OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Clark County Board of County Commissioners Zoning Meeting - April 8, 2026

Meeting PortalWednesday, April 8, 2026
BodyClark County, Nevada
SessionMeeting Portal
DateWednesday, April 8, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:32:35

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Meeting during all public comment periods, board members may listen, but are not allowed to respond.

0:06

Thank you for being here and for taking the time to participate in your local government.

5:28

Good morning.

5:28

Welcome to the eighth April eighth meeting of the Clark County Commission.

5:33

Uh we will begin today's meeting with the first time set aside for public comment.

5:38

Anyone wishing to speak on an item on today's agenda can come forward at this time.

5:44

Uh items four through twenty-six are scheduled for routine action uh and will not receive individual public hearings.

5:53

So if you're here on an item between four and twenty-six, come forward at this time, state your name for the record.

6:00

And you may speak for up to three minutes.

6:02

Yeah, I just want to note that I'm gonna ask that eight through twelve be pulled off consent so that they can speak at the time.

6:07

Thank you.

6:08

So Commissioner Jones has indicated items eight through twelve will receive their own public hearing.

6:17

Uh from consent.

6:23

Uh uh those are in Commissioner Gibson's district.

6:26

He will be here in just a moment, but uh he'll be comfortable with those items being heard separately.

6:31

Okay, thank you.

6:32

Oh, I would also like to request item number seven, please be pulled out.

6:36

There's something I want to bring to the attention of the board.

6:40

Commissioner Sagerblum.

6:42

Do you want him to comment now?

6:49

Yeah, go ahead and comment now.

6:50

Well you want me to comment now?

6:52

Yes.

6:52

Item seven will be kept on the routine action agenda.

6:55

If you'd like to speak to it, you can speak now.

6:57

Okay.

6:58

Um item number seven.

7:01

Uh I was prepared to pull it off the agenda.

7:04

Let me get uh my notes here.

7:06

Um while you're doing that, if you just want to state your name for the record.

7:10

My name is Al Rojas, R O J S.

7:13

I live at two zero nine five home stake mine court.

7:18

Um, hold on a second.

7:22

Uh okay, can you guys put this?

7:25

Can you put a camera on this?

7:31

Go ahead while they're working on that.

7:33

Okay, well.

7:40

And we're talking about this uh there's an empty lot there, and then this business in this area, you see these two buildings.

7:48

I think they want to have an ex they're getting an extension for getting a building there.

7:52

Um I drove around and there's a lot of stuff that is on the street out there.

7:57

I mean on their on their uh on their driveway.

8:01

And here stuff like all this trash over here.

8:10

These are all code violations.

8:12

And we've spent a lot of money and time trying to clean up this area, and a lot of that stuff we're finding it on the street.

8:18

So I'm thinking that uh code enforcement should give them give them in the okay that all this stuff is off of there and that they give them a one month to clean um uh before they get their uh extension to go on to proceed to do their development.

8:34

I hate to say, but this is a typical example of a nuisance property in our community that's just putting stuff on the street, and let me show you where it's at.

8:45

There's more of that stuff you can see.

8:49

Open dumpsters, and there it is on the street over there where that's the stuff that's coming out of that area.

8:55

And I've talked to people there, they're part of our neighborhood watch group, and they say, you know, we really a lot of the times we find our stuff out there.

9:03

Like, well, you know, honestly, you guys should be putting it inside.

9:06

There's an open dumpster there, and the law says that these dumpsters should be in their dumpster container.

9:12

So just delay it a month and then have them clear all this stuff up.

9:16

And I wanted to bring this attention to our commissioners.

9:19

That area needs to be cleaned up.

9:20

Well, we'll well, we've done a lot of cleanups, and we don't want to keep going over there with volunteers and uh bothering Metro and our commissioners to clean that up.

9:29

Thank you.

9:30

Thank you very much.

9:32

Next speaker, please state your full name for the record.

9:37

Hi, I'm Jake Fletcher.

9:39

Um, I have a quick question.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning And Land Use████████████████████████████████████████████44%
Transportation Safety████████████12%
Procedural█████████9%
Public Engagement████████8%
Data Center Regulation███████7%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████5%
Community Engagement███3%
Energy Management███3%
Homelessness██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Clark County Board of County Commissioners Zoning Meeting - April 8, 2026

The Clark County Board of County Commissioners held a zoning meeting on April 8, 2026, at 9:00 AM (2026-04-08 17:00:00+00:00 UTC) in the Commission Chambers. The meeting covered routine and non-routine land use items, including a large data center, a transportation facility expansion, a solar/battery project, multiple residential and commercial developments, and an appeal regarding chickens. Several items were held to future dates. Public testimony was heard on numerous items.

Consent Calendar

  • Routine action items (4–26) were approved in one motion, except for items 8–12 and 14–16, which were pulled for separate hearings. Items 13, 28–30, 37, 38, 43–46 were held to future dates (April 22, May 6, May 20, or June 17, 2026).
  • Item 4 (Holdover Design Review) had an added condition: Building M to be a maximum of 6,372 sq ft with a minimum of 21 parking spaces.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Item 7 (Routine): Al Rojas (2095 Home Stake Mine Court) requested a one-month delay for the extension of time (ET-26-400011) due to code violations on the property, including trash and open dumpsters. He provided photos of the issues.
  • Items 8–12 (Switch Data Center): Multiple residents expressed concerns:
    • Tommy Lepresti (9341 Dean Martin Drive) criticized the lack of neighborhood outreach and the nine waivers of development standards, particularly the elimination of interior landscaping.
    • Pam Kaiser (3485 Vicky Avenue) requested increased landscaping to mitigate heat and improve aesthetics.
    • Jade Fletcher (4813 West Richmar Avenue) said the data center was not what she expected when she purchased her home in 2025; she cited noise, light pollution, and well contamination risks. She requested more landscaping and fewer waivers.
  • Items 14–16 (Winstar Lines Expansion): Residents living near Maul Avenue testified:
    • Kenny Apardo Moscoso (2100 East Maul Avenue) asked for white noise backup alarms and continuous noise monitoring.
    • Gino Yates (2072 Culmination Lane) played a recording of loud beeping from buses backing up and requested white noise alarms.
    • David Ivey (2056 Culmination Lane) said he felt "muscled" into approving the plan because current conditions were unbearable.
    • Johnny Flanagan (1745 Rockwell Lane) raised concerns about carbon monoxide poisoning from buses.
  • Item 31 (Solar/BESS): Alison Farr (Solar United Neighbors) expressed general support for large-scale solar but did not take a position on this specific project. Manuel Santa Maria (Veterans Power America) and Christian Bato (former DOE advisor) spoke in favor.
  • Item 41 (Fence Height): Neighbors Biagio Guerra, Nancy Ruco, and John Paul Caprudo opposed an eight-foot fence but supported a six-foot wall.
  • Items 49–53 (Townhouses on Betty Lane): Al Rojas (Sunrise Manor resident) and Douglas Germano (1675 Sherwin Lane) opposed the density, citing insufficient parking and incompatibility with the neighborhood.
  • General Public Comment: John Ogg (6755 Coast to Place) showed photos of a neighbor's property that has been an eyesore for over four years, asking for code enforcement help. Al Rojas discussed homeless issues and suggested mandatory treatment and an exploratory committee for the 2036 Olympics.

Discussion Items

  • Items 8–12 (Switch Data Center at Serene/Decatur): Ed Garcia (representing Switch) presented a revised plan for a data warehouse with three buildings and two substations on 55.1 acres, replacing a previously approved 10-building industrial park. He noted the project uses non‑evaporative cooling with lower water impact, provides a 30‑foot buffer to the north, and includes ongoing negotiations with adjacent neighbors. Waivers requested include eliminating street landscaping along Serene, reducing throat depth, and waiving off‑site improvements. Commissioner Jones clarified that landscaping requirements only waived interior trees, not all landscaping. He noted that if Switch later purchases adjacent lots, a new application would be required. The board approved items 8–12.
  • Items 14–16 (Winstar Lines Transportation Facility): Dionisio Gordillo (applicant) outlined a zone change, vacation, and design review to expand an existing bus yard from 1.2 to 3.2 acres. He read 11 conditions of approval, including a one‑year review, no on‑street parking, designated ingress/egress driveways, a 10‑foot decorative block wall, landscaping, driver training, and a maximum of 52 buses. Commissioner Gibson added a condition requiring the applicant to study white noise backup alarms and implement them if OSHA‑ and insurance‑compliant. The board approved the items subject to all conditions.
  • Item 27 (Third Extension for Multifamily on Stephanie Street): Jennifer Lazovich (applicant) requested a third extension of time for a multifamily project. She noted that on‑street parking had been moved on‑site, civil plans were approved and bonded, and $156,000 had been paid to NV Energy and Southwest Gas. Public Works confirmed the off‑site permit had been renewed for one year. Approved.
  • Item 31 (Bonanza Solar/BESS Project): Levi Cox (EDF Power Solutions) presented a 5,131.7‑acre solar and battery storage facility south of US 95. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Becker noted the application began in 2008 and required construction within two years. Approved.
  • Items 32–34 (Pulte Homes – Single-Family Subdivision): Tony Celeste (Pulte) described a 15‑lot subdivision north of Warm Springs Road and east of Valley View Boulevard. Waivers included reduced setbacks and elimination of street lights along Kappavia and Procyon to preserve RNP character. Public Works revised conditions to have the county install off‑site improvements with a contribution from Pulte. Approved with modified conditions.
  • Items 35–36 (Summerlin Gateway Plaza Shopping Center): Mark Mulhall (applicant) proposed a 7.88‑acre commercial plaza anchored by EOS Fitness, with two quick‑service restaurants, retail, and a vehicle service center. Waivers included increased maximum parking and reduced residential adjacency standards. Public Works deleted a condition related to a western driveway after the applicant moved it east to avoid conflicts. Approved.
  • Item 38 (Parking Lot in Searchlight): Mr. Benson (applicant) requested to keep existing pavement on 0.43 acres without full off‑site improvements, intending to lease/sell the property for a future store. Public Works agreed to condition future development when an application is filed. Approved.
  • Items 39–40 (Single-Family Subdivision on Eldora Avenue): Mark Mulhall (applicant) revised the plan from 27 to 25 lots to allow single‑story homes adjacent to RNP neighbors. A waiver for attached sidewalks on five lots was requested. Approved.
  • Item 41 (Fence Height on Placid Street): Carlos Hernandez (owner) requested an eight‑foot front fence for coyote protection, with six‑foot side/rear walls. Neighbors opposed the eight‑foot height. The board compromised: front fence to be 36 inches of solid wall with wrought iron above for a total eight feet, side/rear walls at six feet. The applicant withdrew the waiver for the west property line. Approved.
  • Item 42 (Minor Subdivision in Moapa Valley): Dave McCaffrey (applicant) sought waivers for setbacks, separation, and driveway changes to regularize his property. Commissioner Kirkpatrick noted the neighborhood is non‑conforming and the applicant committed to meeting setbacks after relocation. Approved.
  • Items 47–48 (Car Sales Facility on Boulder Highway): Edgar Montalbo (applicant) proposed a zone change and use permits for a vehicle sales and repair facility. The board required that all work be contained, no parts storage, and the maintenance facility kept clean. Approved with conditions.
  • Items 49–53 (Townhouses on Betty Lane): The applicant proposed 24 townhouse units on 1.59 acres. Residents opposed due to density and parking concerns. Commissioner Sagerbloom noted the project provides affordable housing (~$300,000) and includes guest parking. Public Works confirmed detached sidewalks. The board added conditions: garages must be used for parking only, and the developer withdrew waivers for attached sidewalks. Approved.
  • Items 54–56 (Office/Warehouse on Cimarron Road): Jennifer Lazovich (applicant) presented two warehouse buildings on five acres near the UNLV research park. Waivers addressed taller walls for drainage and reduced setbacks. Town Board had recommended approval. Approved.
  • Item 57 (Appeal – Reasonable Accommodation for Chickens): The appeal concerned 13 chickens at 5614 Stingaree Circle. Commissioners Becker and Gibson visited the site and found it clean. The board granted the appeal with conditions: reduce to 10 chickens immediately, then to five over time as birds die or are sold, with no replacement beyond five. Approved.
  • Item 58 (Title 30 Amendments Discussion): The board discussed potential amendments, including distance separation for live entertainment, agricultural overlays, rural signage, non‑conforming subdivision standards, revised plan process, and off‑site improvement alternatives (asphalt sidewalks for trails). Staff was directed to bring back proposals periodically.
  • Item 59 (NPO-RNP Standards Discussion): The board discussed rural off‑site improvements and

Meeting Transcript

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 to the eighth April eighth meeting of the Clark County Commission. Uh we will begin today's meeting with the first time set aside for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak on an item on today's agenda can come forward at this time. Uh items four through twenty-six are scheduled for routine action uh and will not receive individual public hearings. So if you're here on an item between four and twenty-six, come forward at this time, state your name for the record. And you may speak for up to three minutes. Yeah, I just want to note that I'm gonna ask that eight through twelve be pulled off consent so that they can speak at the time. Thank you. So Commissioner Jones has indicated items eight through twelve will receive their own public hearing. Uh from consent. Uh uh those are in Commissioner Gibson's district. He will be here in just a moment, but uh he'll be comfortable with those items being heard separately. Okay, thank you. Oh, I would also like to request item number seven, please be pulled out. There's something I want to bring to the attention of the board. Commissioner Sagerblum. Do you want him to comment now? Yeah, go ahead and comment now. Well you want me to comment now? Yes. Item seven will be kept on the routine action agenda. If you'd like to speak to it, you can speak now. Okay. Um item number seven. Uh I was prepared to pull it off the agenda. Let me get uh my notes here. Um while you're doing that, if you just want to state your name for the record. My name is Al Rojas, R O J S. I live at two zero nine five home stake mine court. Um, hold on a second. Uh okay, can you guys put this? Can you put a camera on this? Go ahead while they're working on that. Okay, well. And we're talking about this uh there's an empty lot there, and then this business in this area, you see these two buildings. I think they want to have an ex they're getting an extension for getting a building there. Um I drove around and there's a lot of stuff that is on the street out there. I mean on their on their uh on their driveway. And here stuff like all this trash over here. These are all code violations. And we've spent a lot of money and time trying to clean up this area, and a lot of that stuff we're finding it on the street. So I'm thinking that uh code enforcement should give them give them in the okay that all this stuff is off of there and that they give them a one month to clean um uh before they get their uh extension to go on to proceed to do their development. I hate to say, but this is a typical example of a nuisance property in our community that's just putting stuff on the street, and let me show you where it's at. There's more of that stuff you can see. Open dumpsters, and there it is on the street over there where that's the stuff that's coming out of that area. And I've talked to people there, they're part of our neighborhood watch group, and they say, you know, we really a lot of the times we find our stuff out there. Like, well, you know, honestly, you guys should be putting it inside.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com