Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Heat topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would add heat‑mitigation elements to local master plans; debate centers on 'must' vs. 'may' language
Summary
Assemblymember Venise Karas told the Senate Government Affairs Committee Assembly Bill 96 would require cities and counties to include heat‑mitigation elements — such as shade, water access and tree canopy — in master plans to protect residents from rising urban heat.
Assemblymember Venise Karas introduced Assembly Bill 96 to require cities and counties to include heat‑mitigation elements in their comprehensive master plans. Sponsors and witnesses told the Senate Government Affairs Committee the change would elevate strategies for cooling — including tree canopy, shade structures, public drinking water and designated cooling spaces — to the same planning status that other major infrastructure elements receive.
Assemblymember Karas and Dylan Shaver (Pinion Public Affairs) framed the bill as a response to climate trends: they cited Climate Central and state research showing Reno and Las Vegas among the fastest‑warming U.S. cities and local heat‑related mortality data. Marco Vellado, planning project manager and City of Las Vegas chief sustainability official, said the City “has planted about 4,000 trees over the last couple of years” and described coordinated heat‑mapping work with DRI, UNLV and the Nevada Heat Lab.
A central point of contention was an amendment that changes the proposed statutory language from “must” to “may” when describing what the heat‑mitigation element may contain. Supporters from public‑health and environmental groups — including the Desert Research Institute (DRI), Nature Conservancy, American Academy of Pediatrics and Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition — pressed for mandatory language. Maria Prentice, a volunteer with CHISPA Nevada, told the committee: “AB 96 brings hope for seniors like me. We need our cities to be designed to protect [the] most vulnerable from the heat.”
Clark County testified neutral and said it had worked with sponsors; the county noted existing ordinances and the variety of commercial zones that already allow nighttime work. The Urban Consortium (cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Sparks and Reno) supported the bill as amended, asking for local flexibility.
Committee members probed implementation questions including how often master plans are updated, how public input would be handled, and whether a permissive “may” would delay action in vulnerable neighborhoods. Senator Neal repeatedly urged stronger, mandatory language and pressed city staff for details about where new trees were planted in historic West Las Vegas. Marco Vellado said the city provides regular master‑plan updates and that master‑plan amendments would follow standard public‑comment processes.
Why it matters: supporters said formalizing heat mitigation in master plans would help coordinate tree canopy, cooling centers, and shade along transit corridors to protect seniors, children, the unhoused, and outdoor workers. Critics warned that permissive language could produce uneven protections across jurisdictions.
Ending: The hearing closed without a committee vote. Sponsors and local governments signaled willingness to continue negotiating language; multiple health, environmental and justice organizations urged the committee to restore mandatory language to ensure uniform protections.
