Designs & Decisions: Week of April 7, 2024
An unsolicited offer for the CAC; more public meetings on housing initiatives; designs for Locomotion Plaza, Virginia Street, Wingfield and Barbara Bennett Parks & more
A lot of discussions and decisions are on tap this week, and as usual, you can consult the City’s Current and Upcoming Meetings web page for meetings of interest to you. The full City of Reno calendar is here.
This week’s meetings include the Ward 1 NAB on 4/8; the Financial Advisory Board on 4/11 (where Item B.4 will involve the City’s travel reimbursement policies); and the Historical Resources Commission, also on 4/11.
The agenda for the April 10 City Council meeting (view it here) has two items of particular interest to downtown development. One (D.2) involves possible approval of designs for Locomotion Plaza and Virginia Street in association with the Virginia Street Placemaking project. And the other (D.5) is discussion of a company’s proposal to acquire the City’s two Community Assistance Center properties on Record Street.
It's a packed Council agenda, so check it out for other items including these:
D.1 - Quarterly City budget augmentations and revisions
D.3 and D. 4 - The Downtown Reno Partnership’s FY 2025 Operating Plan and Budget and scheduling of deadlines to object to its assessment roll
D. 6 - Parking Enforcement code changes
Let’s start with the most surprising item, the offer to purchase the CAC properties.
Item D. 5 – Potential Disposition of the City’s Community Assistance Center properties on Record Street
In a surprise move, Item D.5 indicates that a private entity called Bash Capital, LLC has proposed acquiring the City’s two Community Assistance Center (CAC) properties at 315 and 335 Record Street. Downtown Makeover has an overview here.
Included among the item’s attachments are two “revised” Letters of Interest dated January 26, 2024 (the original letters are not included):
The first Letter of Intent (011024) provides a project overview, assessment of the site constraints, a financing plan, and biographies of the project team.
The second Letter of Intent (011124) includes a property description, map, and two purchase options. Under Option A, the company would pay $1.5M for the property. Under Option B. the company would pay $1.00 for the property and enter into a Development Agreement to develop it into a multifamily project with at least 51% of residential units offered at 80% AMI (Area Median Income) or less.
But here’s where I think we need to pause for a moment and take a breath. Because we seem to have skipped a pretty important step.
Namely, the City has not yet decided whether or not to dispose of these properties, much less whether to offer them for private development.
And yet staff is not only recommending that Council direct them to “prepare the properties for sale” but is providing them with just three options—enter into negotiations with this company; issue an RFP; or hold an auction—without even providing the option that the City might retain the properties for some other use, either civic or leased.
Doesn’t the decision of whether to dispose of the CAC warrant its own agenda item?
I don’t see how disposal of this massive civic investment can be realistically wrapped into the same discussion as contemplating an offer for the property. It’s hard enough for City Council to conduct thorough discussions of single agenda items given their self-imposed three-minute time limits for each round of discussion.
The City’s Revitalization Manager has stated previously that the City is open to unsolicited offers for City property at any time. And that may be appropriate in cases of vacant land or random pieces of City property but not for those that have been the subject of intense discussion (not to mention millions of dollars of public investment).
And there’s undeniable public interest in this one. I’ve personally been tracking the City’s discussions and decisions about the CAC for more than three years, as have many members of the community. Here’s a brief recap:
March 2021: As I wrote in my Brief (which also provides a short summary of the CAC’s history), City Council contemplated selling the CAC for around $7 million to help fund the CARES campus. Councilmember Brekhus did not favor a sale and suggested the building could provide a lot of opportunities. Mayor Schieve expressed interest in partnering with a private developer to construct housing. Others suggested exploring all options. Nothing was decided.
December 2021: The potential sale of the CAC was removed from City Council’s agenda amid concerns about limited capacity at the CARES campus.
October 2023: Staff memos and news reports revealed that the vacant buildings had undergone extreme deterioration since their closure, including mold, water damage, and more than a dozen incidents of burglary, as I reported in my Brief.
And now here we are with an unsolicited proposal from a single private development group to acquire the properties to construct a housing project.
It’s clear that the City Manager’s office wants to dispose of the CAC. But as our public representatives, I hope that members of City Council would agree that they need to hear more from residents about that question first. Many have called for one or both of the buildings to be restored and reopened as a shelter or service provider of some sort. They might also be of interest to other governmental entities who might find the cost of their rehabilitation to be much more appealing than new construction.
Even if Council decides in favor of unloading the property, the various options for how to proceed also warrant thoughtful discussion. Auctions, of course, basically award a property to the highest bidder. In contrast, issuing an Request for Proposals or Request for Interest (as the City previously did for the old CitiCenter transit site), gives the City (and the public) control over what might be developed there, allowing for public negotiation, transparency, and community buy-in.
A formal Request for Proposals or Request for Interest also enables everyone (both in Reno and beyond) to have a fair shot at formulating a proposal within the same defined time frame and ensures that everyone has access to the same information about the building and site.
So what do you think? Before the meeting, you can always feel free to reach out to your representatives using the contact information on each Councilmember’s web page. You can attend the meeting in person or via Zoom. And here are the other options for commenting as found at the top of the April 10 City Council agenda.
submit an online public comment form at Reno.Gov/PublicComment
send an email to Publiccomment@reno.gov
leave a voicemail at (775) 393-4499
participate via Zoom by registering at https://links.reno.gov/Council04-10, which will provide the Webinar ID and call-in phone number.
Item D. 2 - Locomotion Plaza & Virginia Street Designs
Also on the April 10 City Council agenda is Item D.2 regarding potential approval of designs for Locomotion Plaza and Virginia Street streetscape furnishings using $1.6M in ARPA funds. Downtown Makeover has a post about this item (with images) here.
Approval of this item would implement Stage One of the Virginia Street Urban Placemaking Study plan. The City hired an urban designer to create what Council could approve this week, dividing the plan into three stages based on funding.
Stage One (currently funded) would pay for electrical improvements; eleven moveable shade umbrellas; a large stage built on two storage containers; additional containers for storage and bars; moveable tables, chairs, and heaters; lighting improvements; removing the mural and sealing the surface; food truck pads; and fixing the gates and fences. The City would also commit to programming two City-sponsored events per week and one monthly event in the June-September 2025 and 2026 seasons. I’m sure the Downtown Reno Partnership would plan more events, as well.
You can scroll through the detailed 65-page “Reno Placemaking Concept Design” here. To complete Stages 2 and 3 (adding permanent “shade parasols,” a “selfie spot,” and a few other features to Locomotion Plaza plus installing streetscape furnishings on Virginia Street) the City would need to find an additional $8 million.
These plans would definitely improve the ability to stage varied events on Locomotion Plaza and enhance people’s comfort during them, with elements that can be brought out when there’s an event or activity and stored on site when there’s not. There’s a more “intimate” area planned for the west side of the space, with 20-foot shipping containers providing options for “pop-up vendors, bars, and lounge areas,” but I don’t get the impression that trucks or vendors would operate there daily.
In addition to Stage One of the plaza, the streetscape designs up for approval for Virginia Street involve some specific types of seating, planters, and shade, seen here.
Close-up views of the benches show curvatures and arm rest placement that would allow for seating but not reclining—a subtle but popular form of hostile architecture.
As designed, the plaza can look populated and active when an event is underway. But what about the rest of the time? As it stands, there is no reason to venture onto the plaza unless something is happening there, and I’m not sure this changes that.
Seating is a great pedestrian amenity—if you have pedestrians. But I don’t think anyone’s going to plan a special trip to Locomotion Plaza or Virginia Street from another part of town or even a neighboring street just to sit on an interesting bench. This isn’t like Las Vegas’ Container Park or even The Eddy in terms of ongoing (and in the case of the Eddy, seasonal) operation, more like a city-subsidized version of J Resort’s Glow Plaza™. And that’s fine, if that’s all the City hoped to achieve.
However, if we’re really committed to devoting these funds to Locomotion Plaza, I’d respectfully like to add to the conversation ideas for incorporating some features that can work within the site’s existing limitations and give people an ongoing reason to venture there even when no programming is underway—which will be most of the time.
Obviously we’re dealing with a very large space with few natural advantages (except a wide expanse of sky) and lots of technical constraints. You can’t erect a permanent building of any heft in the middle of it. You can’t grow plants or introduce any water feature in the center. It’s hard to imagine anyone choosing to just sit there, even if there were permanent seating, as one would on the City Plaza by the river.
The current mural (now slated for removal) was best perceived from above, but what about introducing visually engaging surface elements that can only be perceived and appreciated by wandering around them at any time? What if the edges of the site were filled with timelines, images, and/or stories about Reno’s people and places? How about references to all the people who have passed through this very corridor over time? Or images of the generations of buildings that once lined the edges of Commercial Row and Plaza Street? Or even descriptions of natural features and area flora and fauna? If the goal is placemaking, wouldn’t it be nice to reflect, generate, and strengthen a meaningful sense of place through features that make it a year-round draw?
I’m curious what you think of these plans. Is this the placemaking transformation you were hoping for? Would you be satisfied with Stage One if the additional $8 million never arrives? And if it does, is this what you’d want that money to fund? Again, if you’d like to comment, consult the section above and specify Item D.2.
More feedback opportunities for housing initiatives
As I mentioned in my March 30 Brief, Council delayed discussion of the proposed Affordable (and Infill) Housing Initiatives until more public feedback can be gathered.
The City has now announced four virtual public meetings to collect that feedback and answer questions. Each meeting will last an hour and include the same information. Links to register via Zoom are provided below.
Thursday April 11th 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. https://links.reno.gov/4cKqWh0
Monday April 15th 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. https://links.reno.gov/3VQNoyC
Tuesday April 16th 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. https://links.reno.gov/440pXoZ
Wednesday April 17th 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. https://links.reno.gov/3vEZr7I___
Keep in mind that these meetings are specifically to discuss the affordable and infill housing initiatives, not Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). In their March 27 meeting, after discussing the ADU Survey results, Council directed staff to formulate some specific regulations for ADUs, and once they have agreed on what those could be, the City will hold multiple community meetings to get feedback on them.
I have felt for some time that the discussion of these initiatives could benefit from a bit more context to understand how other cities have been approaching these decisions, so I’ll be publishing another post next week filled with resources and suggested readings that I think can help inform all of us prior to these next public meetings and any ensuing decisions.
Wingfield, Barbara Bennett & Whitewater Parks (again)
Lastly, I want to share some thoughts on the City’s survey regarding the future of Wingfield, Barbara Bennett, and Whitewater Parks. As I mentioned in my March 9 Brief, I found it very difficult to take the online survey, which required having two computer screens open simultaneously. I thought others might struggle with it, too.
In acknowledgment of those concerns, the City of Reno announced early last week that they had put large printouts of the options on display on the first floor of City Hall, but only through Friday, April 5. I went down there on Thursday, and although it was easier to view the posters there than it was online, I’m a bit skeptical that many people took the time to check them out, much less knew it was even an option.
I don’t know how long the survey will be available, but it’s still posted online here as of April 7, so if you want to take it, don’t delay. You will still have to view the Master Plan options in another document found here (there’s a link to it on the survey).
You’ll see when you do that these options differ in some major ways that could significantly impact usage of the parks. For instance, only one of the options (Option A) would renovate and retain the existing amphitheater in Wingfield Park. The other two would replace it with a “shade structure or removeable stage” either at its current location (Option B) or on the east side of the park (Option C). Here are a few images of what some of those other structures and site plans could look like.
I hope all of the entities who currently use the Wingfield Park amphitheater have been approached to determine how they would feel about these options, as it seems they could expand or limit use, depending on the particular needs of any given event.
The options for Barbara Bennett Park also vary considerably. Here are some of the major differences, but others involve circulation, river access, lighting, and more.
Option A: two tennis courts; six pickleball courts; two basketball courts; 10,700 square-foot playground with shade; open turf picnic area & more.
Option B: one tennis court; three pickleball courts; one basketball court; 10,100 square-foot playground with shade; open turf picnic area & more.
Option C: one basketball court; 9,600 square-foot playground with shade; one .52-acre dog park; open turf picnic area with formal shade & more.
There are more options for the Whitewater Park including surf wave features and dedicated fish passages, but I just don’t have the space to go over them all here.
Please, if you use Wingfield and Barbara Bennett Parks and/or enjoy the Whitewater Park, try your best to view these options and provide your feedback to the City. There’s room on the survey to write in what you like and don’t like about each concept. I’ll just reiterate again my wish that these could all be displayed in large formats at the parks themselves in the warmer weather, to ensure that everyone who currently uses these parks has a say in their future form.
Oh, and if you’re wondering how many days it’s been since Jacobs Entertainment promised City Council that they’d reveal their 10-year Master Plan “in 60-90 days,” the answer is 144. That’s it for today. Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Be sure to check out my Citizen Guide for helpful resources and links for anyone hoping to become more informed and engaged in issues related to urban development (& more) in Reno.
As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site, subscribe to receive each new edition in your email inbox, and follow the Brief (and contribute to the ongoing conversation) on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to support my writing and research with your generous contribution, you can sign up for a paid subscription through my Substack site or contribute to my Venmo account at @Dr-Alicia-Barber or via check to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510. Thanks so much for reading, and have a great week.
I'm aware that the CAC is a contentious property and I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with its history, but I'm interested in anything that would bring more activity to this part of town. It's right around the corner from me, I pass through every day on my way to work and back, and I'm hungry for things to happen that will make the area less empty and seedy. More local residents are an important part of that... though I want to see more projects including ground floor retail, too, and if the City does choose to give up the property, I want some kind of durable commitment that we're actually going to get what's promised.
On the Locomotion Plaza, I couldn't agree more with your concerns about non-event use. I don't presently have a specific idea what I want to happen there, but whatever it is, I want it to be permanent and useful to residents. I get extremely wary whenever I hear about event spaces. Events are nice, but people who live downtown need places to shop and spend time every day, all year round. If we want to host events, we can close a street, or use a park... we don't need dedicated spaces for them that otherwise sit empty.