Clark County Planning Commission - meeting_notice

Okay, it is time to start our meeting for September 1st. So I'm calling the meeting to order. Staff, please do roll call.

Chair Frazier. All in line. Vice Chair Mohica.

Present.

Commissioner Stone.

Here.

Commissioner Kirk.

Here.

Commissioner Kolarski? Commissioner Brady?

Here.

Commissioner Wojtman?

Here.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Our next item on the agenda would be a presentation from Las Vegas Valley Water District. Thank you for coming this evening.

So my name is Doa Ross, I'm the Deputy General Manager for Engineering and Operations for the Las Vegas Valley Water District as well as the Southern Nevada Water Authority and coming to give you kind of a briefing as to where we are with our water today. Speaking on Southern Nevada Water Authority, we are the regional water supplier for The 2.4 million residents that live here in Southern Nevada and the Las Vegas Valley Water District is the largest of the retailers who deliver water directly to the customers. So our system, SNWA system, delivers water to City of Henderson, North Las Vegas, City of Boulder City, Las Vegas Valley Water District, who serves all of unincorporated Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. And then we also deliver water to Nellis Air Force Base. Obviously, everybody here knows we are in a severe drought. In fact, we're more inclined to call this the permanent aridification of the Southwest, because a drought implies you actually can come out of that with a couple years of good wet weather. Unfortunately, we've seen the decline of the Colorado River over the past couple decades, with 2002 being the driest year on record. and that started our several decade drought that we are in today. You can see Lake Mead, the same picture taken over the years, and today the lake sits at about 27% capacity. Our biggest benefit in this community is our return flow credit. What that means is every gallon of water that we take out of Lake Mead, our allotment of the Colorado River, if we use that water indoors and it's connected to the public sewer system, the wastewater treatment agencies collect that water, treat it to near drinking water standards, return it to the Las Vegas Wash, which is Mother Nature's kidney, and it further filters it and brings it back out to the lake. every gallon that we return to the lake in that manner does not go against our allotment so that means we can keep using water and keep returning water so our goals for conservation are always going to be on what we call consumptive use which is anything that is used or lost outdoors Consider landscape irrigation, septic systems because they're not connected to the sewer, evaporative cooling. Any of those types of things, we don't get that water back and that's a permanent loss to the system and it goes against our amount that we're allowed to use. Obviously, uncertain futures. So our legal allocation from the Colorado River is 300,000 acre feet of water. That's about 1.8% of the river. In comparison, California, for example, gets 4.4 million acre feet. So Nevada gets 300,000 acre feet. Now, we have already drought restriction in place right now. that says under a tier one shortage, and it's based on the elevation of Lake Mead, that we would be allowed to only take out 279,000 acre feet of water. Because of that return flow credit cycle I showed you in the last slide, 2025, we actually only consumptively used 198,000 acre feet of water. So you can see we're using less than our allotment. That's a permanent loss to the system. That's important because as you can see, the very last bar there is the worst case scenario under the record of decision that was just dropped by the Department of Interior a little over a week ago. They have the ability under that record of decision to cut us to as low as 86,000 acre feet, 86,500. We used consumptively 198,000. so cutting us to potentially eighty six thousand five hundred acre feet cuts into a lot of our actual usage what we what we need to use so i just put that on there because what we wanted and we were okay with are what's shown in the first two years of the record of decision it was an amount that we could tolerate cutting and it didn't cut into our hundred ninety eight thousand What shows up in the remaining years is what that is, and that's why we filed a lawsuit back, because we didn't agree with that.

Give me one moment. Can we please note that Commissioner Kularski is here? Thank you.

So for us, obviously conservation is a very big part of our overall plan for this community. Over the last several years, not just the county but all of the local jurisdictions have all adopted ordinances and rules and put into place to help further our conservation measures. As you can see there, everybody collectively agreed we have enough golf courses in this community, we don't need any more. The golf courses that do exist have stricter watering budgets on them. They've been incentivized to go from cool to warm season grass, as well as parks have done their part with that. Non-functional grass has been recently adopted in state law. There's a lot of improvements that are being made in the community overall, not just for existing, but also future development. We put a moratorium on evaporative cooling because when we learned during the COVID shutdown, the hotels that had no people in them, they still operated their cooling towers and that's when we got to see that the second largest use of water in this community is evaporative cooling because we lose it permanently. All of these different conservation measures have been put forward through the years to help ensure that we continue to grow responsibly with our water and reduce that consumptive use footprint. Las Vegas is getting hotter, there is no doubt about that. Every time we add asphalt, rooftops, block walls, we are adding heat. And because of all of that, importance is really put on the proper types of landscape. Tree canopy is so important. in the development codes single-family residential is work we've put a ban on putting any new grass in front or backyards on brand new homes we've limited the size of the polls we haven't said no polls you can still have a pool but it's limited size because it reduces the amount that gets evaporated we've also require that new development does connect to the sewer system to stop perpetuating septic systems And then also water efficient plants. We want to make sure that we have the best plants that are adapted to the desert environment and still require only drip irrigation. On non-single family residential, no evaporative cooling, grass only in park schools and cemeteries. And when I say parks, that includes residential development planned parks that they do in their subdivisions. And then limit on new large consumptive users. So for example, we won't be allowing any water bottling companies or companies that basically take the water to produce their product and send it away. We need to make sure we ensure that we're getting it back. And then efficient use of shade to cool surfaces. Mitigating those rising temperatures is really a lot on planning properly within this community. Anywhere that we can not have a block wall and instead have maybe some sort of a chain or rail wall or fence promote trees around that, those are all good. We've partnered with some nonprofit organizations within this community to continue to plant trees, especially in parts of the community that don't have very good landscape to begin with in terms of a master planning, a lot more concrete. So we try and get trees into those areas. And since we've started that in 2025, we've incentivized those who are converting their grass at their home. We'll give them an extra $100 if they want to plant a tree. as well as we've partnered with Impact Nevada, and they've planted an additional about 1,330 trees so far, and those are in the high heat, low income areas. Anybody else on any residential commercial, if they want to plant a tree with their turf conversion, we'll give them an extra $100, and so far, 2,600 trees have been planted as a result of that. The whole goal is to increase the tree canopy within the community. So you can see here that over the years we were ticking up with our consumptive use. People were kind of getting a little bit relaxed and we started seeing that go up. In 2021 is when we moved forward with these most recent conservation measures and that has successfully brought that consumptive footprint back down. 2023 is kind of a false amount just because it was a really wet year and we had a very cool run into the summer. I think our first triple digit day was the 4th of July. So that was a cooler year which meant people didn't use as much water in their landscape and that helped a lot. But you can see we're trending in the right direction. This is an important slide that we like to show just to show that we can very responsibly grow and continue economic development in Southern Nevada as long as we implement the correct codes and conservation measures. This here shows you that since 2002 we've added over 800,000 people to this population and reduced our individual water use as well as the total consumptive use on the river. This is important because we're showing people that with proper conservation measures we can still be a viable, growing, economically developed community while being responsible with our water. so i'm here really to say to you guys how can comprehensive planning the overall planning commission help in this manner as people come to you with a proposed development at this level what we're really trying to get ahead of is to remind these people especially if they're not from here and haven't developed here we want to try and give them a heads up that there are things they want to be considering early on for example If there is a proposed high-rise development that wants to build on every available square inch of their parcel, they're not leaving themselves room for the mechanical cooling equipment that will be necessary to cool the building. A lot of people go in thinking automatically they're going to get a cooling tower and the answer is going to be no. So we don't want them to get so far down the design road that they find out when they apply to the building department. We want to be able to give them that heads up up front. So when we're looking at those types of developments just really asking them how are you going to ensure you comply with all of our conservation measures. if they want to have a pool a lot of them will want to put the pool on the roof or some level therefore that's usually where that mechanical equipment might go so you want to ask that question where's your mechanical equipment planning to go and your site plan that you're showing here we also want to be able to say if they're proposing any large pools we've had some unusually large pools come in where people have said i want to build a surf park or something along those lines All we're asking is that they're being advised to come have a conversation with us because we have rules within our service rules as well as the development codes that are here. We want to be able to get in touch with them and have that collaborative conversation before they get too far into their design that they feel like they've wasted time and money. We want them to be smart about how they do their design. And those who are savvy do know to come to us ahead of time with their thoughts and their renderings. And we kind of come to what works, and then they come to you guys. So it's really just trying to give them a little bit of a chance to get ahead of that. Properties proposing ornamental water features. That's obviously a big conversation we're going to have with them. And then if they're redeveloping existing resorts, we do want to have that conversation as well, too. From an evaporative cooling standpoint, what they can and cannot do, because in some cases they're grandfathered in, some cases they are not. And so we want to be able to have that conversation with them, as well as whatever they're planning to do with their pools and so forth. And then any anticipated large consumptive water users. And that's really going to be more on the economic development side. But if somebody's coming in saying, hey, I'm proposing to build the greatest new, you know, soda building or bottling company, we want to say stop, hold on a minute. Have you had a conversation? Because we don't want to go wasting your time or their time with something if it might not work for this community. It has to be a good return on investment for our resource. And with that, I will take any questions.

Commissioner? Commissioner Kirk?

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Can I ask, do you know how we're doing in comparison to other states on our conservation? Like, how are we doing in comparison to Utah or Colorado or any other state that's part of the Colorado River system?

Obviously, everything's very relative, but I can tell you when it comes to being able to set forth the model for conservation and being able to develop with using less water, we are absolutely leading that charge.

Yeah, I know we're leading it. I know we're doing really well. But my question really is, are they doing anything?

Yes, they absolutely are. As a matter of fact, I can tell you our previous conservation manager who retired from Southern Nevada Water Authority is now working for Utah and he's setting up their conservation program. So it is a great thing because they saw somebody who could come in and really produce the same kind of results that we've got. I can tell you that California is doing very aggressive water landscape conversion programs they've been doing around all their public buildings. They're putting in alternative types of ground cover like clovers and things like that that can be fed through a lot less water. They have all different programs and they're modeling a lot of them after what we've already done, but they are all trying to do their best. And even those in the upper basin states who are not under the record of decision having to make a cut, they all, for example, signed on a memo that said, we also are going to limit non-functional grass and find a way to get rid of it. So they're all taking those steps. It's relative, though, because they all have different needs and different customers and requirements that they have to do.

So one final question. Is the Water Authority, have you been involved with the design process of large projects? How do you guys fit into the design process? Do we have someone on staff that contacts the Water Authority and says, hey, we have a big project that's coming, we need some help on review, or how does that work?

So we are on the distribution list for when items are coming before the Planning Commission, so that's the first time we'll see it and we'll provide comment. That is where we insert as much as we possibly can until they come to us with an application for service or engineering drawings at that time. And so we do insert comment as certain items are being considered. All I'm saying with respect to where everybody can help is just kind of keep that in the forefront of your thoughts. This particular, even if you're looking at a site plan and it looks like they're using every square inch, at a very minimum, they're going to need at least a connection of water service from us to serve even the fire sprinklers in the building, and that is a very large device that has to be above ground, and it's not inside of a building, because the idea of that device is when it's working to prevent backflow, it dumps a lot of water. The last place you want it is somebody's building. So having that just quick question of have you had a conversation where the water facility is going to be placed and the equipment for your mechanical cooling, where would those go? So we do make comment and we are part of the distribution for that, but that's all I'm asking is that you guys help look out for that as well.

Great, thank you.

Commissioner Royman.

Okay, I have two questions that maybe you can answer together and then maybe one more question. So in the first two slides you showed us, you showed us how low lake meat is. And so is that because a combination? Is it because we're using more water? You know, I know you said a lot of the water goes back in. Is it because of climate the climate is you know climate change in the broadest sense of the word or why do we have less water what what's the please oh and then maybe maybe the second thing you had the the other slide that said where we may get cut because of this new order yes and so what would we do if that order goes into effect how would we respond to it those are kind of my first two or maybe you can

So the first part, the levels of, first of all, Lake Mead is the largest of the man-made reservoirs, Lake Powell being the second. And they are both there to control the flow of water in the Colorado River. The Colorado River's hydrology comes from snow melt. That's really what's coming from the Colorado Rockies on the west side of the Rockies. So we're really depending on snowpack, a lot of it, and melting at a nice, slow pace. Unfortunately, for example, this past winter is probably, I believe, the driest year on record for snowpack. It's the worst they've ever had. They had almost none, and when they did get it, it's just a little bit that it trickled into the river. So now the river is that much less. So the flow coming in hasn't been as... as great as we've known it in the past, over the decades, the last two decades, it's just been really not good. And what's also combined with that is the temperature in the air warms up a little bit too fast in that area. So if you figure, there's been a couple years we've had more than 100% snowpack, but if it warms up too fast, the air takes some of it by evaporation, and the ground absorbs a lot of it because it's been parched. and then we get the rest. So in years where you have 120% of snowpack, sometimes we might get 65 or 70% of that in runoff. So we're not getting that 100% runoff or really close to it consistently, so we're always dropping a little bit less. We, as a community, have used less water. So we're using less today than we did 20 years ago.

Even though the population has increased.

Even though our population has increased, absolutely. Because I can tell you in 2002, we actually used more than our allotment of water. We were using too much water. And so we have driven our water use down. So has California and Arizona. So I want to make sure that we're all clear. We're all trying to drive it down. The problem is the illegal amount that they were allowed to take relies on a lot more water that isn't coming in. So it's a combination of both. You have a savings account that's dwindling because the spending is still there, even though you're spending less, you're just not making enough to balance that back out. So that's the issue within the river and why you see lake mead dropping. from the record of decision standpoint. What that is is that is an option. They could go all the way to that. If the Bureau of Reclamation said we had another really horrible bad year and we're at risk of crashing the river, they could choose to cut everybody on that record of decision to that amount. What that means is that means our consumptive footprint now has to drop to that. I can't tell you what that looks like, but I'm pretty sure it's gonna result in anything that's non-essential use, outdoor use, whatever, is probably going to be at risk. It would be a community decision to decide what gets cut, because we'd have to preserve health and human safety first.

Right, so if that were to happen, would you envision that people would go to their faucet to go wash their hands or take a shower or do this and no water would come out?

No, no, no. And we do have, I want to reassure everybody that we do have some, you know, some reserve water. We have the ability to pull some water out of the ground. So we have some things to kind of bridge that gap a little bit, but it would not be the comfortableness we've been used to all of these years. So that's why we're fighting this, because that cut into what we consider to be our use, our normal use as a community, that we don't want to have to do that. And so we are fighting this, and that's why as soon as that hit, we shot right back.

If I could just ask one more. Say someone wanted to put in a surf pool or bring in bottled water plant. Is this something that they could pay for themselves to say, like, yeah, sure, if they came to you, for instance, and said, what could we do to make this happen? Is there, like, could they ship water from somewhere else? Is there a way that a user like this could compensate for excessive use by paying for the water?

Well, you're talking about by people providing a supplemental water source of some sort. I guess my question back is where would they get it?

That's my question to you.

Is that possible? I mean, the closest ocean is going to be California. California itself has its own battles happening as to whether or not they build these out.

So that's not a realistic?

It's not. And unfortunately, we don't and we can't issue a building permit or a water commitment on something that isn't our water, and we can't issue something based on a promised behavior. Thank you. Yes.

Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Great presentation. Some good information for us as planning commissioners. And I think maybe I'm the one that asked you to come make this presentation because often in our daily lives as citizen commissioners, we're walking around and people will say to us, to me, Hey, how can you keep approving all these houses? We don't have any water. And you know, it's good to have, you know, an answer, a technical answer like you provided. So thank you for that. It sounds like we're doing everything we can to stretch the water. So I have a little bit of a what if question. So given the number of acre feet of water we currently have in our bank, and you know, whatever we want to call that at your level, the bank, the river, the wells and whatnot, and we were to draw some sort of average number of houses that we approved per year divided into the amount of water allocation you have available, do we have enough water as we sit today to allow for another 100,000 homes, another half a million homes. I know that number's floating around there. We have the record of decision, we have lawsuits, we have all this stuff, but that's kind of the worry that we have walking down the street. And I know that at the end, if it's bad news, because Vegas always figures out how to solve a problem, it probably, at the end of the day, not in my lifetime, but could it be DESALINATION PLANTS THAT WE FUND IN CALIFORNIA SO WE CAN TAKE pro-rata share of the river up here. Just some commentary on that, if you wouldn't mind.

Absolutely. Actually, we already are into the process with Southern California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. They're essentially the equivalent of SNWA, much larger, much larger, because they cover everything from Santa Barbara to San Diego. They are doing the pure water project in Southern California. So We have all of our water at a lower elevation, and we pump it up into the valley, we use it, and then wastewater flows by gravity back, we treat it and send it back. The complete opposite situation in Southern California. Their water from Colorado River comes at a higher elevation, makes its way down to Los Angeles, right? Los Angeles uses the water, treats their wastewater, and sends it back to the ocean right now. The Pure Water Project would treat that water to drinking water standards and send it back into the system, whether it's into their groundwater areas or reservoirs, wherever throughout their system, for reuse. Anytime you treat water, whether it be wastewater treated or desalinization, there is a cost associated with that. We approached... metropolitan water district and said we have money we're willing to help fund this pure water project in exchange for you leaving a share of your water in the colorado river so we don't have to build pipes to move anything across state lines they would just leave that much in lake mead for us and then that would increase our overall resource So those are the types of innovative cross-state line types of partnerships that we are working with. And California is a great partner. Arizona looks like they probably want to get in on that as well too. But we have already contributed money towards their environmental study and told them we're committed to move forward with them if they can move forward as well. So they're in their environmental analysis part right now. But assuming they move forward because they have nothing but support from their entire community for this, we will also be a partner and that will give us additional resources. So we are looking at those types of things.

Just to follow up on the water bank and the amount of water we kind of have, to dedicate to new development. Is there any way you can quantify that?

So what we had done, and you can actually look at this on the SNWA.com website, we have our 50-year resource plan. Now I'm going to set the record of the decision aside for just a moment because that put a kink in a few things. Everything else normal. Our 50-year resource plan actually contemplated the entire amount of land that's available to develop here within the disposal boundary. We took the UNLV Center for Business, Research, and Economics, CBER, their forecasting population information. We even scaled that up a little bit. And as long as we follow our conservation goals to achieve that gallon per capita per day goal that we have, we have the ability to continue to serve all of that because it's based on development that gets that water back, return flow credits.

Okay. So that's good news. It kind of gets lost in the fear of the public. Yeah, absolutely. And so thank you for that answer. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies for being late.

Oh, no problem.

And I just wanted to say thank you very much for the presentation. Like I said, I walked in a little bit late, so I didn't catch quite all of it. But one of the things that, and I don't remember this from when we did the rewrite. I don't know if anybody else did or if I'm the only one that missed it. But when did we stop putting grass in backyards? I remember the front yards, but the backyards, because that to me is just a place for, with our developments. Not everything is a master plan where it's thousands or hundreds of acres or, whatever, and they put parks, they have designated open space and they're parks, so there's grass and there's trees and there's all this kind of good stuff. When we get developments that have maybe 60 homes, let's say, we don't have room for parks with grass and trees and all this other stuff there. So we don't put that in and all we're getting is is cement, if you will, and block walls, if you will. So I'm trying to balance what we're doing with the smaller developments, infill properties, and how we can do what we do with the heat.

understandable yes and i believe it was in i feel like it was 2024 and i'm gonna look like a asterisk i think it's 2024 that we said and it was it was effective april of that so if you bought a house after that a new home that you cannot put grass into the front or the backyard and the reason for that is because all of the master plan communities that are coming forward to us have open space requirements, so they're doing mini parks or areas that are for the residents to come use. We're also seeing the lots get a lot smaller as the cost of land is going up, so they're trying to get as much as they can on there. The whole idea is to be able to put in things that are functional, have an area that's dedicated for that kind of grass for use. So some sort of a community park. And there are minimum requirements that qualify them as a park, but so far every one of the developments that have come in, they're meeting those. Because they want to have that kind of a central area for everybody to use, and then they don't have to worry about that on the rest of the homes. So it's really about planting trees, planting drought-tolerant landscape, but to have an area to play on with grass, that's where you're going to the community's little park area.

Okay, but we do have, and we've had a number, you know, do you guys see the smaller infill pieces of properties where we do get 40, 50, 60 homes and there is no park? Our open space is just walking trails. basically, and drought tolerant, and landscaping. And that's the open space, it's not a park, it's not community type things. I'm trying to figure out how we can best do that, how you can help us do that.

If you can. I mean, we would definitely support any sort of a trail system, park system, something along those lines. Or also consider, there are some communities that you look at what is the walking distance to the nearest park, where they have access to that. But we do look at those. We have decided that what we are seeing is so many more people trying to pull that grass out and as the lots were getting smaller and smaller and smaller, the actual play area of any grass that would end up in somebody's backyard is reduced significantly. Yes, it does. And so we work a lot with the developers when they come in with their ideas, and we're happy to help walk them through those landscape plans and everything that they're proposing. But we definitely find that we're seeing a lot more support around having some sort of a community park area that they can all use.

That's what I would like to see more of. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner Brady.

Hi. So Commissioner Kolarski and I actually met with the landscape architect probably about two weeks ago or a week ago and we're talking about this and is this exactly So one thing that he was mentioning is that Las Vegas is heating up. And one of it is because less trees and one of the things that was mentioned was the artificial turf. Artificial turf being heating from like 150 degrees to 180 degrees versus some other materials that might be a little bit less in temperature, but still rock cover being high, but trees being the number one thing to fix it. So in some of these turf conversions when we do this is this also though we're adding in a tree is there's a tree requirement to put it in within I believe within the conversion or there used to be.

The tree is an option and we'll give them an extra hundred dollars in their rebate if they plant a tree that wasn't there. The landscape conversion requirements haven't changed though. We don't ever tell anybody to put in artificial turf. That's their choice. They have to put in 50% of the area that they take out with living plant life. So you have to have coverage once that plant is mature. So whether it be lantanas or trees or whatever they want to put, as long as it's drought tolerant and drip irrigated. They have to, so if they take out 1,000 square feet, 500 square feet of that has to be living plant life. They can't just put all rock. The remaining 500 feet, they can do whatever they want, whether they want to put rock, artificial turf, they could put pavers, whatever they want. It's entirely up to them. We only dictate that they have to have at least 50% of the area that they're getting paid to remove grass back with living plant life.

So one of the things that I was hearing also, so I'm all about and I think a lot of us here are about adding parks to communities and making it so as yards have been getting smaller and we're not able to do as much grass and all of that, having a place where families can get together and play, but which also brings in more community. which is what we all are begging for. So would it be smart for us to kind of more encourage that yard size, or I wouldn't say necessarily yard size, I don't know what the right thing to say would be, but offset the playing of backyards to parks and make bigger parks versus lot size, is that?

And that's really, that's going to be between whatever the zoning requirements are as well as the developer. Believe me, they want to maximize the ability to sell the house when they want to comply. So they do look for any areas that they can get it all into one spot. They're pretty savvy with the way they're doing this.

They'd like to eliminate the parks too.

But as long as you guys don't give up on that open space requirements. So keeping on that, that's helpful. And we certainly support that because that's beneficial use for that grass and that water.

Okay. And one thing I've just noticed, I'm on the board of directors with a community here in town, and I've driven along the golf course and looked behind all the different homes that have infinity edge pools. And I've been at homes and some communities with that beautiful views. But if you're there on a windy day, you better bring your umbrella and hold it in front of you instead of above you. Because it literally will behind it, there'll be just growth everywhere because the water comes from the pool and gets blown everywhere else. Is that something that's been looked at as far as

We have not had any discussion regarding the infinity edge pools. I can tell you from some experiences with some customers, they have found the hard way that they had a leak somewhere in their pool. They didn't know because they never saw the pool drop because it just kept spilling over the edge. So it was really hard for them to find that they had a leak in their pool. And so the infinity edge makes it a little difficult for that. You're right, on a windy day, you get absolutely splattered over. But we've not put any sort of guardrails around the type of pool design. We just have a maximum wetted square foot. So if they do do infinity edge, though, the downside of that is part of that calculation.

yeah i'm familiar with that part and i'm just there's a lot of homes i go to um and their whole entire back windows are white from all the calcium buildup yes or salt water build up and then the golf courses or whatever that's in front of them the overgrowth from the weeds because they're getting water there um so that's just something i've noticed um so i i don't know if you'd be able to share some of those slides with with everybody here i i thought the slides from And this, I know some of us were taking pictures of this.

Yeah, we can definitely leave the presentation with you guys.

That'd be amazing. Thank you. Thank you for coming here. Very informative.

Thank you. I have one last question, and this is more towards, like, public works or staff. Just like we do traffic studies and all, and... and all the other things. I'm drawing a blank right now. Don't we have something that maybe we could send them to the water and get a report?

The water district signs off on our off-site improvement plans, and they also sign off all maps that record for subdivisions.

so you can you provide something if if it's something doesn't look right to you before it gets developed you yes come on okay yes yeah we are part of the as you mentioned we are part of the off-site improvement plan sign off we're part of the mapping sign off as well as the building permit sign off drainage was the other study i was thinking of but okay thank you so much for your time we really appreciate it thank you all right thanks And my next question is for staff. We're running out of time, so what do we do in this situation? Do we continue with the briefing or?

Yeah, so we still have time to go through the briefing. I can do it very quickly. Please, thank you. So just to introduce, good evening planning commissioners. Great to be with you all again. My name's Michael Hewling. I'm a principal planner with the Department of Comprehensive Planning. I'll be leading you through tonight's agenda. As I said, we'll go through the briefing pretty quickly, but if you do have questions at any point, please interrupt me. So we'll start with the following requests. Item number 11, UC-26-0424, delete from the agenda as this application will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners at the September 2nd, 2026 meeting since it's related to another application on that agenda. Item number 14, VS-26-0440, hold to the October 6th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting per the applicant. and hold the following companion items to the September 15th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and to the October 21st, 2026 Board of County Commissioners meeting per the applicant. Item number 23, PA 2670034. Item 24, ZC 260450. Item 25, WS 260451. and item 26, TM26500106. These are all the requests for holds and deletions, so we'll continue with the routine action portion. Item number four is SDR260439. This is a sign design review for the expansion of an existing animated freestanding sign for Maverick Helicopters. The site's east of Las Vegas Boulevard South and north of Sunset Road. The sign location and height are staying the same, and the sign is changing from two-sided to three-sided. and will be expanding from 144 square feet to 280 square feet. Staff is recommending approval. Paradise Town Board recommended approval, and no cards either way. Item number five, TM26-500051. This is a seven lot tentative map for a single family subdivision in Red Rock, south of Bonnie Springs Road. The site is about 35 acres, so the density will be about 0.2 units per acre. Staff is recommending approval. The Red Rock CAC recommended approval, no cards either way. Item number six, TM26500108. This is an 18 lot tentative map for a single family subdivision east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Ford Avenue. The subdivision was originally approved in 2021. A tentative map was subsequently approved in 2022, but has since expired. So the applicant is submitting a new tentative map that aligns with those previous approvals. The site's 1.33 acres with a density of 13.53 units per acre. Staff is recommending approval. Enterprise Town Board recommended approval. No cards either way. Items seven through nine are companion applications. Item seven is PA-26-700-037. this is a plan amendment to amend the clark county trails map for southwest las vegas valley the sites on the northwest corner of post road and jones boulevard the applicant is proposing to realign the multi-use and equestrian trail to provide a more functional alignment that will be compatible with the proposed development of the site as well as future development staff is recommending approval spring valley town board recommended approval we received one card in support one in protest all Item 8 is ZC 260498. This is the companion zone change from RS 20 to PF zoning, which is meant to facilitate the development of the site with the proposed use of an animal resource center. Staff is recommending approval. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. We received one card in support, five in protest. Item number nine, WS260499. This is the companion design review for the Animal Resource Center with waivers for offsite improvements, throat depth, and modified driveway geometrics. The southeastern portion of the parcel is proposed to be developed. The main building will be about 38,000 square feet with various animal services and resources. Please note that the Department of Aviation's analysis, which states that the FAA notification will be required, was inadvertently left out of the staff report, so I will read it into the record during the meeting. The applicant has been informed and has agreed to comply with this requirement. Staff is recommending approval. Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval. We received one card in support, five in protest. Item number 10, UC 260412. This is a use permit for an avocational training facility, specifically a dance studio in the IL zone. The site is on the west side of Arbill Street, and the 4,000 square foot lease space is in the northwest corner of the northern building on the site. Staff is recommending approval. Paradise Town Board recommended approval. We've received one card in support. Item number 11, UC 260424, is requested to be deleted from the agenda, as I said. It'll be on the September 2nd BCC agenda. Item number 12, UC 260447, this is a use permit for a recreational and entertainment facility in the aisle zone, which will include dance, acrobatics, acting, and other similar activities. The site is north of Desert Inn Road. The lease space is about 3,500 square feet and is in the northern building on the site. Staff is recommending approval. The Winchester Town Board recommended approval. We've received two cards in support, one in protest. Item 13, BS 260414. This is a vacation of a portion of Cimarron Road to accommodate a detached sidewalk. The site is undergoing a parcel map for a two-lot single-family subdivision. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation. Lone Mountain Town Board recommended approval. We've received three cards in support, five in protest. Item 14, BS 260440 is requested to be held to the October 6th Planning Commission meeting. Item 15, WS 260453, this is a design review for utility structures with waivers for setbacks and wall height. The utility structures will include a water storage tank and booster pump station and are within the common elements of a previously approved single family subdivision south of Bonnie Springs Road. Staff is recommending approval. The Red Rock CAC recommended approval. We've received zero cards in support, three in protest. And this concludes the routine action portion of the agenda. Any questions from the Planning Commission?

Commissioners, any questions? Proceed.

Thank you. Item number 16, UC26-0365. This application was held from the August 18th meeting per the applicant's request. This is a use permit and design review for a place of worship with waivers for retaining wall height, building height, residential adjacency standards, parking lot landscaping, and reduced parking. The site is a vacant lot on the east side of Westwind Road. To the north is commercial development. Immediately south is a vacant lot, and further south is single family. East and west of the site is also single family. The building is 14,000 square feet and 112 feet in height. Staff is recommending approval of the use permit in denial of all waivers and the design review. The concerns being with the size, scale, and impact of the development on single family residences in the area. The applicant has informed staff that they intend to read additional conditions of approval into the record to reduce the height to 98 feet, add a parking lot tree, and to limit the church services. The Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval of the use permit and waiver development standards number one, denial of waivers of development standards two through five, and the design review. Item number 17, UC 260425. This is a use permit to have chickens at a single family residence in the RS 5.2 zone with waivers for setbacks for a chicken coop and shade structure. The applicant's requesting to have 20 chickens total, including three roosters. The accessory structures are in the rear yard with the setbacks being reduced for the side and rear to two feet where five feet is required. There is an active code enforcement case for having chickens without approval. Staff is recommending denial due to the concerns of the impacts of the chickens and the accessory structures. The Whitney Town Board recommended denial. We've received two cards in support and 10 in protest. Item 18, WS26-0366. This is a waiver to reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to five feet for an addition to a single family residence. The addition is 382 square feet and the residence is currently 2,154 square feet. There's an active code enforcement violation for building without a permit. Staff is recommending denial since the setback reduction is significant and is a self-imposed hardship. The Paradise Town Board recommended denial. We've received five cards in support, none in protest. Item 19 is WS26-0446. This is a waiver to eliminate the side setback for an attached garage where 10 feet is required. The garage is about 592 square feet and is on the east side of the residence. There's an active code enforcement violation for building without a permit. Staff is recommending denial for the same reasons as the previous application. We've, sorry, the Sunrise Maritime Board recommended denial. We've received three cards in support, zero in protest. Items 20 through 22 are companion applications. 20 is PA 2670033. This is a plan amendment for a 3.54 acre site in Red Rock on the south side of Blue Diamond Road that has a current planned land use of outlying neighborhood, allowing .5 units per acre with a proposed planned land use of agriculture. The surrounding areas plan for outlying neighborhood and open lands and features a mix of vacant land and single family development. Much of the land in the immediate area is federally owned. Staff is recommending approval as the agriculture plan land use is low intensity and is compatible with the surrounding area. The Red Rock CAC recommended approval. We received five cards in support, one in protest. Item 21 is ZC26-0441. This is the companion zone change from RS80 to AG, which is the agriculture zone. As I said, the surrounding area has vacant land and single-family development. Staff is recommending approval of the zone change for the same reasons as the plan amendment. The Red Rock CAC recommended approval. We received three cards in support, one in protest. Item 22 is WS26-0442. This is the companion designer view for a plant nursery with waivers for reduced lot size, reduced parking, landscaping, full off-site improvements, and alternative driveway geometrics. The site has a single modular office that is 256 square feet with four parking spaces. Staff is recommending approval of waivers one through four, waiver number six, and the design review, and recommending denial of waiver number five for full off-site improvements due to concerns from Public Works about issues that may arise from the lack of these improvements. The Red Rock CAC recommended approval. We received three cards in support, one in protest. Items 23 through 26 are requested to be held to the September 15th Planning Commission meeting and the October 21st Board of County Commissioners meeting per the applicant. And this concludes the non-routine action item portion of the agenda.

Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Okay, next item would be any upcoming ordinances?

No upcoming ordinances.

And the next item would be administrative items?

No administrative items.

Thank you. So that brings us to our public comments section of our agenda. Just please keep in mind that we can't take any action on any of the items.

Scott Farnsworth, 370 South Deer Street. I just want to make clear, 23 through 26 have been deleted?

Not deleted, sir. They've been held to the next meeting on September 15, so they will not be heard today.

We have our community here ready to present. I recommend to the board, if they do sneak this by again, to deny this. Wait. Who made that?

He can, you're more than welcome to stay and talk about it once we are in the regular meeting. This is just a briefing.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

May I suggest that during the first public comment, and that way they don't have to stay until the end? Correct.

That's when we call for public comment.

I thought it was a public comment right now, so that's why I'm up here for that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

You have to state your name and address. Thank you.

My name is Chris Esp, the last name is spelled E-S-P. I live at 9115 Granite and Old Court in Las Vegas, 89129. I just wanted to address the ladies and gentlemen here. And in response to the water districts, I operate a business which is reverse osmosis. I go around and do reverse osmosis filtration for swimming pools in Las Vegas so the water doesn't have to be dumped because, as we all know, if you have pools in Las Vegas, every so often you have to drain that water because it becomes unusable. The Southern Nevada Health District recommends that sanitizer levels, the cyanuric acid, be below 100 parts per million. And if it gets above that, the only option is to drain the water out and refill it. And since Clark County Parks and Recreation maintain, I don't know, 15 to 20 public swimming pools, that is a substantial amount of water that is dumped down the drain. Now, I'm not asking to service those swimming pools as far as chemicals and cleaning and all that stuff. I'm just, instead of them pumping the water down the drain and then refilling it with our limited water resources, that we have an alternative to that, which is reverse osmosis filtration. I have a trailer come over, circulate that water through, recovery rate's about 85 to 95 percent based on the current temperature and Then it's turned back over so you get There's no loss of use the pool can continue to be used as long as the cyanuric acid levels get below 100 parts per million and And I just wanted to let people know that it's out there. It's been used in California for 16 years. It's been used in Phoenix for a substantial number of years. And it's available in Las Vegas, but nobody knows about it.

Thank you for the information.

Thank you.

Any other public comments?

Well, good evening, all you great leaders taking good care of our community. My name is Eric King, long time resident here. I'm also a designer in sustainability and I've had the pleasure of speaking to a number of the commissioners on the board of commissioners for Clark County in recent months. Some of the things that I've talked to them about are how to better use the water It falls out of the sky, runs fast to our drainage ditches and channels that we spend millions of dollars to create each one, rush it out to Lake Mead and then it evaporates. More than 600,000 gallons evaporated. So how we could use that water better is about 24,000 acre feet. This is in direct response and additional information to what the part of the presentation I heard Mr. Stone had asked to come and have speak about. So with that 24,000 acre feet of water, just to give you an idea, That would be 10,000 trees easily planted with just the runoff portion of that 24,000, which is probably less than 20% would actually make it, given that we have a lot of small rain events. Why I'm saying all of that is because we spend millions of dollars. In fact, I just was at the meeting this morning and they were talking about and really smart people over there with the water district talking about spending five million plus dollars per year to pump the water that fell from the sky, ran to Lake Mead to get it out of Lake Mead and pump it back up the valley so that would be able to access it around the valley. So with that money alone, you could plant those trees and use that water much more efficiently. So you all are part of the initial considerative body of smart people that very much care about our community and well-being and how we use our resources. And this really is gift horses falling from the sky every single year that we have a policy of for all the time I've lived here, which is to keep that water safe, get it into channels, rush it to Lake Mead, and then spend a lot of money to pump it back up the valley, what hasn't burned off in Lake Mead. So with planning and great design, we could harvest that water, a portion of it, get a lot more trees into our valley, and prevent the 100 plus heat related deaths that happen here every year. And that would be great planning to help protect our very vulnerable seniors and young kids under five, most of whom are the ones that die along with the unhoused. But those seniors are dying in their homes each night. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. Any other public comment? With that, we will adjourn the meeting and reconvene at 7.15 p.m. tonight. Thank you.