Core Issues

Six fundamental problems with how development is proceeding on NE 174th Street

1. The road is not safe for current or future traffic

NE 174th Street is less than 20 feet wide with no sidewalks, shoulders, bike lanes, lighting, or curb and gutter. At 322 projected homes and ~3,065 daily trips, it should meet Neighborhood Circulator standards (32–36 ft minimum with sidewalks on both sides). The gap is at least 12 feet of pavement width and all pedestrian infrastructure.

2. Only one way in and out for 300+ homes

County code requires secondary emergency access when more than 100 lots are served by a single access road. With 322 projected lots and no secondary access, this requirement has been acknowledged but never enforced. The 174th Street Subdivision PAC report (item 13) itself flags this as exceeding the 100-unit maximum for single-access roads.

3. Cumulative impacts ignored — each project evaluated in isolation

Each development is evaluated in isolation. Cumulative road impacts are never assessed. Road improvement deferrals are granted project by project. The result: 322 homes approved on infrastructure that has historically served approximately 20.

4. Private roads and gates reduce the standards that apply

Private roads and gated access reduce the road width, sidewalk, and bike lane standards that apply to the development. The HOA assumes maintenance liability while the county collects property taxes but does not require public infrastructure standards. Residents pay higher HOA dues for roads the county should have required to public standards.

5. County interpretations that conflict with code text

Clark County Code explicitly allows denial of development when off-site road conditions create “a significant traffic or safety hazard” (CCC 40.350.030(B)(6)(a)). The county’s own PAC reports acknowledge inadequate infrastructure. Yet every application has been approved or advanced.

6. Five years of documented community concerns ignored

A retired professional engineer (Dean Hergesheimer) has spent years and tens of thousands of dollars challenging approvals through hearings, appeals, and lawsuits. A hearing examiner initially ruled in residents' favor, then reversed. Fire officials say their "hands are tied." Even Councilor Sue Marshall acknowledges the problem in writing — yet projects continue to advance.

Development Projects

All projects feeding NE 174th Street as the primary access road

Development Project Lots Status Reference
Original Fairgrounds Neighborhood ~20 Built Pre-2019
M&H Subdivision (Salmon Creek Reserve) 72 Under Construction Columbian, May 2024
Viers Subdivision (PUD) 84 Approved PLD-2022-00121
Mill Creek Estates 43 Pre-Application PAC-2025-00446
174th Street Subdivision 103 Pre-Application PAC-2025-00047
TOTAL ~322 Up from ~20 homes when NE 174th St was built
Note: Trip generation calculated using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Land Use Code 210 — Single-Family Detached Housing (9.52 trips/dwelling unit/day). 322 homes × 9.52 = ~3,065 daily trips.

How the County Bends Its Own Rules

Documented instances where county staff interpretations departed from the plain text of code requirements

The "Future Road" Exemption

The county’s second access requirement (100-lot limit for single-access roads) exists to prevent stranding hundreds of residents without fire, medical, or law enforcement services if the only route is blocked. The developer’s attorney argued that because 174th Street is planned for future widening to 34 feet with sidewalks, the subdivision is exempt from this requirement today. The county accepted this argument, approving development based on a road that does not yet exist.

The 400% / 2,400% Capacity Claim

County staff claims that NE 174th Street's traffic capacity changes by 400% — or even 2,400% — simply because it is classified as a "public" road rather than a "private" road. The physical road is identical on both sides of the public/private boundary. There has never been an explanation of how ownership classification changes a road's actual traffic capacity. This directly contradicts explicit county code language: "the capacity shall be determined based on the current roadway condition."

The 50-Lot Code Limit Exceeded by 140%

County code limits vehicle traffic on 20-foot-wide roads without pedestrian facilities to the amount created by 50 lots. With the M&H Subdivision alone, 120 lots are served by 174th Street as their only access route — more than double the code limit. With all approved and pending projects, 322 lots will use this road. The county has never explained how this complies with its own standards.

The 35 MPH Speed Limit on a 20-Foot Road

County engineer Rob Klug recommended a 35 mph speed limit for NE 174th Street based on its proposed future width of 34 feet. County code specifies 25 mph for 20-foot-wide roads. The road has not been widened. The speed limit was set for a road that does not exist.

Fire Sprinklers as a Band-Aid

Because of the limited single-access road, the fire marshal requires all new homes to have fire sprinkler systems. This protects new homes but does nothing for existing residences, which now face reduced protection due to increased density and response time constraints. Sprinklers also do nothing to address medical emergencies or law enforcement access — the other critical reasons the second access requirement exists.

The Arterial Atlas Capacity Trick

The county's arterial atlas classifies NE 179th Street as a 4-lane Principal Arterial (Pr-4cb) with a capacity of 1,800 vehicles per hour. The road is actually a 2-lane rural road with an actual capacity of 600–800 vehicles per hour. This inflated classification is used directly in every concurrency calculation, doubling or tripling the capacity denominator and making it nearly impossible for any road segment to show failure. Five independent traffic studies — commissioned by five different developers — all find the same road segments exceeding the county's 0.90 failure threshold even with the inflated numbers. At actual road capacity, the true volume-to-capacity ratios would exceed 2.0 — meaning traffic demand is more than double what the road can safely carry.

The Bottamini Memo

On May 5, 2021, county community development engineer David Bottamini issued a memo concluding that the existing narrow roads are safe to handle all additional traffic — notwithstanding the following conditions: a road less than 20 feet wide with no sidewalks, no shoulders, and pedestrians forced to walk in the travel lane. This memo became the key document cited to justify the hearing examiner’s reversal and to defeat the neighbors’ $17,000 court challenge.

The pattern: County staff interpretations consistently favor development approval. When challenged, the county cites its own staff’s conclusions. Courts defer to the county’s “expertise” under LUPA. The result: 322 homes approved on infrastructure the county’s own code says cannot safely support them. A retired professional engineer with 40+ years of experience and direct involvement in Growth Management Act implementation has formally disputed these conclusions — and been overruled at every level.

What We're Asking

Ask #1 — Certified Traffic Safety Assessment

"I am requesting that Clark County commission an independent, certified traffic safety assessment of NE 174th Street and NE 40th Avenue — reviewed and approved by the Clark County Council — that certifies these roads can safely support vehicular traffic, pedestrian walking, and bicycling for 300+ homes as the sole access point to this neighborhood. No additional development should be approved until this assessment is completed, made public, and formally adopted by the Council."

Ask #2 — Preserve the Mill Creek Overlay District

"I am asking the Council to preserve the Mill Creek Overlay District (CCC 40.250.060) and its current standards, including the 9,000 sq ft minimum lot size (Standard C.3) and the requirement for additional public road access before new development is approved (Standard C.2). This overlay was created in 2009 through two years of community engagement specifically because the area has environmental constraints and only one road in and out. The proposed upzoning to R1-7.5 would increase allowable density by 4.5 times on infrastructure the county itself recognized as inadequate in 2009. The overlay should not be weakened or bypassed through the Comprehensive Plan update."

The Real Ask

We are not opposed to growth. The real ask is simple: we are asking Clark County to do its job — to pursue responsible development with a genuine focus on community access, transportation safety, sidewalks, bike lanes, and adequate road infrastructure, while also protecting and preserving the environmentally sensitive areas that the county itself identified when it created the Mill Creek Overlay District.

Sign the Petition

Neighborhood Contacts

Jason Job
Resident, Salmon Creek Reserve (moved July 2025)
jasonwadejob@gmail.com
971-222-6662
Dean Hergesheimer
Retired Professional Engineer, longtime resident
5+ years fighting through hearings, appeals, and lawsuits
David Gilroy
Longtime resident, 3801 NE 165th Cir
Mill Creek Overlay District historian; 2026 Comp Plan testimony