Committee advances discussion on adding heat mitigation element to master plans for Clark and Washoe counties

Assembly members heard AB 96, a measure sponsored by Assemblymember Venise Karas that would require counties with populations of 100,000 or more to include a heat mitigation element in their master plans. The bill specifies mitigation measures cities and counties may consider, including public cooling spaces, public drinking water, cool-building practices, shade over paved surfaces and an emphasis on native or drought-tolerant tree species for urban canopies.

“Heat is our state’s — and our nation’s — most deadly weather-related hazard,” Karas told the committee, summarizing recent temperature trends and citing two publicly reported figures: a Southern Nevada Health District accounting of 294 heat-associated deaths in Clark County in 2023 and a Desert Research Institute estimate of nearly 500 heat-attributed deaths in the last year. Proponents and planning staff said both Reno and Las Vegas rank among the fastest-warming U.S. cities and that local master plans need explicit authority to guide targeted mitigation.

Dylan Shaver, representing the City of Las Vegas, said the bill amends NRS chapter 278 (master plans) to add a heat mitigation element and that master plans are the long-range documents used to coordinate land use, public infrastructure and related capital investments. Marco Velado, chief sustainability officer and planning project manager for the City of Las Vegas, described mapping work and vulnerability analysis that shows downtown neighborhoods and corridors (East Las Vegas, Historic West Side, Charleston Corridor) have higher heat vulnerability and low tree canopy. Velado said local responses can differ by neighborhood and that the bill would provide a statutory planning framework to coordinate mitigation strategies.

Shaver presented two friendly amendments the Urban Consortium proposed and the sponsor accepted: removing the word “shelter” from the list of heat mitigation elements (to avoid ambiguity in planning terminology) and moving the bill’s effective date from July 1, 2025 to July 1, 2026 to give jurisdictions time to incorporate the element into lengthy master-plan processes.

Proponents that testified in support included city governments, conservation organizations, environmental-justice groups, the Southern Nevada Water Authority and urban-planning and health advocates; testimony emphasized equity, public-health benefits and nature-based solutions such as increasing urban tree canopy. Multiple presenters noted existing work — regional heat mapping by DRI and local agencies, Las Vegas’ 2050 plan and street- and neighborhood-level targets — and said AB 96 would create a consistent planning requirement statewide for larger counties.

One opponent, Laura McSwain of the Water Fairness Coalition, said AB 96 “does not go far enough” and argued the state must prioritize protection of existing mature tree canopy and soil health, and raise concerns about artificial turf and water management policy. Her testimony urged further language changes and flagged broader water-policy conflicts she said worsen heat in developed areas.

Committee members asked how the bill would apply outside municipal boundaries, whether it would identify unincorporated heat islands such as Nellis Avenue corridors, and how master-plan implementation would affect neighborhoods that lack tree canopy. City planners said the statutory element would apply across entire county or city plan areas and could direct targeted actions, capital projects and coordination with transit and other agencies. No committee vote on final passage was recorded at the hearing; presenters closed by asking members to support the measure with the agreed friendly amendments.