Where the concurrency code meets real development applications — and where the gap between what the code requires and what the County is doing becomes visible.
Clark County’s concurrency code — CCC 40.350.020 — requires that roads have adequate capacity before development is approved. When a corridor’s volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio exceeds 0.90, the code says development should not proceed until the condition is improved or mitigated. That’s the standard the County adopted. It’s in the code.
In practice, the County has not been applying the code as written. Instead, staff have been dismissing corridor V/C failures when the intersections at either end of the failing segment show acceptable levels of service — a practice that has no basis in the code text.
This gap between code and practice has been invisible for years because it happens inside technical staff reports that few people read. The hearings below are where that gap became part of the public record.
Broad agreement that the code means what it says. The applicant’s own attorney agreed at the April 23 hearing that the County is not following the code. The Hearing Examiner independently identified the same problem. And in a separate submission, the developer’s own traffic engineer identified 22 corridors countywide that exceed the V/C 0.90 standard — all but one concentrated in just two high-growth areas — confirming that the plain reading of the code reveals a systemic problem, not an isolated one.
There is no serious dispute about what the code says. The question is whether the County will follow it.
A 100-lot residential subdivision at the eastern end of the 179th corridor. The applicant’s own developer-commissioned traffic study found multiple corridor segments exceeding the V/C 0.90 standard — including NE 179th Street, NE 10th Avenue, NE 15th Avenue, and NE 50th Avenue — under 2028 background conditions, before the project’s traffic is even added.
Decision issued July 9, 2026 — approved. The Hearing Examiner ruled that the Public Works Director may override the code’s concurrency requirements — substituting intersection level-of-service for the failing corridor standard — so staff can approve development even where the roads fail the County’s own standard. He treated that reading as unambiguous. We’re appealing to Superior Court — and we need to raise $40,000 to do it. Help fund the appeal →
On April 8, 2026, County staff recommended denial of this subdivision because concurrency standards had not been met. This was the first time staff had recommended denial of a corridor development on concurrency grounds. Both this application and the companion Taylor Reserve Subdivision were later reversed to approval during the hearing process.
At the April 23 hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the concurrency question became the central issue. The County’s concurrency engineer was unable to identify a code basis for the practice of dismissing corridor V/C failures based on intersection performance. The applicant’s attorney agreed that the County is not following the code, but argued it represents a long-standing interpretation. The Hearing Examiner stated that the code “doesn’t say anything about level of service” at bounding intersections and that if the parties believe the code needs changing, that’s a matter for the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners.
Within hours of the April 23 hearing, multiple developer-side parties began contacting the County — not to defend the existing practice as lawful, but to change the code. The applicant’s attorney emailed County staff the morning after the hearing requesting an interim code amendment. A separate developer attorney submitted letters conceding corridor V/C failures and acknowledging staff have not been applying the code as written. The Ginn Group called for “emergency action.” PLS Engineering sent a failing corridors map showing 80% of their 2026 projects affected. The Building Industry Association of Clark County sent a letter to Council requesting an emergency ordinance, citing 29+ projects and 1,500+ units.
Five distinct channels — all conceding the code produces denials as written, all asking to change the rules rather than follow them. Nobody on the development side wrote to say the current code already allows what the County has been doing. They wrote to say: please change the code so it does.
The County’s response: Rather than apply the code as written or deny the application, staff indicated they would reverse their recommendation from denial to approval based on a volunteer mitigation letter from the developer. That letter proposes improvements at one intersection — but does not address the corridor V/C failures the Hearing Examiner identified. The reversal would re-apply the same practice the Hearing Examiner questioned.
On May 11, 2026, the developer’s traffic engineer submitted a memorandum into the record identifying 22 corridor segments countywide that exceed the V/C 0.90 standard. All but one are concentrated in just two areas: Salmon Creek/Fairgrounds and SR-503/Brush Prairie — both high-growth corridors where development has outpaced infrastructure investment. The memorandum argued that enforcing the code as written would affect development across the county. But what it actually demonstrates is that the concurrency system is catching exactly the problem it was designed to catch: growth areas where the County has approved development without building adequate infrastructure.
The concurrency code exists for this reason. When roads are failing, the appropriate response is to invest in infrastructure or limit development until capacity exists — not to argue that the standard identifying the failure should be abandoned.
A 146-lot subdivision on 33 acres in the SR-503/Brush Prairie area — one of the two high-growth areas where the developer’s own traffic engineer identified failing corridors. The concurrency staff report uses the same intersection LOS override methodology at issue in the 174th Street proceeding, but formalizes it into detailed boilerplate language citing CCC 40.350.020(F)(9).
This case is assigned to Hearing Examiner Daniel Kearns — not Joe Turner, who questioned the override methodology at the April 23 hearing. The concurrency staff report applies the same practice Turner identified as lacking code basis, now written up as standard operating procedure.
At the June 11 hearing, the applicant’s attorney asked to continue the case to September, stating on the record that he’d “rather not get a denial if there’s a code fix in the works.” The Hearing Examiner granted the continuance to September 10.
“Rather not get a denial.” The applicant’s own attorney is conceding that the current code produces a denial. He’s not arguing the code allows approval — he’s asking to wait until someone changes the code. Meanwhile, the Council pulled its interim ordinance on June 10 to wait for Turner’s 174th Street decision. Everyone is waiting — because everyone knows what the code says.
Three more corridor-area applications are scheduled for hearing on the same day. Each turns on the same concurrency question raised in the 174th Street proceeding. Written comments filed before the hearing become part of the permanent record.
The 174th Street Subdivision and Heartwood North are not isolated cases. They are the most visible examples of a pattern that has played out across development applications in multiple corridors:
Developer-commissioned traffic studies document corridor segments exceeding V/C 0.90. Staff dismiss the failures using a practice — the intersection LOS override — that has no basis in the adopted code. Development is approved. Roads remain unbuilt. And the corridors get worse.
What makes these proceedings different is that the practice is finally being examined on the record. In the 174th Street hearing, the concurrency engineer could not defend it. The developer’s attorney conceded it is not in the code. The Hearing Examiner identified the same problem independently. And the developer’s own traffic engineer confirmed, in a separate submission, that the issue extends to 22 corridors countywide — concentrated in exactly two areas: Salmon Creek/Fairgrounds and SR-503/Brush Prairie. Heartwood North is in one of those two areas.
The code says the County should either build the roads or not approve the development. The County is choosing to do neither — and that is not what the code authorizes.