×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Ivanpah Valley Future Land Use Study (Technical Review)

Please provide your comments and feedback below! The comment period will close May 2nd.

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the Ivanpah Valley Future Land Use Study. City of Henderson & Clark County staff have been working diligently to achieve this first step in setting a vision for potential future development in the area, and we are so excited to share it with you.

This is a first draft of the final document. Prior to public review, this comment period is open to key organizational partners and departmental staff by invitation from City and County project managers. Please do not share this link with others unless explicitly requested or approved by the respective project managers. 

You can toggle between the body document and appendices using the drop down menu in the upper lefthand corner of the toolbar below, or using the right/left arrows at the bottom of the page. 
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
Previous
Next
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:42PM on page 124

Concern
From DUS: Indigenous Tribes of Southern Nevada should also be invited as stakeholders for the future development of this area given the proximity to Sloan Canyon Conservation Area and the findings in that area.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:41PM on page 114

Suggestion
From DUS: Is it necessary to add the “incentives” clause in the study? Henderson already has a top performing Development Services Center with guaranteed review times, and we haven’t changed our plan check fee schedule in over a decade.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:39PM on page 100

Concern
From DUS: In these various maps provided within the study, has anyone taken the time to overlay each map to see if there is a competing interest – for example: it appears that the same alignment is being used for a major waterline, stormwater facility and high voltage overhead powerlines (which likely have deep footings and require LARGE easements).
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:38PM on page 106

Concern
From DUS: I’m rather surprised not to see at least one detention basin in the proposed 31,000 square acre area. This exhibit on Page 100 should show all existing detention basins and regional flood control facilities to the north.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:37PM on page 105

Suggestion
From DUS: Regionally we typically use the term stormwater. Please consider changing. On the east coast of the US, the term “storm sewer” might be used more often due to the fact that the storm drain system and sewer systems are combined… that is NOT the case in southern Nevada; the stormwater is separate from sewer (wastewater). Please use “stormwater” in this document.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:36PM on page 102

Suggestion
From DUS: There should be consideration given to the additional right-of-way needs for right turn pockets and bus stops.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:26PM on page 89

Concern
From DUS: Images on Pages 83-85 and 87 - The images on these pages show quite a bit of asphalt; given this level asphalt and building development, it results in a higher level of impervious surfaces --- has there been consideration to drainage needs of the study area (both local area needs and regional flood control structures within the study area?)
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:26PM on page 83

Suggestion
From DUS: The word “libraries” is listed twice in the same grouping. Delete one of the terms “libraries.”
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:25PM on page 71

Suggestion
From DUS: The word “libraries” is listed twice in the same grouping. Delete one of the terms “libraries.”
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:21PM on page 53

Question
From DUS: Bike (or bicycle) lanes are included in the legend but not featured in the graphic above.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:21PM on page 52

Question
From DUS: What is tuck under parking and where is it featured on this graphic?
0 replies
in reply to Annamarie Smith's comment

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:20PM on page 48

Suggestion
On Page 41&42.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:19PM on page 48

Suggestion
From DUS: It appears that an identical photo was used on both pages; consider replacing one of them.
1 reply

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:18PM on page 43

Suggestion
From DUS: There is reference to both “Harry Reid” and LAS in this paragraph, and if I understand correctly, they are referencing the same facility but using two different terms. Please remain consistent
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:17PM on page 38

Suggestion
From DUS: Consider using Native American or Indigenous over “American Native”
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:16PM on page 38

Suggestion
From DUS: Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:13PM on page 20

Suggestion
From DUS: Paiute? Verify correct spelling.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:12PM on page 13

Concern
From DUS: “Expansion and changes to I-15 by NDOT. This includes two new planned interchanges within the Study Area boundary” --- cautionary measure here regarding the language in a public document. I seem to recall that mention of an interchange could be misleading unless properly qualified with “WHEN” the area meets the necessary criteria for an interchange (it’s similar to signalizing an intersection before it meets warrants; we don’t throw in an interchange just because it’s on a document, it has to meet certain criteria. My point here is that we might want to add a qualifier of some sort to temper public expectations). FYI: Page 94 and 99 should also address the “disclaimer” wording regarding the two proposed interchanges within the study area.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:11PM on page 12

Question
From DUS: define what is meant by “Utilities exist only in Sloan and along the I-15 corridor”. By “utilities” is that only water/wastewater? Or are power, gas, telecom, etc. lumped into the definition of “utilities”?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 9 2024 at 12:10PM on page 7

Suggestion
From DUS: Paragraph 2 on page 115 regarding the timing and impact of the Lands Bill should really be the language brought forth into the executive summary.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:10PM on page 124

Suggestion
From DUS: Confirm that it is entailed that any infrastructure for the City of Henderson will be paid by development, this may initiate a City ran Special Refunding Agreement or LID.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:09PM on page 123

Concern
From DUS: There is a very likely chance that LVVWD and CCWRD provide service to the Study Area west of I-15 and COH and CCWRD work together for the area east of I-15 and south of the study area to the supplemental airport and Jean. Revise second paragraph.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:08PM on page 113

Question
From DUS: If the density is increased to support the third recommendation how does that then change the water demand calculations?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:08PM on page 112

Suggestion
From DUS: Utility maintenance yards, water reservoirs, and other utility sites will be needed for this development area.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:07PM on page 110

Concern
From DUS: Verify projected water demand, it appears some data used was Average Day and not Max Day, this should be clarified to be Maximum Day Demand.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:06PM on page 109

Suggestion
From DUS: If LVVWD serves the west and COH serves the east there may not be a pipe crossing the freeway as shown.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:06PM on page 109

Suggestion
From DUS: Reservoirs should be placed at appropriate locations as those will be needed for development.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:05PM on page 109

Suggestion
From DUS: It would be helpful to show where each pump station is pumping to.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:05PM on page 109

Suggestion
From DUS: The “connections” should be shown on these figures. Note that COH connection would be along Las Vegas Boulevard south of Via Inspirada.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:04PM on page 108

Question
From DUS: With such a smaller area West of I-15 why is the friction head almost 4 times as large?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:03PM on page 108

Question
From DUS: Where does the treated flow go and how does it return to the Colorado River?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:03PM on page 108

Concern
From DUS: What happens to the outfall? Does it stay piped all the way to Las Vegas Wash or will it flow through flood control channels and what is the proposed mitigation for negative impacts of constant flow in those washes?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:02PM on page 108

Question
From DUS: Discuss outfall options, COH or CCWRD?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:01PM on page 107

Concern
From DUS: COH doesn’t like to have high lift pump stations of 1,000 feet; our current highest lift is just over 400 feet.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:01PM on page 107

Question
From DUS: Based on the area shown in the figure the approx. ground elevation is about 2710, was this inadvertently used as the vertical lift? How was that calculated? What does the 11.26 miles represent.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 8:00PM on page 107

Concern
From DUS: City of Henderson doesn’t serve anything west of I-15, this would be a change of plans from current planning, how would the Sloan area then be served? Through an Interlocal? Suggest revising report to LVVWD serving areas west of I-15 and either COH or LVVWD serving east of I-15 depending on the annexation of the area into the City of Henderson.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:59PM on page 107

Concern
From DUS: The City of Henderson does NOT have existing infrastructure to provide water service to the study area. Although the study assumes there is an ability to extend water service from the water system that exists, or is planned to be constructed within the West Henderson area, that is an erroneous assumption. Any extension of the city’s water supply and corresponding water backbone infrastructure will need to extend off of the future SNWA Horizon Lateral, which is currently planned to be constructed in the 2040 timeframe. City of Henderson or LVVWD would serve this area from the SNWA ROFC that is proposed south of Sloan, along Las Vegas Boulevard.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:57PM on page 107

Concern
From DUS: Per SNWA and State Assembly Bill all development served by Colorado River water must return treated wastewater to the Colorado River basin whether through Las Vegas Valley or elsewhere.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:56PM on page 107

Concern
From DUS: Is this going to be then treated by the City of Henderson? Current City projections show both City Water Reclamation facilities reaching capacity at buildout of current City Limits. This would trigger plant expansions and the need for a pipeline beyond SWRF. Is CCWRD treatment being considered by GCW?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:55PM on page 107

Suggestion
From DUS: Acronym should be CCWRD (typ.)
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:55PM on page 107

Suggestion
From DUS: Add “development” to the last sentence of the first paragraph, upstream of the proposed Duck Creek Larson Detention Basin are currently proposed natural washes that are being proposed as concrete pipes and channels in the JLUS, which the additional development would increase the size of the proposed detention basin.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:53PM on page 107

Concern
From DUS: COH and CCRFCD do not collect and treat storm flows, this should be discussed further and if left in add language about what flows would be collected and treated (developed versus existing).
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:51PM on page 26

Concern
From DUS: Sanitary and electricity are commonly misspelled.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:50PM on page 26

Question
From DUS: What year does this project out to? Is it 20 years from now (2045) or 20 years from when legislation is passed?
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:49PM on page 26

Suggestion
From DUS: City of Henderson Department of Utility Services should be added as a wastewater treatment provider.
0 replies

Annamarie Smith May 8 2024 at 7:47PM on page 25

Suggestion
From DUS: Add verbiage about LVVWD and COH DUS as water purveyors in relation to SNWA.
0 replies

Carlos Espinoza May 6 2024 at 10:37AM on page 108

Alternative 3 is missing the proposed effluent pipeline discharging into the Colorado River. We can provide the conceptual line work.
0 replies

Carlos Espinoza May 6 2024 at 10:35AM on page 107

Both alternatives incorporate one (1) wastewater treatment plant.
0 replies

Carlos Espinoza May 6 2024 at 10:29AM on page 107

Alternative One pumps back to the CCWRD Flamingo Water Resource Center.
0 replies

Carlos Espinoza May 6 2024 at 10:28AM on page 107

CCWRD does not permit combined storm sewer systems. Storm flows will need to be treated separately.
0 replies
View all