plan. After much
controversy, marathon negotiations, and compromise, the RPU was
finalized and adopted by TRPA in December 2012 with a 12-1 vote,
with one member, Byron Sher, abstaining.
Many support the RPU because it does all of the following:
Retains the established regional growth control system
in the 1987 regional plan. Under this system, rampant
overdevelopment was stopped and open spaces preserved.
Encourages property owners to transfer development
rights from sensitive or outlying areas to existing town
centers with the goal of restoring these lands.
Integrates with the Regional Transportation Plan to
support sidewalk and bike trail projects that reduce
automobile dependency and increase walkability and safety.
Continues to deliver restoration projects under what is
called "the Environmental Improvement Program" that achieve
erosion control on roadways and restore forests and
wetlands.
Continues to limit development in recreation areas.
Without this, local jurisdiction could approve development
more wildly in those areas. (It should be noted that an
earlier draft of the RPU would have eliminated this
protection.)
Protects TRPA's invasive species program.
In a press release, TRPA claimed that the RPU "achieves
environmental standards while allowing orderly growth and
development in the Region."
The executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe issued
the following statement in support of the RPU:
While the plan is not perfect, it is a product of
community collaboration and compromise, and is
designed to be adaptive. It also ensures that we
SB 630
Page 5
continue protecting the regional environment through a
federally approved bi-state compact that contains
important environmental thresholds? Preserving the
compact and implementing the RPU will provide the
greatest long-term benefit to the lake and its
communities.
Critics of the RPU, such as the Sierra Club and Friends of the
West Shore, feel that SB 271 and political pressure to "save the
Compact" compromised the RPU. These groups object to the RPU's
environmental planning document, which they say lacked an
analysis of the actual environmental impacts, such as impacts to
water quality. Additionally, they raise concerns related to
provisions in the RPU that delegate planning decisions and
environmental protection measures from TRPA to local
governments. An attorney for Earthjustice stated, "[t]here is
no reason to believe that cash-strapped local governments would
adopt and enforce adequate environmental protection measures in
the face of lucrative development proposals."
May 14th Agreement. Although a new RPU was approved by TRPA,
the threat of Nevada withdrawing from the Compact was still
present because of the passage of SB 271 in 2011. In fact, a
previous version of the bill at hand included a backup plan in
the event of the withdrawal of Nevada from the bi-state compact.
However, on May 14, 2013, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and
Governor Brown announced an agreement to preserve the Compact.
Under this agreement, Nevada would repeal SB 271 and give up its
demand to change TRPA's voting structure. California agreed to
require consideration of economic conditions in adopting and
implementing regional plans, as well as establishing a burden of
proof for challenging a regional plan and TRPA decisions.
The Nevada legislature passed SB 229, which includes the terms
of the deal and Governor Sandoval signed the bill into law in
early June. The bill at hand is California's attempt to fulfill
its end of the bargain.
Suggested Amendments. To help advance attainment of
environmental thresholds in the Lake Tahoe Basin as provided in
the Compact, it is essential for the various stakeholders to
have access to the best available scientific information. Such
information will help inform California, Nevada, TRPA, and local
SB 630
Page 6
governments about the effects of their environmental and
planning policies as well as how to improve conditions.
Obviously, financial resources are needed for this.
In 2011, the Legislature passed AB 152 (Pavley), which repealed
a law that prohibited the state from charging rent for private
recreational piers constructed on the state's navigable
waterways. As a result of this bill, the state will start
generating revenue from piers built on waterways, such as Lake
Tahoe. Preliminary estimates show that the revenues generated
from piers on Lake Tahoe will be approximately $330,000
annually. The author and committee may wish to consider
amendments that would establish and maintain a bi-state
science-based advisory council in the Lake Tahoe Basin for the
purpose of providing the best available scientific information
on matters that will advance attainment of environmental
threshold. The amendments would direct the revenues from the
Lake Tahoe piers to the science-based advisory council.
SB 630
Page 7
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
The League to Save Lake Tahoe
Opposition
Earthjustice
Friends of Tahoe Vista
Friends of the West Shore
North Tahoe Citizen Action Alliance
North Tahoe Preservation Alliance
Sierra Club
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092