Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

At the end of the meeting, there is a second public comment period. This final public comment is for items not listed on the agenda. No action may be taken on those comments at that time. All public comments are limited to three minutes unless otherwise announced by the chair at the beginning of the meeting. During all public comment periods, board members may listen but are not allowed to respond. Thank you for being here and for taking the time to participate in your local government.

Good morning, welcome back to the Clark County Commission. Today we are meeting in our zoning capacity. I'll call the meeting to order. We will begin today's meeting with the first time set aside for public comment. If you're here to speak on any items that are on today's agenda, that would be four through 62, You can come forward at this time. Please state your name for the record. You may speak for up to three minutes. I'll note that items 25 through 62 are already scheduled to be heard separately. And if you speak now, you cannot also speak at the time that those items are heard separately. Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners, Chair Knapp, Laura McSwain for the rector with the Water Fairness Coalition, MCSWAIN. I'm here on items 50 through 53, the proposed data center expansion associated with the Switch Campus. Let me begin by acknowledging that SWITCH is a Southern Nevada success story. It has also been recognized by Greenpeace as an industry leader in environmentally responsible data center operations, and it has helped establish Las Vegas as a serious technology data hub. Data centers are an important part of the modern economy and facilities like these will continue to play a role in Southern Nevada's future. My concern is not whether data centers should exist. My concern is whether we're asking the right questions when considering new applications and evaluating their long-term impacts on our community in concert with our water policies. Since 2021, Southern Nevadans have experienced a fundamental shift in water policy as water use once permitted for established landscapes became increasingly restricted. The loss of mature trees and urban canopy has become unmistakable. Only after growing criticism over those losses did SNWA launch tree initiatives and heat mitigation programs, effectively acknowledging what residents already knew. Shade and mature trees are not luxuries in the desert, they're essential infrastructure. Yet the fact remains we're losing mature trees in established areas and trying to replace them in others. That's what makes this application noteworthy. It seeks approval to eliminate required street trees and parking lot landscaping from the site, and it is not the only item on this agenda seeking reductions in landscaping requirements. Viewed individually, these may seem like minor requests. Viewed collectively, they raise a larger question about whether our development policies are moving in the same direction as our heat mitigation goals, assuming that you approve those requests. At the same time, residents are repeatedly told not to worry about data centers because modern cooling systems have supposedly solved the water problem. For the sake of argument, let's assume the direct water impacts have been solved. But what about the indirect impacts? Every data center consumes enormous amounts of electricity, and that energy ultimately becomes heat. When additional heat increases stress on surrounding landscapes, increases irrigation needs, raises cooling costs for residents, or contributes to the loss of what's left of our urban tree canopy, those water impacts have not disappeared. They've simply been shifted from the facility to the surrounding community. In Southern Nevada, heat and water are inseparable. More heat means more evaporation. More evaporation means more water is needed to sustain the remaining trees, landscapes, and living infrastructure that make our valley livable. So before we declare the data center water problem solved and claim victory, we should ask a simple question. Has the water consumption problem truly been solved or has the burden simply been shifted yet again onto residents? And I respectfully submit my comments for the record. And I did provide an article that addresses a Columbia University study about the heat impacts of these data centers. So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Good morning.

Morning.

Diane Henry, HENRY, items 50 to 53. Regardless of the type of cooling technology used, the existing switch facilities consumed approximately 340 million gallons of water in 2025. This could have supplied thousands of single-family homes, as long-term water projections for our region are increasingly concerning, and while residents are being asked to shoulder much of the burden for water conservation, I believe this level of resource consumption deserves careful consideration. In addition, the energy demands and heat generation as was mentioned are substantial. For these reasons, I do not support the proposed expansion of this data center complex. I'm also concerned about waivers one and two, which would eliminate the required trees. As our communities place greater emphasis on trees and reducing the urban heat island effect, preserving these landscape requirements is more important than ever. I respectfully urge the board to deny this waiver as the Enterprise Town Board has also recommended. Finally, I reviewed public campaign finance records and noted that over the years, each member of this board, with the exception of Commissioner Becker, has received substantial campaign contributions from Switch. While such contributions are legal, they may create a perception of bias among members of the public. And given the importance of this decision, I hope the board will take extra care to demonstrate its independence and objectivity when considering approval of these plans. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak? And I believe item four will be heard separately. Commissioner Segerbloom, is that correct? Yes. Anyone else wishing to speak? Please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Good morning, Ms. Hammerman.

Good morning, commissioners. Next item is the approval of the agenda after considering any additions or deletions. And we do have the following request. Hold to the July 8th, 2026 meeting Item 25, UC26-0247, hold to the July 22nd, 2026 zoning meeting. Item 5, ET25-400136 for WS230439. Item 26, UC26-0254. Item 27, VS-26-0218. Item 28, UC26-0219. Item 29, TM-26-500-056. Item 54, ZC-26-0267. Item 55, VS-26-0268. Item 56, WS-26-0269. Item 57, TM 26-500-069. Hold to the August 5th, 2026 zoning meeting item 33, WS 26-0238. The above public hearing items are going to be open as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the date is previously stated. With these deletions, which are items 5, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 54, 55, 56, and 57, the agenda stands ready for your approval.

With those changes written to the record, I move approve with the agenda. Thank you.

There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Next item is the approval of the minutes. The minutes from the May 20th, 2026 zoning meeting are ready for approval.

Move approval. There's a motion. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items four through 24. These items may be considered together in one motion, except for item number four, which will be heard separately, and are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item. Additionally, staff has the following request for item 16, WS26-0197. Add the following comprehensive planning condition, a design review is required for any additional buildings proposed on the site. If there are no objections, the public hearing is now open, and the routine action portion stands ready for your approval.

I move approval. There is a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. The motion passes.

Next is item four, AR26-400-041 for UC25-0544. Use permit for application for review for recreational entertainment facility, design review for proposed recreational entertainment facility in conjunction with an existing parking lot and monorail station on a portion of 12.4 acres and a CR commercial resort zone generally located south of Sahara Avenue and east of Paradise Road within Winchester.

Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Road. I drive here today on behalf of the applicant. This site is located on Paradise and Sahara. About maybe nine months ago or so, we came before the commission and asked for approval to hold an annual lantern festival. The first lantern festival started in December of last year and concluded roughly in March of this year. And we, in working with Turnberry Towers, agreed to a number of conditions predominantly around their major concern, given some other things that have happened in the area, was about excessive light and excessive noise. We agreed to a number of conditions that would limit that and this is a required review which we also had on that prior application. We would like to revise these conditions because we would like to continue the Lantern Festival moving forward and Chinese New Year shifts every year. And so the very specific dates that we called out in our first application won't apply to years moving forward because Chinese New Year is different every year. And so with the permission of the chair, I'd like to go through and read, which staff has a copy of these, but the revised conditions. And I would like to just make it known that as I start to read these, The things that I'm deleting, it's because we're changing the dates so that it doesn't have that very specific date, but the intent is still there to help with the noise that I know that Turnberry is very concerned with. and so and we're gonna keep the condition the special use permit is limited to lantern festival only we're gonna add a new condition a zoning compliance will be filed within forty five days after the lantern festival has ended to ensure compliance with conditions we are deleting the next two conditions in the staff report which read file a review of the Lantern Festival prior to May 8th, 2026. That condition has been complied with. That's what we're here today. The next condition we are deleting, the dates for the Lantern Festival event will be December 19th, 2025 through March 3rd, 2026. The dates do not include setup and breakdown. We are now adding a new condition that would read The event may begin 100 days before the Chinese New Year and may last 30 days after Chinese New Year. These dates include setup and breakdown. going to include point of contact for lantern festival to be provided to the commissioner's office with a copy to comprehensive planning prior to the event set up we have provided that previously and as i stand here today there's been no change to who that contact person would be but if there was a change then we would provide that we're going to keep the condition that reads maximum height of all lamp lighted lantern structures will be 35 feet We are going to delete the condition that reads lantern lights to be turned off by 1030 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday, except for December 24th, December 31, February 16 and 17, when the lantern lights will be turned off by 1130 p.m. A new condition would be lantern lights to be turned off by 10.30 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday, except for December 24th, December 31, and Chinese New Year, when the lantern lights will be turned off by 11.30 p.m., We are keeping the next condition, lantern lights, to be turned off by 11.30 p.m. Thursday through Saturday. Keeping the next condition, no spotlights will be used. We are deleting the next condition after that, speakers for the lantern event to be turned off by 10.30 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday, except for December 24th, 31, and February 16th and 17, when speakers will be turned off by 11 p.m., The new condition will read, speakers for the Lantern event to be turned off by 10.30 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday, except for December 24th, December 31, and Chinese New Year, when speakers will be turned off by 11 p.m. We are now keeping the next several conditions, and because I know there is at least one member from Turnberry here, I'd like to read those. Speakers for the Lantern Festival to be turned off by 11 p.m. Thursday through Saturday. Speakers in the Lantern Festival zones are limited to a maximum height of 10 feet and shall not be pointed towards Turnberry Towers south of site. There will be no speakers in the food court or food truck area. No public address system PA loud speakers will be used. On-site security will be provided for the duration of the Lantern Festival. There will be on-site queuing area of approximately 600 feet from the driveway off Paradise Road to ensure traffic does not back up onto Paradise Road and Caron Avenue. Traffic management will be provided when the event is open to the public. And then we are deleting tickets. We'll have two-hour time slot increments to help manage the traffic flow for those attending the Lantern Festival. We didn't have an overwhelming surge of people coming at the same time. The concern would be that we would have such a popular event that there would be a lineup coming off the site onto Paradise and down Karen, or what was formerly Karen, I think. And so that was the concern with that. But we managed that because the site is deep enough to pull the traffic onto the site. the people coming in to see it so that we didn't have any backup on to Paradise. And then finally, and this may be the thing that we talk about a little bit, we would like to add a condition that says lantern structures are allowed to be displayed as art on the perimeter of the parking lot as shown on the art display exhibit when the Lantern Festival is not in operation. Lantern structures are not allowed to be lighted nor open to the public except during the permitted time frames referenced above. The Lantern Festival was conceived for Las Vegas. lantern exhibits made for this site and for this location. And so what you may have sometimes is that once a lantern festival is over, it's maybe destroyed or thrown away or maybe it moves on to a different location somewhere else outside of Las Vegas. In this case, they have the lantern structures themselves. Where they sit right now is they're stacked along the kind of underneath this monorail curve right here. They are visible. I know just from the comments at the town board for Turnberry they don't think it's visually appealing. But because we want to keep this as an annual event, we personally think they are beautiful and they are art in and of themselves. And so this exhibit would show that we would put the lantern objects, if you will, lantern structures themselves kind of displayed around the perimeter. You could see them if you were driving along Sahara or Paradise, not lighted, not open to the public. Again, only as it relates to when the Lantern Festival is truly in operation and open to the public during the time frames that I listed. So I thank you for your time to let me go through all of these conditions. It's meant to address the comments or concerns that we've heard from Turnberry, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. This is a public hearing on item four. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Good morning. Erin Genalis, reside at 222 Cairn Avenue. I'm part of the Turnberry Towers residence. We have over 638 units. sorry, we have over 638 units with numerous residents, obviously, who look directly down onto this parking lot that is surrounded by the monorail. Is this where I put it? Put it up a little bit. So I drove by this morning, and yes, it is very visible. The wall is, only comes out of about this tall, the concrete wall. The rest is a chain link fence. Currently, the concern is not only visual, because when we look down on it, it's just a pile, it's massive, and it stretches from where the operating offices of the monorail are on site all the way to the corner of Sahara and Joe W. Brown, and then well into the parking lot. Let me get the next picture. Apologize. As you can see, the structures are quite large. Obviously if they're 35 feet tall, they have to be very wide. So this is an extremely, currently a large storage, outdoor storage that is completely visible, not only from the towers, but also by the motoring public. We do have an ongoing homeless population problem. And a big concern that the residents have is fire. Because it's not unusual for cigarettes and other flammable things to be thrown over the fence. And these items have been there since they broke them down. And they're a hazard, not only for any residents in the area and businesses, but also for the motoring public, and the monorail. So the big concern is the storage. They didn't exist before this last year. It was never brought up what they were going to do with the materials. Had it been brought up and discussed, it would have been disputed. It's not as if we ever heard that those materials were going to stay on site. We disagree with them staying on site. They should be moved off site. It's a hazard. It's visually disturbing, and we don't want it there. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Sagerblum.

Thank you. So Ms. Lazarevich, can you address that concern, please?

So with regard to the structures being kind of stacked over here. I couldn't get the photo that she took from it looking down, but it sits in that area where she showed that top-down view. It is stacked neatly, but because there's not very much, maybe there's six-ish months, maybe seven, in between when setup would start for the Lantern Festival to begin and then run its course, we thought, I mean, I understand art is subjective, but I think they are very, very pretty structures when you put them around the edge. And so when we heard what the concern was from the town board hearing, we had hoped that perhaps putting them more artistically around the outer perimeter would be acceptable as opposed to it being kind of stacked over to the side. I hear their concerns. We still think from subjectively it's a very attractive thing, especially because there is that chain link fencing so you can see it from a little bit on Paradise and then along Sahara Avenue as well. So we would ask for your consideration for this.

All right. So my understanding is you're proposing to take that, all the material that was grouped on the east side and spread it around where you have these dots on the map? Yes. All right. You know, when we first, when you first came to this, it sounded like a great idea. It's been successful. It sounds like the company wants to come back again. I think I agree with the tenant as far as having the current storage is unacceptable, but to the extent you're able to spread it around, to me it kind of beautifies the area, so it's not, it solves the problem, but Jennifer, is that Is that acceptable to planning?

Yes, that would be. They're just considered structures and art, no signage or anything like that. I did work with Jennifer about moving some of them. They proposed them on the corner, and we took those off. And they'll just all have to meet minimum setbacks from the street.

All right. So with that understanding, we're going to remove all the?

There's a question. Before you get to a motion. Commissioner Gibson.

I didn't mean to interrupt your train of thought, but do you have a picture of this art? All we're seeing is storage. It'd be nice to be able to see what we're talking about.

When the festival was going on, this is what it looked like and what the height of it looked like. I didn't bring the original file that contained the really kind of representative pictures of what it would look like, but it's bright colors. Again, we have a height limitation on it, so it's very minimal relative to what is around us in scale to the south and to the west.

I don't see the art, but. I know, it's hard to say.

That's how small it is.

I do see colors. I just don't see the art. Yes.

Commissioner, we can get copies up if you want. It might just take a second to bring the program up if you want to see the pictures.

I don't need them. I just thought it would be helpful to all of us if we could see the pictures of the art, and then we could make our own judgment, but thank you. I think art's in the eye of the beholder.

But in this case, it actually, they're beautiful individual pieces of art, and there's a story with it, a little music with it, and you wander through the passage, and it describes Chinese New Year and what it all means. So it's, from my perspective, it's very artistic and beautiful and very calming. So I think that when it's laid out around the site, it's fantastic. The key is If we push it all together where it is now, then that does look bad. And I agree with the lady from Turnberry. But if we can spread it around individually, then it's going to enhance the parking lot. So I don't see a problem with that. Now, I would like to make a condition that after you spread it around, let's talk to the Turnberry people and see what they believe at that time. But... to the extent we're getting rid of the of the storage area and spreading it around um i have no problem with that mr chairman i may ask commissioner a question uh so i just would ask this question so

Is there like, I mean, how do you enforce that it's not, that it doesn't become outdoor storage, right? It doesn't become a place where they store, you know, I always like to think of the pumpkin patch or different things where it, okay, it's spread out, but now it just looks like a bigger mess. So how do you enforce or is there a structure of what it's supposed to look like? Is it individual things that they give us so that when code calls that, I don't want it to be a runaround thing for either side.

They will be tied down to that plan. So if it does start getting into those parking spots, those spaces that are striped, then public response could go out there and say you're not meeting the plan that was on site.

but again so the definition of public outdoor storage right i have a lot my district is very broad so if we're saying that it's art and the commissioner is saying art is in the beholder of the person who sees it does that mean that it's clear that there's no um uh mechanical ancillary pieces i just feel like we went through this at the speedway so to avoid it in the future right because some of that stuff is a piece of it i just want to make sure that we don't get folks making code complaints all this all the time because they don't see see the art right or that the person doesn't end up filling it in to add more things

I mean, is there a definition, Rob?

I mean, is there an expectation, or Ms. Lasovich, is there an expectation that what that's gonna look like?

We just have to conform to plans, and I think they have already a description in the plans, right, what the art would look like, so if there's anything outside of those plans, then we would send public response over there.

And I see what you're saying. Like, we can say you cannot have mechanical equipment related or, you know, wires or whatever just hanging around. It has to be deliberately shown per the plan. And just the, I don't want to say statute, but just the Exhibit itself. What's that?

The exhibit, the individual exhibit.

The exhibit itself, right, and not, like you said, mechanical equipment. That's a good way of putting it. And just to clarify also, there won't be any audio or anything lit during this time of the store, the display.

No audio or lights. Right. And do you know, could this be done in 30 days, 60 days?

I would say 60 to be safe, and that's my guess as I sit here today. I think 60, we could do it.

All right. Well, what I would propose is that it has to be done in 60 days. I would get your name and number. We'll walk the site, or we can look at it from your condo to make sure that it qualifies. But to the extent it's not storage and it's spread around, the art pieces are spread around the site, personally, I think it enhances a parking lot as opposed to, And this is also subject to a one-year review, so again, we're going to come back next year and analyze what happened, and Turnberry's going to have their input to it. The biggest concern a year ago was the noise and the light. It doesn't seem to be a problem at this point, so I think we've solved the major problem. Is it okay if I let the person from Turnberry come up?

that's a rare courtesy but we would extend it if you'd like to be very brief if you want to come forward and come up please state your name again for the record Erin Genolis 222 Cairn Avenue so another concern is no one addressed the fire potential fire hazards still a risk that all that would ignite the monorail system and each other as they also, at least 30, 35% of those structures have nothing to do with artistic. They were buildings for food, for parking attendants. There's a lot of things that are not artistic displays.

Understood, thank you. Commissioner Gibson and then Commissioner McCurdy.

Well, the last comment goes to the concern I had. You have what look like storage containers of some sort there. That's not art. So it may well be that the applicant will need to make arrangements for off-site storage. I mean, we have these adjacency standards that you're always addressing for clients. We have to deal with them too. And in this instance, it's kind of unique because it's not somebody who's living in a single-family house across the street. It's somebody who lives many stories above it. I just think that it makes sense that if it's really art that we're dispersing around the area, that it ought to be

limited to the art yes understood it was meant to be for the lantern structures themselves not the ancillary other structures that go with the lantern festival operation it's these are these little circles are for the lantern structures themselves which are artistic and beautiful approximately how many lanterns are we talking about About 42.

42. And to address the concerns around it being flammable, how are we going to monitor

So with it, so we have the setback if you see down here are pieces. All pieces will have a 10 foot setback from all monorail structure both vertically and horizontally. So if you can visualize the, especially along the Sahara side when you're coming, the monorail sits closer to where the sidewalk is and that's where the fence, the chain link fence and that kind of concrete, or wall, pony wall, we have to set 10, we can't be under the monorail, and we have to set 10 feet away from that. So we're into the side quite a ways along Sahara, which is, and I understand, I respect what her comment is, When you come over to this area, we're nowhere near the sidewalk, and the same is true when you come over here. So it's really right along Sahara Avenue. That setback, it's hard to tell on this map, but when you're visually out there and knowing we have to be 10 foot setback from the monorail, we can't be underneath it, which means we can't be right next to the street. I don't think that that will be a problem. And this is not an open parking lot to the public.

Got it. And the only final question I have is around, since it is art, is there any on-site security?

it's not open to the public so they don't have on-site security like every day when it's just being operated as it is vacant a lot of the time I think if they have something that is going on and I'll just say like Formula One might be using it for something yes that will provide it in that moment but most of the time it is a relatively empty parking lot that's not open to the public and so there's no need for security but if it becomes a an issue. They've invested a lot of money in these art pieces and they want to do the lantern festival. They don't want them damaged. They are equally invested in making sure that their own lanterns are not damaged by it being displayed as art in between the times.

Thank you.

All right, so with that understanding, once it's done in 60 days, I would like to meet with the, I'll bring in the Turnberry person if you're agreeable. We'll look at it from up above. We'll come walk with you or your people to verify it, and again, this is gonna be reviewed next year after the Atlanta Festival, but truthfully, it's a very ugly parking lot. The festival itself was very beautiful, very inspiring, and so I think it really enhances an area that obviously needs enhancement. And to the extent any homeless person comes in there, there's 700 people with eyeballs looking down, and they will call right away. So that part I'm not worried about.

Mr. Chair, can I just clarify, though? I hope we're not creating a standard in which residential neighbors are granted the authority to veto housing. things in their neighbor's yard because they don't find them visually appealing, because I don't find my neighbor's yard visually appealing, but I don't get to dictate what they do. So I hope that's not the standard we're setting here.

No, it's really more to make sure that we don't have mechanical structures and other kinds of things, as opposed to these different lantern structures, which truly are beautiful.

Very good. There is a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote.

Can I just ask one clarifying question, please? For the review, we have a condition listed that there will be a zoning compliance, which is administrative, 45 days after. So does that suffice?

I can do that, but I'll hear from the Turnberry people. Okay. Thank you.

The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Next are items 30 and 31, which can be heard together. Item 30 is WC26-400-039 for ZC1425-03. Wavers to conditions for zone change requiring the following. One, recording perpetual cross-access ingress, egress, and parking easements with the adjacent parcels to the east and west if they develop as commercial uses. And two, a 10-foot wide landscape, intense landscape area along the west and south property lines adjacent to the existing residential development for previously approved commercial development on 0.98 acres in a CP commercial professional zone, generally located south of Windmill Lane and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise. In item 31, WS26-0239, we've reached development standards for the following, one, modify buffering and screening standards, and two, modify residential adjacency standards. design review for site modifications to an existing commercial development on 0.98 acres in a CP commercial professional zone, generally located south of Windmill Lane and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Good morning. Good morning. Jennifer Rainier, 365 East Windmill Lane, on behalf of the applicant. What we have here today is a little different and unique. We had one of our tenants apply for a business license, and because of that, our property was flagged for a compliance review. So we're here today to ask for a waiver of condition and a waiver of development standard. It's a little complicated. So I know we spoke earlier, and it was approved and passed with some different verbiage changed in one of our conditions. Sorry, I don't have my glasses on. Go ahead. No, no, go ahead.

No, I was just going to, you might, perhaps I'll open the public hearing. I'm really familiar with this item. It's been a long time to get to this point and it is fairly innocuous. So I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing just to see if there is anybody here to speak on items 30 or 31. If so, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. There's nothing more for you to address. There was no public input there, but like I said, I'm very familiar. This is a very innocuous request. It was approved by the Town Advisory Board. So if you have no objections, I'm gonna move for approval per Town Advisory Board conditions. That's my motion. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next item is 32WS26-0192, waiver development standards to waive full off-site improvements in conjunction with a proposed single-family residence on 3.27 acres and an RS-80 residential single-family 80 zone generally located north of Kyle Canyon Road and west of Buena Vida Street within upper and lower Kyle Canyon.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chairman. Good morning, Board. My name is Blaine Soule, S-O-U-L-E, with Dwyer Engineering, here representing the owner. My address is 333 North Rancho, Suite 900. For this particular property, this is three acres along Kyle Canyon, though not accessed off Kyle Canyon. The client and owner are requesting a waiver to off-sites such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and full street widening. They currently have, if you can see in the plan, they have agreed to pave or sell street. Currently, and I can show a photograph here. Let's see. So, Russell Street is, I don't know if you could call it paved, though it looks kind of like a pavement that goes part way. And they have agreed to pave this and the rest of it up into their proposed home and accessory shop building, which is located where I'm pointing here. So this will all be paved. But because of the rural-like conditions, they're seeking a waiver to fully paved to a curb and gutter situation. So that would be a pavement that, while it is paved, does not continue all the way to a full curb and gutter, nor a sidewalk. What they have agreed to do is landscape along Roussell and landscape along Kyle Canyon with trees. According to the number of trees that title 30 says that they need to place I Believe I covered all of the waivers that they are requesting so I leave it to the board Thank you at this time.

I'll open the public hearing on item 32 anyone wishing to speak. Please come forward Seeing no one I will close the public hearing Commissioner Becker

Yeah I'm comfortable because this is a rural area I'm comfortable waiving those offsites but you got the accessory structure approved prior to it hasn't been erected yet so I just want to make it clear that now that you're going to start construction the accessory structure has to match the home.

This is what I found out as I was reading through. I read what was written in the recommendations. It says, additionally, there are no similar combinations of such building materials in the area. And yet, upon research, I found one... Okay, this is the site. Let me put you in perspective here. So here's the site for the Mirandas. So there's one... This one got cut off. There's a second one here. And they are all accessory structures that are very similar to what they're going to be putting in. So it does match the area very well. And I have a photograph of what that would look like. And I'll bring that up here. So it would look something like this, very similar to this. And... I have an addition. I think color matching would be very acceptable. I just don't know if stucco is appropriate for this.

I didn't say stucco.

Oh, okay. I apologize. Is it the color matching that you need? Yes. That we can do. We can certainly do that. Yes, you will do. Oh, gotcha.

That's what it's conditioned on.

Okay. All right.

So if that's everything, I would move to approve

with that condition.

There is a motion with a very clear condition. Please cast your vote. A motion passes. Thank you very much.

Next are items 34 through 37 that are related and can be heard together. Item 34 is PA 26-700-005, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial to business employment on 4.14 acres generally located west of Edmond Street and north of Equendo Road within Spring Valley. Item 35 is EC 26-0070, Zone change to reclassify 4.12 acres from an RS-20 residential single family 20 zone and a CP commercial professional zone to an IP industrial park zone. Generally located west of Edmond Street and north of Oquendo Road within Spring Valley. 36VS26-0071. Vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Equendo Road and Quell Avenue and Edmond Street and Mohawk Street. A portion of right-of-way being Equendo Road located between Edmond Street and Mohawk Street. A portion of right-of-way being Edmond Street located between Equendo Road and Quell Avenue. And a portion of right-of-way being Quell Avenue located between Edmond Street and Mohawk Street within Spring Valley. And item 37, WS26-0072. waivers of development standards for the following, one, reduce setbacks, two, modify residential adjacency standards, and three, alternative driveway geometrics, with a design review for a proposed office warehouse building on 4.12 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environment's AE60 overlay, generally located north of Equendo Road and west of Edmond Street within Spring Valley.

Hello. Hello.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here today on behalf of the applicant. On the overhead, I have the aerial that shows where the site is. It's just south of Russell and it sits on the west side of Edmond. This picture or this master plan, is helpful because it shows what is happening between Russell and Patrick to the south. This piece right here has already been approved for a plan amendment and a zone change to IP. This is gonna be an office warehouse that was approved around February of this year. And then as you move south of the site, again, between Russell and Patrick, there are already existing non-residential buildings in that. So this is the last piece that sits within that corridor that's vacant and doesn't have any plans currently as to what to do. We are proposing to do an office warehouse. We have a plan amendment and a zone change to go to IP. We have no entrance or exit points onto Oquendo or Quail. In addition, we have worked with, although respectfully, he's still not supportive of this, and I will let him talk directly, but we have met with our neighbor to the west of us to see if there are additional things that we could do to mitigate his concerns with this project. So I just wanna walk through what some of those are. Again, from the very get-go, we never suggested that we would have any driveways off of Oquendo or Quail Avenue. The property itself is master plan for neighborhood commercial and I think that that's important to note because It is already at its base. What we're asking to go to is not a residential zone to business employment, but rather a commercial zone to business employment. But when we looked at what the property was master planned, that really drove the way that we designed this building. Again, the use as it fronts towards Edmond and across from Edmond are existing office warehouses as well. kind of functions a little bit differently, but we really wanted to be sensitive to what that west portion of our site would look like and be designed like, again, knowing that it's already master planned for commercial. So a couple of the things that we have done is instead of having a 20 foot wide landscape buffer on the west boundary, we have a 30 foot wide landscape buffer with three rows of staggered trees. And I'll show another exhibit in a minute that explains how we'll do that planting. The maximum height of this building is 35 feet. 35 feet is what you could build a two-story home, but in the commercial district, it's actually lower than what you could do there as well. And again, it's an office warehouse, but we kept that height at 35 feet. I do want to note that in your staff report on WS260072, it does note it, but I want to say it again for the record. Waiver 2A originally asked to go to a height of 41 feet. When we were working on elevations to present, this is the front, just to give you an idea of what the front is. Again, we led with an elevation design that would be uh... viewed as more commercial in nature even though that the use behind the front door is office warehouse this is where we are today but this is what we originally proposed to and the neighbors behind us and we thought that again if if we're viewing this is master plan is commercial let's design a building that could by and large fit within a commercial zoning district in terms of height and design. So our rear elevation had some peaks. These are clear story windows, meaning you can't see through them. They're up high intentionally. There's not a floor there. It's not meant to do anything except break up some of what that rear elevation looks like. To do that, we needed the waiver for these peaks to go to 41 feet. And working with our neighbor, he said he would rather, at least as far as we're talking about the elevation of the building, he would rather have the building as short as possible. So we withdrew Waiver 2A at the Planning Commission. It is noted in your staff report that it's no longer needed. And so the elevation that we're moving forward with both at Planning Commission and today, shows this. This, again, shows the 35-foot max height with those three rows of trees. And while I'm talking about those trees, let me show this exhibit. So in addition, we're going to put in a 10-foot block wall along the west boundary. And this exhibit was created to talk through what it would look like on our side. You have our 10-foot block wall, which we'll put right here. And then what we're gonna do is take those first two rows of trees that are closest to the residential and maybe build it up about two feet or so. So these trees right out of the gate are planted at a slightly taller height. And then we bring this down and this is where your third row of tree starts, and also the finished floor for the building. So again, we're trying to get that building visually down just a little bit more. We also worked with the neighbor and provided from the Southern Nevada Regional Plant List a list of all the trees that we could put in and let them select what they would like to see. These are the two trees that were selected. It's the escarpment oak and the Monterey oak. So that will be what's planted along that back boundary. In addition, something else that we withdrew, and it's not noted in this staff report, but Waiver 1 is a waiver for where this fire pump house building is set along Quail Avenue. We can withdraw that waiver. We have found a place on site that meets code. We did that at Planning Commission, but it's not noted here. So again, for the record, we're withdrawing waiver one, and then waiver 2A was already withdrawn. The other thing that came up in just learning more about this neighborhood and the area is, on this aerial you can see there's quite a bit of natural drainage that flows from Oquendo towards Edmond, so much so that for these two properties, including even this one, you can't really use it because of all that water that's coming through. So with this project, we're gonna capture the flows in Oquendo right here. We will take it underground and this dashed line shows where we're gonna put in an eight foot wide by four foot high box culvert storm drain system that goes along Oquendo and then along Edmond Street, and there's an existing underground drainage structure there that we will tie into. So from a drain, just an overall water flow perspective out in this area, we think that that will really help some of the things that have been occurring right through this as you move along there. Let's see here. I think I just wanted to go back to this site plan one more time. and just show that all of our doors are facing, again, our dock doors are facing towards Edmond Street, which, again, on the east side of Edmond Street include existing office warehouse buildings already. And so with this being the final piece, really from Russell to Patrick, that we're filling in, we really tried to make our best efforts to adhere to the spirit of the commercial zoning in terms of design, but we are asking for the plan amendment and zone change to go to BE and Industrial Park. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is a public hearing on items 34 through 37. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Just call it out again. Items 34 through 37. Nobody's here to speak. Okay, I will close the public hearing at this time. Ms. Lazarevich, I think you presented it very well. Just one thing I wanted to make sure of the 30 feet of forest that you're putting behind the residential, that's going to be secured with a gate on both sides?

Yes, I knew there was something I left out. Thank you for saying that. My apologies. Yes, our forest that sits to the west side, we are putting in a gate. We're kind of gating it around here from the wall to here and then over here along the street to here so that you can get back there for landscaping purposes. We don't have any activity going on back in the back, no loading, nothing is happening back there. So we just want our landscapers to be able to access it and that will allow them to do it but not allow others to get back there.

Perfect. You've already withdrawn waivers 1 and 2A, but I'm prepared to move for approval of items 34 through 37, with the exception of those two. Please cast your vote.

I have a quick question. Do you want to put a condition on the landscaping material she mentioned?

Yeah. The application would be conditioned with the landscaping presented.

That would be for in the west landscape buffer to provide escarpment oak and Monterey oak trees. Okay, thank you.

Very good. Thank you very much. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.

Next items are items 38 through 42 that can be heard together. Item 38, PA 26-700-011, holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from ranch estate neighborhood to low intensity suburban neighborhood on 2.43 acres, generally located south of Shelbourne Avenue and west of Miller Lane within Enterprise. Item 39, ZC 26-0139, holdover zone changes for the following one reclassified 2.43 acres from an RS-20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS-5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, and to remove the neighborhood protection overlay, excuse me, RMP overlay, generally located south of Shelbourne Avenue and west of Miller Lane within Enterprise. Item 40, VS26-0140, holdover, vacate, and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Shelbourne Avenue and Camaro Avenue and between Warbonnet Way and Miller Lane, and a portion of right of way being Miller Lane located between Shelbourne Avenue and Camaro Avenue within Enterprise. Item 41, WS26-0141, Holdover waivers of development standards for the following, one, modify residential adjacency standards, and two, reduce street width. Design review for a proposed single-family residential subdivision on 2.43 acres in an RS 5.2 residential single-family 5.2 zone generally located south of Shelbourne Avenue and west of Miller Lane within Enterprise. And item 42, TM 26-500-034, Holdover tentative map consisting of 12 single-family residential lots and common lots on 2.43 acres and an RS 5.2 residential single-family 5.2 zone generally located south of Shelbourne Avenue and west of Miller Lane within Enterprise.

Thank you, good morning.

Good morning, Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with TAN Engineering representing the applicant. First, just this item was held 30 days. We've made some modifications, substantial modifications to the plans. I'm gonna just show you where the site's at and then go over those changes, but I'd be happy to go through additional details if needed as well. So our site is approximately two and a half acres located right here. To the east of us is RS33, 3,300 square foot to 4,000 square foot lots. And then this area down here is the RMP, that is two units per acre. As staff read, we were initially proposing to put 12 lots on this. We've since reduced it to eight lots. We've also requested now to reduce the zoning from the RS5-2 to RS10. All of these lots meet the 10,000 square foot gross and 9,000 square foot net lot size for the RS10. They would meet all of the setbacks for all of the zoning category. We also are maintaining and putting in the offsite street on Shelbourne and on Miller with the detached sidewalk landscaping and all code requirements. So there's no offsite waivers associated with this. The density on this has been reduced from what was previously being asked. Now it's around 3.3, I believe, or 3.27 density. We believe that this piece is challenged. There's high density homes facing the street directly across. The other direction is the RMP. What we're asking for is to do one zoning category higher than the RMP, the two unit per acre density. This is the category. These lots would be also all single story homes being proposed. They range from 20, just over 2,000 square feet to about 2,400 square feet in size currently. All would have two car garages and be substantial for the area. With that, I'm going to conclude my presentation. We did have a neighborhood meeting. There were several neighbors that showed up at it. I don't think any kind of consensus was reached, and I believe some of them are here to speak. So I would be happy to answer additional questions after public comment. Thank you.

Very good. This is a public hearing on items 38 through 42. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Good morning. Good morning, Commission.

My name is Darryl Victorian. I live at 8330 Warbonnet Way. This property, it would be to my northeast corner of my property. So it directly affects what happens where I live on a daily basis. When we chose to locate in that part of the valley almost 10 years ago, on a seven and a half acre parcel with horses. I have several horses. We chose an area in which we could ride our horses through the community safely because there were setbacks. There was a trail, a county trail there. We also chose a neighborhood that we thought would be luxury, single story, equestrian, housing theme throughout the community. What I've recently had to go through probably the last five or six years was a steady grind of noise and light and traffic. And it's affecting us to the point now, it's right at my border of my property. So what I'm asking the commission and the county to do is stick to the original zoning, stick to the original theme of what you guys planned for that neighborhood and what you envisioned. It's not all about money. Sometimes it's about quality of life. People have made investments, they have moved their family there, and they do not want to see all of that change for someone to make a quick buck. We have no problem, my family has no problem with building to the code that's already there in place, have at it. But the steady encroachment of our rights is just not fair to us in the community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Jason Erickson, also speaking on behalf of four other families in the community there. Just echoing same statements. R&P needs to be upheld. Same with the zoning with the RS-20. So we really value that in the area, and we don't want to see that jeopardized. And also, you can see there's a lot of... horsepower for us to maintain that. So this is the second time we've been here, probably not the last, but appreciate your consideration for that maintaining of the zoning. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Steve King, 8022 Hamilton Mountain Court. I live directly adjacent to the horse property. It's a Around eight to 10 horses that are there. We have an equestrian area there as well. There's other ranches in the area right along that same immediate vicinity. I'm also a part of Build What You Bought. We feel as though the Planning and County Planning Commission has sat and decided what these areas should be zoned, zoning and planning, and we feel as though that this area should remain four houses, two houses per acre. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Andrew Acuna, 8460 Warbonnet Way. I'm also here in opposition. We've had this conversation numerous times. We were here last month and it was about to get denied. The applicant wanted to hold it for 30 days. They did do a neighborhood meeting last Thursday. There wasn't really a ton of notice in advance of that to get more neighbors at the meeting, but everybody still has the same consensus. They don't want more than four units on two and a half acres. We represented the eight lot site plan. We told them, hey, we're trying to work with you, we're trying to compromise, You keep trying to force this issue with more density than what's allowed. We also have a problem with the additional vacation of the Miller right-of-way. I think that was mentioned before. I don't have the screen. That's what Miller looks like today. If they don't build the full 30 feet right away on the half street, you're not going to be able to get two cars to pass on Miller. I don't have their eight lot site plan, but as you can see, the 5.2 category is a long buffalo, a major arterial. We don't have a problem with the higher density along the major arterials, Windmill, Warm Springs, Buffalo, Durango. It's just, this is like right in the middle of the RNP. Everybody has half acres. We've turned in numerous opposition notices in the last six months, probably, because it's been going on for a long time. There's numerous people in this community, obviously the homeowner adjacent. This community, that's where all they live, that just spoke. So all the way from here to there, north and south and west of the project. all the neighbors are in opposition so we keep trying to work with them but they want to keep forcing the eight lot issues so i don't know how we compromise and reduce lots there was another gentleman that spoke last time who lives in this two and a half acre parcel he also has four horses and he was in opposition he's also been working with them and notified him hey i'm okay with a little higher density than four but not eight the site plan presented today, still not where we've all been trying to work with them. So we just ask for your opposition to this plan and appreciate your support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak on items 38 through 42, please come forward. Seeing none, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cunningham, did you want to respond to any of the concerns that were raised?

I mean, I believe the main concern is density. This is just a very challenging piece. As you know in the code currently, when you're up against RMP and when you have higher density, now there's a buffer of 10,000 square foot lots typically put in. And here you have a hard line. You have a street actually that's shared with homes fronting this. This piece of property here is kind of unique. It's not directly in the middle of the RMP like if you were over here. This has got eight units per acre on one side, and it's got horse property on the other side today, and vacant property to the north and vacant property to the south. So it's kind of, and you can see, this is kind of a transition between higher density and the RMP area. Now, at one point, maybe that was out further, and I don't, know the history, but this got approved at higher densities. I think with some sort of transition on this piece of property, it would then lead way for this to be the transitionary piece into the RMP. I understand the neighbors' concerns. They don't want higher density, but that's the application that's before you, and the decision needs to be made. This is just a challenge piece where you have, not you, but the county has allowed homes eight units per acre to front onto the street directly adjacent to two units per acre, making it a really tough situation for density and for transition.

Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. I'll be honest. I feel like a lot of people have been talking out of both sides of their mouth on this very nominal piece. I don't think it's a challenge piece. It's just another piece that's on the edge of the RMP, just like so many others that come before this board, particularly in my district. And you have folks here today who have testified that are seeking higher density in truly the middle of the RMP. this is on the edge, truly in the middle of the RMP, when it suits them and oppose it when it may be adjacent to a project that they are proposing. So with that context, and I would not ascribe that to the neighbors, the neighbors are absolutely free to express their concerns with this project, just as I would any others. I do think that it is a reasonable buffer, just as I think that 10,000 square foot lots, as you are working on, Mr. Cunningham, others in this room are working on along Buffalo, are a reasonable compromise, a reasonable buffer to the RMP neighborhoods. I don't think the sky will fall if you have quarter acre lots next to half acre lots. That said, given the proposal that's been put out there, given that there are neighbors that are still concerned, I do think that six lots is probably more consistent with this area, if that is something that your client will consider.

If that's what the board is going to approve, then we'll have to live with that. But I don't have, my client's not here today, unfortunately. They're out of town. Okay.

All right. Then I will go ahead and move for approval. Agenda items 38 through 42 with the modification of density to six lots rather than the proposed eight. Ms. Ammerman.

Would you like to reduce the zoning to RS-10 instead of RS-518? Yes.

Yes.

And then withdraw waiver number one, and then waiver number 1B will be for 25 feet instead of 20. Put that back.

Does that work, Mr. Cunningham? That's correct. We have submitted, just so staff's aware, we have submitted revised plans to our planner, Romeo. Okay.

And then you'll have to submit further revised plans based on this.

Can I ask a question? So what exactly are you doing? So you're approving the eight houses? Six. Six. Six. So I'm just uncomfortable with that, personally, with the RNP, because at some point, I mean, this, to me, it's not challenging at all. It should remain a RNP in the same zoning as the rest of the area that it's congruent with. So I just am uncomfortable with that.

I'm just like, and again, I'm not running for election, so I get to say whatever the heck I want. So I'll just be honest with you. We have too many RMP areas in Clark County. We have too much land that's locked up in very, very low density neighborhoods. And that is not the fault of people who moved out there. You all thought that you were moving into an area that was way outside of town. Some of you have been there for 40 plus years, totally get it. If we are going to address our housing shortage here in Southern Nevada, we can't lock it up with RMP that is oversubscribed, airport restrictions that are oversubscribed, and so many other things that are oversubscribed. We're just gonna end up exactly where we are, which is fighting over two and a half acres and whether we're gonna allow eight homes to be built or six homes to be built. Two homes is the difference here. So with that, there's a motion.

There is a motion, please cast your vote. The motion passes, thank you.

Thank you.

Next items are items 43 through 47, which can be heard together. Item 43, PA 26-700-014, plan amendment to re-designate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood on 4.21 acres, generally located south of Russell Road and east of Jones Boulevard within Spring Valley. Item 44, ZC 26-0182, zone change to reclassify 4.21 acres from an RS-20 residential single-family 20 zone to an RS-2 residential single-family 2 zone generally located south of Russell Road and east of Jones Boulevard within Spring Valley. Item 45, VS 26-0181, Vacant and abandoned portions of right-of-way being Russell Road located between Jones Boulevard and Duneville Street, and portions of right-of-way being Red Rock Street located between Russell Road and Quail Avenue within Spring Valley. Item 46, WS26-0183, waivers to development standards for the following, one, reduce lot size, two, increase wall height, three, increased retaining wall height, four, reduced PACA curb radius, five, alternative driveway geometrics, design review for an attached single-family residential development on 4.21 acres and an RS-2 residential single-family two zone within the Airport of Irons AE-60 overlay, generally located south of Russell Road and east of Jones Boulevard within Spring Valley. And item 47, TM26-500-050, amended tentative map consisting of 50, previously 54, single family residential lots and common lots on 4.21 acres and an RS2 residential single family two zone within the airport of Irons, AE60 overlay, generally located south of Russell Road and east of Jones Boulevard within Spring Valley.

Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, here today on behalf of the applicant. The site is located just on the south side of Russell Avenue and just to the east of Jones. If I can get the overhead, please. Thank you. The site is Master Plan, currently neighborhood commercial. It does sit adjacent to a convenience store and car wash. This right here has been approved for a tavern, and this site is the property that we are discussing right now. We are proposing to do a for sale townhome development. This shows you what the site plan would look like. All of the townhomes would have driveways. You can see those in white all along the site. On the southern boundary, that will have a 10 foot block wall along the southern boundary. When we did our neighborhood meeting originally for this project, The people in attendance at that neighborhood meeting were supportive of this project. They preferred it over the alternatives that you could get in a neighborhood commercial zone. In addition, they liked the fact that we are vacating the street that runs through the middle of the site. If it was left to be developed perhaps as a commercial piece of property and this street went through, you could have a lot of cut through traffic coming into this residential neighborhood to the south if this piece developed separately than this piece. And so that was something that they appreciated. When we got to the town board meeting, we did have two neighbors who lived over on this side and who were not at our neighborhood meeting come, and they did express some concern about this changing from commercial over to residential, and one of the things that they asked after that neighborhood meeting excuse me, after that town board meeting is that we put in the 10 foot block wall. So when we were in front of the planning commission, we showed and asked for a condition that would do a 10 foot block wall along the southern boundary. In addition, at the planning commission meeting, we had another neighbor that was not at the neighborhood meeting and not at the town board meeting, but attended the planning commission meeting, and that is the neighbor who lives in this property. And so we would ask that an additional condition be added that says if written permission for access is received from the owner of APN 16336101004, within 30 calendar days of request to access the property. Applicant will paint the south facing side of the new 10 foot block wall that exceeds the height of the existing block wall tricorn black to match the existing wall. If written permission to access and paint the new wall is not obtained within 30 calendar days from the initial request to access, then the applicant is relieved of complying with this condition. The south-facing side of this existing neighbor's block wall is a very unique color. It's tricorn black. And so because this now secondary wall is asked to be 10 feet in height, there will be a portion of it that's over the height of their wall. And so for consistency, they had asked that we match that on the south side. So both walls, as they look north, would be painted the same color. Let's see here. And I think with that, I would be happy to answer any questions.

Excuse us. This is a public hearing, which I will open at this time. Items 43 through 47 can be heard. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. I think that is a testament to the work you've done with the immediate neighbors that they, with the additional conditions right into the record, no longer oppose this item. I think it's, I think it is thoughtfully designed and accomplishes a lot of the goals that I have for townhomes which are not necessarily easy to achieve. So I'm prepared to move for the approval of items 43 through 47 with the additional conditions read into the record. Please cast your vote. The motion passes, thank you.

Next are items 48 and 49, which can be heard together. Item 48 is ZC 26-0251, zone change to reclassify 3.60 acres from an H2 general highway frontage zone to an IP industrial park zone, generally located northwest of Las Vegas Boulevard North and west of Walnut Road within Sunrise Manor. And item 49, UC 26-0252, Use permits for the following, one, truck parking and staging, and two, outdoor storage and display. Waivers to development standards for the following, one, reduce screening and buffering, and two, modify residential adjacency standards. And design review for a proposed, excuse me, Excuse me, for proposed office warehouse and truck parking and staging and parking facility on 3.60 acres and an IP industrial park zone within the airport environs, 8075 and APZ2 overlay, generally located northwest of Las Vegas Boulevard North and west of Walnut Road within Sunrise Manor.

Welcome back.

Hello again. Good morning. Jennifer Lasovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight or here today on behalf of the applicant. This is the location of the site. It does sit just to the north side of Las Vegas Boulevard. The property has the old land use zoning designation of H2 and the property itself is master plan for business employment. To the What I would say is to the north, it's kind of a weird way. It kind of goes this way. But this is an RV sales lot. This is commercial right here. And we are proposing to do... A zone change for a single-story office warehouse that would look like this. Our access, we have cross-access, so we will be utilizing the existing driveways that occur kind of to the, again, this wasn't at an angle, but it kind of comes to the east and to the west of us. In addition to that, we did do, at the request of Commissioner McCurdy, a voluntary neighborhood meeting Nobody attended that neighborhood meeting, but in regards to the residential that we have to... we provided this additional exhibit. So we are putting in an eight foot block wall along the north boundary where the waiver comes in again and it's kind of funny because really technically the property sits like this as Las Vegas Boulevard moves that way. The waiver for the reduction in landscaping is adjacent to the existing commercial RV sales lot. We are meeting the landscaping requirements next to what I'll call our north property line, and we are putting in an eight-foot block wall. In addition to that, right here, we're putting in a 20-foot tall, which is part of the application as submitted, a 20-foot tall screening wall, and we would like to make some changes to the application as noted. We would like to withdraw Waiver 2B, That would be to reduce the separation between a residential use and a loading area. We're going to remove that. So all loading areas will be a minimum of 50 feet, which is what's required per code. So that one's going to be removed. As I mentioned earlier, we have, when we applied for this, we already had the 20-foot block wall showing here. This exhibit shows that we no longer have a loading zone in this area. And then the condition that we would like to add is a condition, and I guess maybe I'll walk through it right now. We have some, on this side of the screening wall, of the 20 foot tall screening wall that's right here, we have loading bays. And these loading bays, right up and until this green hatched line, are within 150 feet and for those loading bays we would want to agree to a condition that would limit delivery and idling hours so said differently there could be no delivery or idling between the hours of 11 p.m to 6 a.m that would be for the loading areas that are on this side of the 20 foot tall screen wall all the way up until this green line. What that green line signifies is 150 feet and code requires those doors to be 150 feet away. So within every, we have a waiver for that. And so within the area that has those doors that are within 150 feet, we would agree to an hour limitation. But for the area that is outside the 150 feet, which now complies with code, and that's identified in this blue area, there would be no hour limitation there. So for your consideration would be a request that we add an additional condition that would read... Sorry about that. Let me just make sure I can... I think it was, there we go. For all loading docks within 150 feet of the north property line, no deliveries are idling between the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. I also do want to note for the record that this colored exhibit has been provided to planning so that it can be put in the file and delineates where those areas are. With the 20-foot screen wall, the green shows the 150 feet where we would have the hour limitation and the blue reflects the area that meets code and would not have the hour limitation. Thank you.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward at this time? Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing. And this reflects everything that we've agreed upon. And I move for approval. This motion, cast your vote. Motion is adopted. Thank you.

Next are items 50 through 53, which our companion can be heard together. Item 50, ZC26-0260, some change to reclassify 1.94 acres from an IL industrial light zone to an IP industrial park zone, generally located east of Edmond Street and north of Warm Springs Road within Enterprise. Item 51, VS26-0260, 6-2, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Edmond Street and Decatur Boulevard and Warm Springs Road and Capavia Avenue. A portion of right-of-way being Edmond Street located between Capavia Avenue and Warm Springs Road, and a portion of right-of-way being Capavia Avenue located between Edmond Street and Decatur Boulevard within Enterprise. Item 52, waivers of development standards WS26F0261, eliminate street landscaping, trees only, two, eliminate parking lot landscaping, three, increase retaining wall height, four, increase wall height, five reduced access gate setbacks, six allow attached sidewalk, and seven modified driveway geometrics, with a design review for a proposed data center facility on 8.99 acres in an IP industrial park zone, generally located east of Edmond Street and north of Warren Springs Road within Enterprise, and item 53, TM26-500-067. Tendon map consisting of one industrial lot on 8.99 acres and an IP industrial light zone. Journey located east of Edmond Street and north of Warm Springs Road within Enterprise. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for having me here today. Natalie Mitchell, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Campus Development for Switch 7135 South Decatur. I appreciate the opportunity to present our plans here for LAS 19. Switch is a large exascale data center company. We started in 2000, and we are very proud to be headquartered in Clark County and in the city of Las Vegas. We are actually, fun fact, the oldest data center company in North America that is still run and led by our founder and CEO, Rob Roy. And we take great pride in not only continuing to grow our investment, but also our community engagement in Clark County and in the city of Las Vegas. We provide the power, the security, and the infrastructure to run the servers for our clients. WE RUN THE CLOUD FOR OUR CLIENTS AND PROVIDE THE ECOSYSTEM FOR OUR CLIENTS. WE HAVE OVER A FEW HUNDRED CLIENTS WITHIN OUR DATA CENTER ECOSYSTEM. SO THAT IS A CONTRAST TO SOME OTHER DATA CENTERS THAT ARE OUT THERE. SO WE REPRESENT EVERYBODY FROM THE LOCAL NONPROFIT OR ACCOUNTING FIRM TO FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES. So really, in your daily lives...

I don't want to interrupt you, but I'm going to keep the public comment dedicated totally to the item that's before us, so I'm going to hold you to the same standard.

Okay, perfect. Well, with that, I'm going to turn this over to my esteemed colleague, Stephen Roberts, who will present more specifics on the project, and then we'll be happy to answer any questions that come after public comment. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Natalie. Steven Roberts, Vice President of Construction Development for Switch, 7135 South Decatur Boulevard. This project is generally located west of Decatur Boulevard, north of Warm Springs, at the intersection of Edmond Street. It's comprised of two parcels. One is two acres, which Switch has owned since 2008 and has used as a temporary trailer yard. The other is seven acres, which we acquired early in 2025. just nine acres in total. It's important to note that this site was already approved and entitled by county for two large industrial buildings from the prior owner. Those totaled 118,000 square feet. Also, they were approved prior to the evaporative cooling regulations going into effect, so this would have had evaporative cooling in use to cool this facility estimated around 5,000 gallons per day. Our facility, in contrast, uses a closed-loop system, which does not consume water on a daily basis. After the initial fill, it is solely bathrooms and kitchenettes that all go to city sewer and get reclaimed, less than 1,000 gallons per day for our staff. The square footage is 56,000 square feet, again, less than half of the total that was previously approved for the site. Regarding power, reverting back to the first drawing, this site will be fed by the existing Audette substation, which we built in concert with NV Energy two years ago, further west of our facility. It will be fed underground with cabling provided by NV Energy. Just a couple more notes about our campus. Regarding acoustics, so our building, we already sort of electively install attenuation devices on the equipment. We've also oriented the building such that the mechanical equipment is on the west side facing ourself. We're essentially surrounding our own existing properties and we're bounded by a railroad on the east side of our development. So the items before you, we have a couple of waivers that we have requested. We would like to withdraw electively the landscaping waivers. Those are items. 1B, 1C, and 2. So we will install, per the ordinance, the landscaping on the outside of the perimeter security wall and on the inside of our campus. The only landscaping waiver which is still on the docket here is related to Warm Springs Road frontage and the waiver that we are seeking on the detached sidewalk. In concert with Public Works and the Commission, I'll show you a photo of that wall.

That's an existing condition.

That's an existing wall that was built approximately 20 years ago on the Warm Springs Road frontage. It ties into a county-owned parcel for the cell tower and the railroad bridge, as you see. So we have reached an agreement to financially contribute to the construction of a concrete knee wall along the curb line to provide adequate pedestrian safety while keeping that existing wall in place. Since as you can see, there's no room for landscaping strip between the sidewalk and the face of the wall, we are just going to be shifting that quantity of trees and shrubs to the top side of the wall. So net net, the quantity will be the same is just essentially shifted and elevated away from the sidewalk. With that we yield back to to the board, and we're here to answer any questions.

Thank you for your presentation. At this time, I will open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on these items, please come forward at this time. Please state your name for the record, and you may speak for up to three minutes. I'll note that there are two microphones. There are not. There's one microphone today. Hi.

Good morning. My name's Maria Minich. I live at 8104 Aji Road, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89129. I'm a field biologist. I primarily work with the desert tortoise population. I'm also a member of Sierra Club on the executive committee and on the legislative committee. And so I just want to say data centers are destroying communities, driving climate change, consuming resources, and enriching tech billionaires. The county has never fully grappled with the long-term energy consequences of the AI boom. Every new data center increases pressure on the Nevada electric grid and increases pressure for new energy infrastructure. So before approving another expansion, commissioners should demand transparency about these impacts and ensure that the impacts are fully understood. In the application package, there are numerous requests for exceptions for county requirements like landscaping, etc. If the county waives landscaping requirements, waives trees requirements, waives design requirements, and waives buffering requirements every time a data center replies, then these standards become meaningless. Clark County's development code exists to protect residents and neighborhoods not to be waived when their larger corporation requests it. Residents have already expressed concerns about the cumulative impacts of continued data center expansion in the Southwest Valley. The question is not just the impact of the individual building, but the precedent set for future expansions. Data centers are among the most energy intensive facilities being built in Nevada today. While Southern Nevada restrictions on evaporative cooling may reduce the direct water consumption, energy generation and transmission capacity still carries environmental and water impacts that should not be ignored. The county should understand the full energy footprint of this expansion before improving additional development. Southern Nevada residents should not bear the consequences of increased utility infrastructure demands without transparency and accountability. AI-driven data center growth is dramatically increasing electricity demand across the country. Local governments should carefully evaluate whether this infrastructure is keeping pace. And then one final note. I just wanted to note that on item 52 specifically, the Enterprise Town Advisory Board unanimously rejected the design review for the data center and half of the waivers, including the landscape and the sidewalk ones. So you, as the commissioners, need to be on record going against the Town Advisory Board if you still end up approving this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. If you could just pick, choose one of the microphones in front of you.

Just hold it.

It's one. State your name for the record.

Hi, commissioners. My name is Nancy Olds. I am also with the Toyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club. I'm against Agenda 50, 51, and 52. I would like to say that data centers, I think we're doing the cart before the horse here. We need more understanding and research about what data centers do. They require enormous amount of water. fossil fuels and electric energy. In fact, one large data center requires amount equivalent to 400,000 electric cars. That's incredibly high. Another thing is we should require more regulations, understanding, and obviously from the news we hear, like in Boulder City, the residents there are currently against it. I think being in a desert environment, we should look carefully at our water usage and find out what is going on with these data centers that require so much water when here we are dealing with Colorado River issues and such. And we're also, we have so much sprawl that our water usage is so high. We have to consider all these things as we discuss this. So that's what I wanted to bring Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our rules don't allow clapping, so I appreciate the sentiment, but thank you. Good morning.

Hi.

Oh my gosh, I'm so loud. Sorry. Hey, my name is Drake, Drake York. My address is 5981 East Swan Point Place. I live by Sam's Town in Eastside, Vegas. I'm here today to oppose the expansion of the Switch data center and the associated waivers requested by Switch, which have been outlined by agenda items number 50, 51, and 52, which I'm pretty sure they just adjust a little bit. But yeah, I just want to start by laying out how much electricity can be used by a single AI data center. According to the International Energy Agency, a typical large-scale data center uses an average of 100 megawatts of power. For context, that's as much electricity as nearly 100,000 households. That's a lot. Well, I mean, I guess I shouldn't have to line that out, but I mean, the implications are insane. It could seriously shake up our electrical infrastructure, you know, as the first person who spoke said, but outside of the heavy environmental impact that, you know, the heavy use of fossil fuels causes, folks aren't happy with data centers whatsoever. Southern Nevada residents should not be, you know, bearing the consequences of increased utility infrastructure demands without transparency and accountability. And people really rely on our infrastructure here, especially with how hot it gets during the summer. I mean, people are running their air conditioning all the time out here. It's not like an optional thing, it's necessary. So I mean, local businesses, neighborhoods, and institutions will all be at the forefront of the aftermath that this expansion will have on our electrical infrastructure. So yeah, I implore you folks at the Commission to prioritize the well-being of Clark County residents over the interests of corporations, billionaires, and unchecked data center expansion. Our community deserves responsible development that respects our resources, our neighborhoods, and the folks who call Clark County home, including myself. So yeah, thank you guys so much for your time and consideration. I appreciate your patience. This is my first time speaking like this, so I was a little nervous, but yeah, thank you.

Thank you. You did great. Come back anytime.

Also, I'm here on behalf of the Sierra Club. I forgot to say that.

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Christian Solomon. I reside at 5981 Swan Point Place, speaking in opposition to the proposed data center expansion in agenda items 50 to 52. Our valley does not have the necessary regulatory framework to allow a data center expansion to burden our energy grid, our already strained water resources, and our neighbor's peace of mind. These concerns are sourced from numerous neighbors who have seen this particular campus expand rapidly and they deserve to have those concerns weighed against any kind of tech heavy development that goes on in our county. This body has an opportunity to address those community concerns head on and ensure that the voice of the people is integrated in the decision making process for zoning. Let's have a broader public discussion about the environmental and natural resource impact that these data centers have before we make a hasty decision on allowing yet another multibillion-dollar corporation to get what they want. Thank you, and I urge you to vote against this data center expansion. Have a wonderful day.

Thank you very much. Welcome. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Sire Smith. I live at 9184 Windsor Wood Street. As a proud student in Nevada, I am opposing the development waivers requested in items 50, 51, and 52. We live in a city that is quickly becoming too hot. Street trees and proper landscaping are necessary. They provide shade and protect our neighborhoods, allowing a massive corporate data center to bypass our standard rules and eliminate street landscaping to maximize their own footprint shows a complete disregard for the community. I am here today in a hoodie representing our great UNLV because I wear hoodies because they're the most comfortable thing for me, but if the city gets too hot, I won't be able to without risk of a heat stroke. As others before me have said, The Enterprise Town Advisory Board already did the right thing on June 10th when they voted to deny these waivers. They listened to the community, and I am asking you, the county commissioners, to respect our local board's decision and not let a corporate developer override the community's boundaries. Thank you for your time. Have a great day.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jackie Spicer. I'm a lifelong Nevadan and representing the Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition today. We are opposed to the switch data center expansion and the associated waivers requested by switch as outlined in agenda items 50 through 52. This proposal should be viewed in the context of a rapidly expanding data center industry in our state, not as a single isolated building. To accommodate unprecedented load growth from data centers and ensure shareholders receive long-term profits, NV Energy is planning to build out new methane gas infrastructure. At a time when residents are struggling to afford groceries, gas, and utility bills, NV Energy's plan to build three methane gas plants to power data centers in our state demonstrates a disregard for utility affordability, public health, and our state's publicly determined renewable portfolio standards. Nevada voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring in-state utilities to get half of their power from renewable sources by 2030, yet data centers are the reason our state will miss those targets. Fossil fuel infrastructure, like these gas plants, produces toxic emissions that pollute the air we breathe, causing health problems like respiratory issues. Both our finances and health are at risk if the data center industry has its way. We are asking the board not to make decisions one project at a time without broader public conversation about cumulative impacts. Please vote no. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is and I've lived here on the east side of Las Vegas my whole life. I lived at 649 East Bristol Canyon Ave. And I'm also a Sierra Club chapter member. And I'm here today to oppose the expansion of the switch data center and the associated waivers requested by switch outlined by agenda items 50, 51, and 52. Or at least require the applicant to address the issues identified by county staff before moving forward. What concerns me about this project is that it's asking for multiple extensions to county requirements all at the same time. The applicant wants to remove required trees, landscaping, build taller walls, reduce setbacks, and change traffic and pedestrian design requirements. More importantly, county staff has already identified safety concerns. Staff has found that the proposed gate location could create traffic and circulation problems. Public Works has found that the attached sidewalk is less safe for pedestrians and the oversized driveway could create vehicle conflicts. As a resident, I don't think we should be approving exceptions to safety standards simply to make it convenient for the developer. If this project can't be redesigned to meet county requirements, then it should be. I'm not asking you to stop development, I'm asking you to require development that follows the standards that are already in place to protect public safety and our community. Thank you guys for your time, I appreciate it. Thank you, good morning.

Good morning chair and commissioners. My name is Haley Johnson. I'm here on behalf of the Sierra Club. I'm also the chair of the environmental justice committee for the NAACP Las Vegas branch. I'm here today to oppose the expansion of the switch data center and the waivers requested under agenda items 50 through 52. Data centers like this are driving the climate change, consuming enormous amounts of energy and resources at the expense of the communities around them. I'd like you to ask to weigh the facts. Every new data center adds pressure to Nevada's electric grid and accelerates the need for new energy infrastructure. Before approving another expansion, this county should demand a full accounting of the impacts, not just assumptions but real transparency. about what the project will require from the energy and water systems. I want to flag, too, the pattern in the application to request to waive Clark County Development Code that exists to protect residents and neighborhoods, not to be asked to waive every time a large corporation asks. This isn't just about one building, it's about the precedent that this commission sets for every future data center application in the Southwest Valley where residents have already raised their concerns about the cumulative growth toll. Southern Nevada restrictions on evaporative cooling may reduce direct water use, but the electricity required to power and cool a facility like this still carries water and environmental costs through generation and transmission, costs this county has not fully grappled with. AI driven data center growth is increasing electricity demand across the country and Local government should be evaluating whether infrastructure planning is keeping pace Southern Nevada residents should not bear the consequences of the growth without transparency and accountability And so I'm asking please to the Commission slow down Demand answers and protect the standards that protect us. Thank you.

Thank you very much Good morning

Good morning, Board of Commissioners. My name is Mingjia Yan. I'm 6415 South Fort Apache Road, 185 Las Vegas, Nevada, 89148. I'm a longtime resident of Southwest Las Vegas, speaking on my personal behalf in opposition to agenda item number 50 to 53 regarding the new data center proposal in Southwest Las Vegas. The problem with Southwest Las Vegas is that we don't have a clear vision or a cohesive master plan on how we grow in the future. And we need to ask ourselves, is this the highest and best use of this land in this area? And this data center project is inefficient land use. I drove by it yesterday and that entire area is prime land nest to i-15 215 that we could do light manufacturing office parks or even public facilities like community centers that can accommodate the population growth that we have been seeing southwest las vegas and some of the design waivers that this applicant asked for it doesn't really create a cohesive design and character of neighborhood that can accommodate the future for the growth of southwest las vegas and the biggest problem is that It's not that we are lacking things that we can build, but it's that we are lacking a vision. We need better growth, better developments that can create more housing near transit, more mixed-use developments that can support local small businesses, more schools and parks for our kids, and better development that can create more jobs that can benefit our community like a light rail. We have so much room to grow if we look up. We can build in and up, not out. And I was at the Public Utilities Commission meeting yesterday. There were hundreds of people, including seniors, waited outside the building in 108 degree heat to attend the meeting and speak up against NV Energy's proposed daily demand charge. So I will urge the board to really pay close attention to how the zoning and land use policies that you decide in this chamber will impact the cost of living of our daily life of our local residents. So data centers are misuse of our limited resources and prime land. They create relatively few permanent jobs compared to the amount of land and utility capacity they consume. They don't really support creating livable communities that can support local small businesses and residents. We need better, more efficient land use, responsible growth, and better development that can support and benefit everyone in the community and create long-term economic returns on investment and impact. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Matt Gledhill. I am a resident of North Las Vegas. My address is 6205 Silver Vane Street. I'm here to comment in opposition to the proposed expansion of the data center and agenda items 50 through 52. The people of Clark County are gravely concerned with the impacts of data centers in our communities. I can tell you this with a pretty high degree of certainty because I'm fresh off the campaign trail where I spoke to thousands of my neighbors about the issues that matter to them. As I campaigned in Assembly District 1, which I believe resides in both Commissioner McCurdy and Commissioner Kirkpatrick's constituencies, people would tell me at their doors, completely unprompted, that they fear the rapid expansion of these data centers and that they did not want them in their backyards, nor did they want these companies to dramatically affect our water and our energy demands. I strongly urge this body to reject this expansion and move with extreme caution around data center policy moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello.

Lillian Moffitt, 3434 Villa Hermosa. I'm also here to oppose this switch data center and the waivers 50 through 53. I realize that they've waived the request for some of those waivers, but I have to take the opportunity to say that in a time of poisonous politics, all sides of the aisle have found common cause over the value of tax breaks worth billions and regulatory waivers to big tech companies worth trillions. Regardless of how cutting edge their closed loop systems are, what residents see in exchange are higher electricity and water rates, a paltry number of new permanent jobs, and a host of ruinous environmental impacts from the desecration of green spaces, erasures of wildlife habitats, and air and noise pollution. Data centers use over 20% of Nevada's energy, forcing costly infrastructure upgrades that are passed on to Nevada homeowners, raising utility bills significantly. I urge you all to please consider whether existing planning processes adequately account for the unprecedented scale of AI-related data center growth and its irrevocable impacts, especially when they are asking to bypass standard regulations. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Kevin Castellanos, 7350 West Centennial Parkway. I am a Sierra Club to Yabee Chapter member. I'm here to oppose the expansion of the SWITCH Data Center and the associated waivers requested by SWITCH as outlined by agenda items 50, 51, and 52. Data centers are driving climate change and consuming resources. The fact of the matter is every new data center increases pressure on Nevada's electric grid and increases pressure for new energy infrastructure. Before approving another expansion, commissioners should demand transparency about those impacts and ensure the impacts are fully understood. Residents have already expressed concern about the cumulative impacts of continued data center expansion in the Southwest Valley, including Switch's own report, which mentions using 340 million gallons of water just last year. In addition, these data centers have been shown to magnify the heat island effect in the cities in which they're situated. Ask yourselves, commissioners, is Las Vegas really the place, out of all places, to help facilitate this phenomenon? Southern Nevada residents should not bear the consequences of increased utility infrastructure demands without transparency and accountability. AI-driven data center growth is dramatically increasing electricity demand across the country. I implore the county to carefully evaluate whether infrastructure planning is keeping in pace with this. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Good morning.

Hi, good morning. My name is Alejandra Romero. Thank you so much, commissioners, for having this conversation. I am a Clark County resident. I reside at 4974 Nettie Avenue. As most residents, I think we're all divided on, we're not anti-development, and I can tell you that we definitely want to prove the benefit to the public, of course, and so that's why we support you guys to be here and to listen to residents. So we're constantly told that these projects are good for the community. And my question is simply, the benefits are so substantial, then why is it so difficult to get clear numbers on the jobs, the water use, the energy consumption, and the tax incentives, and the community benefits? So when I think of the burden of proof, that should not be on the residents to prove why this project is bad, but the burden should be on the applicant to prove why this project is worth improving, right? And what residents really want to know is jobs for whom, benefits for whom, and what will that cost us, right? This project would expand already a significant data center that has a footprint in our community. And many residents are already struggling with housing, affordability, infrastructure needs, and the impacts of rapid growth. So before approving additional development, I would ask that you consider the public health benefits and also outweigh the burden placed on the local communities. And the people of Clark County deserve more than promises. And we also want accountability, transparency, and a seat at the table. Please vote no. And of course, I ask that the commissioners and for Switch, please, you know, ask these questions, these tough questions of exactly like, How many permanent full-time jobs will this project create? What will the average salary be? How many of these jobs are guaranteed to go to Clark County residents? How much public money or tax abatements, incentives, fee reductions, or infrastructure assistance has SWITCH received or requested for this project? If this project is so beneficial, why does it require public subsidies at all? How much electricity will this facility consume annually and what impact will that have on our Nevada rate payers and our electrical grid? Ultimately, can the commission identify a single neighborhood improvement park, school investment, affordable housing project, a public safety enhancement that is guaranteed as a result of this project? Please, thank you so much for considering us residents when making these decisions and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on these items, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I will close the public comment period. I wanna just, first let me begin by thanking those of you who came today with some good facts, good information. I think some of them don't necessarily apply to what is actually before us today. And while I think this is an issue that is clearly impacting us across the country, locally here, perhaps more significantly, we are here in our capacity, in a land use capacity. and so i don't have the luxury to opine on as much as i would like to because what is before us is the land use on this application but i do think it's important to go a little bit down memory lane because the people on this board have done more in this entire state when it comes to demanding responsible development when it comes to sustainability and renewable growth. I think we can do that by simply responding to some of the comments that were made. We heard a little bit about Boulder City. Well, just as a case in point, the climate plan which the three individuals to my left worked incredibly hard as members of the snwa to get adopted was immediately adopted by this board of county commissioners it took some of our sister jurisdictions including boulder susie up until 2025 to adopt those same measures that frankly include many things that a lot of those who spoke today have advocated for in carson city and would like to be applied statewide these are things that were the time far ahead of their time and there are things that really apply to this application we spoke a little bit when it comes to water the building 16 17 and 18 which were previously approved and today's 19 are all dry cooled so that that's not something that is just moving forward that's back to 16 and when this board before anybody else adopted those provisions limiting evaporative cooling were put into place. And so for the last three buildings, that's a factor. And what that results in is near zero water consumption on the building that is actually before us for entitlements and the prior ones. So I think that's just important. So hopefully that answers some of the questions related to water. And I'm gonna try to take these one at a time. When it comes to power, 100%, and I'm gonna ask the applicant here who has the burden to respond to the good questions that were raised to either verify or add to any of these they want to, but when it comes to power, it's our staff's understanding that they're using 100% renewable sources. on this project, and that has been the case since 2016. And when it comes to expanding their use on the electric grid, they're using existing electric infrastructure that they put in place at their own cost, which benefits both them, of course, but also other developments not theirs or not within their ownership. When it comes to I think we heard one comment about noise and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood They own the you the applicant today owns the land that surrounds them So in any other zoning application the nearest neighbor the moat would be considered the most impacted and I think that is a factor here that this building is surrounded by land that the applicant owns in buildings 1 through I guess 18 the county nor my office has received noise complaints related to any of those buildings over the last, I don't know, decade and a half. We're going to talk about some of the public works concerns, but I want to get through some of these really, really important sustainability questions that were raised. When this same board that's before you here, for the most part, adopted, and we did it painstaking efforts over many years with the planning department and nearly every other department in this county, the update to Title 30, which is our development code, which was cited today a lot, we included in their provisions related to sustainability that had not happened before. On the sustainability metrics, which by the way, in those conversations leading to the adoption of Title 30, the Sierra Club was an incredibly active and useful and helpful partner and advisor on that code, which includes a sustainability point system. This application has received 6.5 out of 7 points, a maximum of 7 points that are attainable through the sustainability code. I think that is important to note for the record. And then I do want to transition to some of the issues related to the waivers. Those were withdrawn at the beginning of the presentation in part because I demanded it. Those weren't waivers that I was going to support. As everybody knows, anyone in this county has the ability to apply for things through our land use process. That's their right. And this board sometimes has the opportunity to deny those things. The waivers related to landscaping were withdrawn and are not ones that I would have considered. That's waiver 1B, 1C, and 2. And I want to have a conversation about waiver 1A in just a moment. But first, this board, and it was even referenced here, attached detached sidewalks. Anyone who has ever been to one of these meetings knows that detached sidewalks is something that I take incredibly serious. This board adopted, at my urging, the Safe Sidewalk Ordinance, which requires the waiver that is before us today. It is not a waiver that is frequently granted, but I want to talk through a little bit what we're doing to mitigate for that waiver today, because it's really important to me. I think, Antonio, you have a sketch. It was presented, but I have gone and looked at other places in my district where Public Works has installed safety precautions. This, which will be before you in just a moment, is what I'm going to condition the application to. It is going to be borne, the cost of which is going to be borne, not by taxpayers, but by the applicant themselves for the full extent of their abutting parcels. I realize it might take, it's unusual for me to show something, so they probably weren't expecting it in the booth, but uh victor if you could put the overhead back up in just a there you go this is another area in my district that does not have detached sidewalks this is the norm unfortunately throughout the valley we're getting that changed but a concrete barrier fully protecting individuals utilizing the sidewalk will be installed mr papazian do you want to read that condition into the record

Thank you, Commissioner. I know the presenter said that they would construct this barrier at the curb.

Excuse me.

That they would construct this barrier at the curb. We do have a parcel that's kind of standalone. It's owned by the Water District. It's on the hard corner of Decatur and Warm Springs. And rather than the applicant constructing just their portion, maybe it's just better to get a contribution and let Public Works... build this barrier, there may be, we may have to pull the curb out, and if we just pull the curb out on a portion of this stretch, then it may not be safe for that hard corner. So rather than them construct it, I would like to propose a condition that the applicant shall coordinate a cost contribution to Public Works for the design and construction of a barrier separating the sidewalk from the travel lanes along Warm Springs Road adjacent to APNs 176018012021, 17601801023, and APN 17601801044.

very good um the applicant will have to confirm that that's a condition that they're willing to accept though it will be imposed through this application uh you can confirm yes thank you mr chairman uh switch consents to that condition for this project we will financially contribute along with working with public works on the design of that project so given the sensitive my sensitivity to this uh how mr papazian can i have some assurances that that's going to be done in conjunction with the timeline of this project

commissioner right now we have a warm springs road project going on and uh speaking and speaking to the director he is more than willing to uh maybe include this project with that warm springs road project that's okay but let's make clear my intention is that even though the county is going to do that work with the contribution from the applicant that those two things happen in lockstep i don't want a situation where that's opened and this is not done Yes, sir.

Thank you. Do you have anything you'd like to add before I open it up to anyone from the board?

Yes, Natalie Mitchell and I will have some feedback, and thank you for your commentary. You are correct in the fact that Switch is considered a 704 customer of NV Energy, and that means that we are able to buy generation on the open market. We have had that case since 2016 for the last decade, and so we have proudly been able to tout that we are fully supported by 100 percent renewable energy for that period of time, and that will also apply to this facility. That was an initiative that was very important to Rob Roy, our CEO and founder, along with a lot of our customers for sustainability purposes. And that is not just for Nevada. We are 100% renewable nationwide at every campus that we have across the country. So I hope that addresses that concern. And you are, again, to address the landscaping. All that has been addressed with retracting those waivers. Thank you.

thank you the other item that I did want to address that was brought up as there were several comments about jobs and the number of full-time jobs at our facility so I'm very proud to say that switch actually has over 1,500 FTEs 1,200 of those FTEs are based here in Clark County at our headquarters and so we know Switch does now have a national footprint and so those other full-time employees that we have are spread over our other campuses across the country but we are extremely dedicated to the state of Nevada. We're very proud to be headquartered here in Nevada in Clark County and we continue to see growth of our FTE base here within Clark County. The other aspect of this though that I do want to address is in addition to the full-time employees that we have working at Switch, we have thousands of contractors at our different sites. We have folks that literally graduated from their apprenticeship program with the trade, was assigned to Switch job site here in Clark County, And they have never worked another job site maybe in their 12, 13, 14, you know, year career. And so you see not only the full-time employee impact of Switch being headquartered here in those jobs, but you see a significant indirect investment and indirect job creation just to support our ecosystem. So I just wanted to provide that point of clarification. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm prepared to make a motion. I don't know if anyone from the board has any additional comments.

Commissioner Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to comment on there had been some comments about the need for additional housing. This board knows that issue as well as anyone, and we've funded hundreds of millions of dollars for affordable housing. But again, we are a zoning board and we can only do what we can do in terms of limitations of a particular parcel. This parcel has been in zoned industrial for decades now. It's adjacent to an existing rail, and although this parcel itself is not within the AE restriction zone for airport flyovers, much of Switch's campus is restricted by the FAA and so cannot be used for residential.

Thank you. Commissioner Segerblum.

Thank you. I do think that going forward, we should look at having some type of a data center ordinance or somewhere where we put all the pieces together because we obviously don't want to spend water, we don't want to spend electricity, we're just going to use the power lines. transmission lines coming into the valley. This valley is so small that anything we can do going forward to avoid the potentials that these data centers would create I think is really important for us. So I think to the extent we can look at the heat that's coming off of these things, all the different entities and maybe come up with some type of a criteria that we look at because I don't think we can sustain this very long. But I'm going to vote for this today. Obviously, Switch has built this territory, has all the infrastructure necessary. There's no water. Electricity, as I've been told, is renewable, so to that extent it's good, but there's other things, quality of life issues that, going forward, we need to make sure data centers don't impact to us. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Segerblum. And two last points I'll make. One is we heard a little bit about the tax structure and abatements that are granted. I'm sure everyone on this board has strong personal opinions. We have no authority over that. Certainly, I would encourage that discussion to happen in the halls of Carson City, but this board, and certainly not in this capacity, has any authority over that. Also to Commissioner Sagerbloom's point, while my motion today is for approval, that is not applicable to every data center, nor should it be taken as a commentary on data centers. It should be taken that this particular item that before us is 100% renewable, is since 16 been using dry cooled near zero water consumption on this site. The noise issues that may impact neighbors and other places don't apply here. And that they're handling, that they're removing the waivers related to landscaping and that they've worked with our public works department on mitigation on safety issues. So I'm prepared to move for approval.

If I can make a comment, Mr. Chair. So I've been very direct about data centers Recently, I've indicated that I don't support data centers. The groundwork for all of that or what's behind that notion is that they consume water and that they tie up the production capacity of the energy supplier in the valley, which creates a hardship on all of the rest of us and the way that we develop and the limitations that we have in terms of at least of the timing of the development, because it makes it tougher to get the utility company. It has its own business plan, and it doesn't come to us and ask us, present to us a plan so that it can expand in a way that accommodates whatever local government is approving. I would note a couple of things. A couple of years ago, a significant power line was proposed that runs parallel to the 215 in the area where the substation that has been indicated is situated. NAFT and I got a lot of calls about that for various reasons, but in the end what happened was the power line was undergrounded at extensive expense. He and I were working on the issue not so much about what it was going to supply in the end. It was more about having this very high-capacity power line in the area. And undergrounding seemed to be the right thing, but the most expensive thing you can imagine because of the size of the line. What I don't think we appreciated fully at that time was that NV Energy and Switch agreed that whatever the cost of the construction and however it was handled, that line was going to be developed and built at the expense of Switch, which is what happened. and in every case where we've made a demand upon switch since I've been on this board. Now, there are things that happened before any of us were here, but these things also happened before we had taken the action that we've taken very recently, meaning going back to 22, 23, when we really had the hard conversations about water and the conservation plan that was adopted by the Southern Nevada Water Authority. We've taken, we've heard and felt intuitively that there are real limitations that need to be placed on businesses or any development that consumes enormous amounts of water and energy. Those are things that have been a high priority to us. The data center about which I made the specific comment, although I was very general about it, I said I don't favor data centers, largely because this one was not in front of us at the time, and the ones that were proposed were proposed in response to what is happening generally in the industry. I guess what I would say is they were not specific to the uses that this particular one, as I'm understanding, would be put. So AI and other things were driving the interest in a for-profit opportunity. In this case, because of the way that Switch has responded to the things we've demanded of them, even before we got to a point that the demand was was articulated in ordinance in the case of renewable energy. They go find, if they have to, they build or they contribute to the development of renewable sources. They have to pay to upgrade whatever the utility structure is in order to get served that energy, and it does not inure to the disadvantage of the ratepayer. That is not the ratepayer that pays for that. It is Switch and their customers that pay for that installation. So I have to admit that I've been out on the ragged edge of this thing. What I don't want to do is cut the limb off that I'm standing on. And I feel that the things that I have insisted upon, at every turn, since the time we began real and serious discussions about conservation, are things that Switch has agreed to and has been doing and are effectively in front of us. Those things make it difficult for me to oppose this project, even though, generally speaking, I do oppose just the, what I'll call, unplanned and uncooperated, trying to find the right word, the kind of things that I think Switch has been doing in order to keep their projects alive and expand in ways that are meaningful. The other things that have been raised I think are important questions. I think some of them are difficult for us to make a zoning decision on. because we don't have ordinance, we don't have structure that enables us to do that. So this is the one that I'll support. If another comes at another location and it comes in a way that, crosses over the line with the various things that I've been mentioning and the things that have been discussed in response by our chair, they can expect to be treated like I've planned to treat data center expansion. So that's my comment.

Thank you. Commissioner Becker and then Kirkpatrick.

I just wanted to mention that the zoning designation that's being requested today is actually a higher restrictive zoning. So it's unusual, but I think that in looking at where this is located, how Switch has been ahead of the game in their conservation, it's very impressive. And I don't think we can lump them in with a lot of the horror stories we're hearing over the country with data centers. I think this is an example of where we can look at what they're doing right. And I think it should be utilized throughout the country as an example. And I think we're fortunate to have that here in Las Vegas. You know, I question data centers. I'm happy that you testified here today. I think it's important. I think people need to step back before they just approve all of these things without really knowing what's going in. But I think we're fortunate to have this as an example of what we can do to better the future with the data centers that will be coming in. So I'm very impressed with just the utilization. They aren't You know, they're conserving water, they're conserving energy. I mean, it's been very impressive to me. So that's.

Thank you. Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So one, I'm glad that switch is getting rid of the waivers of the landscaping of the trees. That's important. And I'm glad that you pushed for that regardless. But I do want to point out because As a chair of the Water District, I take it on the chin a lot on things that we are doing right and things that we're not doing right, but this is really, and I worry for Southern Nevada in particular because I think that there's, maybe we're not getting our message out of all of the things that we're ahead of the game on. So I sit on a national committee and people are looking at what we've done in Southern Nevada on the water piece, right? So BLM nationally is looking at it. national association of counties are looking at it and we did it because every drop of water mattered to us when we started making conservation cuts so i i just wish we had so many public hearings on it that and put flyers and people's water bills and all of those things and they still um i just wish they knew that this is four years four years we've been in here already And long before anybody was even talking about data centers, long before anybody was talking about any big box warehouse for that matter, right? And it was not easy. And I heard today we should stand up to developers. Well, we did. And there was no one standing behind me, I promise you, which was even harder because we are trying to do that. But I in my district we tell people we don't we have a zero consumptive use footprint that means that unless it's going in your sink or in your toilet you're likely not wasting any water which is what used to happen because it was a cheap energy source And then we talk about the energy, anywhere that we can get renewable energy, that's exactly what we wanna do. And quite frankly, the employees prefer that environment over swamp coolers, because as a kid, I'm dating myself, grew up here, everybody had a swamp car but it doesn't do the same today as it did back then and so we're trying to cut um so employees prefer that right they prefer an air-cooled consistent temperature so i i am always open commissioner sager bloom to looking at what that looks like but i don't want to forget where we've been and what we've done because again We did sustainability within our code. We spent a lot of time on that. We worked with Marcy Henson's group on some other things that we pass every single week. And on water, we've done things. And so I get it, summertime. the energy bills are hard for everybody, and we have to look at that, but that's where the legislature has to do their job too, and I served in the legislature, that's where they have to do it. Tax abatements, that's the legislative discussion, but I don't know what else you would put here for one, I'm so old and I've been here so long that when the first master plan came before us, it was always intended to have all of this. And I'm somewhat grateful and I don't think that you said it, but the Water Authority, you've been converting those old systems into new systems, which is huge. We continue to do that. And so I just don't want to lose sight of the history because they were master plan long before many things were out there. And honestly, They could have probably fell under the old rules, but because they needed a couple waivers, here they are, and they got to start all over and do it the new way, which I'm appreciative of that. So I just don't want to, I'm happy to work with any constituents, but we're always on the bottom of every bad list, but this time we're on the top of the good list, and we still can't get it right, right? But, I mean, 270 municipalities across the country the country are following our lead, and I think that you should feel comfort as constituents that we're not willy-nilly approving things that we've thought about a lot of these things, and we continue, and if there's new ideas and new things, we want to still be on the cutting edge, but I'm happy to support this because of all the things that we've done on top of where the master plan is.

Thank you. Commissioner McCurdy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank everyone for coming out this morning. I think all of your comments resonate deeply with this board. And as we are seeing and as you're reading in the newspaper and gathering all your facts, it is true that This is one of the, data centers are one of the fastest growing real estate infrastructure sectors across the country. And the reason for that, as you all know, is because of the emergence and really the surge in artificial technology and cloud computing and other areas, even hosting medical records and content creators and the data that they upload. I'm proud of the work that has been done by this board and also through SWITCH being a prime example of what can happen when all of the stakeholders come together to create a framework that really should be duplicated in other municipalities and other jurisdictions across the country. While I will be supporting this application, specifically because of the efforts that you've made around environmental sustainability, water conservation, I was really happy to learn that it's only 1,000 gallons a day, where the average home is about 400 gallons a day, a three-person home, and in a closed-loop system. So that's a significant feat for a 56,000-square-foot structure. Moving forward, I think that we should, as Commissioner Segerblum said, look at what those future regulations could possibly look like, utilizing SWITCH as a model to mirror. But with that, Mr. Chairman, I turn it over to you, and thank you for bringing this project to us.

Thank you. Director Ammerman, is there any additional detail you need on the conditions of my approval?

I don't think so. Just to clarify, we're withdrawing waiver one, B, C, and waiver two.

Correct. And the addition of public works language. Thank you very much. I'll move for approval of items 50, 51, 52, and 53 with the stated waivers being withdrawn and the additional condition from public works. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you very much.

Next are items 58 through 62, which are ordinances for introduction. Item 58 is ORD 26-900-221, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Cimarron Spring Dew LLC, ANA Revocable Living Trust, and ANA3 LLC for single family development. on 2.54 acres. Item 59, ORD 26-900224, introduce an ordinance to adopt, to consider adoption of a development agreement for Toll Brother, sorry, I say that every time, Toll South LVLCC for single-family residential development on 1.26 acres. Item 60, ORD 26-900224, two five nine introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with zl two llc for an a vocational or vocational training facility and parking lot expansion on twelve point oh four acres item sixty one o r d twenty six nine hundred four two three introduce an ordinance to amend title thirty regulations as previously directed by the board of county commissioners to modify Title 30 fee schedule, revise plans, procedure, amend language for court reporter, correct typographical errors and define terms and make corrections and clarifications as appropriate. And I'd like to just clarify for the record as well that the tree fee increase is included in this ordinance, but it does go into effect July 1st per the language in the code. And item 62 is ORD 26-900-431, introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 5th, 2018 and April 22nd, 2026. So staff recommends you introduce the ordinance at the public hearing for July 8th, 2026.

I'll introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for July 8th, 2026. Thank you. This takes us to our final time, so aside for public comment, anyone wishing to speak may come forward at this time, state your name, and speak for up to three minutes. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and adjourn today's meeting. Thank you very much.