Clark County Commission Zoning Meeting – June 17, 2026
Clark County Commission Zoning Meeting – June 17, 2026
The Clark County Board of County Commissioners met in zoning session on Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 9:00 AM in the Commission Chambers. The meeting addressed 62 agenda items, including routine approvals and non‑routine public hearings. Several items were held to later dates (July 8, July 22, and August 5, 2026). After public comment, the board approved the agenda with these holds, approved the minutes of the May 20, 2026 meeting, and then took up the routine consent calendar (items 4–24, with item 4 heard separately). The remainder of the meeting consisted of item‑by‑item hearings, with the most substantial debate centered on the Switch data center expansion (items 50–53).
Consent Calendar
- Items 4–24 (routine action items) were approved together in one motion, except item 4 which was heard separately. A comprehensive planning condition was added to item 16 (WS‑26‑0197) requiring a design review for any additional buildings on the site.
Public Comments & Testimony
- First public comment period (agenda items 4–62): Laura McSwain (Water Fairness Coalition) spoke on items 50–53, expressing concern that eliminating street trees and parking lot landscaping for data centers conflicts with the county’s heat mitigation goals. She noted that while Switch has been recognized for environmentally responsible operations, the cumulative effect of such waivers should be examined. Diane Henry cited Switch’s 2025 water consumption of approximately 340 million gallons and urged the board to deny the expansion, also raising the perception of bias from campaign contributions.
- Item 4 – Lantern Festival (Turnberry Towers resident): Aaron Ginnalus opposed the outdoor storage of lantern structures, calling them a fire hazard and visual blight. He also noted that non‑artistic structures (food, parking booths) were among the stored items.
- Items 38–42 – Cimarron Spring subdivision: Multiple residents (Daryl Victorian, Jason Erickson, Steve King, Andrew Acunia) opposed the proposed densification, asking the board to uphold the existing RNP overlay and RS‑20 zoning. They argued that six or eight lots on 2.43 acres would harm the equestrian character of the area and that the applicant had not adequately compromised.
- Items 50–53 – Switch data center expansion: A total of 15 public speakers opposed the project, including representatives from the Sierra Club, Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition, and community members. Key concerns included:
- Energy and water consumption (Switch’s existing campus used 340 million gallons in 2025).
- Waiver of landscaping and tree requirements, which would worsen the urban heat island effect.
- Public safety issues raised by county staff (gate location, attached sidewalk).
- Cumulative impacts of data centers on the grid and ratepayers.
- The Enterprise Town Advisory Board had unanimously denied the design review and half of the waivers on June 10, 2026.
- No public speakers appeared for the other items.
Discussion Items
- Item 4 (AR‑26‑400041) – Use permit and design review for a recreational/entertainment facility (annual lantern festival) on 12.2 acres at Sahara and Paradise. Applicant revised conditions to delete specific dates in favor of annual event parameters and to allow the temporary display of lantern structures as art when the festival is not operating. After a resident objected to the storage of non‑artistic items, the board approved with a condition that within 60 days the applicant spread the lantern art around the site per a plan, meet with the Turnberry Towers representative, and that the art display be subject to a one‑year review.
- Items 30–31 (Hudson Capital) – Waiver of conditions for a commercial development on 0.98 acres. Approved per town advisory board conditions with no public opposition.
- Item 32 (WS‑26‑0192) – Waiver of off‑site improvements for a single‑family residence in Kyle Canyon. Applicant agreed to pave the private road and landscape with trees. Approved with a condition that the accessory structure match the home’s exterior.
- Items 34–37 (Diamond Edmond) – Plan amendment and zone change (RS‑20/CP to IP) for an office/warehouse on 4.12 acres. Applicant withdrew two waivers (building height and fire pump setback) and agreed to a 30‑ft landscape buffer with three rows of trees (escarpment oak and Monterey oak) along the west residential boundary. Approved with that landscaping condition.
- Items 38–42 (Cimarron Spring holdover) – Applicant originally sought 12 lots on 2.43 acres, reduced to 8 lots with RS‑5.2 zoning. After neighbors strongly opposed, Commissioner Jones moved to approve with a modification to 6 lots and RS‑10 zoning (10,000 sq ft minimum). The motion passed over Commissioner Becker’s dissent, who argued the RNP and existing zoning should remain unchanged.
- Items 43–47 (Anterasian Family Trust) – Plan amendment from NC to CN and zone change to RS‑2 for 50 townhomes (reduced from 54). Applicant added a condition to paint the new block wall to match the neighbor’s wall if permission was obtained. Approved unanimously.
- Items 48–49 (Madison LV BN) – Zone change from H‑2 to IP and use permits for truck parking and outdoor storage. Applicant added a condition limiting deliveries/idling from 11 PM to 6 AM for loading docks within 150 feet of the north property line. Approved.
- Items 50–53 (Switch data center, LAS 19) – Zone change, vacate, waivers, and tentative map for a 56,000 sq ft data center on 8.99 acres. The applicant voluntarily withdrew landscaping waivers (1B, 1C, and 2). A condition was added requiring a financial contribution to public works for design and construction of a concrete barrier separating the sidewalk from travel lanes along Warm Springs Road. Commissioners noted the facility uses 100% renewable energy, closed‑loop cooling (less than 1,000 gallons/day), and is surrounded by Switch‑owned land. The motion passed (approved) with those modifications.
- Items 58–62 (Ordinances – Introduction) – Five ordinances were introduced for public hearing on July 8, 2026: development agreements for residential and vocational training projects, and amendments to Title 30 (including a tree fee increase effective July 1, 2026) and the zoning map.
Key Outcomes
- Approved with conditions: Item 4 (Lantern Festival use permit and design review).
- Approved: Items 30–31, 32, 34–37 (with added landscaping condition), 43–47 (with wall‑painting condition), 48–49 (with delivery hour condition), and 50–53 (with landscaping waivers withdrawn and public works contribution condition).
- Approved as modified: Items 38–42 (Cimarron Spring) – zoning changed to RS‑10, density reduced to 6 lots.
- Introduced: Ordinances 58–62; public hearings set for July 8, 2026.
- Items held to later dates: Item 5 (held to July 22); items 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 54, 55, 56, 57 (held to July 8 or July 22); item 33 (held to August 5).
- **Routine consent calendar (items 4–24, except 4) approved. Minutes of May 20, 2026 approved.
Meeting Transcript
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, uh that would be four through sixty-two. 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. Uh, and if you speak now, you cannot also speak at the time that those items are heard separately. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Uh Chair NAFT. Laura McSwain for the record with the Water Fairness Coalition, uh 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 SWIC 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 center, a 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 are 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 Nevatans 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 launched 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 siftly 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 save sustain the remaining trees, landscapes, and living infrastructure that make our valley livable. So before we declare 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 it 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 uh data centers.
openpublica.com