DeBrief: The Glow Plaza & Festival Area Appeal

Unpacking the City Council’s May 11 Deliberations

I don’t often go back and analyze City Council discussions after the fact, but I think it’s worth doing every so often to examine how our representatives go about making decisions that affect our community. Watching the Council’s May 11 public hearing of the Glow Plaza and Festival Area appeal raised many concerns for me, and I hope a brief review might help both residents and our Councilmembers understand why.

After that, I’ll have a brief preview of a new skyway being proposed for the heart of downtown, to be reviewed by City Council tomorrow (5/24), and some thoughts on local primary elections.

The May 11 Public Hearing on the Glow Plaza

I previewed this appeal in detail in my May 9 Brief, “Of Decibels and Demographics.” As a reminder, the question at hand was not whether Jacobs Entertainment can use the Glow Plaza & Festival Area on West 4th Street to hold events. It was specifically to decide whether they should be granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that would permanently exempt them (and anyone who owns these parcels in the future) from having to apply for a Special Activity Permit for most events there by setting some universal guidelines to govern its operation.

A narrow 4-3 majority of the Planning Commission had agreed on March 16 to issue Jacobs a CUP with some surprisingly lenient parameters: allowing the noise to exceed 85 dB every night of the year—that’s ten decibels higher than the 75 dB level recommended by staff or allowed for all other special events—with 20 events a year (up to four days each) subject to no decibel constraints at all. The CUP as approved would also exempt them from applying for a Special Activity Permit for any events up to a capacity of 3,700 (rather than the staff-recommended threshold of 2,000).

Appealing that decision were two downtown residents—Montage resident Art Rangel (a certified city planner), and Lacy Foster, manager and resident of the Desert Rose Inn just across West 4th street. Mr. Rangel argued in a highly detailed 19-page letter summarized in his presentation that the CUP as approved failed to meet six findings required by the City’s land development code, and recommended retaining the Special Activity Permit requirement for the Glow Plaza until the City can gauge the impact of holding successive large—and loud—events at the venue.

For her part, Ms. Foster emotionally described the effect of last summer’s amplified concerts on her and her fellow residents, who include children and single mothers working double shifts. Clarifying that she wasn’t opposed to the venue, just to raising the allowed decibel levels to 85 dB, she explained that even at the previously allowed levels of 75 dB, “It was miserable….The windows shook. It went to 11 o’clock at night. It was a lot. I just don’t see how that’s okay.”  Public comment, both submitted in advance and live, also focused on the impact of noise on surrounding residents.

It was clear from the outset that City staff had some serious problems with what the Planning Commission had approved. In its presentation, staff made explicit their recommendation to Council: to “modify the Planning Commission decision to include [i.e. revert to] staff recommendations.” They even included a helpful chart to show precisely where the Planning Commission had exceeded them.

The Planning Commission’s decision to raise the allowed daily decibel level by a full ten decibels (each 10 decibel elevation increases perceived sound by a factor of 10) had been shocking, not least because the applicant was not even requesting it. Jacobs rep Garrett Gordon had indicated that although current decibel levels downtown sometimes peak (that’s the key word!) at 82 dB (i.e. with a passing motorcycle), he was satisfied with the proposed limit of 75 dB for “smaller events” at the Glow Plaza, understanding that the number is just an average measured over the course of an hour, and that spikes could still exceed that level.

If the recommended limit of 75 dB would have “set Jacobs up for failure,” as Planning Commissioner Alex Velto had claimed in March when suggesting the increase, Mr. Gordon would surely have said so. He did not. And that’s what made the 85 dB limit the commission approved so incomprehensible. Why would they deem it necessary to allow the Glow Plaza to emit a sustained average level of sound even higher than that of an occasional passing motorcycle? Whose interest does that serve?

I have to believe that the four commissioners who voted to do just that did not clearly understand what they had done (as Planning Commissioner Peter Gower stated in his opposition to their motion, “I don’t think we as Planning Commissioners have the liberty to throw out decibels. We’re not sound engineers. We frankly don’t really know what we’re talking about in that arena.”)  

City staff was also prepared to provide Council with comparisons with other area venues, including the Nugget’s amphitheater in Sparks, which City planner Nathan Gilbert explained is limited to ten events per year that must end by 10pm, with each of those ten events requiring its own permit. Rather than asking Mr. Gilbert more questions about the comparison, Mayor Schieve called up Jacobs rep Garrett Gordon and asked him to describe the Sparks amphitheater---how large it is, and how many apartments surround it. Mr. Gordon readily took the opportunity to claim that the amphitheater actually made the residences around it more appealing, evidenced by its appearance in some of their advertisements.

That narrative might suit his client’s purposes, but it’s not the full story. It only takes a quick Google search to find out how strongly the developer of the surrounding apartments, J. Carter Witt of Silverwing Development, objected to the Nugget’s proposed amphitheater back in December 2018. In his public correspondence to the Sparks Planning Commission and Nugget owner Anthony Marnell, he wrote:

“We firmly disagree this venue considering all impacts, will be an attribute to our units and all you have to do is simply put yourself in one of these impacted units knowing you need to sleep or conduct a life within the unit in quiet enjoyment uninterested in the bass and loud volume being produced next door and you should be able to understand the impact and risks.”

Anyone can read the minutes from the January 2019 Sparks Planning Commission meeting here for all the conditions that were imposed on the Sparks venue’s operations in order to gain Witt’s support. For instance, in addition to those listed by Mr. Gilbert, any activities beyond the ten concerts allowed per year must end by 8pm Monday through Saturday with no amplified sound on Sundays or legal holidays.

There is literally no comparison between an amphitheater with permitted concerts allowed ten times a year, and an outdoor venue where amplified music can occur at levels exceeding standard allowances by a factor of ten every single day and night. The Glow Plaza and Festival Area is not the Nugget Amphitheater, Greater Nevada Field, Wingfield Park, or The Eddy, despite various Councilmembers’ and the applicant’s attempts to draw parallels with those other venues.

What also went unsaid was that the controversy accompanying the Nugget’s amphitheater in Sparks was resolved in part by the fact that any future apartments constructed in the area could incorporate additional soundproofing, which of course adds additional expense. And even that wouldn’t help the existing neighbors of the Glow Plaza, which include not just the Desert Rose, but the Onyx, Sarrazin Arms, Renova Flats, and all the other surrounding homes, apartments, and condos that might be impacted by the sound. Unfortunately we have no idea the extent to which any of those might be affected by the Glow Plaza’s completely untested new decibel allowance of 85 dB at their property line. I guess we’ll find out.

Resident concerns and red herrings

The potential adverse effects of the venue on the quality of life of downtown residents, whether adjacent or blocks away, played a surprisingly minor role in the Council’s deliberations. If the City were to consider opening its own outdoor special events venue in the heart of downtown, one would imagine that soliciting input from current and future residents would be central to their considerations. Here, the two appellants were never even asked any questions following their initial statements, and their stated concerns were barely acknowledged, or worse.

Jacobs rep Garrett Gordon was especially keen to discredit Ms. Foster. After arguing that she had no standing to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision (even though she lives across the street), he suggested that the Desert Rose Inn was actually the problem, claiming that more than 200 “calls for service” had originated from the property over the past two years. Mr. Gordon provided no document or breakdown of those supposed calls (were they for medical assistance? noise complaints? break-ins?) although the few he did name were clearly selected to cast a negative light on Ms. Foster and the motel she manages.

This tactic was as shameful as it was procedurally irrelevant. The question at hand was whether the application for a CUP from Jacobs Entertainment met the required findings, not how frequently residents of the Desert Rose Inn call the police. What was his point, that the concerns raised by its residents are somehow less consequential because they call their local public safety officers when feeling threatened or in danger? What message is that sending? Should local residents refrain from calling the police when they need help for fear that their actions might be used to discredit them for something completely unrelated down the road?

Councilmember Jardon noted that this wasn’t a time to “throw rocks at anyone,” but Mr. Gordon didn’t apologize, and his strategy spoke volumes. It's no secret that Jeff Jacobs wants to buy the Desert Rose Inn—although of course we haven’t been informed of his grand plans—but that doesn’t excuse trying to turn a request for a Conditional Use Permit for the Glow Plaza into a referendum on its neighbors. There’s a term for that: blaming the victim.

Rewriting the rules

Perhaps even more than the amplified sound issue, City staff including Reno police had a huge problem with the fact that the Planning Commission had bowed to Jacobs Entertainment’s spontaneous request for an exemption from securing Special Activity Permits for events of up to 3,700 people. And that’s an entitlement that would go with the site, should Jacobs Entertainment sell the land.

As staff patiently explained to Council, the 2,000-person limit that Jacobs had originally requested (and which staff had approved) was not just about parking and traffic. Unless an event organizer has applied for and received a Special Activity Permit, the City cannot plan for extra staffing and recoup any of the costs it incurs by devoting additional City resources to that event—for traffic mitigation, garbage disposal, public safety, fire, anything. And prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff had extensively reviewed Jacobs’ application for a CUP and concluded that any event over 2,000 people was very likely to require extra expenditures from the City.

There would seem to be a very simple solution to this problem: require Jacobs to acquire a Special Activity Permit for events larger than 2,000 people, just like everybody else. After all, this is literally the function of a Special Activity Permit: to allows all relevant City departments to determine what staffing and resources it will require and add conditions by which the event must abide.

But that’s not what the City Council decided to do. Instead, they created what amounts to a custom process that allows Jacobs Entertainment to sidestep the Special Activity Permits that every other entity has to secure. Instead, Jacobs will have to submit an “operations and security plan” for each event—even those under the 2,000 capacity—for staff to review in order to determine what resources are needed, and to allow the City to be reimbursed for any expenses incurred.

This makes no sense. If the City is going to require Jacobs to submit a plan for every single event they hold at their venue (something Jacobs was clearly hoping to avoid in the first place) then why not just require them to secure a Special Activity Permit like everyone else does? It sounds like their plan will have to include everything the standard application requires, but just not in a form that enables ease of City review (and also, I suppose, in a way that can’t result in a denial, since it’s not technically an application).

The eventual motion advanced by Councilmember Jardon was to issue a Conditional Use Permit for Council to re-evaluate annually, at which time it could be revoked, re-evaluated, or modified. Appellant Art Rangel had suggested just the opposite: that the City delay issuing the CUP for a period of time during which the venue’s operations could be thoroughly evaluated, before submitting it to such a review.

City staff also had strongly advised against conditioning this CUP on an annual review. As planner Mr. Gilbert explained, “This is an entitlement, and we want to make sure the conditions are appropriate or not, and if that means scaling back the comfort level and then coming back to request a condition amendment to increase that, whatever the allowance would be, that would be the staff’s preference, to start small and go big,” rather than the reverse.

Prior to the motion ultimately advanced by Councilmember Jardon, Councilmember Brekhus moved to uphold the residents’ appeal (denying the CUP) based on several findings of noncompliance with the required findings for Conditional Use Permits including Title 18, which she methodically delineated. Her motion did not gain support, however, and the others voted to let the CUP stand, adding the annual review and the requirement for Jacobs to submit a “operations and security plan” for events of any size (even under a 2,000 capacity).

Toward the end, Councilmember Duerr said she thought it was essential to limit the maximum sound to 75 dB for the first year, but after Councilmember Jardon said she’d rather “see how the year plays out,” Councilmember Duerr capitulated, voting to leave the maximum daily allowed decibel level at 85 dB.

So what did watching this discussion tell me? Well, sadly, it did not enhance my confidence that the Council is asking the right questions of the right people. It also demonstrated to me that discussions of complex concepts like decibel levels require a lot more time for our busy representatives to examine and absorb—and consultation with relevant experts—in order to make the most informed decisions. By the end of the item, the discussion had strayed so far from the actual purpose of the hearing—to address the issues raised by the appellants—that Councilmember Reese didn’t even recognize Councilmember Brekhus’ methodical review of the required findings that she could not make as a motion, referring to it derogatorily as “a speaking thing.” (The City Attorney clearly understood it as a motion related to findings, which he proceeded to read back to Councilmember Reese.) And there are so many more questions I wish they’d asked, to get to the heart of resident concerns and justify the issuance of the CUP.

So what’s the solution? I think for residents, it’s clear: Keep asking those questions ourselves. Encourage Council to consult objective sources holding the expertise required to inform their decisions. Let them know what we think—again and again and again.

Oh, and one last note related to the applicant: In response to a question from Councilmember Brekhus, City Manager Doug Thornley revealed that the Development Agreement with Jacobs Entertainment has still not been finalized, almost seven months after it was approved by City Council.

---

The Reno City Center Skyway at City Council May 25

The full agenda for the next City Council meeting, tomorrow, May 25, can be found here and I encourage you to skim through it for items of interest to you. They include items related to Stonegate (B.5); Vista Enclave (B.6); Meridian 120 South (C.1.1, C.1.2, C.1.3, and C.2); and the Gateway at Galena Annexation (C.4).

Item C. 5 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a skyway across East Commercial Row. This skyway was reviewed first by the ad hoc Skyway Design Review Committee and then by the Planning Commission on April 20.

I have to be honest with you: I’m confounded and disappointed by the very idea of this skyway, which would connect Reno City Center to the fourth floor of the parking garage on the north side of Commercial Row (commonly referred to as the Whitney Peak garage). It would allow the 340 employees given keycard access (who surely are not all arriving to work at the exact same time) to avoid using the parking garage’s elevator to ride down to ground level, walk across Commercial Row and the Reno City Center’s plaza, and take another elevator up to their offices.

I could go through all the findings required to issue a CUP and I hope that the members of our City Council, and readers, will do so. As the Staff Report says, skyways must be shown to be “consistent with the orderly development of the project or area” and “compatible with surrounding development,” and with the Reno Master Plan. Applications can be approved even if they are not in conformance with the Master Plan if they provide a public benefit. There’s plenty there to deny the approval of this skyway if City Council has the political will to stand up for the City’s own pedestrian-oriented goals in this symbolically and physically central location.

I’ll just say this: there’s nothing less conducive to promoting the vitality of your city’s streets than constructing skyways over them. I find it deeply cynical for a company—especially one whose offices are already located downtown—to go to such lengths to avoid forcing its employees to set foot on Reno’s downtown sidewalks, in the process adding visual clutter to the longstanding unbroken vista of Commercial Row. If anyone is inclined to get to the heart of why they’re doing this, I encourage you to think of what I said before and formulate questions you’d like to ask of the applicant—questions that can help to understand why CAI Investments made its prospective tenant a promise it had no authority to grant.

Cities have been rejecting skyways for decades now. Perhaps no one has explained why better than one of the world’s leading placemaking experts, architect Jan Gehl, founder of the firm that the City of Reno has hired to conduct its Urban Placemaking Study. As Gehl is quoted as stating in 2007:

“The problem is that skyways violate the first law of successful city-building: keeping people together in a critical mass…..A social hierarchy develops: the wealthier classes in private spaces on weekdays; poorer people out in public spaces at all hours. That’s not a winning formula…. It’s bad for retail business, bad for culture, bad for civic life.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

You can contribute public comment for the May 25 City Council meeting via Zoom by registering here, submit the online public comment form, send an email to publiccomment@reno.gov, or leave a voice mail at (775) 393-4499.

Early voting is underway.

As you’re probably aware, primary elections are underway--you can find information on that from Washoe County here. Much of what I discuss in The Barber Brief revolves around what’s appearing in front of our elected Reno City Council and the Reno Planning Commission (whose members are appointed by the Council). Our local elected officials play a major (and increasing) role in development, as I outlined back in January 2021, in my very first post, “Introducing The Barber Brief”

I’m not endorsing any candidates today, but I hope it’s clear that what I do happily endorse are principles like sound civic practice, fairness, planning, informed decision-making, accountability, and transparency. And I’ll support any elected representative who abides by those principles.

---

As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site and follow the Brief (and contribute to the ongoing conversation) on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to contribute to my efforts, my Venmo account is @Dr-Alicia-Barber and you can mail checks, if you like, to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510. Thanks so much for reading, and have a great week.