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 developer’s own attorney conceded at the April 23 hearing that the intersection override practice is not in 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.
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.
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 developer’s attorney conceded the practice is not literally in 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.
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.
The 174th Street Subdivision is not an isolated case. It is the most visible example of a pattern that has played out across more than two dozen development applications in this corridor since 2018:
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 corridor gets worse.
What makes the 174th Street proceeding different is that the practice was finally examined on the record. 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.
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.