Planning commission splits SRO and treatment permit at Las Vegas Boulevard site; single‑room occupancy approved, treatment facility denied

The City of Las Vegas Planning Commission on Oct. 14 approved a special use permit to restore a single‑room occupancy residential use at 1502 S. Las Vegas Boulevard but denied a separate permit for a proposed testing, treatment or counseling facility at the same location.

The hearing drew public testimony from the applicant and raised policy questions about compatibility with the 2045 Downtown Las Vegas master plan and the Gateway District’s intent to promote transit‑oriented commercial and residential uses. Commissioners said they were sympathetic to the applicant’s rehabilitation work but split the land‑use requests: the SRO was allowed to resume, while the more intensive treatment facility use was judged not compatible at this corner and denied.

What happened at the hearing: Applicant Jacob Canto, owner and operator of New Life Solutions, told commissioners he operates multiple sober‑living homes and said his group has worked with courts, Metro, and other agencies to place clients; he described screening, nightly breathalyzer checks and drug testing two to four times weekly for residents. Staff recommended denial of the treatment‑facility special use permit as incompatible with surrounding transit‑oriented development. The commission voted to approve the single‑room occupancy request (24a) and to deny the treatment/counseling special use permit (24b). The record shows motions carried; the denial was entered specifically for 24b and commissioners encouraged the applicant to find a different location for the treatment program.

Key points from testimony and discussion
- Applicant operations: Jacob Canto said his organization has managed several houses for roughly eight years, has helped hundreds of clients with housing and job placement, and performs regular drug testing and nightly breathalyzer checks. He said he would continue to transport residents to outside counseling and meetings and tends to avoid having congregational services on site.
- Compatibility concerns: Commissioners and staff noted the Gateway District and the 2045 Downtown master plan emphasize transit‑oriented multifamily, retail and pedestrian‑oriented uses. Commissioner Rogan said he was not opposed to the applicant’s individual program but objected to locating the treatment facility use at that specific corner because it is on the scenic byway and in the Gateway District where the plan calls for a different pattern of development.
- Planning vs. business regulation: Commissioners repeatedly noted that land‑use approval is distinct from business licensing and operations compliance; one commissioner observed the commission cannot “bet” on an operator’s quality of management but must judge compatibility with the master plan and zoning.

Outcome and next steps: The commission’s approval of the SRO (24a) was recorded as carrying; the denial of the treatment/counseling special use permit (24b) likewise carried. The decisions are final unless appealed to the City Clerk within 10 days.

Applicant representatives were urged to consider alternative locations better aligned with Downtown’s treatment and counseling services strategy. The commission recommended the applicant work with staff to find a compatible site if he seeks to offer on‑site treatment in the future.